The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRS_Bioligical Critical Areas Report_251222_v2Heavy Civil | Land Development | Municipal | Structural | Survey | Water Resources | Environmental PACE Engineers Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS RENTON, WASHINGTON December 2025 11255 Kirkland Way, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033 425.827.2014 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS PREPARED FOR Unico Properties, LLC. 1215 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98161 Telephone: 206.628.5050 December 2025 PREPARED BY PACE Engineers 11255 Kirkland Way, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033 PACE Project No. 1952C UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION # TITLE PAGE # 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 1.1 Project Location ...........................................................................................................3 1.2 Site Description/Existing Conditions .............................................................................3 2.0 Methodology .....................................................................................................................8 3.0 Desktop Review ................................................................................................................8 3.1 Existing Site Documentation .........................................................................................9 3.1.1 USDA Natural Conservation Resources Service (NRCS) Soil Survey ............................9 3.1.2 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) .............................................................................9 3.1.3 City of Renton Inventoried Wetlands .........................................................................9 3.1.4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat & Species (PHS) ...........................................................................................................9 3.1.5 WDFW SalmonScape ................................................................................................9 3.1.6 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) ..................................................................................................9 3.1.7 Topography ..............................................................................................................9 4.0 Criteria for Critical Areas Identification ............................................................................ 14 4.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Streams ..................................................................................................................... 14 5.0 Field Observations .......................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Uplands ..................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 15 5.2.1 Wetland A .............................................................................................................. 15 5.2.2 Wetland F ............................................................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Wetland G .............................................................................................................. 18 5.2.4 Wetland H (Offsite) ................................................................................................. 19 5.2.5 Discussion of Potential Wetland Areas .................................................................... 19 5.2.6 Stream 1 ................................................................................................................ 20 5.2.7 Other Waterbodies ................................................................................................. 20 6.0 Habitat............................................................................................................................ 24 6.1 Species of Concern .................................................................................................... 24 6.2 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ........................................................................................ 24 6.3 Determination of Effects ............................................................................................. 25 6.3.1 Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ............................ 25 6.3.2 Puget Sound Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................... 25 6.3.3 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) ......................................... 25 6.3.4 Other ESA-Listed Species ....................................................................................... 25 7.0 Regulatory....................................................................................................................... 27 8.0 Proposed Impacts ........................................................................................................... 27 9.0 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 28 9.1 Buffer Reduction Code Compliance ............................................................................ 29 9.1.1 Exemptions for Trails Within Wetland Buffers .......................................................... 30 9.2 Mitigation Sequencing ................................................................................................ 31 10.0 Functional Lift Analysis.................................................................................................... 33 11.0 Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................................... 36 UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 ii 11.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Performance Standards .............................................. 36 11.2 Monitoring Reports ..................................................................................................... 37 11.3 Critical Area Protection, Fencing, & Signs .................................................................... 37 11.4 Plantings .................................................................................................................... 37 11.5 Temporary Irrigation System ....................................................................................... 38 11.6 Maintenance & Contingency ....................................................................................... 38 12.0 Monitoring Methods ........................................................................................................ 39 12.1 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Survival ................................................................. 39 12.2 Photo Documentation ................................................................................................ 39 12.3 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 40 13.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 40 14.0 References...................................................................................................................... 41 TABLES Table 1. Federally Listed Species Potentially Present in the Action Area ................................ 24 Table 2. Functional Lift Analysis ........................................................................................... 34 Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring Events ........................................... 36 FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Delineated Wetlands Figure 3 – National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 4 – City of Renton Mapped Critical Areas Figure 5 – City of Renton Mapped Underground Utilities Figure 6 – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape Map Figure 7 – RAI Potential Wetlands Sketch Map Figure 8 – October 2025 WETS Table Figure 9 – November 2025 WETS Table APPENDICES Appendix A – Wetland Data Forms Appendix B – Wetland Rating Form and Figures Appendix C – NRCS Soils Report Appendix D – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Report Appendix E – US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) Report Appendix F – Site Photos Appendix G – Mitigation Plan UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes the jurisdictional wetland delineation conducted at the proposed development site in the City of Renton, Washington. The developer is proposing to redevelop the Longacres Office Park as a mixed-use campus featuring approximately 3,000 new residential units, approximately 1,400,000 square feet (sf) of future commercial and medical office, approximately 230,000 sf industrial, approximately 100,000 sf of retail, food and beverage, two hotel sites (150-200 keys), and an 8,000-person music venue. The plan proposes to demo the existing Bright Horizons daycare facility on Parcel 7 for the future. The proposed development includes open space areas, utilities and landscaping. The site contains several stormwater ponds and other privately maintained stormwater facilities in the project area that are not included in this analysis. More information about these stormwater features is available in separate documents that outline and justify the jurisdictional determinations of these features. 1.1 Project Location The study area (“site”) occurs at the Boeing-Longacres property (excluding the Sounders headquarters and practice fields), and includes two parcels on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue SW located at 1900 and 1901 Oakesdale Avenue SW, King County Parcels No. 0886700120, 0886700220, 0886700210, 0886700200, 0886700140, 0886700080, 0886700070, 0886700050, 088670060, 0886700040, 0886700030, 0886700020, 0886700010, 0886709050, 0886700230, 0886700250 (lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, Tract 1 and 2 of City of Renton LLA No. LUA23-000366, King County Recording No. 20240322000285) in southwest Renton, Washington. The overall project site is approximately 130 acres, of which approximately 100 acres are designated for development as part of the Master Plan. The site is bounded to the north by SW 16th Street and Interstate 405, to the west by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad corridor, to the south by a Seattle Public Utility water line corridor, and to the east by an Amazon warehouse building and Raymond Avenue SW. See Figure 1 for a Vicinity Map. 1.2 Site Description/Existing Conditions The site has undergone extensive development and redevelopment over the past century. Aside from the current built environment consisting of the buildings and associated parking areas, much of the site has undergone manipulation since the 1930s. Prior to the redevelopment that took place in the early 1990s, the site was historically a thoroughbred horse racing track, which included a main racetrack that encompassed much of the central portion of the site. The site also contained stables to the east, and a smaller practice track in the southeast corner. Boeing purchased the property in 1990 and developed a Customer Services Training Center in the early 1990s, and in the mid-1990s Boeing constructed the Longacres Office Park (LOP). The mapped ponds and surface water facilities were not present prior to 1990. Currently, the eastern and northern portions of the site contain large commercial buildings and associated parking areas, with various other access roads and infrastructure throughout UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 4 the campus. The parcel at the northeast corner of the site contains a restored wetland. Historic photos do not show this wetland prior to 1990. The area located between Oakesdale Avenue SW, and the Springbrook Trail and Springbrook Creek is a mitigation site. There is an area of newly planted trees between the trail and the creek, along the eastern creek bank. The trail has a paved surface and is routed around the restored wetland. The vegetation in and around the wetland had been cut and cleared at the time of the January site investigation. The trail begins at Oakesdale Avenue SW, at the northwest corner of 1900 Oakesdale Avenue SW and continues around the wetland, following the creek offsite to the north. The site occurs in a heavily modified landscape setting, and contains several waterbodies, several of which are the result of either wetland mitigation activities or are combined wetland/stormwater facilities. A substantial amount of research has been conducted by PACE to determine the history of development at the site, and the resulting wetland mitigation and stormwater management facilities created over time. This investigation focused on potentially regulated wetlands present within the boundary of the site, which was formerly occupied by the horseracing tracks and facilities. The site includes three large wetlands and one detention pond (Wetland A, Wetland G, and Pond B) and one smaller wetland (Wetland F). Wetland A, Pond B, and Wetland F are located on the west side of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Wetland G and Springbrook Creek are located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Springbrook Creek is located outside the study area and was not delineated. Various stormwater features are also present on the site. Springbrook Creek, designated by the City of Renton as a high intensity shoreline, is approximately 456 feet to the northeast of Wetland F, and an average of about 220 feet to the east of Wetland G. The shoreline setback for the creek extends onto the site but is outside of any proposed development area. The project areas are vegetated by maintained lawn and other landscape plantings in the developed areas. Other plant communities across the undeveloped areas of the site are composed of native tree species, including black cottonwood and red alder (Alnus rubra), with occasional Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and others. The site includes several species of native shrubs and saplings including Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), among others. Emergent vegetation consists of creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), sedge (Carex spp.), and sword fern (Polystitum munitum). Throughout the site, there is a prevalence of non-native and invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and English ivy (Hedera helix). During the site visits on September 10 and October 15, 2024, two wetlands (Wetlands A and F) were delineated in the central and northern portions of the site. A third wetland, Wetland G, delineated onsite on January 15, 2025, was constructed in the early 1990s as part of a restoration project and includes an open-water channel component. See Figure 2 for delineated areas. The investigations in September and October occurred at the end of the dry season and no flow was observed passing through the weir at the outlet of Wetland A. Weather conditions during the September 2024 site investigation were clear and dry with UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 5 temperatures in the mid-70s. Weather conditions during the October 2024 site investigation were overcast with temperatures in the mid-50s. Weather conditions during the January site investigation were cloudy with temperatures in the high 30s. The City of Renton maps Wetland A and Pond B as private detention facilities. Wetland A has intake and outfall pipes in the northwest, northeast and south ends that connect the wetland to the onsite surface water control system. Pond B is connected to a wet pool to the south that collects water from development further south. Wetland F is mapped by the city as a private water quality facility, stormwater wetland, that contains a Type 2 manhole and other fittings that send flows to Wetland A. In addition, a constructed swale classified as a Type F stream connects Wetlands A and G via culverts under the existing unnamed roadway and Oaksdale Avenue SW. Wetland G is mapped as a wetland and contains a surface water catch basin and piping that collects water from Wetland A and conveys flows to Springbrook Creek through an outfall pipe at the north end of Wetland G. See Figure 5 for a map of the onsite storm and surface water conveyance system. The site is in a Commercial Office (CO) and industrial zoned area. The parcels immediately to the south of the site are also zoned CO. Parcels on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue SW and north of the site are a mix of CO and Industrial-zoned parcels per City of Renton. PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 2 - DELINEATED WETLANDS PLAN LEGEND UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 8 2.0 METHODOLOGY PACE Engineers staff delineated three wetlands (Wetland A, Wetland F, Wetland G) and one stream (Stream 1) in the northern portion of the site. The site was surveyed using the guidelines put forth in the US Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (US Army Corps of Engineers 2010), as required by USACE and the City of Renton. The wetlands were rated and classified using the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2006). Wetlands were flagged with pink “wetland delineation” flagging and labeled using a consecutive alpha-numerical system. There was a total of 14 data points recorded, labeled WA SP-1, WA SP-2, etc., and marked with pink flagging. Wetland Data and Rating Forms are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively. Flagging locations were mapped in the field using a Trimble R12i GNSS receiver (Wetland A and Wetland G) and a Trimble R1 GNSS receiver (Wetland F). Characterization of climatic conditions for precipitation in the Wetland Determination Data Forms were determined using the WETS table methodology (USDA, NRCS 2015). The “Seattle Tacoma Intl AP” station from 1981‐2010 was used as a source for precipitation data (http://agacis.rcc‐ acis.org/). The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present in the study area region. The study area was evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220‐660‐030, and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030 and guidance documents including Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson 2016) and A Guide to Ordinate High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States (Mersel 2016). Desktop research and onsite wetland delineation was performed by Brent Rutley, PWS, Wetland Scientist and Eilean Davis, Senior Planner, PWS at PACE Engineers. 3.0 DESKTOP REVIEW Before conducting the onsite field investigation, a literature and website review was conducted to identify existing information on soils, wetlands, site topography, wildlife presence, and other critical area and site data within the study area. A list of the resources used is listed below: • National Wetlands Inventory map of project area: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html) • Web Soil Survey (USDA): http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/wa_reports.html • City of Renton Zoning and Critical Areas Map: https://maps.rentonwa.gov/Html5viewer/Index.html?viewer=cormaps • Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast, 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List: http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/ UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 9 • WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Maps: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ • WDFW SalmonScape: https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html# • Historic Aerials by NETRonline: https://historicaerials.com/viewer 3.1 Existing Site Documentation The following information was gathered during initial desktop research and review of available documentation. 3.1.1 USDA Natural Conservation Resources Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Soils within the site are classified as Ur – Urban land, Py – Puyallup fine sandy loam, and Wo – Woodinville silt loam. All soil units, except Woodinville silt loam, are described as not hydric. A soils report is provided in Appendix C. 3.1.2 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Springbrook Creek is depicted on the NWI map, along the eastern and northeastern site boundary. No wetlands are depicted onsite. However, one large emergent wetland is mapped near the southeast corner of the site. See Figure 3. No wetlands were observed or delineated in the southeast corner of the site during the January 2025 investigation. 3.1.3 City of Renton Inventoried Wetlands The City of Renton COR Maps display depict several wetlands in the project area. These waterbodies are also depicted as surface water facilities/stormwater wetlands on the city’s surface water map layers. See Figures 4 and 5 for City of Renton mapped critical areas and surface water facilities. No wetlands were observed or delineated in the southeast corner of the site during the January 2025 site investigation. 3.1.4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat & Species (PHS) No wetlands or habitat are mapped on the west side of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Springbrook Creek, and an associated wetland are mapped on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue SW. Other wetlands are mapped offsite to the south and east. See Appendix D. 3.1.5 WDFW SalmonScape Salmonscape maps Springbrook Creek and its tributaries as fish-bearing streams. See Figure 6. 3.1.6 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) No critical habitat areas are mapped within the project area on the USFWS IPaC website. See Appendix E for IPaC report. 3.1.7 Topography The subject property is mostly flat and slopes slightly towards Wetland A and Pond B in the western portion of the site, and towards Springbrook Creek in the eastern portion. NWI Map U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine November 1, 2024 0 0.25 0.50.125 mi 0 0.4 0.80.2 km 1:15,047 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. 9,028 752 Map Title Legend 5120 256 Feet Notes 512 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere All data, information, and maps are provided "as is" without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness of completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the user. City and County Labels Parcels City and County Boundary Renton <all other values> Environment Designations Natural Shoreline High Intensity Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy Jurisdictions Streams (Classified) S - Shoreline F - Fish Np - Non-Fish Ns - Non-Fish Seasonal Unclassfied Wetlands Streets Parks Waterbodies 2023.sid Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 9,028 752 Figure 5 - City of Renton Underground Utilities Legend 5120 256 Feet Notes 512 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere All data, information, and maps are provided "as is" without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness of completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the user. City and County Labels Parcels City and County Boundary Renton <all other values> Pump Station Public Pump Station Private Pump Station Discharge Point Public Discharge Point Private Discharge Point Pipe Public Pipe Private Pipe Public Culvert Private Culvert Public Roofdrain Private Roofdrain Open Drains Facility Outline Vegetated Non-Vegetated Inactive Pipe Inactive Discharge Point Streets 2023.sid DFW SalmonScape Map Restoration Division of the DFW Habitat Program, City of Renton, Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Spring Chinook ESUs Threatened, Accessible All SalmonScape Species Unknown On a Non-Fish Bearing Stream Barrier, Unknown Percent Passable Total Fish Passage Blockage Partial Fish Passage Blockage Not a barrier November 1, 2024 0 0.2 0.40.1 mi 0 0.3 0.60.15 km 1:18,056 UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 14 4.0 CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION For the purpose of this assessment, the specific critical areas reviewed included potential wetlands and streams (natural waters) located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This investigation focused on the portions of the site which are located on both sides of Oakesdale Avenue SW. This investigation did not include an assessment of potential steep slopes or geotechnically hazardous critical areas. 4.1 Wetlands Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (US Army Corps of Engineers 1987). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are:  Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils.  Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons.  Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. 4.2 Streams A stream is defined in general terms as any perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral surface water flowing within the bed and banks of a channel that flows under gravity to progressively lower levels within the landscape. In Washington State streams have the potential to provide support for fish species, including anadromous fish, and provide habitat for spawning, rearing, or runs. For regulatory purposes, streams are further defined in Washington State through WAC 222- 16-030, which in general terms identifies Type S as “Shorelines of the State,” Type F as segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters that support fish, and Type N which include upper portions of perennial streams and seasonal, non-fish habitat streams. Streams are considered regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas under the Washington State Growth Management Act and the City of Renton Code Chapter 04-3. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 15 5.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS 5.1 Uplands The upland areas within the study area are dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. Trichocarpa) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). A small grove of domestic apples (Malus domestica) is present to the northeast of Wetland A. Soils within sample pits dug in upland areas around Wetland A (SP-2 and SP-4) generally consisted of loamy soils with Munsell soil matrix colors of 10YR 3/3, 10YR 4/2, and 10YR 5/2. Redox concentrations of 7.5YR 4/6 (15%) were observed below 6 inches in SP-2, and 10YR 3/6 (19%) and 7.5YR 5/8 (1%) in SP-4 below 4 inches. Upland soils pits in the vicinity of Wetland F contained soils with matrix colors of 10YR 4/3 and no redox features. Upland soils pits in the vicinity of Wetland G contained soils with matrix colors of 10YR 3/2, 10YR 4/2 and 10YR 4/3 and no redox features No surface water, saturation above 12 inches, or groundwater was observed in the upland soil pits. 5.2 Wetlands PACE delineated three onsite wetlands (Wetland A, Wetland F, and Wetland G) and estimated one offsite wetland (Wetland H). The delineated and estimated wetlands are depicted in Figure 2. Wetland A was delineated onsite by PACE staff during site investigations conducted on September 10, 2024. Surface water enters Wetland A via a culvert from Pond B, a stormwater pond located immediately to the south of Wetland A. Water eventually flows out of Wetland A via Stream 1 and is transported past the south side of Wetland F, and eventually into Springbrook Creek located to the east/northeast. Wetland F was delineated onsite by PACE staff during site investigations conducted on October 15, 2024. Wetland G was delineated onsite by PACE staff during site investigations conducted on January 15, 2025. PACE staff also evaluated three other areas within the master plan site (Figure 8) on October 9, 2025, and November 5, 2025. No onsite wetlands were observed at these locations; however, one offsite wetland (Wetland H) was estimated, and an offsite drainage ditch just south of Parcel 8 was noted. 5.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A is a depressional wetland with a large open-water component, located in a low area confined on the west, south, and east sides by a paved and gravel trail system that encircles the wetland. The northern wetland boundary is located in a relatively flat area between the shoreline of the pond/wetland and the orchard to the north. The wetland occurs entirely onsite. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 16 Vegetation within Wetland A met the criteria for wetland vegetation and is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), willows (Salix spp.), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). The aquatic species present within the permanently inundated portion of Wetland A were not examined in detail. Two soil pits were dug within the wetland, WA SP-1 and WA SP-3, and revealed loamy soils. Soils at SP-1 met the criteria for hydric soils (Indicators F3 and F6) with Munsell matrix colors of 10YR 3/2 and 10YR 4/1, and redox features of 10YR 5/6 and 10YR 4/6. SP-3 soils contained the same matrix colors, with 10YR 6/6 and 7.5YR 4/6 redox concentration in the lower (3-16 inch) layer. Hydrology within the sample pits also met the wetland criteria. SP-1 contained saturated soils at 7 inches (Indicator A3) and the water table was observed at 12 inches below the soil surface (Indicator A2). This location also met the vegetation-based FAC-Neutral Test (Indicator D5). SP-3 met hydrology indicators based on the presence of Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (Indicator C3) and also passed the FAC-Neutral Test. According to the USACE APT Tool, normal antecedent precipitation conditions were present leading up to the field investigation. Wetland A hydrology is provided by precipitation, surface runoff, and from Pond B located to the south. Pursuant to the 1999 Mitigation Plan, Wetland A was designed as part of the LOP Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan (Shapiro and Associates, Revised January 1999) and receives stormwater from the Longacres campus. The use of Wetland A as compensatory mitigation, as well as its use in stormwater treatment, is explained by numerous reports previously prepared for the site (Sverdrup Civil, 1998; Shapiro and Associates, 1999; Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016). As compensatory mitigation, Wetland A was an expansion of a previously existing wetland (Shaprio and Associates, Inc. 1992, 1993, 1998) and included the creation of wetlands from previously upland areas. Due to its inclusion as compensatory mitigation in the mitigation plan outlined in the 1999 Mitigation Plan, this wetland is considered a regulated feature at the local, state, and federal levels. Using the Cowardin classification method (Cowardin, et al. 1979), Wetland A would be classified as having forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open-water components. Using the Ecology Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System, and rating the wetland as a depressional wetland, Wetland A would be a Category II wetland with a total score of 22 (water quality 7, hydrology 8, habitat 7). The wetland scores low to high values for water quality due to its potential to improve water quality, moderate to high hydrologic function for its potential to improve flooding. The habitat value in Wetland A is high due to its proximity to priority wildlife habitat. Because the area met the wetland criteria, wetland data and rating forms were completed and are provided in Appendices A and B. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 17 Per City of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4-3-050, a Category II wetland with habitat value of 7, that is not in a low impact land use area, requires a standard buffer of 150 feet. Photographs of Wetland A are provided in Appendix F. 5.2.2 Wetland F Wetland F is a depressional wetland with an open-water component located approximately 330 feet to the east of the outlet of Wetland A. A pedestrian trail is located immediately south of Wetland F, and maintained grass/lawn areas are present to the north. The topography in the vicinity of Wetland F is relatively pronounced with short, steep slopes leading towards the wetland from all directions. The wetland occurs entirely onsite. Vegetation within Wetland F meets the criteria for wetland vegetation and is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific willow (Salix lucida spp. lasiandra), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). One aquatic species, American white waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), is present within the permanently inundated portion of Wetland F. One soil pit was dug within the wetland, WF SP-1, and revealed loamy soils. Soils at WF SP-1 met the criteria for hydric soils (Indicators F3 and F6) with a Munsell matrix color of 10YR 4/1 with distinct redox features of 10YR 5/4 in the entire sample. Hydrology within the WF SP-1 sample pit also met the wetland criteria and contained saturated soils at 3 inches (Indicator A3) with a water table observed at 5 inches below the soil surface (Indicator A2). This location also met the vegetation-based FAC-Neutral Test (Indicator D5). According to the USACE APT Tool, normal antecedent precipitation conditions were present leading up to the field investigation. Wetland F is not explicitly mentioned in the 1999 Mitigation Plan but is referred to as “CTSC Delta Area” by Sverdrup Civil (1998). Sverdrup Civil (1998) explains this area as a constructed wetland area designed to accept stormwater flows from the upstream site (Wetland A). Based on the figures included in the 1999 Mitigation Report, it appears to have not been included in the “wetland mitigation area,” but is highlighted as an existing wetland by the 1993 Existing Conditions Report prepared by Shapiro. Wetland F as it exists today is potentially a restoration and/or expansion of the pre-existing wetland. Using the Ecology Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System, and rating the wetland as a depressional wetland, Wetland F would be a Category II wetland with a total score of 22 (water quality 8, hydrologic 8, habitat 6). The wetland scores moderate to high values for water quality and moderate to high for hydrologic function. The habitat value in Wetland F is rated high due to it proximity to priority habitats. Because the area met the wetland criteria, wetland data and rating forms were completed and are provided in Appendices A and B. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 18 Per City of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4-3-050, a Category II wetland with a habitat value of 6, that is not in a low impact land use area, requires a standard buffer of 150 feet. Photographs of Wetland F are provided in Appendix F. 5.2.3 Wetland G Wetland G is a restored depressional wetland with an open-water stream component located in the approximate center of the wetland. This wetland has riverine and depressional HGM classification but is rated as a depressional due to more than 10 percent of its area having depressional wetland characteristics. The wetland was restored by Boeing from the Springbrook Creek-Green River floodplain. A historical aerial photo from 1990 (provided in Appendix E–Site Photos) shows the large and smaller racetracks and buildings, and no wetland in the northeast corner of the site. A pedestrian trail is located immediately adjacent to the wetland, is routed around the wetland and continues offsite under Oakesdale Avenue SW to the north. The topography in the vicinity of Wetland G is relatively flat with gradual slopes leading towards the center of the wetland from all directions. There are areas of greater slope (islands) in the center of the wetland. The wetland occurs entirely onsite. Vegetation within Wetland G meets the criteria for wetland vegetation and is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Most of the vegetation along the outer portion of the wetland has been cut and cleared. The emergent vegetation has been mowed. The vegetation in the center of the wetland has not been cleared. Four soil pits were dug within the wetland, SP-1 through SP-8, and revealed loamy and loamy sand soils. Soils within the wetland met the criteria for hydric soils (Indicators F3 and F6) with a Munsell matrix color of 10YR 5/1 with distinct redox features of 7.5YR 5/8 and Gley 1 5/N soils. Hydrology within the sample pits also met the wetland criteria with a water table observed at 1 to 5 inches below the soil surface (Indicator A2) and sulfur odor present in some locations. All SP locations met the vegetation-based FAC-Neutral Test (Indicator D5). The wetland contains open water, forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent plant communities. Grading for the restoration-created islands within the open water, center portions of the wetland. The open-water component also acts as part of the site’s surface water control system. Flows through the wetland appeared to be slow during the January site investigation. There was algae and scum on the water surface, and other evidence of slow flows. The vegetation was recently cut and cleared from the site, between the walking trail and the open-water portion of the wetland. Photos of the wetland are provided in Appendix F. Using the Ecology Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System, and rating the wetland as a depressional wetland, Wetland G would be a Category II wetland with a total score of 21 (water quality 8, hydrologic 7, habitat 6). The wetland scores moderate to high values for UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 19 water quality for site potential and value, and low to high for hydrologic function. The habitat value in Wetland G is rated high due to its proximity to priority habitat features. Because the area met the wetland criteria, wetland data and rating forms were completed and are provided in Appendices A and B. Per City of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4-3-050, a Category II wetland with habitat value of 6, that is not in a low impact land use area, requires a standard buffer of 150 feet. Photographs of Wetland G are provided in Appendix F 5.2.4 Wetland H (Offsite) Wetland H is a suspected offsite wetland located at the southeast corner adjacent to the Master Plan project site. Hydric vegetation including reed canary grass, Pacific willow, and black cottonwood were observed in the adjacent forested and field areas. The wetland size and encumbering boundary was estimated using field observations, aerial imagery, city mapping, and LiDAR imagery, as direct access to the property was not granted. The wetland rating was estimated from the property boundary and was used to determine applicable buffer extents. Wetland H will be field-verified once access is granted during the development of Parcel 8. Using the Ecology Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System, and rating the wetland as a depressional wetland, Wetland H was estimated to be a Category II wetland with a total score of 20 (water quality 7, hydrologic 8, habitat 5). The wetland scores moderate to high values for water quality for site potential and value, and moderate to high for hydrologic function. The habitat value in Wetland H is rated high due to its proximity to priority habitat features. However, habitat site and landscape potential values were rated as low. The wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix B. Per City of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4-3-050, a Category II wetland with habitat value of 5, that is not in a low impact land use area, requires a standard buffer of 150 feet. Photographs of Wetland H are provided in Appendix F 5.2.5 Discussion of Potential Wetland Areas The peer review conducted by Raedeke Associates, Inc. identified three potential wetland locations indicated in Figure 7. PACE conducted assessments at the three locations on October 9, 2025, and November 5, 2025. Normal climatic conditions were present during the assessments as outlined in the WETs tables provided in Figures 8 and 9, and significant rainfall had occurred prior to the site visits. During PACE’s site investigation, no wetlands were observed at the identified areas (Figure 7). Hydric vegetation indicators were met at all locations. The vegetation observed included Sitka willow, black cottonwood, red osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, creeping buttercup, reed canary grass, sword fern, and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). No hydric soil indicators were observed at DP-1, DP-2 and DP-3. However, hydric soil indicators A11 and F3 were observed at DP-4 and DP-5. Silt loam soils with a Munsell UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 20 matrix color of 10YR 5/1 with distinct redox features of 10YR 4/6 were observed between six and 14 inches from the soil surface. No hydrology indicators were observed at all locations. Multiple visits were conducted (in October and November) to determine if hydrology was present during periods of significant rain within the wet season. Detailed wetland determination information is provided in Appendix A, and the data points (DP-1 through DP-5) are illustrated in the delineation figure (Figure 2). 5.2.6 Stream 1 Stream 1, approximately 35 feet wide, was originally created during development of the Boeing Customer Services Training Center (CSTC) between 1992 and 1998. Wetland F and its surrounding area were designed under the 1998 Mitigation Plan prepared by Sverdrup Civil to receive stormwater flows from upstream areas, including Wetland A. Subsequent improvements in 1999, specifically the expansion of Wetland A and creation of Pond B, reduced flows through the existing piped outfall system that connects to this swale. Surface water from Wetland A is conveyed under Oakesdale Avenue SW to Wetland F and then continues through Wetland G before exiting the site via a piped outfall at the north end of the wetland. Currently, flow velocities within this watercourse are minimal. Physical features—including a blockage screen at the outfall of Wetland A and a metal dam with a grate at the inlet of Wetland G, which creates a water surface elevation difference of approximately 1.3 feet—act as barriers to fish passage. Although WDFW’s SalmonScape database (2024) indicates that Chinook, chum, sockeye, pink, coho, and steelhead are present within the Green River watershed and its major tributaries, there is no documented presence of these species within Wetlands A, F, G, or the associated watercourse. However, because this stream is hydraulically connected to downstream fish-bearing waters, the current fish barriers are not natural, and it meets the physical criteria for fish habitat outlined in WAC 222-16-031, it is considered a fish-bearing (Type F) stream. Per City of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4-3-050, a Type F stream requires a standard buffer of 115 feet. 5.2.7 Other Waterbodies A ditch was observed near the southern boundary of the master plan site, east of Oakesdale Avenue SW. The ditch originates at Oakesdale Avenue SW and continues east where it is assumed to discharge into Wetland H. Based on field observations, this feature does not exhibit characteristics of a natural stream. It appears to be excavated, and lacks continuous flow and the natural substrate typical of a stream channel. The ditch appears to function primarily as a stormwater conveyance feature, conveying runoff from the surrounding developed areas. As such, it is not considered a regulated stream under the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance, and no stream buffer or mitigation measures are required for this feature. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 21 Figure 7: RAI Potential Wetlands Sketch Map UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 22 Figure 8: October 2025 WETS Table Climatic Conditions: Rainfall Documentation Year 2025 3 years in 10 less than Normal 3 years in 10 more than Rainfall Condition (dry, wet, normal) Condition value Month weight value Product of condition and month weight 1st Prior September 0.69 1.63 1.90 0.76 Normal 2 3 6 2nd Prior August 0.38 1.02 1.24 1.14 Normal 2 2 4 3rd Prior July 0.43 0.79 0.97 0.01 Dry 1 1 1 11 Data Source: NOAA Regional Climate Center <http://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/>, AgACIS, FIPS id: 53073 Requested Years: 1981 ‐ 2018 WETS Table Chapter 19: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. September 2015. USDA NRCS document Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, National Engineering Handbook. Product sum Station Sea‐Tac The prior period has been: Longterm rainfall records Month normal Month of Delineation October UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 23 Figure 9: November 2025 WETS Table Climatic Conditions: Rainfall Documentation Year 2025 3 years in 10 less than Normal 3 years in 10 more than Rainfall Condition (dry, wet, normal) Condition value Month weight value Product of condition and month weight 1st Prior October 1.96 3.19 3.86 3.70 Normal 2 3 6 2nd Prior September 0.69 1.63 1.90 0.76 Normal 2 2 4 3rd Prior August 0.38 1.02 1.24 1.14 Normal 2 1 2 12 Data Source: NOAA Regional Climate Center <http://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/>, AgACIS, FIPS id: 53073 Requested Years: 1981 ‐ 2018 WETS Table Chapter 19: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. September 2015. USDA NRCS document Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, National Engineering Handbook. Product sum Station Sea‐Tac The prior period has been: Longterm rainfall records Month normal Month of Delineation november UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 24 6.0 HABITAT No habitat for listed species was observed during September and October 2024, January 2025, October 2025, or November 2025 site visits. The USFWS IPaC report states that the area does not provide habitat for any critically listed species. The WDFW PHS Report does not map any priority habitat on site. The WDFW PHS report is provided in Appendix D. The IPaC Report is provided in Appendix E. There is an elaborate stormwater drainage system on the site which prevents fish access. While there is no fish access available to the site from adjacent streams, resident and anadromous fish, including Chinook, pink, sockeye, chum, and coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and winter steelhead have been observed throughout the basin and in proximity to the site (King County 2016). In addition, National Marine Fisheries NOAA have designated the Puget Sound and its watershed as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. 6.1 Species of Concern Table 1. Federally Listed Species Potentially Present in the Action Area Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Regulatory Agency Species Present Habitat Present Effect Determination Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened NOAA Fisheries Not Present Not Present No Effect Puget Sound steelhead DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NOAA Fisheries Not Present Not Present No Effect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened USFWS Not Present Not Present No Effect North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Threatened USFWS Not Present Not Present No Effect Marble murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened USFWS Not Present Not Present No Effect Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened USFWS Not Present Not Present No Effect 6.2 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (NOAA 2002). Salmon EFH includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon. According to WDFW’s biogeography database SalmonScape (WDFW 2024) Chinook, chum, sockeye, pink, coho, and steelhead are present in the Green River watershed and the larger tributaries, but their presence has not been documented within the project site. For these reasons, the project’s effect on EFH is: Not Likely to Adversely Effect. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 25 6.3 Determination of Effects 6.3.1 Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)  Status: Threatened  Effect Determination: No Effect  Rationale for Determination: The project will adhere to agency fish construction windows for timing of project. WDFW SalmonScape identifies fish barriers located downstream of the project site and as a result, no migratory fish are present within the project area. 6.3.2 Puget Sound Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)  Status: Threatened  Effect Determination: No Effect  Rationale for Determination: The project will adhere to agency fish construction windows for timing of project. WDFW SalmonScape identifies fish barriers located downstream of the project site and as a result, no migratory fish are present within the project area. 6.3.3 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)  Status: Threatened  Effect Determination: No Effect  Rationale for Determination: WDFW SalmonScape identifies fish barriers located downstream of the project site and as a result, no migratory fish are present within the project area. In addition, habitat found at the project site does not meet that required for bull trout. Bull trout have specific habitat demands, requiring cold, clear waters, with temperatures generally below 55°F (13°C) along with clean gravel beds, deep pools, complex cover such as snags and cut banks, and large systems of interconnected waterways to accommodate spawning migrations. 6.3.4 Other ESA-Listed Species For listed species under USFWS authority, a species list and critical habitat were obtained through the IPaC system. North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)  Status: Threatened  Effect Determination: No Effect  Rationale for Determination: Washington's wolverine population is typically found in the mountainous regions, particularly in the North Cascades. The loss and fragmentation of habitat due to climate change is considered the greatest threat to wolverines in Washington. Wolverines occur in the remote mountainous areas of the Cascades and in northeastern Washington. In the Cascade Range, wolverines occupy high-elevation landscapes from North UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 26 Cascades National Park and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest south to Mount Adams on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Based on this information, habitat is not present within the vicinity of the proposed project area. This habitat does not exist within the proposed project or vicinity. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)  Status: Threatened  Effect Determination: No Effect  Rationale for Determination: Habitat is not present within 200 feet of the project area. Marbled murrelets generally nest in old-growth forests, characterized by large conifer trees (more than 80 years old), with multiple canopy layers, and moderate to high canopy closure. In Washington and Oregon, marbled murrelets commonly nest in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) dominated stands. Studies have found that they are more common in stands greater than 500 acres in size. They are less common in stands less than 100 acres. In Washington, marbled murrelets are found more often when old-growth and mature forests make up over 30 percent of the landscape (Marshall 1988). Based on this information, habitat is not present within 200 feet of the project area. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)  Status: Threatened  Effect Determination: No Effect  Rationale for Determination: Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open lowland deciduous woodlands with clearings and shrubby vegetation, especially those near rivers and streams (Hughes 1999). In western North America, there is a strong preference for large continuous riparian zones with cottonwoods and willows. Breeding habitat primarily consists of large blocks, or contiguous areas, of riparian habitat, particularly cottonwood–willow riparian woodlands optimum habitat patches considered larger than 200 acres in size (Layman and Halterman 1989). Historically in Washington State yellow-billed cuckoos were not very common in the Puget Trough and rare in all of Washington by the 1940s (Jobanek and Marshall 1992, Jewett, et al. 1953, Tweit 2005). Reports of individual cuckoos have been very rare with only four records in western Washington (Tweit 2005). Based on this information, habitat is not present within the vicinity of the proposed project area. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 27 7.0 REGULATORY Wetlands and streams and their buffers are regulated by the City of Renton Critical Area Regulations, Title 4-3-050. Areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided, shall not be counted toward the minimum buffer unless these areas can be feasibly removed, relocated, or restored to provide buffer functions (RMC 4-3-050.G.2). The buffers for the Wetland A, G, and H, and Stream 1 are functionally and effectively disconnected by the existing roadway system or structures. The modified buffers are shown in Figure 2. Impacts to habitat are regulated by WDFW. Impacts to wetlands are regulated by the USACE, Regulatory Branch. The proposed development will not directly impact the onsite or adjacent critical areas but will impact approximately 5,340 sf of the onsite Wetland A buffer and approximately 70,777 sf of the offsite Wetland H buffer. Mitigation for buffer impacts in the form of buffer averaging and reduced buffers per RMC 4-3-050 and buffer enhancement as required by RMC 4-3-050 are proposed. 8.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS No direct impacts are proposed with the master plan. However, the proposed development will impact the buffers of onsite Wetland A and offsite Wetland H. No impacts are anticipated for Wetlands F and G or for Stream 1 buffers. Wetland A Buffer Impacts: A reduced buffer of 112.5 feet will be applied to Wetland A. This buffer will be affected by several planned trail connections to the existing path around the wetland. Development of the surrounding buildings and roads will not impact the reduced buffer. Six access points, each 8 feet wide and paved to match the existing path, are planned to connect to the trails, resulting in approximately 5,340 sf of permanent buffer impact. Temporary construction impacts to the Wetland A buffer will result from utility installation, construction of the proposed parking lot, and the construction of the connection trails, totaling 13,230 sf of temporary impact. Wetland H (offsite) Buffer Impacts: The standard buffer of 150 feet will be applied to Wetland H. Development on Parcel 8 is expected to affect the offsite Wetland H buffer. Direct access to the offsite property was not available during the assessment, and the wetland boundary was estimated based on available mapping and adjacent field observations. Consequently, both the extent of impacts and proposed mitigation measures will be revised following field verification of Wetland H during the development of adjacent parcels. The proposed building footprints, access road system, and parking lot are projected to result in approximately 70,777 sf of permanent impact Wetland H’s buffer. In addition, temporary UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 28 construction-related disturbances—associated with grading, utility installation, and construction activities—are anticipated to affect approximately 20,428 sf of the buffer. 9.0 MITIGATION MEASURES The master plan project site will be treated as a single entity, and mitigation for onsite Wetland A and offsite Wetland H will be provided within the project limits in accordance with Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. In line with RMC 4-3-050J.4.d, all disturbed buffer areas will be restored and enhanced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 by removing non-native plant species and installing native trees and shrubs. In addition, the western portions of Wetland A’s buffer will be enhanced to improve buffer function with the proposed developed. Specifically, approximately 59,360 sf of degraded Wetland A buffer will be enhanced to improve its ecological function and habitat value. Currently the western portion of Wetland A’s buffer is degraded with high density of invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and English ivy, and has a nonculture of red alder for canopy cover. This portion of Wetland A’s buffer will be enhanced through removal of invasive species, planting of a diverse native vegetation assemblage and addition of habitat features that will increase habitat function within the buffer. In addition, buffer enhancement will improve water quality and hydrologic buffer functions by reducing sediment and surface water runoff to Wetland A through increased infiltration, filtration, and dispersion provided by the installed native vegetation adjacent to the proposed roadway along the western portion of the site. Impacts to Wetland H will be mitigated within the reduced buffer of Wetland G, where approximately 70,800 sf of degraded buffer will be enhanced to compensate for development impacts on Parcel 8. Enhancement activities will include planting native vegetation and placing large woody materials, such as downed logs and stumps, to increase habitat complexity and support wetland functions. The buffer enhancement will also increase will improve water quality and hydrologic buffer functions by reducing sediment and surface water runoff to Wetland G through increased infiltration, filtration, and dispersion provided by the installed native vegetation next to the existing asphalt walking paths. In addition, all areas subject to temporary impacts during construction (33,658 sf of temporary impact to Wetland A and H buffers) will be fully restored to pre-construction conditions. Wetland A and Wetland H buffers are currently in a degraded condition with high density of invasive species. The restoration of temporary impacts to the buffers will be an overall enhancement of the impacted buffer areas due to the replanting of native vegetation. Collectively, a total of approximately 163,818 sf of wetland buffer area within Wetlands A, G, and H will be enhanced as part of the mitigation program. Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to prevent construction materials from entering the onsite or adjacent wetlands. Mitigation for impacts to critical area buffers will be carried out as required by the City of Renton’s RMC 4-3. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 29 9.1 Buffer Reduction Code Compliance Criteria for Reduction of Wetland Buffer Width (RMC 4-3-050I.3.a) are outlined below, with compliance for each item described thereafter. Buffer reduction has been applied to Wetlands A and G. i. The reduced buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer; and Response: The reduced buffer will outperform a standard buffer through invasive removal, native plantings, habitat restoration, and improved connectivity. The proposed enhancement will provide an increase in habitat, water quality, and hydrologic buffer functions as outlined above. Ongoing management ensures lasting ecological function while meeting site design and permitting requirements. ii. An enhanced buffer shall never be less than 75 percent of the standard width at its narrowest point; Response: PACE acknowledges this requirement and confirms that the enhanced buffer is no less than 112.5 feet for both Wetlands A and G, which represents 75 percent of the standard 150-foot buffer. iii. The buffer area has less than 15 percent slopes and no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City, Response: PACE confirms that the buffer area has slopes less than 15 percent and no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term adverse impacts to regulated wetlands. 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; Response: Multiple site visits were conducted from 2024 to date to assess conditions, and the proposed buffer is based on a site-specific evaluation to ensure adequacy and protection of wetland functions. Professional Wetland Scientists applied the knowledge from the above literature to prepare the supporting documentation. v. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905. Response: The proposed buffer standard follows the best available science per WAC 365- 195-905. The evaluation relied on site-specific assessments conducted by qualified experts, using recognized scientific methods, logical reasoning, and contextual analysis. Data were collected, analyzed, and documented to ensure reliability, and conclusions are supported by observation and professional judgment. This approach ensures the buffer adequately protects wetland functions while reflecting the most current and applicable scientific information. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 30 9.1.1 Exemptions for Trails Within Wetland Buffers Walkways and Trails Exemptions Within Wetland Buffers (RMC 4-3-050C.4) are outlined below, with compliance for each item described thereafter. a. The trail, walkway, and associated open space shall be consistent with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. The city may allow private trails as part of the approval of a site plan, subdivision or other land use permit approvals. Response: The proposed trail system complies with the code by utilizing the existing trail alignment around Wetland A and creating new connections to enhance recreation and accessibility. The trail will be ADA accessible, permeable, and open to the public. The design is consistent with the City of Renton’s Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan, which emphasizes expanding recreational opportunities, improving non-motorized connectivity, and integrating open space within urban development. The trail supports these goals by linking onsite amenities with the broader open space network, promoting community access to nature while maintaining environmental protection. b. Trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25 percent 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: i. Trail segments connecting to existing trails where an alternate alignment is not practical. Response: All proposed trails are designed as connecting segments to the existing trail alignment around Wetland A, maintaining overall continuity of the recreational network. These trail segments will require exceptions to the standard buffer requirement, as portions of the alignment are located within the inner 75 percent of the buffer. The design minimizes disturbance by following existing cleared or previously impacted areas and incorporates best management practices to protect adjacent wetland functions. ii. Public access points to water bodies spaced periodically along the trail. Response: No public access points to water bodies are proposed. 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. Response: The proposed trails have been carefully aligned to avoid existing trees and shrub groups to the greatest extent feasible, thereby minimizing disturbance during construction. Any temporary impacts within the buffer will be fully restored following construction, using native vegetation consistent with surrounding plant communities. Buffer enhancement will be implemented in a degraded open area west of Wetland A at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with RMC 4-3-050J.4.d. Additional enhancement areas are provided to offset buffer impacts associated with trail construction, ensuring no net loss of buffer function or value. d. Trail widths shall be a maximum width of 12 feet. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials which protect water quality, allow adequate surface water UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 31 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. Response: All proposed trails are 8 feet wide and constructed of wood planks with openings, allowing surface water movement and promoting infiltration. No materials harmful to water quality will be used. The trail alignment has been carefully planned to avoid existing trees and shrub groups wherever possible and is located to minimize disturbance to existing wildlife habitats. 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. Response: No crossings over streams or wetlands are proposed. All trails are located entirely within the buffer of Wetland A, avoiding impacts to open-water areas while maintaining connectivity and recreational access. 9.2 Mitigation Sequencing The demonstration of mitigation sequencing is required for approval of any site development plan that will impact critical areas or their associated buffers. The proposed impacts are described in detail in this report and are depicted on Sheet W2.0 to W2.2 in the mitigation plan in Appendix G. Mitigation sequencing is outlined in RMC 4-3-050L.1.b as follows: i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action (usually by either finding another site or changing the location on the site). ii. Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts. iii. Rectifying adverse impacts to wetlands, Wellhead Protection Areas, flood hazard areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. iv. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods. v. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations over the life of the action. vi. Compensating for adverse impacts to wetlands, Wellhead Protection Areas, flood hazard areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 32 vii. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Avoiding Impacts: The proposed site development plan has been carefully designed to avoid all permanent impacts to wetlands on or near the site. The trails connecting to the existing path within Wetland A’s buffer are intended for accessibility and recreational purposes, aligning with the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan vision of "A regional center for active and passive recreation that features access for all to a healthy river, a clean lake, abundant trees, and clear mountain views." In addition, the impacts from these connection trails are exempt from Renton’s code requirements. The master plan has undergone multiple iterations to avoid impacts to Wetland A, Wetland F, and Wetland G and their associated buffers. However, development on Parcel 8, located in the southeast corner of the master plan site, proposed impacts Wetland H’s buffer. The development was planned to avoid impacts its buffer wherever feasible. Wetland H is located offsite and access permission to Wetland H was not granted. Therefore, the wetland boundary has been estimated based on available data. Once more accurate field information is obtained, the design and layout of Parcel 8 may be adjusted to avoid or minimize impacts. The current impact and mitigation analysis includes a proactive approach for addressing potential impacts. If development activities result in any unavoidable impacts to Wetland H buffer, mitigation strategies have been identified, including compensatory enhancements within nearby wetland buffers, to protect the ecological functions of overall system within and near the project site. Minimizing Impacts: The proposed site development plan is designed to minimize impacts while ensuring the creation of a healthy and vibrant campus. To reduce critical area impacts, the development has been carefully planned to place construction and associated infrastructure around existing structures and previously disturbed areas. Any unavoidable impacts are limited to the outer 25 percent of wetland buffers. Development on Parcel 8 will be further evaluated at the time this area is set to be developed and designed in detail. More accurate information regarding Wetland H will be obtained through field verification, and project design options will be explored to avoid or minimize impacts to the wetland buffer to the greatest extent practicable. Rectifying Impacts: All impacts caused as a result of construction will be fully restored, including pre-construction contours. Construction BMPs will be implemented to minimize soil compaction during construction and sedimentation to the adjacent wetlands. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard: No specific hazard is evident from the proposed project. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts or hazard: Maintenance operations are proposed for the mitigation areas, but specific activities such as removal and control of weedy and/or exotic invasive plants, removal of trash and debris, and thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs, would be applied to the entirety of the buffer area on and adjacent to the development areas. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 33 Compensating for Impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts and buffer reduction will be addressed through the restoration of impacted areas and the enhancement of degraded areas. Impact to the reduced buffer of Wetland A will be mitigated by enhancement of degraded buffer. Wetlands H and G occur within the same watershed and are located in close proximity to one another. The master plan site will be evaluated as an integrated system, and impacts to the offsite Wetland H will be mitigated through enhancement of the Wetland G buffer. All mitigation areas will be planted with native trees and shrubs to restore and enhance the buffer functions that may be lost due to construction impacts. Monitoring for Impacts: A monitoring program and contingency plan is provided in this report for the restored and enhance wetland buffers impacted by construction. The monitoring plan provides detailed goals, objectives, and performance standards that shall be met to ensure the successful completion of the proposed mitigation. The mitigation and monitoring plan will also provide the post-construction performance monitoring and maintenance schedule, including monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards, as required under RMC 4-3-050L. 10.0 FUNCTIONAL LIFT ANALYSIS The proposed master plan will result in permanent and temporary impacts to the buffers of onsite Wetland A and offsite Wetland H; however, the mitigation strategy has been designed to achieve a net gain in wetland buffer functions and values. Permanent buffer impacts are limited primarily to pedestrian trail connections within the reduced buffer of Wetland A and to development on Parcel 8 affecting the buffer of Wetland H. Temporary construction-related disturbances will be fully restored following construction. All buffer impacts will be mitigated through onsite enhancement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Buffer enhancements within Wetland A and Wetland G will focus on improving currently degraded conditions through removal of invasive species, installation of native trees and shrubs, and placement of large woody material to increase structural complexity. These actions are expected to improve water quality functions by increasing filtration and pollutant uptake, enhance hydrologic functions through increased soil stability and infiltration, and provide improved wildlife habitat by increasing vegetation diversity and habitat features. Although buffer impacts will occur, the proposed mitigation and restoration measures will result in a net benefit within the larger ecological system and no net loss of wetland functions. An assessment of pre- and post-project buffer functions is summarized in Table 2. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 34 Table 2. Functional Lift Analysis Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net Result Wa t e r Q u a l i t y The existing water quality functions of the buffers associated with Wetlands A, G, and offsite Wetland H are moderate as the buffer remains patirally disturbed. Established trail systems are present within the buffers of Wetlands A and G; these trails experience limited use and some have degraded. There are dense dominance of invasive species within the buffers of the three wetlands that limit their capacity to maintain water quality functions under future climate change or potential disturbances. No direct impacts to the Wetland G buffer are anticipated. Construction of the proposed connection paths to the existing trail system will result in impacts to the Wetland A buffer, and the impacts will be mitigated through buffer enhancement in nearby areas. Development of buildings, access roads, and parking areas will result in impacts to the offsite Wetland H buffer. These impacts will be mitigated through enhancement of the Wetland G buffer. Any temporary disturbances during construction will be fully restored. TESC measures will be implemented to manage and minimize potential construction-related impacts. Invasive species will be removed within designated enhancement areas, and native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers will be installed to increase structural diversity and improve overall buffer condition. These enhancement plantings will stabilize soils, reduce erosion, and filter surface runoff, thereby maintaining and improving water quality functions within the wetland buffers. Hy d r o l o g y The current hydrology functions of the buffers associated with Wetlands A, G, and offsite Wetland H are moderate, as the buffer partially undisturbed. However, there are dense dominance of invasive species within the buffers of the three wetlands that limit their hydrology functions under future climate change or potential disturbances. Wetlands located on and adjacent to the project site occur within the same watershed and are situated in close proximity to one another; therefore, the master plan site will be evaluated and mitigated as an integrated system. Wetland G and portions of its buffer lie within the 200-foot floodplain of Springbrook Creek and play an important role in flood attenuation and hydrologic connectivity. All project- related impacts will be mitigated on site through targeted buffer enhancement. Specifically, impacts to the offsite Wetland H buffer will be mitigated through enhancement of the Wetland G buffer, consistent with a watershed-based mitigation approach. Enhancement measures will include complete removal of invasive Enhancement of the Wetland G buffer will improve flood storage capacity and reduce downstream peak flows during storm events. Increased vegetation cover, diversity, and density will slow runoff and intercept rainwater, helping to maintain or improve hydrologic functions. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 35 Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net Result plant species and replanting with a diverse assemblage of native vegetations. Ha b i t a t The current habitat functions of the buffers associated with Wetlands A, G, and offsite Wetland H are relatively moderate due to ongoing human disturbance from the adjacent trail system, nearby arterial roadways, and the widespread presence of invasive plant species. These factors limited diversity of the vegetation, reducing the buffers’ value as habitat for birds and mammals within the critical area. Mitigation within Wetland A and G will focus on removing invasive plant species and reestablishing a diverse assemblage of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to increase vegetative diversity and structural complexity. In addition, large woody materials will be installed. The placement of large woody material, such as downed logs and stumps, will provide additional habitat features for birds, small mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates. Enhancements will improve foraging, nesting, and shelter opportunities within the buffers, supporting a wider range of wildlife species and increasing overall ecological value. Ne t C o n d i t i o n The existing buffer area remains partially undisturbed and dominated with invasive species. Overall, the area provides moderate levels of water quality, hydrology, and wildlife habitat functions. While project-related impacts are distributed across the site, mitigation efforts are being planned with a system-wide perspective to ensure the most effective ecological outcomes. Enhancement of the degraded Wetland G buffer is considered a high priority due to its proximity to Springbrook Creek, where it plays a critical role in maintaining ecological functions. The majority of restoration and enhancement activities will be concentrated in this area, including invasive species removal, planting of diverse native vegetation, and large woody material installation. These measures will improve structural complexity, support wildlife habitat, stabilize soils, and enhance overall ecological function within the watershed, providing both localized and broader system-level benefits. Greater function will be provided for the integrated system on and adjacent to the project site. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 36 11.0 MONITORING PLAN Performance monitoring of the buffer mitigation planting areas will be conducted for five years per City of Renton permitting requirements. Monitoring will be conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 3 and will be performed by a qualified specialist. A report will be provided for city review at the end of each monitoring year. Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to County Year 0, Baseline Assessment Fall X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X 4 Spring X Fall X X 5 Spring X Fall X X* 11.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Performance Standards Objective A: Create structural and species diversity within plant communities of the enhanced wetland buffer areas. Performance Standard A1: At least 12 species of desirable native plants will be present during the monitoring period. Species may be comprised of both planted and naturally colonized vegetation. To count towards the 12 species total, a given species must cover at least 10 sf. Performance Standard A2: Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100 percent at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 80 percent for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Performance Standard A3: Total percent areal woody plant coverage must be at least 30 percent by Year 3, 55 percent by Year 4 and 80 percent by Year 5. Woody coverage may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species. Objective B: Increase the overall habitat functions of the Wetland A and Wetland G enhanced buffer areas by incorporating habitat features (i.e., snags with bird nest boxes, down logs, snags, and stumps) into the buffer enhancement areas. Performance Standard B1: Following construction and throughout the monitoring period, the mitigation areas within the Wetland A buffer will include a total of 28 habitat features within UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 37 approximately 59,360 sf of enhanced area. The Wetland G buffer mitigation area will contain 25 habitat features distributed across approximately 70,800 sf of enhanced buffer. Habitat features will include the placement of large woody material (logs, stumps, etc.), snags, and brush piles. Down logs shall be a minimum of 18 feet in length and 15-inch diameter, with or without roots. Snags shall be cedar or fir species, a minimum of 24 feet in length and 20-inch diameter at ground level after installation, with a minimum of eight main branches. Stumps shall be either part-decayed relocated stumps or cut live rootwads with a minimum of 3 feet of trunk and a minimum 20-inch diameter. Stumps will be placed both upright and lying down. Additional habitat features can be placed within the mitigation areas only after specified quantities and sizes have been met. Objective C: Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the wetland buffer enhancement areas. Performance Standard C1: After construction and following every monitoring event for the duration of the monitoring period, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels of 15 percent or less total cover throughout the mitigation areas. These exotic and invasive plant species include, but are not limited to: Scot’s broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, morning glory, and creeping nightshade. 11.2 Monitoring Reports Each year-end monitoring report will include an evaluation of the existing functions and values, the functions and values that will be impacted, and the functions and values after mitigation, per SCC 20.62A.150(1)(a). Maintenance memos will be provided to the client after each spring monitoring event and will outline recommended site maintenance to ensure performance standards are being met. 11.3 Critical Area Protection, Fencing, & Signs All post-construction critical areas will be placed in native growth protection area easements per RMC 4-3-050G.3.g and h. All critical areas will be fenced to limit encroachments from pedestrians and dogs, while also accommodating trail access. A split-rail fence will be installed at the outer edge of all the buffer areas and along the trails and paths within the buffer. Critical area signs will be installed along the fence at intervals determined by the city. 11.4 Plantings A variety of native evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcovers will be planted in the wetland buffer restoration and enhancement areas. A candidate plant list for the restoration and enhancement areas are provided on Sheet W3.2 in the mitigation plan in Appendix G. Plant materials will consist of a combination of bare-root and container stock. Plant species were chosen for a variety of qualities, including adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, patterns of growth (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree, shrub, and groundcover species were chosen to UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 38 increase both the structural and species diversity of the mitigation areas, thereby increasing the value of the mitigation areas to wildlife for food and cover. Planting will occur during the dormant season (late fall, winter, or early spring) to maximize the chance for successful plant establishment and survival. 11.5 Temporary Irrigation System An above ground temporary irrigation system capable of full head-to-head coverage of all the restored and enhanced buffer areas will be provided. 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 for areas of full sun or shade, and slopes in excess of 5 percent. The irrigation system shall be operational by June 15 (or at the time of planting) and winterized by October 15. Irrigation shall be provided for the first two years of the monitoring period following installation. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 0.5 inch of water every three days (one cycle with two start times per week or every three days). A chart describing the location of all installed or open zones and corresponding controller numbers shall be placed inside of the controller and given to the owner’s representative. Prior to the release of the bond at the end of the city-required 5-year monitoring period, all components of the aboveground temporary irrigation system shall be removed from the mitigation areas. 11.6 Maintenance & Contingency Seven maintenance reviews will be performed according to the schedule presented in Table 3 to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation project. Following maintenance reviews by the biologist or ecologist, required maintenance on the site will be implemented within 10 business days of submission of a maintenance memo to the maintenance contractor and permittee. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the spring and fall monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation. If during the monitoring period, there appears to be a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the permittee shall work with the city to develop a contingency plan in order to get the project back into compliance with the performance standards. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to, the following actions: additional plant installation, erosion control, bank stabilization, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and/or location. If required, a contingency plan shall be submitted to the city by December 31 of any year when deficiencies are discovered. The following list includes examples of maintenance (M) and contingency (C) actions that may be implemented during the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary.  Following each maintenance review, replace all dead woody plant material (M). UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 39  Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute that meets mitigation plan goals and objectives, subject to PACE and agency approval (C).  Replant area after the reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C).  After consulting with city staff and potentially other permitting agencies, minor excavations, if deemed to be more beneficial to the existing conditions than currently exists, will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C).  Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., English ivy, reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, etc.) manually. Herbicide or pesticide use within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and disposed of offsite. (C & M).  Weed all trees and shrubs to the dripline and provide 3-inch-deep mulch rings 24 inches in diameter for shrubs and 36 inches in diameter for trees (M).  Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year (M).  Selectively prune woody plants under the direction of PACE to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). 12.0 MONITORING METHODS The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. 12.1 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Survival Vegetation monitoring methods will include quantitative assessments of sampling plots, quadrats, and transects, photo points, and visual inspection. Vegetation monitoring components will include general appearance, health, mortality, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and percent cover of planted, volunteer, and invasive species. The mitigation planting areas will be evaluated using vegetation transect locations determined during the initial baseline inspection to provide a basis for monitoring. The entire mitigation area will be monitored and compared to the baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. The percent survival of newly planted shrubs and trees will be evaluated throughout the entire mitigated area as well as a percentage of aerial coverage. The condition of all shrubs and trees within this area will be recorded at the time of the baseline assessment and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. 12.2 Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the mitigation area from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document the general UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 40 appearance and relative changes within the plant community. A review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of plant survival. Photo-point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and all subsequent performance monitoring reports. 12.3 Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the wetland and wetland buffer areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The types and locations of the habitat with the greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 13.0 SUMMARY Three wetlands, Wetland A (Category II), Wetland F (Category II), and Wetland G (Category II) were identified in the project site. Wetland A, Wetland F, and Wetland G are depressional forested, scrub-shrub, emergent depressional wetlands with open-water components. Wetland G has an open-water stream component that conveys stormwater from Wetland A to North Creek. These features are regulated by county, state, and federal agencies. Per RMC 4-3-050G, a Category II wetland with a habitat score of between 5 and 7 requires a standard 150-foot buffer for moderate or high intensity development. One Type F stream (Stream 1) is located onsite. Stream 1 connects Wetland A and Wetland G, and was originally created during development of the Boeing CSTC between 1992 and 1998. Per RMC 4-3-050G, Type F streams require a 115-foot buffer. The project will impact buffers associated with onsite Wetland A and offsite Wetland H. A reduced 112.5-foot buffer will be applied to Wetland A, with permanent impacts limited to approximately 5,340 sf from six planned trail connections. Temporary impacts totaling approximately 13,230 sf will result from utility installation, parking lot construction, and trail connections. A standard 150-foot buffer will be applied to offsite Wetland H. Development on Parcel 8 is anticipated to result in approximately 70,777 sf of permanent buffer impact and 20,428 sf of temporary construction-related disturbance. Field verification for Wetland H boundaries will be required during future development for adjacent parcels. Mitigation will be implemented within the project limits and treated as an integrated system in accordance with RMC 4-3-050. Buffer impacts will be mitigated through restoration and enhancement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Wetland buffer enhancement will also occur for Wetland A to increase function of the reduced buffer. Approximately 59,360 sf of Wetland A buffer and 70,800 sf of Wetland G buffer will be enhanced using native plantings and large woody material. All temporarily disturbed areas will be fully restored, resulting in a total of approximately 163,818 sf of enhanced wetland buffer. Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be implemented throughout construction to protect adjacent critical areas. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 41 14.0 REFERENCES Anderson, P.S. et al. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. (Publication #16-06-029). Olympia, WA: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2016. "Boeing Longacres Park: North and South Pond Wetlands Delineation and Regulatory Analysis." Bothell, Washington, August. Cowardin, L.M., F.C. Carter, Goelet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWSOBS-70/31. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. Hruby, T. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Publication #04-06-025. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology. Hughes, Janice M. 1999. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.%20cornell.edu/bna/species/418. Jewett, S G., Taylor W.P., Shaw W.T., and Aldrich J.W. 1953. Birds of Washington state. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press. Jobanek, G.A., and D.B. Marshall. 1992. "John K. Townsend’s 1836 report of the birds of the lower Columbia River." Northwestern Naturalist 73: 1-14. King County. 2016. Watersheds and Rivers. November 2. https://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/watershedinfo.aspx?locator=0317. Layman, S.A., and M.D. Halterman. 1989. A proposed habitat management plan for Yellow-billed Cuckoos in California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep, USDA, 272-277. Laymon, S A, and M D Halterman. 1989. "A proposed habitat management plan for yellow-billed cuckoos in California." Edited by D.L. Abell. Proceedings of the California Riparian System Conference: protection, management, and resotration for the 1990s. Berkeley: USDA Forest Service. 272-277. Marshall, David B. 1988. "Status of the marbled murrelet in North America: with special emphasis on populations in California, Oregon, and Washington." (USFWS) 88 (30). Mersel, M.K. and Lichvar, R.W. 2014. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-14-13. NOAA. 2002. "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)." Federal Register, Rule, Department of Commerce, 2343-2383. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/01/17/02-885/magnuson-stevens-act- provisions-essential-fish-habitat-efh. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1993. "Existing Habitat Conditions and WIldlife Study Report for the Longacres Office Park Project." Seattle, Washington, June. UNICO PROPERTIES, LLC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT DECEMBER 2025 42 Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1998. "Longacres Office Park Surface Water Management Project Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan." Seattle, Washington, August. Shaprio and Associates, Inc. 1992. "City of Renton Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Park Development Project." Seattle, Washington, April. Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 1998. "Drainage Report for Conceptual Drainage Plan: Longacres Office Park." Bellevue, Washington, September. Tweit, B. 2005. "Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)." In Birds of Washington: status and distribution, 210. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Final Report V2.0, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report, Vicksburg, Mississippi: USACE Waterways Experiement Station. Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix A Wetland Delineation Data Forms Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:) 1. (A) 2. 3. (B) 4. = Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 2. 3.OBL species x 1 = 4.FACW species x 2 = 5.FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:)UPL species x 5 = 1.Column Totals: (A) (B) 4.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6.2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7.3 -Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 8.4 - 9. 10.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ 11.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 2. Remarks: Shrubs mowed 110 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10' by 10' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 1. Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9.1 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =1.469 235 2.Carex obnupta 40 Y 36.4 OBL Iris pseudacorus 60 Y 54.5 OBL 160 3.Phalaris arundinacea 10 N 3' by 3'0 0 90 15 45 Rubus spectabilis 5 N 10.0 FAC 45 Rosa nutkana 10 Y 20.0 FAC 100 100 50 0 0 Spiraea douglasii 15 Y 30.0 FACW Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 100.0% 10' by 10' 1.Salix lasiandra 20 Y 40.0 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:5 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dom. Sp.? Relative % Cover Indicator Status15' by 15'Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? D. Littauer/PACE S24 T23N R04E hillslope concave 3 A 47.642 -122.237 NAD83HARN WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Longacres Pond/Wetland A Renton/King 9/10/2024 Unico WA WA-SP1 Urban Land PSS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) ¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³: Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 7 HYDROLOGY 12 ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5/6 3 5 C PL&M Sandy Clay Loam concentration is prominent C M Loam concentration is prominent 8-14 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 0-8 10YR 3/2 97 10YR SOIL WA-SP1 Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type¹Loc²Texture Remarks Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:) 1. (A) 2. 3. (B) 4. = Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 2. 3.OBL species x 1 = 4.FACW species x 2 = 5.FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:)UPL species x 5 = 1.Column Totals: (A) (B) 4.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6.2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7.3 -Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 8.4 - 9. 10.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ 11.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 2. Remarks: irrigation present 15 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10' by 10' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 1. Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Prevalence Index = B/A =1.700 85 2. Carex obnupta 15 Y 100.0 OBL 50 3. 3' by 3'0 0 70 0 0 35 15 15 5 0 0 Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 100.0%30 10' by 10' 1.Cornus alba 5 Y 100.0 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:3 30 Y 100.0 FACW VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dom. Sp.? Relative % Cover Indicator Status15' by 15'Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Salix lasiandra SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? D. Littauer/PACE S24 T23N R04E hillslope convex 5 A 47.642 -122.236 NAD83HARN WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Longacres Pond/Wetland A Renton/King 9/10/2024 Unico WA WA-SP2 Urban Land upland Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) ¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³: Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: HYDROLOGY ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 15 C M Clay Loam concentration is prominent Silt Loam 6-14 10YR 5/2 85 7.5YR 4/6 0-6 10YR 3/3 100 SOIL WA-SP2 Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type¹Loc²Texture Remarks Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:) 1. (A) 2. 3. (B) 4. = Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 2. 3.OBL species x 1 = 4.FACW species x 2 = 5.FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:)UPL species x 5 = 1.Column Totals: (A) (B) 4.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6.2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7.3 -Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 8.4 - 9. 10.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ 11.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 2. Remarks: 111 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10' by 10' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 1. Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)Ranunculus repens 1 N 0.9 FAC Rumex crispus 2 N 1.8 FAC Juncus effusus 10 N 9.0 FACW Poa pratensis 3 N 2.7 FAC Persicaria maculosa 5 N 4.5 FACW 22.5 FAC Solanum dulcamara 5 N 4.5 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =2.063 293 2.Epilobium ciliatum 30 Y 27.0 FACW Carex obnupta 30 Y 27.0 OBL 142 3.Lotus corniculatus 25 Y 3' by 3'0 0 146 39 117 73 Salix lasiandra 1 N 9.1 FACW 30 30 11 0 0 Alnus rubra 3 Y 27.3 FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 100.0%20 10' by 10' 1.Cornus alba 7 Y 63.6 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:6 20 Y 100.0 FACW VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dom. Sp.? Relative % Cover Indicator Status15' by 15'Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:6Salix lasiandra SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? D. Littauer/PACE S24 T23N R04E hillslope concave 3 A 47.464 -122.237 NAD83HARN WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Longacres Pond/Wetland A Renton/King 9/10/2024 Unico WA WA-SP3 Urban Land PFO Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) ¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³: Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: HYDROLOGY ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. C M concentration is prominent 10 C M Sandy Loam concentration is prominent 7.5YR 4/6 10 Silt Loam 3-16 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 6/6 0-3 10YR 3/2 100 SOIL WA-SP3 Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type¹Loc²Texture Remarks Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:) 1. (A) 2. 3. (B) 4. = Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 2. 3.OBL species x 1 = 4.FACW species x 2 = 5.FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:)UPL species x 5 = 1.Column Totals: (A) (B) 4.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6.2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7.3 -Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 8.4 - 9. 10.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ 11.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 2. Remarks: 100 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10' by 10' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 1. Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Ranunculus repens 3 N 3.0 FAC Lotus corniculatus 1 N 1.0 FAC 3.0 FACW Rumex crispus 3 N 3.0 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =2.973 327 2.Poa pratensis 30 Y 30.0 FAC Trifolium repens 60 Y 60.0 FAC 110 3.Epilobium ciliatum 3 N 3' by 3'0 0 6 107 321 3 0 0 0 0 Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 100.0%10 10' by 10' 1.Prevalence Index worksheet: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:3 10 Y 100.0 FAC VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dom. Sp.? Relative % Cover Indicator Status15' by 15'Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Alnus rubra SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? D. Littauer/PACE S24 T23N R04E flat none 0 A 47.464 -122.237 NAD83HARN WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Longacres Pond/Wetland A Renton/King 9/10/2024 Unico WA WA-SP4 Urban Land upland Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) ¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³: Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: HYDROLOGY ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. C M concentration is prominent 19 C M Sandy Loam concentration is prominent 7.5YR 5/8 1 Silt Loam 4-14 10YR 4/2 80 10YR 3/6 0-4 10YR 5/2 100 SOIL WA-SP4 Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type¹Loc²Texture Remarks Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:) 1. (A) 2. 3. (B) 4. = Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 2. 3.OBL species x 1 = 4.FACW species x 2 = 5.FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:)UPL species x 5 = 1.Column Totals: (A) (B) 4.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6.2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7.3 -Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 8.4 - 9. 10.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ 11.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 2. Remarks: 25 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10' by 10' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 75 1. Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Prevalence Index = B/A =2.429 340 2.Juncus effusus 10 Y 40.0 FACW Carex obnupta 15 Y 60.0 OBL 140 3. 3' by 3'0 0 100 75 225 50 15 15 40 0 0 Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 100.0%75 10' by 10' 1.Cornus alba 40 Y 100.0 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:4 75 Y 100.0 FAC VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dom. Sp.? Relative % Cover Indicator Status15' by 15'Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4Alnus rubra SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? D. Littauer/PACE S24 T23N R04E hillslope concave 10 A 47.6433 -122.2341 NAD83HARN WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Longacres Wetland F Renton/King 9/10/2024 Unico WA WF-SP1 Urban Land PFO Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) ¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³: Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 3 HYDROLOGY 5 ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5/4 10 C M Silt Loam concentration is distinct0-20 10YR 4/1 90 10YR SOIL WF-SP1 Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type¹Loc²Texture Remarks Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:) 1. (A) 2. 3. (B) 4. = Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 2. 3.OBL species x 1 = 4.FACW species x 2 = 5.FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:)UPL species x 5 = 1.Column Totals: (A) (B) 4.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6.2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7.3 -Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 8.4 - 9. 10.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ 11.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 2. Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Longacres Wetland F Renton/King 9/10/2024 Unico WA WF-SP2 Urban Land UPL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? D. Littauer/PACE S24 T23N R04E hillslope concave 10 A 47.6433 -122.2341 NAD83HARN VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dom. Sp.? Relative % Cover Indicator Status15' by 15'Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:3 100.0% 10' by 10' 1.Cornus alba 30 Y 100.0 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 0 0 30 0 0 3' by 3'0 0 80 35 105 40 Prevalence Index = B/A =2.467 185 2.Juncus effusus 10 Y 22.2 FACW Holcus lanatus 35 Y 77.8 FAC 75 3. Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 45 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10' by 10' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 75 1. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) ¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³: Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: SOIL WF-SP2 Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type¹Loc²Texture Remarks C M Silt Loam concentration is distinct0-20 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/4 10 ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 HYDROLOGY 5 Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 3-5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PFO/PSS/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 35 Y FAC 2. Populus balsamifera 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 50 Y FAC 2. Phalaris arundinacea 15 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 65 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Area has been clearcut; shrubs and saplings removed, sedges and phalaris mowed. Evidence of cornus; red osier and yellow twig dogwood, sedge and reed canary grass, alder and cottonwood saplings. Tall trees have been limbed but left in place. Sprinkler system still in place. 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 0-16 10YR 5/1 60 7.5YR 5/8 40 C M loamy sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: Saturation below 14 inches 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-3 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PFO/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 35 Y FAC 2. Populus balsamifera 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 60 Y FAC 2. Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Remarks: Area has been clearcut; shrubs and saplings not included in calculation, sedges and phalaris mowed. Evidence of cornus; red osier and yellow twig dogwood, sedge and reed canary grass, alder and cottonwood saplings. Tall trees have been limbed but left in place. Sprinkler system still in place. 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 0-14 10YR 5/1 70 7.5YR 5/8 30 C M loamy sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5 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: 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-4 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PFO/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 35 Y FAC 2. Populus balsamifera 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 40 Y FAC 2. Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Shrubs and saplings removed not included in calculation, sedges and phalaris mowed. Evidence of cornus; red osier and yellow twig dogwood, sedge and reed canary grass, alder and cottonwood saplings. Tall trees have been limbed but left in place. Sprinkler system still in place. 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 0-5 10YR 5/1 80 7.5YR 5/8 20 C M loamy sand 5-16 Gley1 5/N 60 7.5YR 5/8 40 C M loamy sand mostly sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 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: 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-5 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PFO/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Cornus sericea 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Shrubs and saplings removed not included in calculation, sedges and phalaris mowed. Evidence of cornus; red osier and yellow twig dogwood, sedge and reed canary grass, alder and cottonwood saplings. Tall trees have been limbed but left in place. Sprinkler system still in place. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-5 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 3/2 100 loam 6-8 10YR 3/2 93 7.5YR 5/8 7 C M loamy sand 8-18 Gley 1 5/N 100 loamy sand mostly sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 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: 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-6 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: NA Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 65 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 65 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Shrubs and saplings removed not included in calculation, sedges have been mowed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-6 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 0-14 10YR 3/2 100 loamy sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-7 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: NA Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC 2. Thuja plicata 30 Y FAC 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 70 Y FAC 2. Polystitum munitum 5 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 75 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Shrubs and saplings removed not included in calculation, sedges have been mowed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-7 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 0-10 10YR 4/2 100 loamy sand 10-14 10YR 4/3 100 loamy sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: 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: Wetland G City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:1/15/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: SP-8 Investigator(s): E. Davis Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.463388 Long: -122.231748 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PFO/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, 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: Vegetation has been clearcut under tree canopy. Trees have been limbed up. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Cornus sericea 15 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Carex sp. 80 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Shrubs and saplings removed not included in calculation, sedges have been mowed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-8 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 3/2 100 loamy sand 7-15 Gley1 5/N 60 7.8YR 5/8 40 loamy sand mostly sand 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 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: 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: Longacers City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:10/09/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): B. Rutley Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Undulating Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix sitchensis 20 Y FACW 2. Populus balsamifera 10 N FAC 3. Cornus sericea 40 Y FACW 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Rubus armeniacus 20 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Moss sp. 20 NA NA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-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 0-3 10YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam 3-12 10YR 4/1 100 Sand Very high gravel content 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Restrive layer of compacted gravel at 12 inches. The Soil matrix is 90 percent gravel. The soil matrix of with a color of 10YR 4/1 does not have any redox featues. According to the soil indator manual a soil profile with the color 10YR4/1 needs to have prominent redox to be considred deplted from water. 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Remarks: 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: Longacers City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:10/09/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): B. Rutley Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Rubus armeniacus 90 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Polystichum munitum 10 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Pseudotsuga menziesii and arbutus menziesii found approximatley 50 feet to the NE. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-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 0-12 10YR 3/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Sandy Loam Lots of gravel 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil powder dry - wetted to color. 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: 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: Longacers City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:10/09/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): B. Rutley Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Rubus armeniacus 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Data point taken just north of ditch that runs along the southwestern edge of the property. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-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 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil powder dry - wetted to color. 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: 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: Longacers City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:11/05/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator(s): B. Rutley Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix sitchensis 40 Y FACW 2. Populus balsamifera 40 Y FAC 3. 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Cornus sericea 70 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Ranunculus repens. 5 Y FAC 2. Cirsium vulgare 5 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-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 0-5 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 3/4 5 C M Clay loam 6-14 10YR 5/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M Silt Loam 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil damp 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: No hydrology indiactors present. Normal weather conditions and signigicant rainall the past couple of weeks. 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: Longacers City/County: Renton, King Sampling Date:11/05/2025 Applicant/Owner: Unico Longacres State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5 Investigator(s): B. Rutley Section, Township, Range: SE-24-23-4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 70 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15') 1. Cornus sericea 70 Y FACW 2. Lonicera involucrata 10 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. Ranunculus repens. 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 5 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5') 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (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: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5 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 3/1 100 Clay loam Lots of roots 6-14 10YR 5/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M Silt Loam Soil very compact 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil moist, wetted to color. 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 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 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: No hydrology indiactors present. Normal weather conditions and signigicant rainall the past couple of weeks. Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix B Wetland Delineation Rating Forms Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Name of wetland (or ID #):Date of site visit:9/10/2024 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 6/11/2014 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M H 9 = H, H, H H L 8 = H, H, M H H Total 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 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland x Depressional & Flats RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) HydrologicImproving Water Quality LSite Potential Landscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION Wetland A B. Rutley ESRI Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 7 8 7 22 H CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes 1 Hydroperiods 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )3 Map of the contributing basin 4 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)5 Riverine Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) 3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R 1.1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R 4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 L 2.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 D 2.2, D 5.2 D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 D 3.1, D 3.2 D 3.3 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 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 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? 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 leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? 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. 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. 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; 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. 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). The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, 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. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington If 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. At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in rating Riverine Depressional Lake Fringe 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. Riverine Treat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Riverine + Lake Fringe 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 Slope + Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional 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. 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. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Source Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Ducks 1 1 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. 0 D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 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 the unit is found )? D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ). D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? D 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? D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 1 1 2 0 3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 4 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 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 D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page points = 2 points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin.points = 1 points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down- gradient of unit. Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down- gradient. Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 2 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch 3 D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? 1 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why 2 0 5 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Total for D 6 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 Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? 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 : H 1.2. 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 types 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 H 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted:> 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. 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 4 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. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 3 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 ). 2 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 2 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 16 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 function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ). Calculate: 0 % undisturbed habitat + (8.3 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 4.15% 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 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 6.8 % undisturbed habitat + (37.7 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 25.65% 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 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 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H 1 - 3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page Site meets ANY of the following criteria:points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 0 1 -2 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 . It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 2 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata ) 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 ) 5 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are WDFW Priority Habitats 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. 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 ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 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. 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. 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 ). 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. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met. 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. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. 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 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 to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs SC 3.1. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? 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 . 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? 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? 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? 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. 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 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS 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? 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 un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog p , p , y p ( p ) in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? 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 larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands 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. 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. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form 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 ) 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). 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 un-mowed grassland. 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. 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)? 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? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Name of wetland (or ID #):Date of site visit:9/10/2024 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 6/11/2014 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out 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 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M M 9 = H, H, H H L 8 = H, H, M H H Total 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 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland x Depressional & Flats RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) HydrologicImproving Water Quality MSite Potential Landscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION Wetland F B.Rutley ESRI Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 8 8 6 22 H CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes 1 Hydroperiods 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )3 Map of the contributing basin 4 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)5 Riverine Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) 3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R 1.1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R 4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 L 2.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 D 2.2, D 5.2 D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 D 3.1, D 3.2 D 3.3 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 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 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? 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 leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? 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. 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. 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; 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. 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). The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, 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. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington If 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. At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in rating Riverine Depressional Lake Fringe 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. Riverine Treat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Riverine + Lake Fringe 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 Slope + Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional 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. 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. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Source Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Ducks 1 1 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. 2 D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 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 the unit is found )? D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ). D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? D 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? D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 1 1 2 0 3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 4 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page points = 2 points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin.points = 1 points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down- gradient of unit. Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down- gradient. Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 2 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch 3 D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? 1 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why 2 0 3 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Total for D 6 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 Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? 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 : H 1.2. 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 types 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 H 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted:> 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. 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 2 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. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 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 ). 2 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 1 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 8 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 function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + (% moderate & low intensity land uses / 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 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + (% moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 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 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 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H 1 - 3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page Site meets ANY of the following criteria:points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 0 1 -2 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 . It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 2 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata ) 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 ) 2 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are WDFW Priority Habitats 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. 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 ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 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. 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. 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 ). 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. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met. 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. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. 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 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 to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs SC 3.1. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? 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 . 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? 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? 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? 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. 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 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS 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? 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 un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog p , p , y p ( p ) in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 Wetland name or number Longacres Wetland A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? 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 larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands 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. 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. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form 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 ) 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). 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 un-mowed grassland. 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. 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)? 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? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 1 - OVERVIEW PLAN LEGEND SEE FIGURE 2 AND 3 FOR DETAILED INFORMATION ON WETLANDA, F AND G PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 2 - COWARDIN CLASSES PLAN LEGEND 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 3 - COWARDIN CLASSES PLAN LEGEND PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 4 - HYDROPERIODS PLAN LEGEND PLAN LEGEND PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 5 - HYDROPERIODS PLAN LEGEND PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 6 - PONDED DEPRESSIONS PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM PLAN LEGEND1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 7 - 1KM MAP 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 8 - PLANT COVER PLAN LEGEND PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM PLAN LEGEND PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 9 - PLANT COVER © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS PLAN LEGEND PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 10 - WIDTH OF STREAM PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 11 - HABITAT PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 12 - CONTRIBUTING BASIN PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 13 - CONTRIBUTING BASIN PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 14 - 303(d) PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 15 - TMDL LIST PACE Engineers ¹¹º½½ irKLAnD AY UiTe »¸¸ irKLAnD A ÁÀ¸»» P ¼º½Àº¿º¸¹¼ WWWPACeengrsCOM 1952C - LONGACRES MASTER PLAN ENTITLEMENTS FIGURE 16 - TMDL 3 Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix C NRCS Soils Report United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service October 14, 2024 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 King County Area, Washington.......................................................................13 Ng—Newberg silt loam................................................................................13 Py—Puyallup fine sandy loam.....................................................................14 Ur—Urban land...........................................................................................15 Wo—Woodinville silt loam...........................................................................16 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 52 5 6 3 0 0 52 5 6 4 0 0 52 5 6 5 0 0 52 5 6 6 0 0 52 5 6 7 0 0 52 5 6 8 0 0 52 5 6 9 0 0 52 5 7 0 0 0 52 5 7 1 0 0 52 5 7 2 0 0 52 5 7 3 0 0 52 5 7 4 0 0 52 5 6 3 0 0 52 5 6 4 0 0 52 5 6 5 0 0 52 5 6 6 0 0 52 5 6 7 0 0 52 5 6 8 0 0 52 5 6 9 0 0 52 5 7 0 0 0 52 5 7 1 0 0 52 5 7 2 0 0 52 5 7 3 0 0 52 5 7 4 0 0 556900 557000 557100 557200 557300 557400 557500 557600 557700 557800 557900 558000 558100 558200 558300 558400 558500 558600 556900 557000 557100 557200 557300 557400 557500 557600 557700 557800 557900 558000 558100 558200 558300 558400 558500 558600 47° 28' 4'' N 12 2 ° 1 4 ' 4 5 ' ' W 47° 28' 4'' N 12 2 ° 1 3 ' 2 0 ' ' W 47° 27' 26'' N 12 2 ° 1 4 ' 4 5 ' ' W 47° 27' 26'' N 12 2 ° 1 3 ' 2 0 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 350 700 1400 2100Feet 0 100 200 400 600Meters Map Scale: 1:8,180 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 27, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 31, 2022—Aug 8, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ng Newberg silt loam 0.0 0.0% Py Puyallup fine sandy loam 14.7 8.7% Ur Urban land 138.3 81.9% Wo Woodinville silt loam 15.9 9.4% Totals for Area of Interest 168.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The Custom Soil Resource Report 11 delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 King County Area, Washington Py—Puyallup fine sandy loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1hmtv Elevation: 0 to 820 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 170 to 200 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Puyallup and similar soils:75 percent Minor components:25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Puyallup Setting Landform:Terraces, flood plains Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: ashy fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 34 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 34 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 60 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F002XA008WA - Puget Lowlands Riparian Forest Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA) Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA) Hydric soil rating: No Map Unit Description: Puyallup fine sandy loam---King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/20/2025 Page 1 of 2 Minor Components Briscot, undrained Percent of map unit:8 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Newberg Percent of map unit:6 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: No Woodinville Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Oridia, undrained Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Nooksack Percent of map unit:3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 27, 2024 Map Unit Description: Puyallup fine sandy loam---King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/20/2025 Page 2 of 2 King County Area, Washington Ur—Urban land Map Unit Composition Urban land:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Urban Land Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 27, 2024 Map Unit Description: Urban land---King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/20/2025 Page 1 of 1 King County Area, Washington Wo—Woodinville silt loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1hmvd Elevation: 0 to 90 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 55 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 170 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Woodinville and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Woodinville Setting Landform:Flood plains Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: silt loam H2 - 7 to 15 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 15 to 60 inches: stratified muck to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding:Frequent Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 14.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: F002XA008WA - Puget Lowlands Riparian Forest Forage suitability group: Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Other vegetative classification: Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Map Unit Description: Woodinville silt loam---King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/20/2025 Page 1 of 2 Minor Components Puget Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Snohomish, undrained Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Nooksack Percent of map unit:2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Newberg Percent of map unit:2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Oridia, undrained Percent of map unit:1 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Wet Soils (G002XN102WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 27, 2024 Map Unit Description: Woodinville silt loam---King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/20/2025 Page 2 of 2 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix D Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Report Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix E USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location King County, Washington Local oce Washington Fish And Wildlife Oce  (360) 753-9440  (360) 753-9405 U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 1/17 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 2/17 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 3/17 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location: Mammals Birds Reptiles Fishes NAME STATUS North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Threatened NAME STATUS Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened NAME STATUS Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111 Proposed Threatened NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus conuentus There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 Threatened 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 4/17 Insects Critical habitats Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have eects on all above listed species. Bald & Golden Eagles NAME STATUS Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- 1 2 3 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 5/17 There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. BREEDING SEASON Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 31 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 31 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 6/17 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Eort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 7/17 The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Oce if you have questions. Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management 1 2 3 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 8/17 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. BREEDING SEASON Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 10 to Sep 10 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 31 Black Swift Cypseloides niger This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8878 Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 9/17 Brandt's Cormorant Urile penicillatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 15 to Sep 15 California Gull Larus californicus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens rufescens This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 15 to Aug 10 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa avipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 Oregon Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus anis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5141 Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 31 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 10/17 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 10 Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Western Gull Larus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 25 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 11/17 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Eort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Ancient Murrelet BCC Rangewide (CON) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Brandt's Cormorant BCC Rangewide (CON) California Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 12/17 Chestnut- backed Chickadee BCC - BCR Evening Grosbeak BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Olive-sided Flycatcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Oregon Vesper Sparrow BCC - BCR Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Western Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Western Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 13/17 What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the proles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing). 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 14/17 Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 15/17 Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no sh hatcheries at this location. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1C RIVERINE R2UBHx A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 16/17 NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. 10/23/24, 3:00 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/Q4C7LCOU7NB7VNNZ5WP2PUWWNI/resources 17/17 Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix F Site Photos WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND A WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F WETLAND F Wetland G – Site photos Beginning at the southwest corner of the wetland, to north end of wetland DATA POINT_DP-1 DATA POINT_DP-1 DATA POINT_DP-1 DATA POINT_DP-2 DATA POINT_DP-2 DATA POINT_DP-3 DATA POINT_DP-3 DATA POINT_DP-4 DATA POINT_DP-4 DATA POINT_DP-4 DATA POINT_DP-5 DATA POINT_DP-5 DATA POINT_DP-5 DITCH DITCH & WETLAND H Longacres Office Park Delineation Report Renton, WA Appendix G Mitigation Plans X X OHTx X X X X X X X X X X X X X VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN VICINITY MAP PROJECT INFORMATION LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W1.0 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 SHEET INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Title X X OHTx X X X X X X X X X X X X X VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. PROPOSED SITE PLAN OVERVIEW LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N & I M P A C T S & M I T I G A T I O N OV E R V I E W P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W2.0 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 X VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. IMPACT AND MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT VIEW LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N IM P A C T S & M I T I G A T I O N E N L A R G M E N T PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W2.1 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 OHTx OHTx OHTx VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. IMPACT AND MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT VIEW LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N IM P A C T S & M I T I G A T I O N E N L A R G M E N T PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W2.2 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 X VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. POST-CONSTRUCTION CA FENCE LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N FE N C I N G P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W2.3 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 THIS AREA IS PROTECTED TO PROVIDE WILDLIFE HABITAT AND TO MAINTAIN CRITICAL AREA(S) FUNCTIONS/VALUES. PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB THIS VALUABLE RESOURCE Native Growth Protection Area CONSULT RECORDED PLAT OR KING CO. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR NGPA RESTRICTIONS 1 NGPA SIGN 2 SPLIT-RAIL FENCE DETAIL 17 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 6 8 7 3X X X X X X X SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x S D x S D x NTS KEY MAP THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3-1 PLANTING & HABITAT FEATURES PLAN LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PL A N T I N G & H A B I T A T F E A T U R E S P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W3.0 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M HABITAT FEATURE LEGEND MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET W3.1 17 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 6 8 7 3X X X X S D x S D x S D x S D x S D x S D x S D x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx NTS KEY MAP THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3-2 PLANTING & HABITAT FEATURES PLAN LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PL A N T I N G & H A B I T A T F E A T U R E S P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W3.1 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M HABITAT FEATURE LEGEND MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET W3.0 OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x O H P x O H P x O H P x O H P x O H P x SSx S S x S S x S D x S D x S D x SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx S D x SD x SD x SDx SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx 17 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 6 8 7 3X X X X THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3-3 PLANTING & HABITAT FEATURES PLAN LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PL A N T I N G & H A B I T A T F E A T U R E S P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W3.2 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M HABITAT FEATURE LEGEND NTS KEY MAP MA T C H L I N E , S E E S H E E T W 3 . 3 17 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 6 8 7 3X X X X THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PL A N T I N G & H A B I T A T F E A T U R E S P L A N PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W3.3 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M HABITAT FEATURE LEGEND3-4 PLANTING & HABITAT FEATURES PLAN NTS KEY MAP MA T C H L I N E , S E E S H E E T W 3 . 2 THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PL A N T S C H E D U L E N O T E S & D E T A I L S PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W3.4 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M 1 CONTAINER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 2 GROUNDCOVER INSTALLATION DETAIL 3 B&B TREE PLANTING DETAIL GENERAL PLANT INSTALLATION NOTES 4 CUTTING INSTALLATION DETAIL THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N HA B I T A T F E A T U R E N O T E S & D E T A I L S PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W3.5 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M NOTES FOR CLEARING, GRUBBING, AND HABITAT FEATURE INSTALLATION 1 SNAG WITH BIRD BOX DETAIL 2 STUMP & LOG WITH PLANTING POCKETS DETAIL THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, THESE PLANS ARE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVISION NOTES 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CPL, 1191 2nd Ave #1100, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 343 - 0460 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY PACE ENGINEERS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. LO N G A C R E S M A T E R P L A N PL A N T I N G S P E C I F I C A T I O N S PERMIT SUBMITTAL FOR MP & PUD W4.0 UN I C O P R O P E R T Y , L L C 1 2 1 5 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 6 0 0 S E A T T L E , W A 9 8 1 6 1 (2 0 6 ) 6 2 8 - 5 0 5 0 VERIFY SCALE PA C E E n g i n e e r s ¹¹ º ½ ½ i r K L A n D A Y U i T e » ¸ ¸ i r K L A n D A Á À ¸ » » P ¼ º ½ À º ¿ º ¸ ¹ ¼ WW W P A C e e n g r s C O M ¾ ¾ PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS