The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_ERC_DNSM_Cedars_at_the_Highlands_180824.pdfDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department Date Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Renton Regional Fire Authority Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department Date C.E. Vincent, Administrator Date Department Of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA17-000189 APPLICANT: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes, LLC / jwaltier@harbourhomes.com / 1441 N 34th St, Ste 300, Seattle, WA 98103 PROJECT NAME: Cedars at the Highlands PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat, SEPA Environmental Review, and a Tier II Temporary Use Permit for approval of a 14-lot subdivision. The 4.49 acre site is located at 14120 160th Ave SE (APN 1457500110) within the Residential-4 zoning district. The rectangular shaped parcel would be divided into 14 residential lots, a storm drainage tract, a tree retention tract, and a critical area tract. The 8,361 square feet (sf) drainage tract consists of a stormwater vault located at the southeast corner of the site. The applicant would dedicate 28,777 sf for public right- of-way to serve the new lots. The proposed lots would range in size from 9,002 sf to 16,100 sf with an average lot size of 10,224 sf. The plat would result in a net density of 3.66 du/ac. Access to the site would be gained by extending a residential access road (Road A) from 160th Ave SE through the center of the lot. The site contains a Type Ns Stream in the northeast corner of the site that requires a minimum 50 ft buffer as well as a 15 ft building setback. No areas meeting wetland criteria were found on the site. Soils consist of medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel and stiff silt (ML). The soil density was observed to increase with depth. The west side of the site is relatively flat. However, the east side of the site descends approximately ten feet towards the southeastern property line. The existing shop and barn are proposed to remain as part of the plat construction. There are 284 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 41 original trees. The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report, Critical Areas Study, Technical Information Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. PROJECT LOCATION: 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 7, 2018. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk’s Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: August 24, 2018 DATE OF DECISION: August 20, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 8/21/2018 | 3:24 PM PDT 8/20/2018 | 2:13 PM PDT 8/20/2018 | 3:43 PM PDT 8/20/2018 | 3:47 PM PDT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERC REPORT 17-000189 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017 Project Name: Cedar at the Highlands Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD, TUP Project Manager: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner Owner: Gerald C. Smith, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 Applicant/Contact: Harbour Homes, LLC, 400 N. 34th ST., Suite 300 Project Location: 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental Threshold Determination (SEPA) for a proposed 13-lot subdivision. The project site is 195,531 square feet (4.49 acres) and is located at 14120 160th Ave SE. The project site is located in the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning designation. The proposed single-family residential lots range in size from 9,000 square feet to 17,565 square feet with an overall proposed density of 3.36 dwellings per acre. The applicant has requested a Temporary Use Permit to allow for two existing outbuildings to remain for a period of five years. The structures are located across proposed Lots 9 and 10. Additional proposed improvements include a 3,195 sq. ft. storm drainage tract (Tract A) in the southeast corner of the site along the unimproved 162nd Ave SE right-of-way (ROW) frontage, a 3,500 sq. ft. tree retention tract (Tract C) along the north property line adjacent to lots 11 and 12, and a 20,246 native growth protection tract (Tract B) in the north-east corner to encompass the proposed 75-foot reduced wetland buffer. The proposed lots would be served by a new public residential access street off of 160th Ave SE and a cul-de-sac would be provided near the eastern end of the property. Proposed lots would be served by sanitary sewer along the new street that would connect to an existing main within 160th Ave SE. Proposed lots would be served by a new water main extending from 160th Ave SE along the new street. Construction of the proposed subdivision infrastructure improvements would result in approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. A Type Ns stream and Category III wetlands are mapped on the site according to COR maps and a Wetlands Report submitted by the applicant. Slopes on the site generally fall to the southeast across the property at a range of 0-20%. Soils consist of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC). The applicant has proposed to retain approximately 35 of the 284 significant trees onsite. The applicant has submitted a Technical Information Report, Arborist Report, a Critical Areas Determination and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. Site Area: 195,531 SF (4.49 acres) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 Project Location Map: PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of one parcel totaling 4.49-acres located at 14120 160th Ave SE, within the SE ¼ of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, in King County, Washington. (Exhibit 2). The specific parcel number is 1457500110. The project site formerly consisted of two associated shops/out-buildings used by the property owner, and open space. The site is proposed to be subdivided into 13 single-family residential lots, associated road and utility improvements, a storm water tract, a tree retention tract, and a natural growth protection tract. The storm water tract would consist of a storm water vault to treat runoff on the eastern side of the site. The subject site is bordered by single-family homes around all sides of the property. Located to the north of the site is SE 136th St, SE 142nd Pl is to the south, 162nd Ave SE is to the east, and 160th Ave SE is to the west. Table 1. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Location Comprehensive Land Use Zoning Site Residential Low Density (RLD) Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-4) North Residential Low Density (RLD) Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-4) South Residential Low Density (RLD) Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-4) East Residential Low Density (RLD) Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-4) West Residential Low Density (RLD) Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-4) The 4.49-acre project site is located within the Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre zoning classification. The net density of the project is 3.66 dwelling units per net acre (14 / 3.83 net acres = 3.66 du/acre) and the 14 lots DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 would range in size from 9,001 square feet to 16,694 square feet with an average lot size of 10,154 square feet (Exhibit 2). The property has two (2) existing out-buildings used by the property for storage. The applicant has submitted a Temporary Use Permit to retain the two existing buildings on proposed Lot 9 and Lot 10 for approximately five years – after which time the lots would be developed with two new single-family homes. Access to the site would be provided via a new road (Road A), near the east-west centerline of the site, which would extend from 160th Ave SE to terminate in a cul-de-sac on the eastern end of the site. The section of 162nd Ave SE ROW bordering the proposed site to the east is currently unimproved. A pedestrian pathway is located in the ROW and extends from SE 144th St to the Liberty Gardens subdivision, north-east of the subject site, and transitions from a pedestrian pathway into a paved roadway. The applicant is proposing a 53-foot wide residential access road for Road A. Road A, measured from centerline of 156th Ave SE to the center of the proposed cul-de-sac, measures approximately 525 feet in length. The proposed subdivision would include frontage improvements on 160th Ave SE to add concrete vertical curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip. The applicant has proposed an internal residential access road with a 53-foot ROW that would include concrete vertical curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip, and would culminate in a cul-de-sac with a 90-foot diameter. The applicant has submitted a street modification request for 162th Ave SE proposing no improvements or ROW dedication due to the presence of critical areas, steep topography, and existing pedestrian trail connecting the Liberty Garden subdivision to SE 144th St. The developed site would provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to meeting the City’s Matching Forested Conditions for flow control per the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). Water quality storm volumes are proposed to be treated with a Contech stormfilter and storm detention vault located in the southwest corner of the site. The property includes 284 significant trees comprised of a mixture of native species. The site generally falls to the southeast across the property at a range of 0-20% with a total fall of approximately 10 feet. Soils consist of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC). According to the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (Exhibit 10), the native soils encountered at the test pit locations included four to ten inches of topsoil overlying 0.5 to 11 feet of medium dense silty sand with gravel. The findings were consistent with the makeup of glacial till deposits on the western portion of the site and glaciomarine deposit overlain by glacial outwash in the eastern portion of the site. The geotechnical study found that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. According to the Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, the site possesses a moderate to severe susceptibility to erosion activity. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted geotechnical support prepared by Earthworks NW, dated February 23, 2017. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 ERC Report Exhibit 2 Cedars at the Highlands Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 4 Topographic Map Exhibit 5 Preliminary Landscaping and Tree Retention Plans (Sheets 1-15) DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 Exhibit 6 Preliminary Grading Plan Exhibit 7 Preliminary Utility Plan Exhibit 8 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 9 Preliminary Road Profiles Exhibit 10 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earthworks NW, LLC (dated February 2, 2017) Exhibit 11 Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared DR Strong (dated June 29, 2018) Exhibit 12 Arborist Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated March 20, 2017). Exhibit 13 Tree Retention Worksheet Exhibit 14 Critical Areas Determination Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, LLC (dated March 28, 2017) Exhibit 15 Revised Critical Areas Determination Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting (dated October 3, 2017) Exhibit 16 Secondary Review, Wetlands Report prepared by Otak (dated December 6, 2017) Exhibit 17 Technical Memo prepared by Soundview Consultants (dated January 31, 2018) Exhibit 18 Technical Memo 2 prepared by Soundview Consultants (dated April 4, 2018) Exhibit 19 Response Memo prepared by Otak (dated April 16, 2018) Exhibit 20 Wetlands Buffer Mitigation Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants (dated June 20, 2018) Exhibit 21 Traffic Study prepared by TraffEx (dated March 21, 2017) Exhibit 22 Construction Mitigation Description Exhibit 23 Advisory Notes to Applicant D. Environmental Impacts The proposal was circulated and reviewed by various city departments and divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: No geo-hazards are mapped on the site. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. (dated February 23, 2017; Exhibit 10) was submitted with the project application. In addition, a Geotechnical Infiltration Evaluation prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated July 13, 2017; Exhibit 10) was also submitted. The site topography descends gently from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the site with an estimated total elevation change of 10 feet across the site. The steepest slope identified by the applicant was approximately 20 percent. The study indicated that conventional spread and continuous footings may be utilized across the site, but additional compaction or replacement with structural fill may be required for areas of loose soil on the western portion of the site. The applicant indicates that the estimated quantities for structural fill onsite would be approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. This grading would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented during construction including, but not limited to, Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as site preparation and grading during the drier summer and early fall months, installing siltation control fencing around the work areas, installing a temporary sedimentation pond prior to beginning earthwork activities, and establishing a quarry spall construction entrances in accordance with City of Renton requirements (Exhibit 21). In January of 2017, a total of five (5) test pits (TP-1 through TP-5) were excavated across the project site with a trackhoe to approximate depths of 11.5 feet below existing site grades. Topsoil and various organics were encountered within the upper 4 to 10 inches of existing grades at the test pit (TP) locations. Conditions underlying the top soil vary depending on test pit locations. In two of the test pits, fill was observed ranging in thickness from 1.5 to 4 feet (TP-2 and TP-5). During the subsurface exploration tests, groundwater seepage was encountered, with especially heavy seepage at TP-5. The study indicates that shallow perched DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 groundwater seepage zones should be anticipated within site excavations, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The report noted that contractors should be prepared to dewater during vault and utility excavations, especially if the work is being completed during the wet season. In the Geotechnical Infiltration Evaluation, Earth Solutions NW LLC evaluated onsite soils for infiltration using the “Pilot Infiltration Testing” at four locations. The Pilot Infiltration Test is an approved infiltration testing procedure per Section C.1.3 of the RSWDM. No infiltration was observed in three out of the four locations. At the fourth location (TP-104, located in the southeast portion of the site) there was limited infiltration however advancing the test pit deeper than the infiltration test depth resulted in an observed confining layer of silt that limits the capacity of the underlying subgrade to infiltrate. The report concluded that the confining soil layer can result in lateral migration of water which can create flooding rated issues on the neighboring properties to the south of the subject site, since they are sited lower in the elevation than the subject property. The report concludes that infiltration of stormwater and low impact development (LID) techniques at the site are infeasible. Per the City of Renton (COR) Maps, the site does not contain landslide hazard potential. According to the geotechnical engineer, the site possesses a low susceptibility to landslide due to shallow site slopes of less than 15%. The provided reports conclude that the construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed residential buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or new structural fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test sites, competent native soils suitable for the support of foundations should be generally encountered at depths of one to three feet below existing grades. Pavement and floor slabs can be similarly supported. The ability to use native soil as structural fill will ultimately depend on its moisture content and the weather conditions at the time of construction. The primary geotechnical considerations submitted in the geotechnical report include foundation support, slab-on-grade subgrade support, installation of vapor barriers, the suitability of using onsite soils as structural fill, and construction of the vault. To mitigate for potential impacts the project proposal could have on the site resulting from project construction, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the project construction comply with the recommendations found in the submitted geotechnical support prepared by Earthworks NW, dated February 23, 2017 or an update report submitted at a later date. Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted geotechnical support prepared by Earthworks NW, dated February 23, 2017 or an update report submitted at a later date. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetlands, Streams, Lakes Impacts: According to the City of Renton COR Maps there are existing wetlands and a Type NS stream on the northeast portion of the site and immediately off-site to the north. A Critical Areas Determination Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, LLC (dated March 28, 2017; Exhibit 14) with the original application identified the Type NS stream that originates from the parcel to the north, continues across the northeast corner of the subject site, and exits into the unimproved ROW to the east of the site. During review of the report, staff determined that the report did not adequately address the wetlands located to the north (described as Wetlands A in the report) of the project site on parcel #1457500106. These wetlands were identified in a wetlands report completed by the same consultant in 2013 as part of the submittal for Mindy’s Place Short Plat. A revised Critical Areas Study prepared by Sewall (Dated October 3, 2017; Exhibit 15) was submitted at staff’s request. The revised study delineated the off-site wetlands to the north of the site and classified the wetlands as a Category II “depressional” system. The report reiterated the presence of the Type NS stream, requiring a 50 foot buffer, but concluded that no wetlands were located on the project site. After reviewing the new assessment against data in COR maps, staff continued to find inconsistencies between the DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 two Critical Area Determinations submitted by the applicant and the study completed in 2012 for Mindy’s Place. Inconsistencies were primarily related to the delineation of wetlands on the project site. Although the Sewall studies showed the wetlands ending at the property line, staff was concerned that the linear system likely followed the path of the Type NS stream and continued SE across the project site and unimproved public ROW. In order to resolve the inconsistency issues and obtain accurate information on the wetlands, Otak was hired as a secondary reviewer of the on-site and off-site wetlands. At the City’s request, Otak submitted a new report (Dated December 6, 2017; Exhibit 16) to staff, which contained findings and analysis based on a November 20, 2017 site visit completed by Otak staff. The report conclude d that the original wetlands categorization of “Wetlands A” on the northeast corner of the site in the report submitted by Sewall Wetland Consulting was calculated incorrectly. Otak recommended multiple revisions to the initial determination, including a re-categorization of Wetlands A from a Category II “depressional” to a Category III “depressional” wetlands system with a habitat score of 4, requiring a 100 foot buffer per RMC 4-3-050. Otak also recommended a re-evaluation of the delineation due to the presense of wetlands onto the project site. In early February of 2018, a technical memo prepared by Soundview Consultants on behalf of the applicant was submitted to staff (Dated January 31, 2018; Exhibit 17). The memorandum served as a rebuttal to the report prepared by Otak in December and concluded that the wetlands should be classified as a Category II “sloped” wetlands system with a habitat score of 4, requiring a 50-foot buffer per RMC 4-3-050. After submitting the report, Soundview Consultants requested a site visit in order to discuss some of the issues in- person. On March 14, 2018, representatives from Otak, Soundview Consultants, the City, and Harbour Homes met and walked the site. After the site visit, Soundview Consultants submitted another technical memo reiterating their support for their original determination (Dated April 4, 2018; Exhibit 18). After receipt of the Soundview memo, Otak submitted a final memorandum maintaining their position on the classification (Dated April 16, 2018; Exhibit 19). Based on the classification of Wetlands A as a Category III wetlands system with a moderate habitat score (4), a 100-foot buffer with a 15 foot structure setback is required per RMC 4-3-050. A 50 foot buffer is required for a Type NS stream per RMC 4-3-050. Due to the location of the stream near the center of the wetlands area, the required 100-foot buffer for the wetlands would meet the buffer requirements of both the wetlands and stream (50 feet). The applicant has proposed a reduced buffer of 75 feet over an area of approximately 15,460 sq. ft. RMC 4- 3-050 gives the administrator the ability to authorize a 25% reduction in the wetlands buffer if certain conditions are met. The buffer in its current state is highly disturbed and includes mowed lawn, junk cars and debris, and a significant amount of Himalayan blackberry. The wetlands report includes a mitigation plan that includes the removal of junk cars and debris, the eventual removal of the existing building encroaching on the buffer, and the installation of native plantings (Exhibit 21). The plan identifies the types of species proposed for planting in the buffer, but does not identify the number of each plant. The applicant will need to submit a revised mitigation plan indicating the number and location of each plant species in the wetland buffer, in addition to a phasing plan for project mitigation to be completed after the removal of the barn. Staff anticipates an interim mitigation plan and a final mitigation plan that would completely restore the buffer at a later date after the barn is removed. Temporary impacts to the wetlands buffer are anticipated due to the construction of the vault directly adjacent to the southern edge of the buffer. The applicant will need to submit an updated study prior to construction permit submittal, addressing the temporary impacts and the methods used to mitigate for them. Native plantings proposed for the buffer would include Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, Western red cedar, and a variety of native shrubs and grasses, including but not limited to Red-twig dogwood, Salal, Salmonberry, Western swordfern, Streamside lupine, and Spike bentgrass. The entire buffer area would be placed in a tract (Tract B) with a Native Growth Protection Easement on top of the entire buffer and wetlands area. The mitigation plan report concludes that the wetland hydrology and water quality function would see significant improvements if the plan is implemented. Due to the degraded state of the existing wetland buffer and anticipated environmental lift, staff is supportive of the buffer reduction, provided the restoration work is DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 7 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 completed in accordance with a final approved mitigation plan. Provided the project complies with the Critical Areas regulations staff does not anticipate any impacts to the wetlands. Mitigation Measures: Nexus: Not applicable b. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by DR Strong (dated June 29, 2018; Exhibit 11). Based on the TIR, the project contains greater than 2,000 sq. ft. of new impervious surface and therefore a Full Drainage Review is required pursuant to the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). All nine core requirements and six special requirements were addressed in the report. Based on the City’s flow control map, the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard matching Forested Site Conditions. The project is subject to Basic Water Quality treatment standards in order to satisfy Core Requirement #8. The applicant has proposed a detention vault on the east side of site. The vault would be sized to the City’s Flow Control Standard Level 3 in order to mitigate potential downstream drainage issues. The project site matches the 100-year peak discharge rate to the pre-developed 100-year peak discharge rate. The project is subject to the on-site BMP requirements found in Core Requirement #9. According to the TIR, full dispersion and full infiltration are not feasible on-site BMPs as the minimum design requirements cannot be met. Development Engineering staff believe that basic dispersion may be a viable BMP for some lots within the development. If feasible, basic dispersion should be implemented to the maximum extent feasible which may be more than 10% of the total lot area. It is anticipated that the City’s currently adopted 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual would mitigate for any potential surface water impacts that could be generated by the project proposal, therefore no further mitigation is recommended at this time. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Trees and Vegetation Impacts: The applicant submitted an Arborist Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated March 20, 2017). The report noted that the property is covered with a weedy and unmaintained understory with a native tree canopy created by the 284 trees located on the site. Several larger trees are located around the project site, including Western red cedars, Douglas firs, and Bigleaf maples (Exhibit 5). The Arborist Report identified 19 landmark trees, 170 significant trees, 85 dangerous trees, and 10 trees within the critical area buffer on the parcel proposed to be developed (Exhibit 12). Approximately 41 of the identified trees were located within the proposed road network. The minimum tree retention requirement is thirty percent (30%) in the R-4 zone. Therefore, the applicant must retain at least 47 trees. After street and critical area deductions, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees, or twelve (12) trees less than the amount required by code. Per RMC 4-4-130, a replacement ratio of 12 inches per tree is required for each tree less than the total required to be retained. All retained trees (i.e., protected trees) would be required to be protected during construction pursuant to RMC 4-4-130. The applicant is proposing to replant the subdivision with 48 three-inch caliper trees for a total of 144 caliper inches. Proposed species of trees include Redmond Linden, Western red-cedar, Princeton Elm, Douglas fir, and variety of trees from the Maple family. According the applicants tree planting, the majority of the proposed onsite replacement trees would be used to meet the frontage landscaping and planter strip requirements and includes street trees, front yard trees, and trees near the storm water vault in Tract A. Per RMC 4-4-130, only up to 50% of trees required pursuant to the landscape code may contribute to the replacement tree requirement. Therefore additional trees totaling at least 72 caliper inches must be added in order to meet the tree replacement requirement of 144 inches. A new plat plan layout was received on August 14, 2018 which relocated the vault and adjusted the lots along the south side of the proposed new Road A. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 8 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 An updated tree plan was not included in the re-submittal. The updated tree plan will be required to be provided prior to the public hearing and will be reviewed for compliance with the 30% retention standards. The applicant has proposed a 3,500 sq. ft. tree tract (Tract C) to the north of proposed lots 11 and 10. The proposed tract contains two landmark trees and four mature significant trees. Three trees are proposed for retention in the tract including a 58” DBH Western red-cedar, a 31” DBH Western red-cedar, and a 25” DBH Western red-cedar. Three of the six trees were classified by the arborist as dangerous and are proposed for removal. The sixth tree, a 24” DBH Western red-cedar near the eastern edge of the tract is shown as retained in the Arborist Report but is shown as removed in the Tree Retention plan. If healthy, the tree should be retained and the plans should be updated to be consistent. The applicant has proposed to retain all trees in the Critical Area Buffer and install 24 new trees including Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, and Western red cedar. However, due to the update plan received on August 14, 2018, it is anticipated that trees will be removed from the wetland buffer as a result of temporary construction impacts for the installation of the vault. These impacts are required to be mitigated per the City’s critical areas regulations, see section 2.a. Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes, above. An updated planting plan should be submitted and include the exact quantities of each species proposed for the buffer. Where there is insufficient ROW space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard(s). A final detailed landscape plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the street and utility construction permits. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: Not applicable 4. Transportation Impacts: Primary access to the site would be provided via a new dead-end public street off of 160th Ave SE, as shown in the updated preliminary site plan (Exhibit 2). The new Residential Access Road (Road A) would be approximately 550 feet in length and would terminate at a cul-de-sac on the east side of the property. The applicant is proposing a cross-section that includes a ROW width of 53 feet with 26 feet of pavement, 8 -foot wide landscaped planters, 5-foot wide sidewalks, and 0.5-foot wide curbs. The roadway would provide two (2) 10-foot travel lanes and one (1) 6-foot parking lane. The undergrounding of all utilities is required. 160th Ave SE is classified as a Residential Access Road. The existing ROW width is approximately 60 feet. To meet the City’s complete street standards, RMC 4-6-060, a minimum ROW width of 53 feet for a Residential Access Road is required. In addition to the travel lanes, a Residential Access Road ROW requires 0.5-foot wide curbs, 8-foot wide landscaped planters, and 5-foot wide sidewalks. Street trees, storm drainage improvements and undergrounding of any overhead utility lines along the frontage of the property would be required along the project frontage. No dedication of ROW would be required along the project side of 160th Ave SE. 162nd Ave SE, an improved right-of-way, is located along the east property line and is classified as a Residential Access Road with approximately 60 feet of ROW. The applicant has submitted a street modification request to allow the existing unimproved street and frontage section to remain. According to the applicant, the modification was requested due to the presence of a stream and wetlands in the unimproved right-of-way. The applicant contends that improving the road would significantly impact the critical areas and buffers and therefore negatively impact the environment. TraffEx has calculated that the project would generate a total of 10 new vehicle trips per hour in the AM peak period and 13 new vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak period (Exhibit 21). The City does not require Traffic Impact Analyses for developments if both new AM and PM peak period vehicle trips are less than 20. Adequate sight distance would be provided at the intersection of the proposed new street and 160th Ave SE. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would adversely impact the City of Renton’s street system subject to the payment of code-required impact fees and the construction of code-required frontage improvements (Exhibit 23). The fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit issuance shall be payable to the City. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Report of August 20, 2018 Page 9 of 9 ERC REPORT 17-000189 A concurrency recommendation will be provided in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS‐tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation. The development will have to meet the City of Renton concurrency requirements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable 2. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code-required improvements and the payment of code- required impact fees (Exhibit 23). Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or listed under Exhibit 22 “Advisory Notes to Applicant.” Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 7, 2017. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE EXHIBITS Project Name: Cedars at the Highlands Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA17-000189, ECF, PP, MOD Date of Meeting August 20, 2018 Staff Contact Alex Morganroth Associate Planner Project Contact/Applicant Gerald C. Smith 14120 160th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Project Location 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 The following exhibits are included with the ERC Report: Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report Exhibit 2: Cedars at the Highlands Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 4: Topographic Map Exhibit 5: Preliminary Landscaping Plans and Tree Retention Plans (Sheets 1-15) Exhibit 6: Preliminary Grading Plan Exhibit 7: Preliminary Utility Plan Exhibit 8: Preliminary Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 9: Preliminary Road Profiles Exhibit 10: Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earthworks NW, LLC (dated February 2, 2017) Exhibit 11: Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared DR Strong (dated June 29, 2018) Exhibit 12: Arborist Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated March 20, 2017). Exhibit 13: Tree Retention Worksheet Exhibit 14: Critical Areas Determination Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, LLC (dated March 28, 2017) Exhibit 15: Revised Critical Areas Determination Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting (dated October 3, 2017) Exhibit 16: Secondary Review, Wetlands Report prepared by Otak (dated December 6, 2017) Exhibit 17: Technical Memo prepared by Soundview Consultants (dated January 31, 2018) Exhibit 18: Technical Memo 2 prepared by Soundview Consultants (dated April 4, 2018) Exhibit 19: Response Memo prepared by Otak (dated April 16, 2018) Exhibit 20: Wetlands Buffer Mitigation Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants (dated June 20, 2018) Exhibit 21: Traffic Study prepared by TraffEx (dated March 21, 2017) Exhibit 22: Construction Mitigation Description Exhibit 23: Advisory Notes to Applicant DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Exhibit 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 0GRAPHIC SCALE1002004001 INCH = 200 FT.CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVENUE SERENTON, WASHINGTON 98056CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS AAANNNNNNN LUA:U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041A-NNNNNNNNSERISSEFORPINGOERDETSREENGINELA53232 OIETATHSOYSFOTGNIHASWIDEIPL.OCILAZNEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAPRECEIVED04/07/2017 cclosePLANNING DIVISIONExhibit 3DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVENUE SERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS AAANNNNNNN LUA:U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041A-NNNNNNNNSERISSEFORPINGOERDETSREENGINELA53232 OIETATHSOYSFOTGNIHASWIDEIPL.OCILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT0GRAPHIC SCALE20'40'80'1 INCH = 40 FT.RECEIVED04/07/2017 cclosePLANNING DIVISIONExhibit 4DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Exhibit 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDSCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDSAAANNNNNNNLUA17-000189U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041 A-NNNNNNN NSER ISS E FORP I N G O E R DETS REE N G INELA 53232 OIETATHSOY SF OT G NIHASWIDEIPL.O C ILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 15'30'60' 1 INCH = 30 FT. Exhibit 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDSCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDSAAANNNNNNNLUA17-000189U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041 A-NNNNNNN NSER ISS E FORP I N G O E R DETS REE N G INELA 53232 OIETATHSOY SF OT G NIHASWIDEIPL.O C ILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 15'30'60' 1 INCH = 30 FT. Exhibit 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDSCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDSAAANNNNNNNLUA17-000189U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041 A-NNNNNNN NSER ISS E FORP I N G O E R DETS REE N G INELA 53232 OIETATHSOY SF OT G NIHASWIDEIPL.O C ILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 15'30'60' 1 INCH = 30 FT. Exhibit 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVENUE SERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS AAANNNNNNN LUA:U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041A-NNNNNNNNSERISSEFORPINGOERDETSREENGINELA53232 OIETATHSOYSFOTGNIHASWIDEIPL.OCILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT00HORIZONTALVERTICAL1020401 INCH = 20 FT.2.55101 INCH = 5 FT.RECEIVED04/07/2017 cclosePLANNING DIVISIONExhibit 9DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring 1805 -136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,WA 98005 (425)449-4704 Fax (425)449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 -160th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON,WASHINGTON ES-5048 RECEIVED 04/07/2017 cclose PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 10 Entire Document Available in Laserfiche Submittals Folder DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 2018 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Cedars at the Highlands Technical Information Report Renton, Washington TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS PRELIMINARY PLAT 14120 160th Avenue SE, Renton, Washington ___ ____________________________________________________________________________ DRS Project No. 16041 Renton File No. PRE16-000524 Applicant Jamie Walter Harbour Homes, LLC 400 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Report Prepared by D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date June 29, 2018 Exhibit 11 Entire Document Available in Laserfiche Submittals Folder DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Greenforest Incorporated C o n s u l t i n g A r b o r i s t 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 TO: Chris Burrus Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle WA 98103 REFERENCE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands SITE ADDRESS: 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 DATE: March 20, 2017 PREPARED BY: Favero Greenforest, ISA Certified Arborist # PN -0143A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #379 You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and assess the regulated trees at the above referenced site. I received a topographic survey from DR Strong, and I visited the site 2/10/2017 and inspected the trees, which are the subject of this report. The following table summarizes the tree quantities and categories inventoried in this report. Significant, Landmark and Dangerous categories are defined by municipal code. Landmark Trees On Site 19 Significant Trees On Site 170 Dangerous Trees On Site 85 Trees Within Sensitive Area 10 Total Trees On Site 284 Other Offsite Trees 24 RECEIVED 04/07/2017 cclose PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 12 Entire Document Available in Laserfiche Submittals Folder DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist The site is 4.5 acres covered in native tree canopy. The understory is weedy and unmanaged. The roots and trunks of several trees are injured from mechanical equipment. Nearly thirty percent of the onsite trees have significant defects or visible decline, and are considered Dangerous by City code. LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT This tree report establishes, via the most practical means available, the existing conditions of the trees on the subject property. Ratings for health and structure, as well as any recommendations are valid only through the development and construction process. This report is based solely on what is readily visible and observable, without any invasive means. There are several conditions that can affect a tree’s condition that may be pre-existing and unable to be ascertained with a visual-only analysis. No attempt was made to determine the presence of hidden or concealed conditions which may contribute to the risk or failure potential of trees on the site. These conditions include root and stem (trunk) rot, internal cracks, structural defects or construction damage to roots, which may be hidden beneath the soil. Additionally, construction and post-construction circumstances can cause a relatively rapid deterioration of a tree’s condition. TREE INSPECTION I visually inspected each tree from the ground. I performed a Level 1 risk assessment.1 This is the standard assessment for populations of trees near specified targets, conducted in order to identify obvious defects or specified conditions such as a pre- development inventory. This is a limited visual assessment focuses on identifying trees with imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure, and/or other visible conditions that will affect tree retention. I recorded tree species and size (DBH). I estimated the average dripline of each tree. I rated the condition of each tree, both health and structure. A tree’s structure is distinct from its health. This inspection identifies what is visible with both. High-risk trees can appear healthy in that they can have a dense, green canopy. This may occur when there is sufficient sapwood or adventitious roots present to maintain tree health, but inadequate strength for structural support. 1 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree Shrub and Other woody Plant Management – Standard Practices, Tree Risk Assessment. 2011. ISA. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist On the other hand, trees in poor health may or may not be structurally stable. For example, tree decline due to root disease is likely to cause the tree to be structurally unstable, while decline due to drought or insect attack may not. One way that tree health and structure are linked is that healthy trees are more capable of compensating for structural defects. A healthy tree can develop adaptive growth that adds strength to parts weakened by decay, cracks, and wounds. This report identifies unhealthy trees based on existing health conditions and tree structure, and specifies which trees are most suitable for preservation.2 The trees are not tagged and considerable effort was made to match the trees on the site with those on the survey. The attached tree inventory contains the following information on each tree. Retained Tree identifies the trees proposed for retention. Retention Priority shows the results of an analysis of retained trees according to priority of tree retention requirements specified in RMC §4-4-130H.1.b. Proposed for Removal identifies trees proposed for removal, and the reason for the necessary removal (diseased, or proposed site improvements- PSI). Tree number as shown on the attached site exhibit. DBH Stem (trunk) diameter in inches 4.5 feet from grade. Tree Category as defined by municipal code. TREE: A woody perennial usually having one dominant trunk, or, for certain species, a multi-stemmed trunk system, with a potential minimum height of ten feet (10') at maturity. Any trees listed on the Complete King County Weed List shall not qualify as a tree. Dangerous: Any tree that has been certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist. Landmark: A tree with a caliper of thirty inches (30") or greater. (Average multiple stems and report single integer) 2 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 5: Tree Shrub and Other woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices, Managing Trees During Construction. 2008. ISA. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Significant: A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6"), or an alder or cottonwood tree with a caliper of at least eight inches (8"). Trees qualified as dangerous shall not be considered significant. Trees planted within the most recent ten (10) years shall qualify as significant trees, regardless of the actual caliper. Tree Species Common name. Dripline Average branch extension in feet as radius from the trunk. Health & Structure Rating ‘1’ indicates no visible health-related problems or structural defects; ‘2’ indicates minor visible problems or defects that may require attention or maintenance if the tree is retained, and/or the tree should only remain as a grove tree, and not stand alone; and ‘3’ indicates significant visible problems or defects and tree removal is recommended. Visible Defects Obvious structural defects or diseases visible at time of inspection, including: Asymmetric canopy– the tree has an asymmetric canopy from space and light competition from adjacent trees. Branch dieback - Mature branches in canopy are dying/dead. Bow in trunk – a trunk lean characterized by the top of the tree leaning over. (Common with edge trees) Crack – separation of wood fibers and predisposed to failure. Deadwood – Large and/or multiple dead branches throughout canopy. Decay – process of wood degradation by microorganisms resulting in weak and defective structure. Diseased – foliage and trunk/stems are diseased. Dogleg in trunk – trunk with a bow or defective bend (90°) in trunk often half way of further up the trunk. Double leader – the tree has multiple stem attachments, which may require maintenance or monitoring over time. Heave – the soil is heaving on one side of the tree from previous root/soil failure. Kretzschmaria – the tree is infected with a wood-decaying fungus as evidenced by conks growing on the base of the tree. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Multiple leaders - the tree has multiple stem attachments, which may lead to tree failure and require maintenance or monitoring over time. Previous failure – Tree trunk previously broken and defective. Self-corrected lean - Self-corrected leans and sweeps are characterized by a leaning lower trunk and a top that is more upright. Slender – tree lacks adequate trunk taper to stand lone. Stilts – tree grew atop a stump or nurselog, and has an elevated rootcrown. Stumpsprout- Tree previously cut at grade with multiple stems and potentially weak attachments. Suppressed – tree crowded by larger adjacent trees, with defective structure and/or low vigor. Retain tree only as a grove tree, not stand-alone. Sweep – tree leans away from adjacent trees. Characterized by a leaning lower trunk and a top that is more upright. Thinning Canopy – low foliage density may indicate stress, or early infection/declining health. Tree House – wooden structures fastened to trunk. Topped – the tree is previously topped and has poor structure and/or stem decay. Tree leans – Trunk has significant lean from vertical. Trunk decay - Wood decay is visible in the trunk. Woodpecker injury – the trunk is riddled with woodpecker holes. Wound/decay base of trunk - Open wound with visible decay in trunk. Location identifies if tree is within a building lot, Right-of-way, or sensitive area. Data for 24 offsite trees are also inventoried in a separate attachment. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FOR RETAINED TREES Limits of Disturbance (LOD) are calculated for all proposed retained significant trees. They are listed below as radii in feet from the trunk for the four cardinal sides of each tree. They are determined using rootplate 3 and trunk diameter,4,5 and ISA Best Management Practices.6 These are the minimum distances from the trees for any soil 3 Coder, Kim D. 2005. Tree Biomechanics Series. University of Georgia School of Forest Resources. 4 Smiley, E. Thomas, Ph. D. Assessing the Failure Potential of Tree Roots, Shade Tree Technical Report. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. 5 Fite, Kelby and E. Thomas Smiley. 2009. Managing Trees During construction; Part Two. Arborist News. ISA. 6 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Series, Part 5: Managing Trees During Construction. 2008. ISA. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist disturbance, and represent the area to be protected during construction. These LOD are malleable and may be adjusted further during the design and construction process. The following table lists the LOD of each retained tree. Table No. 1 – LOD as Radii In Feet From Tree Trunk for Proposed Retained Trees. Tree No. DBH Species DL Limits of Disturbance North East South West 12 21” Douglas-fir 16’ PL DL 10’ DL 5330 29” Douglas-fir 16’ DL DL PL DL 5331 8” Douglas-fir 12’ DL DL PL DL 5332 14” Douglas-fir 12’ DL DL PL DL 5333 28” Douglas-fir 16’ DL DL PL DL 5389 18” Western red-cedar 12’ PL DL 9’ DL 5404 10” Red alder 8’ DL DL PL DL 5453 10” Red alder 14’ DL DL DL DL 5469 25” Western red-cedar 14’ DL DL DL DL 5470 31” Western red-cedar 14’ PL DL DL DL 5471 58” Western red-cedar 18’ PL DL DL DL 5472 19” Douglas-fir 16’ DL DL 8’ DL 5473 11” Western red-cedar 10’ DL DL 6’ DL 5484 16” Douglas-fir 16’ DL DL 7’ DL 5485 45” Bigleaf maple 25’ DL DL 12’ DL 5486 45” Western red-cedar 18’ 20’ DL 20’ 15’ 5496 8” Western red-cedar 10’ PL DL 4’ DL 5524 10” Douglas-fir 14’ DL DL PL DL 5525 26” Douglas-fir 16’ DL DL PL DL 5526 11” Douglas-fir 12’ DL DL PL DL 5533 9” Douglas-fir 10’ DL DL PL DL 5534 9” Douglas-fir 10’ DL DL PL DL 5535 6” Douglas-fir 8’ DL DL PL DL 5536 22” Douglas-fir 14’ DL DL PL DL 5537 29” Douglas-fir 16’ 12’ DL PL DL 5570 13” Bigleaf maple 14’ DL DL PL DL 5571 9” Red alder 12’ 10’ 12 PL DL 5601 14” Bigleaf maple 16’ 7’ 9’ 7’ 9’ 5605 26” Bigleaf maple 20’ DL DL 11 12’ 5660 46” Western red-cedar 18’ DL DL 14 14’ 5694 25” Douglas-fir 18’ PL DL DL 14’ DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Tree No. DBH Species DL Limits of Disturbance North East South West 5695 25” Douglas-fir 18’ PL DL DL 14’ 5696 32” Western red-cedar 16’ PL DL DL 14’ 5699 8” Red alder 10’ PL DL DL DL 5700 29” Black cottonwood 18’ PL DL DL DL 5701 14” Red alder 14’ PL DL DL DL 5703 10” Red alder 14’ PL DL DL DL 5704 21” Red alder 16’ PL DL DL DL 5705 10” Red alder 12’ PL DL DL DL 5706 10” Red alder 14’ PL DL DL DL 5708 10” Red alder 14’ PL DL DL DL 5709 8” Red alder 12’ PL DL DL DL 5710 8” Red alder 10’ PL DL DL DL 5711 10” Red alder 12’ PL DL DL DL 5712 24” Western red-cedar 14’ PL DL DL DL (PL=property line, DL = dripline) (DBH for multiple-trunked trees are reported as the quadratic mean diameter.) IMPACT OF NECESSARY TREE REMOVAL TO THE REMAINING TREES The proposed retained trees border both north and south project boundaries, as well as the sensitive area at the northeast corner. Most retained trees stand in contiguous formation with each other. Trees along the north and south boundaries have canopies contiguous with, or are protected by existing trees on the abutting parcels. The necessary tree removal should have negligible to no impact on the retained trees. SUPPLEMENTAL TREES The use of supplemental trees is still in the design phase. The suggested location and species, as well as planting and maintenance specifications, shall be addressed under separate cover. AN ANALYSIS OF TREE RETENTION PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS7 Retention priority for each proposed retained tree is provided in the attached tree inventory. 7 RMC. §4-4-130H.1.b DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 8 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist TREE PROTECTION MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION8 Protective fencing and required signage shall be installed prior to any site clearing and/or demolition. Fencing may be temporarily adjusted during the removal of trees adjacent to those retained. For development applications, protection measures must be in accordance with the tree protection standards as outlined in RMC 4-4-130.H.9, (and as excerpted below): §H.9. Protection Measures During Construction: Protection measures in this subsection shall apply for all trees that are to be retained. All of the following tree protection measures shall apply: a. Construction Storage Prohibited: The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. b. Fenced Protection Area Required: Prior to development activities, the applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees or at a distance surrounding the tree equal to one and one-quarter feet (1.25') for every one inch (1") of trunk caliper, whichever is greater, or along the perimeter of a tree protection tract. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, “NO TRESPASSING – Protected Trees,” or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. c. Protection from Grade Changes: If the grade level adjoining to a tree to be retained is to be raised, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree’s drip line. d. Impervious Surfaces Prohibited within the Drip Line: The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. e. Restrictions on Grading within the Drip Lines of Retained Trees: The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (i) the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or (ii) an area around the tree equal to one and one-half feet (1-1/2') in diameter for each one inch (1") of tree caliper. A larger tree protection zone based 8 RMC. Excerpted from §4-4-130H9. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 9 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist on tree size, species, soil, or other conditions may be required. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) f. Mulch Layer Required: All areas within the required fencing shall be covered completely and evenly with a minimum of three inches (3") of bark mulch prior to installation of the protective fencing. Exceptions may be approved if the mulch will adversely affect protected ground cover plants. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) g. Monitoring Required during Construction: The applicant shall retain a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect to ensure trees are protected from development activities and/or to prune branches and roots, fertilize, and water as appropriate for any trees and ground cover that are to be retained. Attachments: 1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2. Certificate of Performance 3. Significant Tree Inventory 4. Offsite Trees 5. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 10 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Attachment No. 1 - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 1) A field examination of the site was made 2/10/2017. My observations and conclusions are as of that date. 2) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/arborist can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3) Unless stated other wise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject tree may not arise in the future. 4) The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made. 5) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6) Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 7) Construction activities can impact trees in unpredictable ways. All retained trees should be inspected at the completion of construction, and regularly thereafter as part of ongoing maintenance. 8) All trees possess the risk of failure. Trees can fail at any time, with or without obvious defects, and with or without applied stress. Any treatments performed to abate current defects do not eliminate said defects, nor does it provide any guarantee against failure. Sometimes trees fail because they are trees. 9) The consultant does not assume any liability for the subject tree and does not represent the transfer of such for any risks associated with the tree from the landowner to the consultant. Risk management is solely the responsibility of the landowner. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 11 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Attachment No. 2 - Certification of Performance I, Favero Greenforest, certify that: • I have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. • I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinion, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinion, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client of any other party nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), and the ISA PNW Chapter, I am an ISA Certified Arborist (#PN- 0143A) and am Tree Risk Assessment Qualified, and am a Registered Consulting Arborist® (#379) with American Society of Consulting Arborists. I have worked as an independent consulting arborist since 1989. Signed: GREENFOREST, Inc. By Favero Greenforest, M. S. Date: March 20, 2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 12 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Attachment No. 3 – Significant Tree Inventory Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 1 14 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 1 Lot PSI 2 18 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 1 Lot Decay 3 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 3 Lean, decay Lot Decay 4 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 3 Lean, decay Lot PSI 5 6 Significant Douglas-fir 8 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 6 12 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 7 6 Significant Douglas-fir 8 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 8 8 Significant Western red-cedar 10 1 1 Lot Sensitive Area 9 8,14 Significant Bigleaf maple 14 1 3 Decay Sensitive Decay 10 16 Significant Red alder 16 2 3 Lean, decay Lot Decay 11 9 Dangerous Red alder 12 1 3 Decay Lot RETAIN 1.ii 12 21 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot Decay 13 10,10,10 Dangerous Red alder 10 1 3 Previous failure, dead trunk, tree house Lot Decay 14 13 Dangerous Red alder 8 3 3 Trunk decay, decline, branch failure Lot Sensitive Area 5104 10,12 Significant Bigleaf maple 14 1 2 Slender Sensitive Sensitive Area 5105 32 Landmark Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Sensitive Sensitive Area 5115 36 Landmark Western red-cedar 18 1 1 Sensitive Sensitive Area 5116 11 Significant Red alder 12 1 2 Slender Sensitive Sensitive Area 5122 16,18,24 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 20 1 3 Deadwood, decay Sensitive Sensitive Area 5131 24,24 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 30 3 3 Kretzschmaria fungus Sensitive DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 13 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 5284 20 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5285 16 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 2 Asymmetric Lot Unhealthy 5286 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 2 3 Suppressed, decline Lot PSI 5287 10 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 2 Slender Lot Decline 5288 14 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 3 Decline, deadwood, lean Lot PSI 5289 13 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 2 Double leader Lot PSI 5290 20 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5291 18 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 2 Double leader ROW PSI 5292 20 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 1 ROW PSI 5294 24 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 ROW PSI 5295 7 Significant Western red-cedar 10 1 1 ROW PSI 5296 10 Significant Black cottonwood 10 2 1 Dogleg ROW Failure 5297 8,12,14 Dangerous Black cottonwood 16 1 3 Previous failure, multiple leader ROW PSI 5298 10 Significant Black cottonwood 12 1 1 ROW PSI 5299 9 Significant Black cottonwood 10 1 1 ROW PSI 5300 12 Significant Douglas-fir 10 2 1 Thin canopy ROW Decline 5301 8 Dangerous Douglas-fir 12 3 3 Decline, failure Lot Unhealthy 5302 8 Dangerous Black cottonwood 10 2 3 Decline, slender, trunk wound Lot Unhealthy 5303 16 Dangerous Douglas-fir 10 3 1 Decline, trunk wound Lot Decay 5304 10 Dangerous Red alder 12 1 3 Suppressed, lean, ivy, decay Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 14 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 5305 27 Significant Douglas-fir 16 2 2 Thin canopy, asymmetric, trunk wound Lot PSI 5306 11 Significant Douglas-fir 6 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 5307 20 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5308 14 Significant Red alder 16 2 1 Deadwood Lot PSI 5309 20 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5310 24 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5330 29 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5331 8 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5332 14 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 2 Suppressed Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5333 28 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5337 32 Landmark Black cottonwood 30 1 1 Lot PSI 5341 18 Significant Western red-cedar 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5345 20 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5346 20 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5347 10 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 1 Lot PSI 5348 7 Significant Douglas-fir 6 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 5349 8 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 1 Lot PSI 5351 11 Significant Douglas-fir 10 2 2 Suppressed Lot PSI 5352 28 Significant Black cottonwood 18 1 1 Lot PSI 5353 14 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 1 Lot PSI 5354 10,25 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 2 Asymmetric, Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 15 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location deadwood PSI 5355 7 Significant Douglas-fir 4 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 5356 22 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 1 Lot PSI 5357 8 Significant Douglas-fir 12 2 1 Suppressed Lot Decay 5358 9 Dangerous Red alder 14 1 3 Trunk injury, decay Lot Failure 5359 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 2 3 Decline, trunk failure Lot Decay 5361 9 Dangerous Douglas-fir 3 3 3 Previous failure, trunk decay, nearly dead Lot PSI 5363 16 Significant Black cottonwood 14 1 2 Double leader ROW PSI 5364 10 Significant Black cottonwood 12 1 1 ROW PSI 5365 8 Significant Black cottonwood 10 1 2 Asymmetric ROW PSI 5366 14 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 1 ROW PSI 5367 10 Significant Black cottonwood 12 1 2 Asymmetric, slender Lot Decay 5368 20,28 Dangerous Western red-cedar 3 3 3 Decline, decay, nearly dead Lot Decline 5369 28 Dangerous Western red-cedar 10 3 3 Decline, nearly dead Lot PSI 5372 20 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5373 34 Landmark Black cottonwood 20 1 1 Lot PSI 5374 24,36 Landmark Black cottonwood 20 1 2 Double leader Lot PSI 5375 18 Significant Black cottonwood 10 2 1 Suppressed Lot Decay 5376 21 Dangerous Black cottonwood 16 1 3 Trunk injury, decay Lot Decay 5377 16 Dangerous Black cottonwood 14 1 3 Rootcrown injury, decay Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 16 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location Decay 5378 22 Dangerous Black cottonwood 14 1 3 Rootcrown injury, decay Lot Decay 5379 22 Dangerous Black cottonwood 14 1 3 Rootcrown injury, decay Lot PSI 5380 38 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5381 26 Significant Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Rootcrown injury Lot Failure 5382 18 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 14 1 3 Asymmetric, sweep, previous failure Lot PSI 5384 37 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Multiple leader, rootcrown injury Lot PSI 5385 40 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Multiple leader, rootcrown injury Lot Decay 5386 29 Dangerous Western red-cedar 14 1 3 Trunk injury, decay Lot Unhealthy 5387 8, 14 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 16 3 2 Double leader, suppressed Lot PSI 5388 35 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 1 Lot RETAIN 2.ii 5389 18 Significant Western red-cedar 12 1 2 Asymmetric Lot Decay 5394 12 Dangerous Douglas-fir 10 1 3 Slender, trunk decay Lot PSI 5398 9 Significant Douglas-fir 10 2 2 Suppressed, trunk decay Lot RETAIN 2.ii 5404 10 Significant Red alder 8 2 2 Decline, slender Lot PSI 5405 18 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5406 16 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 1 Lot Decline 5407 12 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 8 3 3 Decline, disease, decay Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 17 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location Decay 5411 7 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 3 3 Decline, previous failure, decay Lot Decay 5429 22 Significant Black cottonwood 13 1 3 Rootcrown injury Lot PSI 5430 20 Significant Black cottonwood 14 1 1 ROW PSI 5431 22 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 1 ROW PSI 5432 10 Significant Black cottonwood 8 1 2 Suppressed ROW Decay 5433 6 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 8 3 3 Disease, decay ROW Decay 5435 10 Dangerous Black cottonwood 12 1 3 Trunk injury ROW PSI 5436 10,14,18 Significant Black cottonwood 18 1 2 Multiple leader ROW Decay 5438 14 Dangerous Black cottonwood 12 1 3 Suppressed, trunk injury Lot PSI 5439 19 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5440 14 Significant Black cottonwood 12 1 2 Slender Lot Injured 5441 32 Dangerous Black cottonwood 18 1 3 Trunk fracture Lot PSI 5442 28 Significant Black cottonwood 20 1 1 Lot Decay 5443 12 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 3 Decline, decay Lot Unhealthy 5444 14 Dangerous Western red-cedar 10 3 2 Decline, suppressed Lot Unhealthy 5445 18 Dangerous Western red-cedar 10 3 2 Decline, suppressed Lot Unhealthy 5446 11 Dangerous Western red-cedar 10 3 2 Decline, suppressed Lot PSI 5447 14 Significant Western red-cedar 12 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5448 11 Significant Western red-cedar 6 2 2 Suppressed, girdled Lot PSI 5449 21 Significant Western red-cedar 14 1 1 Lot PSI 5450 16 Significant Western red-cedar 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 18 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 5451 6 Significant Western red-cedar 6 2 2 Suppressed, on stilts Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5453 10 Significant Red alder 14 1 2 Slender Lot Injured 5454 12 Dangerous Western red-cedar 10 2 3 Thin canopy, asymmetric, woodpecker Lot PSI 5455 16 Significant Red alder 14 1 1 Lot PSI 5456 20 Significant Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Asymmetric Lot Unhealthy 5458 11 Dangerous Western red-cedar 8 3 2 Nearly dead, sweep Lot PSI 5459 26 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 2 Self correcting lean Lot Unhealthy 5460 10 Dangerous Western red-cedar 8 2 3 Suppressed, asymmetric, woodpecker Lot Failure 5461 8 Dangerous Western red-cedar 8 1 3 Trunk failure Lot PSI 5462 14 Significant Red alder 14 1 2 Asymmetric, root lifted Lot PSI 5463 10 Significant Western red-cedar 12 2 2 Suppressed, asymmetric, woodpecker Lot PSI 5464 16 Significant Western red-cedar 12 2 1 Suppressed, growth obstruction Lot PSI 5464.5 16 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 2 Growth obstruction Lot PSI 5465 11 Significant Western red-cedar 10 1 2 Asymmetric, growth obstruction Lot PSI 5465.5 18 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Dogleg Lot PSI 5466 10 Significant Western red-cedar 6 2 1 Suppressed Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 19 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location Leaning 5467 10 Dangerous Red alder 14 1 3 Slender, lean Lot Leaning 5468 10 Dangerous Red alder 14 1 3 Slender, lean Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5469 25 Significant Western red-cedar 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5470 31 Landmark Western red-cedar 14 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5471 58 Landmark Western red-cedar 18 1 2 Double leader Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5472 19 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 2 Slender Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5473 11 Significant Western red-cedar 10 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 5475 10 Significant Western red-cedar 6 2 2 Suppressed, on stilts Lot PSI 5476 12 Significant Western red-cedar 10 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5477 7 Significant Western red-cedar 6 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5478 29 Significant Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Asymmetric, sweep Lot PSI 5479 27 Significant Western red-cedar 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5480 6 Significant Western red-cedar 8 1 2 Suppressed, sweep Lot Failure 5481 11 Dangerous Red alder 16 1 3 Asymmetric, heave Lot PSI 5482 10 Significant Western red-cedar 10 1 2 Sweep, asymmetric Lot Decay 5483 12 Dangerous Western red-cedar 10 1 3 Soil heave, previous failure Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5484 16 Significant Douglas-fir 16 2 2 Suppressed Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5485 45 Landmark Bigleaf maple 25 1 2 Double leader Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5486 45 Landmark Western red-cedar 18 1 1 Lot PSI 5487 38 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5488 38 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Asymmetric Lot Failure 5489 10 Dangerous Red alder 10 2 3 Decline, previous Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 20 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location failure Failure 5490 11 Dangerous Red alder 8 3 3 Decline, failure Lot Decay 5491 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 1 3 Previous failure Lot Decay 5492 11 Dangerous Black cottonwood 14 1 3 Slender, crack Lot PSI 5493 16 Significant Western red-cedar 8 1 2 Asymmetric, rootcrown injury Lot PSI 5494 33 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5495 40 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 1 Lot RETAIN 2.ii 5496 8 Significant Western red-cedar 10 1 1 Lot Decay 5498 20 Dangerous Douglas-fir 16 1 3 Root severed ROW Decay 5499 15 Dangerous Douglas-fir 12 1 3 Root severed ROW Decay 5500 8 Dangerous Red alder 14 1 3 Asymmetric, trunk decay, root severed ROW Decay 5501 10 Dangerous Red alder 8 1 3 Lean, slender ROW Decay 5502 18 Dangerous Western red-cedar 12 1 3 Root severed Lot Decay 5503 14, 12 Dangerous Apple 10 3 3 Disease, previous failure Lot Decay 5504 8,10 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 3 Decline, suppressed, double leader ROW PSI 5505 20 Significant Douglas-fir 16 2 1 Thin canopy ROW Decay 5506 6 Dangerous Douglas-fir 8 1 3 Suppressed, trunk decay ROW PSI 5507 21 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 1 ROW PSI 5508 14 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 ROW DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 21 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 5509 11 Significant Black cottonwood 14 1 2 Slender Lot Decay 5510 22 Dangerous Black cottonwood 16 1 3 Trunk wound Lot PSI 5511 10 Significant Red alder 14 1 2 Trunk decay Lot PSI 5512 9 Significant Douglas-fir 8 2 1 Thin canopy Lot PSI 5513 10 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5514 21 Significant Douglas-fir 14 2 1 Thin canopy Lot PSI 5516 18,20 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 2 Double leader Lot PSI 5517 10 Significant Douglas-fir 6 2 2 Suppressed, asymmetric Lot PSI 5518 27 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5519 28 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 1 Lot PSI 5521 14 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5522 9 Significant Douglas-fir 6 2 1 Suppressed Lot PSI 5523 25 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5524 10 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5525 26 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5526 11 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 2 Dogleg Lot Failure 5528 10 Dangerous Red alder 12 3 3 Decline, previous failure Lot Decay 5531 8 Dangerous Red alder 6 3 3 Decline, slender Lot PSI 5532 28,28 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 2 Double leader Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5533 9 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 2 Asymmetric, topped Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5534 9 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 2 Asymmetric, topped Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 22 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location RETAIN 1.ii 5535 6 Significant Douglas-fir 8 2 2 Suppressed, asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5536 22 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5537 16,24 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 2 Double leader Lot Unhealthy 5538 10 Dangerous Red alder 16 3 2 Decline, decay Lot PSI 5539 18 Significant Black cottonwood 20 1 1 Lot PSI 5541 27 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 1 Lot PSI 5542 14 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 1 Lot PSI 5543 9 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 2 Double leader Lot Failure 5544 8,8,10 Dangerous Red alder 12 3 3 Decline, failure Lot PSI 5545 16 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 1 Lot Failure 5546 8,8 Dangerous Apple 0 3 3 Split asunder Lot PSI 5547 11 Significant Douglas-fir 10 1 1 ROW Decay 5548 8 Dangerous Red alder 6 3 3 Decline, decay Lot PSI 5549 12 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5550 22 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5551 14 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 1 ROW PSI 5552 16,18 Significant Black cottonwood 20 1 2 Double leader ROW PSI 5553 12 Significant Bigleaf maple 14 1 1 ROW PSI 5554 14,20 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 2 Small leader is dead Lot PSI 5555 16 Significant Black cottonwood 14 1 2 Dogleg, failure Lot PSI 5556 9 Significant Black cottonwood 12 1 2 Suppressed Lot Decay 5557 10 Dangerous Black cottonwood 12 1 3 Suppressed ROW DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 23 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 5558 18 Significant Black cottonwood 16 1 2 Asymmetric ROW Decay 5559 16, 20 Dangerous Black cottonwood 25 1 3 Double leader, failure ROW PSI 5560 22,24 Significant Black cottonwood 18 1 2 Double leader Lot PSI 5561 22 Significant Black cottonwood 20 1 1 ROW Decay 5562 25 Dangerous Black cottonwood 20 1 3 Trunk decay ROW PSI 5563 12 Significant Black cottonwood 14 1 2 Asymmetric ROW PSI 5564 20, 24 Significant Black cottonwood 25 1 2 Double leader ROW PSI 5565 16,18 Significant Black cottonwood 18 1 2 Dogleg, double leader Lot PSI 5566 18 Significant Black cottonwood 18 1 1 Lot PSI 5567 22 Significant Black cottonwood 25 1 2 Previous failure, double leader ROW Decay 5568 20 Dangerous Black cottonwood 14 2 3 Decline, decay Lot Decay 5569 12 Dangerous Red alder 14 2 3 Decline, decay Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5570 8,10 Significant Bigleaf maple 14 2 1 Disease Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5571 9 Significant Red alder 12 1 2 Lean Lot Unhealthy 5572 10 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 2 Disease, lean Lot Decay 5575 12 Dangerous Red alder 10 2 3 Decline, decay Lot Decay 5576 10 Dangerous Red alder 12 2 3 Decline, decay Lot Decay 5578 10,10 Dangerous Red alder 12 3 3 Decline, decay Lot PSI 5579 22 Significant Bigleaf maple 18 1 1 Lot Decay 5580 10,10 Dangerous Red alder 14 3 3 Decline, decay Lot Decay 5600 10 Dangerous Apple 8 3 3 Decline, decay Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5601 14 Significant Bigleaf maple 16 1 1 Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 24 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location PSI 5603 11 Significant Red alder 12 1 2 Slender Lot Decay 5604 10 Dangerous Red alder 12 3 3 Decline, decay Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5605 26 Significant Bigleaf maple 20 1 2 Deadwood Lot PSI 5606 11 Significant Red alder 14 1 1 Lot PSI 5607 44 Landmark Douglas-fir 20 1 1 Lot PSI 5608 16 Significant Douglas-fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot PSI 5609 8 Significant Red alder 10 1 2 Sweep Lot Decay 5610 11 Dangerous Red alder 12 1 3 Trunk decay Lot Decay 5611 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 1 3 Failure, lean Lot PSI 5612 14 Significant Douglas-fir 12 1 2 Double leader Lot Decay 5613 10 Dangerous Red alder 12 1 3 Previous failure Lot Decay 5614 8,8,10,10 Dangerous Red alder 16 2 3 Decline, decay Lot PSI 5616 20 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot PSI 5617 9 Significant Bigleaf maple 16 1 2 Sweep Lot PSI 5621 8,10 Significant Red alder 10 1 1 Lot PSI 5622 11 Significant Red alder 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot Decay 5624 30,30,36 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 35 1 3 Decay Lot RETAIN 1.iv 5660 46 Landmark Western red-cedar 18 1 1 Lot Sensitive Area 5661 38 Landmark Western red-cedar 18 1 1 Sensitive Sensitive Area 5662 34 Landmark Western red-cedar 18 1 2 Asymmetric Sensitive Sensitive Area 5663 33 Landmark Western red-cedar 14 1 1 Sensitive PSI 5664 17 Significant Douglas-fir 16 1 1 Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 25 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location Decay 5666 10,10 Dangerous Red alder 12 2 3 Decline, decay Lot PSI 5667 12 Significant Red alder 10 2 1 Decline ROW Decay 5668 10 Dangerous Red alder 8 3 3 Decline, decay ROW Unhealthy 5669 8 Dangerous Red alder 10 3 1 Decline ROW Decay 5692 10,10,12, 12,14,14, 14 Dangerous Bigleaf maple 25 1 3 Trunk decay stumpsprout Lot PSI 5693 34 Landmark Douglas-fir 18 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5694 25 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5695 25 Significant Douglas-fir 18 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5696 32 Landmark Western red-cedar 16 1 2 Asymmetric, seam in trunk Lot Decay 5698 10,10 Dangerous Red alder 14 1 3 Double leader, lean, rootcrown decay Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5699 8 Significant Red alder 10 1 2 Slender Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5700 29 Significant Black cottonwood 18 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5701 10,10 Significant Red alder 14 1 2 Decline Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5703 10 Significant Red alder 14 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5704 9,10,11,1 2 Significant Red alder 16 1 2 Deadwood Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5705 10 Significant Red alder 12 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5706 10 Significant Red alder 14 1 1 Lot Decay 5707 10 Dangerous Red alder 12 2 3 Decline, decay Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5708 10 Significant Red alder 14 2 1 Decline Lot DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 26 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Retained Tree Retention Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Location RETAIN 1.ii 5709 8 Significant Red alder 12 1 2 Asymmetric Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5710 8 Significant Red alder 10 1 2 Slender Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5711 10 Significant Red alder 12 1 1 Lot RETAIN 1.ii 5712 24 Significant Western red-cedar 14 1 1 Lot DBH – diameter 4.5 feet from grade. Dripline – radius in feet from trunk. PSI – proposed site improvements. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 27 of 28 Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist Attachment No. 4 – Offsite Trees Tree No. Category DBH Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects 5283 Significant 28 Cottonwood 18 1 1 5293 Significant 12 Cottonwood 14 1 1 5311 Significant 22 Fir 16 1 2 Asymmetric 5312 Significant 12 Fir 6 1 2 Suppressed 5313 Significant 18 Fir 14 1 2 Asymmetric 5314 Significant 28 Fir 16 1 1 5315 Significant 22 Cedar 12 1 1 5338 Dangerous 35 Cedar 12 3 3 Decline, nearly dead 5339 Dangerous 20,35 Maple 25 2 3 Deadwood, decline, decay 5342 Significant 22,28 Cedar 16 1 2 Double leader 5390 Significant 27 Cedar 12 1 2 Multiple leader 5529 Dangerous 7 Fir 8 2 3 Suppressed, topped 5618 Dangerous 8 Alder 14 3 3 Decline, decay, lean 5619 0 3 3 Dead 5620 Significant 20 Fir 16 1 1 5623 Dangerous 58 Cedar 18 1 3 Decay, failure of attachment, large wound on trunk 5625 Significant 6 Cedar 8 1 1 5626 Landmark 33 Cedar 16 2 1 Chlorotic foliage 5627 Significant 8 Cedar 8 1 1 5628 Significant 11 Cedar 10 1 1 5629 Significant 12 Cedar 14 1 2 Asymmetric, double leader 5630 Landmark 32 Cedar 16 2 1 Thin foliage, chlorosis 5631 Significant 11 Cedar 12 1 2 Asymmetric, sweep 5697 Landmark 36 Cedar 18 1 2 Asymmetric DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVENUE SERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS AAANNNNNNN LUA:U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041A-NNNNNNNNS ERISSEFORPINGOERDETSREENG I NELA53232 OI ET A T H SOY SFOTGNIHASWIDEIPL.OCILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT0GRAPHIC SCALE15'30'60'1 INCH = 30 FT.Chris Burrus, Harbour Homes, LLC RE: Arborist Report, Cedars at the Highlands, 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 March 20, 2017 Page 28 of 28 Attachment No. 5 – Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 | www.rentonwa.gov 1.Total number of trees over 6” diameter 1, or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8” in diameter on project site trees 2.Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dangerous 2 trees Trees in proposed public streets trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: trees 3.Subtract line 2 from line 1:trees 4.Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones trees 5.List the number of 6” in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8” in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain4:trees 6.Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) trees 7.Multiply line 6 by 12” for number of required replacement inches:inches 8.Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2” caliper trees required for replacement, otherwise enter 0)inches per tree 9.Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6: (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) trees 1 Measured at 4.5’ above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. 1 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Tree Retention Worksheet.docx 08/2015 Exhibit 13 284 67 41 0 20 128 156 47 35 12 144 3 48 Print Form Reset Form Save FormDocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Minimum Tree Density A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family dwellings in R-10 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination. Detached single-family development 7: Two (2) significant trees 8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. For example, a lot with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required to have four (4) significant trees or their equivalent in caliper inches (one or more trees with a combined diameter of 24”). This is determined with the following formula: Multi-family development (attached dwellings): Four (4) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. Example Tree Density Table: Lot Lot size Min significant trees required New Trees Retained Trees Compliant 1 5,000 2 2 @ 2” caliper 0 Yes 2 10,000 4 0 1 tree (24 caliper inches) Yes 3 15,000 6 2 @ 2” caliper 1 Maple – 15 caliper inches 1 Fir – 9 caliper inches. Yes 7 Lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-10 and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite, however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits. 8 Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees. 2 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Tree Retention Worksheet.docx 08/2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC March 28, 2017 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes 400 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 RE: Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands” Parcel #45750- 0106 City of Renton, Washington SWC Job#16-152 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations jurisdictional wetlands on or within 100’ of the 4.50 acre property known as “Cedars at the Highlands” (Parcel #145750-0110), located off 160th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the “site”). Above: Vicinity Map Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. PO Box 880 Phone: 253-859-0515 Fall City, WA 98024 RECEIVED 04/07/2017 cclose PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 28, 2017 Page 2 The site, located in the SE quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the W.M., includes a forested area disturbed by past use as a dirt bike track and storage area under the tree canopy, as well as a large shop building with associated gravel driveway and parking areas. The area is abutted by single family parcels to the north and south, and a new road being constructed along the east. The west side of the site abuts 160th Avenue SE. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site in March of 2016. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also reviewed using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0 ) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were ident ified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990). The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual both requires the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 28, 2017 Page 3 the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%- 12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Existing Site Documentation Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resourc e inventory maps was conducted. Resources reviewed included the NRCS Soils Survey, the National Wetlands Inventory, and the WDNR Fpars Water Typing Maps. 3.1.1 NRCS Online Soil Mapper Soil Survey The site is mapped as containing Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Map unit AgC). Alderwood soils are not considered "hydric" or wetland soils according to the publication Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA NTCHS Pub No.1491, 1991). Above: NRCS Soil map of the site. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 28, 2017 Page 4 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory According to the National Wetlands Inventory for the site, there are no wetlands on or near the site. National Wetlands Inventory map 3.1.3 WDFW Priority Habitats A review of the WDFW Priority Habitat map covering the site revealed no priority habitats or species within 1,000’ of the site. Above: WDFW Priority Habitat Map of the site. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 28, 2017 Page 5 3.1.4 WDNR Fpars Water Type Mapping According to the WDNR Water Type Map for the site, there are no mapped streams or waters on the site. Above: WDNR Fpars Water Type Map 3.1.5 City of Renton Stream Map The City of Renton Stream map has no streams mapped on or near the site. The closest streams are several Class 4 streams mapped approximately 4,000’ east of the site. Above: City of Renton Stream Map DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 28, 2017 Page 6 3.1.6 Mindys Place Wetland Study Sewall wetland Consulting conducted a study of the parcel immediately to the north of the site referred to as Mindy’s Place. This site was found to what at the time under old Code was classified as a Class 4 water with an associated 35’ buffer. This stream exited the Mindy’s Place site at its southeast corner and continued onto the site. 3.2 Field Observations 3.2.1 Uplands As previously described, the site contains a gravel driveway accessing a large shop building on the site. There is also a small outbuilding east of the site, as well as large gravel parking areas, as well as scattered vehicles. The western portion of the site contains an open canopy forested area with 20-30 year old cottonwood trees with a sparse to bare understory. Scattered patches of Himalayan blackberry, indian plum, hazelnut, vine maple and stinging nettle are also present throughout the site. This area has been significantly disturbed in the past and most soil pits excavated within this area revealed a mix of fill and natural soils mixed. The drainage ditch along the east side of 160th drains through a culvert passing through the site to the east. Soil pits excavated in the upland areas revealed disturbed gravelly loam as well as a high chroma, dry gravelly loam soil. 3.2.2 Wetlands No areas meeting wetland criteria were found on the site. 3.2.3 Waters As previously stated, a small ephemeral stream channel passes through the northeast corner of the site. The ordinary high water mark of this stream was flagged with white and blue flagging labeled OHWMW1-W6. As defined in RMC 4.50.G7.a, this stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns water due to its intermittent flow and lack of fish use. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 28, 2017 Page 7 Per Renton Code section 4.50.G.2, Type Ns streams have a 50’ buffer measured from the OHWM as well as a 15’ BSBL measured from the edge of the buffer to any structure. 4.0 Proposed Project The proposed project is the construction of a 14 lot plat with associated infrastructure. No impacts to the Type Ns stream or its buffer are proposed. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC REFERENCES Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79-31, Washington, D. C. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64. Diers, R. and J.L. Anderson. 1984. Development of Soil Mottling. Soil Survey Horizons, Winter 1984, pg 9-15. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. No. 1491. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVENUE SERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS AAANNNNNNN LUA:U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041A-NNNNNNNNS ERISSEFORPINGOERDETSREENG I NELA53232 OI ET A T H SOY SFOTGNIHASWIDEIPL.OCILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT0GRAPHIC SCALE20'40'80'1 INCH = 40 FT.DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC PfojectfStte: Applicant/Owner: Investigators): WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region fNA«J.)'s<^- 75^SM.i/< City/County: ~F-UJ'h>-J Sampling Date: *3—^ State; U/A Sampling Point: «P P Landform (hilfslope, terrace, etc.):. Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:. Section, Township, Range; , Local relief (concave, convex, none);. . Long: NWI classificatipn: . _ Slope (%):. Datum: No (If no, explain in Remarks.) No Are climatic / bydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology. , significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes. _ 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. HvdrophyircVegefatteh Present? Yes. No / HvdrieSoil Presents Yes:. No . '.A Is the Sampled Area / within aWetJand? Yes No .'\i\fetoH-M^at69V;)^es^rSr?' Yes No P.emarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants, Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species / That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: ' (A) Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species / That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: ' (A) 2, Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: ~-) (B) 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: ~-) (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species -s, That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: •> 5 fA/B) - Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species -s, That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: •> 5 fA/B) Saplirw/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. OBL. species X i^ 4. FACW species X2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = =Total Cover FACU species. x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 UPLsoedes x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence index = B/A = 3. Prevalence index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 8. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 9. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators; , ; Dominance Test is >50% , Prevalence Index ts =S3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ^Indicators of hydric soil and v/etland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. — Total Cover Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation 1. .... Hydrophytic Vegetation 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation •= Totai Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes No Remarks: " fa ^ fc^c^ej ^^el^sA^ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC SOIL Sampling Point, Profile Description: (Describe to trie depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth . Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (moist) Color (rooisfl Type1 to? . Texture Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depietion, RW-Reduced Matrix. CS=Covefed or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable t&ali LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histcsol(A1) . Histlc Epipedon (A2) Black Hisfic (A3) Hydiogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) , Thick Dark Surface (A12). , Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ , Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 2cmMuok(A10) , Red Parent Materia} (TF2) Other (Expiate in Remarks) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation arid wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: , Depth (inches):. Hydric Soil Present? Yes. Ho Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply),. Surface Water (Ai) , High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) : Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) , Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) , Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhtzospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) . Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) . Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery. (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) __ Shallow Aquiiard (D3) FAC-NeutraITest(05) , Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) , Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes L Water Table Present? Yes. Saturation Present? Yes _ (includes capillary fringe) /bvo% (inches): No, No ' ydeptli (inches):. No A Depth (inches):. 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 — Interim Version DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC WETtAMO DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains* Valleys, and Coast Region Protect/Site: /M-^l'S«~ lZc%tAiS{ City/County: "Rw"f&~> Sampttno Date: "8^^"^^ _____ State: U'A Sampling Point: j> P^L- Ax AppBcani/Owner:„ investigators}: __ Lancfform (hSslope, terrace, etP.);. Subreotortfj-RR}:. tat: Section, Township, Range: , Local refef (concave, convex, none): Long:_ _ Siope (%}:. Datum; Soft Map Unit Name: NWl classification: Are ctimafJc / hydrotogie conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Soil, _ or Hydrology. signiftcanfly disturbed? Are Vegetation _____ Soil , or Hydrology naturaily problematic? No (if no. explain in Remarks.) Are'NormalCircumstances*present? Yes. (if needed, expiate any answers in Remarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map^showing sampling point locations, transects, important features^ etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soif Present? Yes. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes. No. No is the Sarapfed Area within a Wetland? Yes No. Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? State Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species , That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: 1 (A) Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species , That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Totai Number of Dominant / Species Across AH Strata: ' (B) 3. Totai Number of Dominant / Species Across AH Strata: ' (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Specfes That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: / o L> (Am ~ Total Cover Percent of Dominant Specfes That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: / o L> (Am SaDimo/Shrub Stratum {Plotsfee: ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: Totat % Cover of: MuMpfybv: 2. ... Prevalence Index worksheet: Totat % Cover of: MuMpfybv: 3. OBL soecies x 1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC soecies X 3 =• = Total Cover FACU soecies x4 = Herb Stratum (Piotsize: "> UPL soectes x 5 a 1. Column Totals: (AV (B) 2. Prevalence index = B/A = 3. . Prevalence index = B/A = 4. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 5. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 6. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 7. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 8. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 9. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 10. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. 11. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. HydropHytte vegetation Indicators: c,eorrtinartceTest is>S0% Prevalence Index is sS.O* Mwpftoiogtcal Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' Probiemalic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ''indicators of hydric soH and wetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probleraaie. = Totat Cover Woodv Vine Stratum (Piotsize: \ Hydrophytic / Vegetation 1. Hydrophytic / Vegetation 2. Hydrophytic / Vegetation -TotafCover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes _ No Remarks* US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Vatteys, and Coast - interim Versfoh DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC SOIL Sampling Point. 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 toca \ Texture Remarks Mc 3 fa ^Type: OConcerttration. 0=Oeptetipn. RM^Rediiced Matrix, (^-Covered or Coated Sand Grains, ^Location: PL=Pore Lining, ^gMatrix. Indicators for Problematic HydWe Soils'; 2cmMuck(AtO) Red Parent Materia! (TF2) , Other (Explain in Remarks) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric SoH Indicators: (Applicable to at! LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histoso!(A1) . Histte Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) . Hydrogen Suffide (A4) Oepteted Bejow Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (At 2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix {56) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA t) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix <F3) .. Redox Dark Surface (F6) , Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (If presstti): Type:, , Oeoth finches); Hydrie Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland HydroJooy Indicators: Primary lndicatctfs,(rntnirnum of one required: check all fflat apply), Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wafer Marks {S1) . Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Oeposits (B3) „ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) iron Deposits (85) Surface Soft Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA -f,2,4A,and4B) Saft Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates {B13) Hydrogen Suide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rnlzospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (€6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) J- Secondary indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves <B9) (MLRA 1, % 4A,and4B) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) . Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS) Geomofphic Position(D2) __ Shallow Aq«itard(D3) _ FAC-NeutralTest(D5} Raised Ant Mounds (OS) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: t/j Surface Water Present? Yes No /Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No /•Depth finches'): Saturafion Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wettand Hydroloav Present? Yes Mo (includes caplary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC October 3, 2017 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes 400 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 RE: Revised Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands” Parcel #45750-0106 City of Renton, Washington SWC Job#16-152 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations jurisdictional wetlands on or within 100’ of the 4.50 acre property known as “Cedars at the Highlands” (Parcel #145750-0110), located off 160th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the “site”). Above: Vicinity Map Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. PO Box 880 Phone: 253-859-0515 Fall City, WA 98024 RECEIVED 10/17/2017 amorganroth PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 2 The site, located in the SE quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the W.M., includes a forested area disturbed by past use as a dirt bike track and storage area under the tree canopy, as well as a large shop building with associated gravel driveway and parking areas. The area is abutted by single family parcels to the no rth and south, and a new road being constructed along the east. The west side of the site abuts 160th Avenue SE. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site in March of 2016. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also reviewed using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0 ) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990). The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual both requires the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 3 the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%- 12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Existing Site Documentation Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resource inventory maps was conducted. Resources reviewed included the NRCS Soils Survey, the National Wetlands Inventory, and the WDNR Fpars Water Typing Maps. 3.1.1 NRCS Online Soil Mapper Soil Survey The site is mapped as containing Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Map unit AgC). Alderwood soils are not considered "hydric" or wetland soils according to the publication Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA NTCHS Pub No.1491, 1991). Above: NRCS Soil map of the site. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 4 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory According to the National Wetlands Inventory for the site, there are no wetlands on or near the site. National Wetlands Inventory map 3.1.3 WDFW Priority Habitats A review of the WDFW Priority Habitat map covering the site revealed no priority habitats or species within 1,000’ of the site. Above: WDFW Priority Habitat Map of the site. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 5 3.1.4 WDNR Fpars Water Type Mapping According to the WDNR Water Type Map for the site, there are no mapped streams or waters on the site. Above: WDNR Fpars Water Type Map 3.1.5 City of Renton Stream Map The City of Renton Stream map has no streams mapped on or near the site. The closest streams are several Class 4 streams mapped approximately 4,000’ east of the site. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 6 Above: City of Renton Stream Map 3.1.6 Mindys Place Wetland Study Sewall wetland Consulting conducted a study of the parcel immediately to the north of the site referred to as Mindy’s Place. This site was found to what at the time under old Code was classified as a Class 4 water with an associated 35’ buffer. This stream exited the Mindy’s Place site at its southeast corner and continued onto the site. The Mindy’s Place site also included a disturbed forested wetland that was classified as a Class 2 wetland with an associated 50’ buffer. 3.2 Field Observations 3.2.1 Uplands As previously described, the site contains a gravel driveway accessing a large shop building on the site. There is also a small outbuilding east of the site, as well as large gravel parking areas, as w ell as scattered vehicles. The western portion of the site contains an open canopy forested area with 20-30 year old cottonwood trees with a sparse to bare understory. Scattered patches of Himalayan blackberry, indian plum, hazelnut, vine maple and stinging nettle are also present throughout the site. This area has been significantly disturbed in the past and most soil pits excavated within this area revealed a mix of fill and natural soils mixed. The drainage ditch along the east side of 160th drains through a culvert passing through the site to the east. Soil pits excavated in the upland areas revealed disturbed gravelly loam as well as a high chroma, dry gravelly loam soil. 3.2.2 Wetlands No areas meeting wetland criteria were found on the site. Off-site Wetlands The Mindy’s Place site to the north contains a disturbed forested wetland that was classified as a Class 2 wetland using the old wetland rating system which was based primarily on the fact the wetland was located near the headwater of a drainage and had minimal disturbance. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 7 The definition of a Class 2 wetland under the old Code was based mostly on landscape location and general Character. The definition was as follows; ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Prior to the platting process, the wetland edge was delineated on this site initially to determine the edge of a clearing violation that occurred on the west side of the wetland that occurred prior to 2012. The west side of the wetland had been cleared and graded and the intermittent stream was piped through the site. The restoration included removing the small pipe and regrading of a channel which connects to the channel on the Cedars property. Since no work was to be done or proposed easterly of the wetland and stream edge, the eastern edge of the wetland was only approximated. As part of our review we have refined and depicted accurately where this wetland edge is along the north edge of the Cedars site. We have also re- rated the wetland using the 2014 WADOE Wetland Rating System. Using the function based 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, and rating the wetland as a depressional wetland, the wetland received a total score of 14 points with 4 points for habitat (see attached rating form). This indicates a Category IV wetland. Based upon the table in RMC 4-3-050 (see page 8), Category IV wetlands have a 50’ buffer as well as a 15’ BSBL for structures. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 8 3.2.3 Waters As previously stated, a small ephemeral stream channel passes through the northeast corner of the site. The ordinary high water mark of this stream was flagged with white and blue flagging labeled OHWMW1-W6. As defined in RMC 4.50.G7.a, this stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns water due to its intermittent flow and lack of fish use. Per Renton Code section 4.50.G.2, Type Ns streams have a 50’ buffer measured from the OHWM as well as a 15’ BSBL measured from the edge of the buffer to any structure. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Harbour – Madison/#16-152 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 3, 2017 Page 9 4.0 Proposed Project The proposed project is the construction of a 14 lot plat with associated infrastructure. No impacts to the Type Ns stream or its buffer are proposed. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC REFERENCES Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79-31, Washington, D. C. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64. Diers, R. and J.L. Anderson. 1984. Development of Soil Mottling. Soil Survey Horizons, Winter 1984, pg 9-15. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. No. 1491. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVENUE SERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS AAANNNNNNN LUA17-000189 U:DRS PROJECT NO. 16041A-NNNNNNNNS ERISSEFORPINGOERDETSREENG I NELA53232 OI ET A T H SOY SFOTGNIHASWIDEIPL.OCILAZPRELIMINARY PLAT0GRAPHIC SCALE20'40'80'1 INCH = 40 FT.DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID It): UJttf~i) A" Date of site visit: C?-/^( 7 Rated by <=^(. ^c*t~»-ti Trained by Ecology? "''Yes No Date of training HGM Class used for rating ^><"j>r*+i 1 Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base anrial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY 4^f(based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I -Total score = 23-27 _Category II - Total score =20-22 Category III - Total score =16-19 _Category IV - Total score = 9-15 \S Ca FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologk Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M (£> H M 0> H M Q Landscape Potential H <&> L fry L H M TP Value H M iy H L H ^) L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings H 6 i 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M H,H,L H,M,M H,M,L M,M,M H,L,L M,M,L M,L,L L,L,L CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarlne 1 II Wetland of High Conservation Value 1 Bog 1 Mature Forest 1 Old Growth Forest 1 Coastal Lagoon 1 II Interdunal 1 II III/Kf None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 1 Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressions! Wetlands Map of: • To answer questions: Figure* • Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet [can be added to map of hydroperiods} D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1. H 2.2. H 2.3 polygons tor accessible naDitat ana undisturbed nabitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D3.3 Riverine Wetlands ManoT: To answer questions: figure* Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H1.2 Ponded depressions Rl.l Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands meek -.. To answer questions: Figure* Cowardin plant classes Ll.l, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (con be added to another figure) L2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L3.3 Slooe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure* Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants icon be added to figure above) S4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S3.3 Wedand Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? (^N0^jotc£2 ' YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. YES - The wetland class is Flats \fyourwetland can be classified as a Fiats wetland, use the form for Depressionalwetlands. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _i/j3»e wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), J_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, gter leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go toy YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 3 Wetland name or number NQ^gate^ YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater In the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural-outlet. NO-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FIATS WETLANDS 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? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpojsfcj^i ' Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points - 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wqt 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. Mirk* of ponding are 3 ft or mora «bow tho aurfaoa or bottom of outlet points - 7 = Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet The wetland is a "headwater" wetland Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 5 points = 3 points = 3 pointsj=_l^ o 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. 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 oc[nts^fE--2 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 ^ Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M a L Add the points in the boxes above Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? ^Yes^l^JJo = 0 i D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? CYes =1^6 ~ 0 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.)? C"Ves^£ No = 0 l Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? 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. 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. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. petrKS = The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions thaTthe water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood controljilan? Yes=2 hfoVqV Total for D 6 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H Add the points in the boxes above i Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND PUTS WETLANDS 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? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 n1 7 yhf top j« *^tom i-he surface for duff laver) is true day or true organic (uit NRCSdifinitianihYei^ 4 Mo==£= D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution pf persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area npintx Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area (points =Jj) Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > Vio of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <Vio 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 > H total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is > K total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 4 points = 2 Cpoints==j^3 Total for D1 ^ Add the points in the boxes above ^0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? f^Ves = l^Jo = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? (Yes =T^No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes=l No = 0 0 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes - 1 (io = 0^2 €> Total for 0 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2-Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 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? Yes=l foc^O^ © D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 (TJo = oj? o D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (ansperYES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 Ng^jp^ Total for D 3 y Add the points in the boxes above o Rating of Value Ifscoreis: 2-4 = H 1 = M '0 = 1 Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number _ Wetland name or number _ HABITAT FUNCTIONS These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each doss to meet the threshold of% oc or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 __ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 .Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: point{^£) Crested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 —^yfaf u ftii I mi w fWfriw/ dm< Umh if: = _The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count [see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). , Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 [^Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points * 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland <S 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 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2_ 5 -19 species (^nts^p < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plan t classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. Low ~ 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH ~ 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check^he habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ^Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). •"Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least % ac of ttiin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M ^0-6 = 1 Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit}. ^ Calculate: %T % undisturbed habitat? « + f{% moderate and low intensitv land uses)/2v'i>= % If total accessible habitat is: >'/, (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon dSiffls=i^-< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: /> % undisturbed habitat^* + f(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/21/^ = Z-" % 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 r~ points -|-2^> S 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity poffifs^O -z_ Total for H 2 _ Add the points in the boxes above o Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 a H 1-3 = M Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page Site does not meet any of the criteriajrfiove Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H eriajrfiov points = 0 Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met 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 toSCl.l I SC 1.1. is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Category SC 1.2. is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed orun-mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2,3 SC 2.2. is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? h.ttp.;//yywwXdnr.wa.go^ Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes a Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 iruor more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 Nfti-Gq foSCA-r SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 (^flo^lsnot a b( SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, Al cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engetmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes - Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed hv WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, In: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publicatlons/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdrw.wa.gov/conservatlnn/phs/llst/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than lac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively Important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHSreport). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multl-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha }> 32 In [81 cm) dtah or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 In (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material Is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is Important [full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 1SB - see web link above). <r — 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). y — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. [full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report -see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andeslte, and/or sedimentary rock, Including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 In (51 cm) In western Washington and are > 65 ft (2 m) In height Priority logs are > 12 In (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included In this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 15 Wetland Rating System for Western WA; 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number. SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least % contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its functions. — Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category) No 'orested wetland for this SfalecHir?--^ Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be rrteasured near the boWmtf—^^ Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No^Not a wetland fn a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? Vv — 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 % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than Vio ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? // you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on fts habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes-Go to SC 6.1 No .notan Interdunal wetlandfo^iatfng SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. ts the unit between 0.1 and lac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1,201S 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Technical Memorandum 11241Willows Road NE Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 At the request of the City of Renton (City), Otak, Inc. (Otak) conducted a review of the Revised Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands”, dated October 3, 2017, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., for the proposed 14-lot preliminary plat on parcel #1457500110. The project site is located east of 160th Avenue SE in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. The City requested that Otak review the delineation and classification of wetlands, streams, and buffers as described in the report to evaluate compliance with the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). Otak completed a site visit and critical areas review of the property on November 20, 2017. Weather was overcast and raining, and the stream delineated in the northeast corner of the property was flowing. Large areas of standing water were observed in the northwest corner of the property, and water from a roadside ditch on the east side of 160th Avenue SE was observed flowing into an underground pipe system that is aligned through the center of the property and discharges in the southeast corner of the property. Documents Reviewed The following materials were submitted by the project proponent and reviewed by Otak:  Revised Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands” Parcel #45750-0106, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Dated October 3, 2017).  Tentative Short Plat of Mindy’s Place, Conceptual Site Plan, by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. (DMP, Inc.) (dated November 8, 2012).  Cedars at the Highlands Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat Plan 14120 160th Avenue SE, Renton, Washington 98059, prepared by D.R. Strong (DRS) Consulting Engineers (dated March 17, 2017). To: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner City of Renton From: Jeff Gray, MS, PWS Stephanie Modjeski, Wetland Biologist Copies: Date: December 6, 2017 Subject: Cedars at the Highlands Critical Areas Review Project No.: 32847.B DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 2 December 6, 2017 2 The following resources were also reviewed on November 16, 2017 as part of the background research on the property prior to the site investigation:  City of Renton (COR) Maps (http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps)  Google Earth Pro  King County iMap (http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/)  United States Department of Agriculture-National Resource Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS) Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife –National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML)  Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)- Washington LIDAR Portal (http://lidarportal.dnr.wa.gov/#47.45403:-122.21724:17)  DNR – Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/default.aspx)  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) – SalmonScape (http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html)  WDFW – Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web (http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/) Findings The critical areas report from Sewall describes one wetland that was delineated off-site, identified in the report as Wetland A. Wetland A was classified as depressional, rated as a Category IV using the 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, and determined to have a 50-foot buffer width with a 15-foot structure setback based on habitat score and land use intensity (RMC 4-3-50(G)2). The critical areas report found no wetlands on the subject property. The report describes one intermittent stream in the north east corner of the subject property that emanates from the Mindy’s Place property to the north. The report classifies the stream as a type Ns per RMC 4-3-50(G)7 and was determined to have a 50 foot buffer with a 15 foot structure setback (RMC 4-3-50(G)2). A drainage ditch was identified on the central west portion of the subject property. The critical areas report found no other streams on the subject property. The findings of our report review and site investigation are as follows: 1. Wetland A was found to be a contiguous wetland from the Mindy’s Place property into the north east corner of parcel #1457500110. Flags S5 to S8 shown on the Preliminary Plant Plan dated March 17, 2017 accurately depict the western boundary of Wetland A on the property. Wetland A is in a linear depression that slopes southeast. The non-fish seasonal stream (Type Ns) flows DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 3 December 6, 2017 3 within the boundary of Wetland A as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan for Mandy’s Place dated November 8, 2012. We concur with the Type Ns classification of the stream and 50-foot buffer width as the stream eventually flows into a piped system under SE 144th St. south of the project site. However, the S5 to S8 flags should be revised to depict a wetland boundary rather than a stream boundary. A wetland determination data sheet (#1) is included with this memo that documents the wetland fringe along the seasonal flow path. In addition, flags S1 to S5 that are offsite should be shown to document wetlands within 200 feet of the property boundary and identify buffers on site from the offsite wetland area per RMC 4-30-050(F)2e. Photo 1. View of Wetland A near the eastern property boundary. The blue flag delineates a stream boundary per the report and site plan, but this area should be revised to wetland habitat with the Type Ns flowing within the wetland boundary. Wetland habitat is shown to the right of the blue flag in the photograph. Action by applicant: Wetland A should be shown on the site plan. The Type Ns stream should be shown within the boundary of Wetland A and characterized in the report. 2. Wetland A was rated as Category IV and a habitat score of 4. We concur with the depressional classification of the rating due to the presence of both depressional and riverine hydrogeomorphic classes present in the wetland unit, with the depressional classified areas occupying more than 10% of the wetland rating unit. However, the wetland should be rated as Category III based on wetland rating points. Question D2.4 should be revised to 1 point due to the presence of abandoned cars, trucks, and construction vehicles parked at the top of slope immediately adjacent to the wetland unit on the DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 4 December 6, 2017 4 property. Abandoned vehicles are common sources of pollutants. Section D2 should be revised to a high rating. Question D3.2 should be revised to 1 point because the site is located within the 12th digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 171100120107 (Madsen Creek-Cedar River) sub-basin of Cedar River, which is listed as a 303(d) waterbody. Per the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the 12th digit HUC is the basin boundary for determining if the wetland is in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue. The overall score for water quality functions should be revised to 6. Question H3.0 should be revised to 2 points due to the presence of priority logs within 100 meters of the wetland boundary that have sufficient decay characteristics to enable use by wildlife. The overall habitat score should be revised to 5. Action by the applicant: The wetland rating form and wetland category should be revised accordingly. Revise the scores for Question D2.4 from 0 to 1, Question D3.2 from 0 to 1, and the score for H3.0 from 1 to 2 points. The score for overall habitat functions should be revised from 4 to 5 points. 3. Because Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 5, the wetland buffer width should be revised to 100 feet for any land use other than low impact in accordance with RMC Chapter 4-3-050(G)2 (Critical Area Buffers and Structure Setbacks from Buffers). Action by the applicant: Revise the Wetland A buffer width to 100 feet in the report and on the site plan, including any buffers that extend on site from the portion of Wetland A that is off site 4. Large areas of ponded water, approximately 6 inches deep, were observed on the northwestern portion of the site (Photo 2). Indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology were observed. Vegetation in ponded and saturated areas included black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) trees, and abundant black cottonwood saplings approximately 6-12 inches tall. Herbaceous species included bluegrass (Poa sp.), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), soft rush (Juncus effusus), slender rush (Juncus tenuis), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). A depleted soil matrix was observed. A wetland determination data sheet (#2) is provided with this memo. These ponded areas were observed flowing into a culvert inlet situated within the center of the property (see comment #5 and Photo 4). The source of water appeared to be precipitation and runoff from adjacent uplands, and independent of the roadside drainage described in comment #5 below. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 5 December 6, 2017 5 Photo 2. Significant ponding was observed in the northwest portion of the property with depths greater 6 inche s. A sample plot in the ponded areas met all three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation) to meet the definition of a wetland per the federal wetland delineation manual and regional supplement. The photo was taken near the west side of the shop looking west towards 160th Avenue SE. Action by the applicant: The northwest portion of the project area should be re-evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the Corps delineation methodology. Additional sampling should be completed with corresponding wetland determination data sheets to document the findings and characterization of this area. 5. Surface water in the drainage ditch along the east side of 160th Avenue SE was observed discharging onto the west side of the property. A significant amount of water was observed in this drainage during the site visit. Surface water flows into a PVC pipe (Photo 3) and daylights for ten linear feet near a clump of trees at the southwest corner of the shop (Photo 4) before flowing underground again into a concrete culvert that parallels the south side of the shop. The drainage daylights again at the southeast corner of the shop before flowing into a second concrete culvert underneath the gravel driveway, and discharges on the south side of the driveway into a surface flow path (Photo 5) through a black cottonwood dominated forest with a dense Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) understory. The drainage flows south and then runs along the southern property line before flowing into a plastic pipe that discharges to a ditch within the right of way that borders the east side of the project property. The ditch confluences with the Type Ns watercourse that flows through the northeast corner of the property, and the combined flows discharge into a constructed stormwater pond adjacent to the north side of SE 144th Street. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 6 December 6, 2017 6 Photo 3. View east from 160th Avenue SE of the drainage ditch that discharges on the property and flows into a pipe. Photo 4. View of the drainage from Photo 3 that daylights near the SW corner of the shop, and collects surface water from the ponded areas shown in Photo 2 before flowing into a concrete culvert. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 7 December 6, 2017 7 Photo 5. View of the drainage at the outlet of the concrete culvert downstream of the gravel driveway that flows through a forest setting before flowing into another pipe situated along the southern property boundary. The watercourse that flows through the center of the property from 160th Avenue SE is identified at as a stormwater ditch (Facility ID #450594) per the City of Renton COR Maps. This watercourse is not mapped by WDNR’s Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool, WDFW’s PHS On the Web Maps or SalmonScape, King County iMap, or the NWI map. The majority of the surface water appears to emanate from stormwater facilities north along 160th Avenue SE that collect water from the East Renton Highlands area as observed in the field and shown on the drainage systems on the City of Renton’s COR Maps. This feature is identified in the critical areas report as an unregulated drainage ditch. Per RMC Chapter 4-3-050(G)7.b, waters that are considered “intentionally created” not regulated under this section include irrigation ditches, grass-line swales, and canals that do not meet the criteria for Type S, F, Np, or Ns. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements, or other persuasive evidence. No description or documentation regarding the purposeful creation of this watercourse was provided in the report. However, we concur that this watercourse should not be regulated per RMC 4-3-050 as the regional drainage system appears to have been designed to discharge on to parcel #1457500110 on purpose as evidenced by recent street and residential developments that have maintained this artificial drainage system and pathway through the property over time. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 8 December 6, 2017 8 Action by the applicant: Provide a watercourse characterization and/ or documentation regarding the purposeful creation of this watercourse to substantiate claims that it is unregulated per RMC Chapter 4-3-050. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15' belt) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. - Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' belt) 1. Rubus spectabilis 80 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus 10 no FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 45, 20% = 18 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' diam) UPL species x5 = 1. Athyrium felix-femina 10 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tiarella cordifolia 5 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 7.5, 20% = 3 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: --) 1. - Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present; passes Dominance Test. Bare ground covered in leaf fall. Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands City/County: Renton/King County Sampling Date: 11/20/2017 Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray, Stephanie Modjeski Section, Township, Range: S14, T23N, R05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.476428 Long: -122.1264661 Datum: -- Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland indicators present. Data point located in wetland fringe adjacent to seasonal stream flowpath. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 0-14 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam Redox starting at 8" 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: -- Depth (inches): -- Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F6 present. Soils turned to muck at 10". 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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 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 Stresses 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4" Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0" Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology present; soils saturated to surface; high water table at 4". Seasonal stream flowing adajcent to data point location. Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa 35 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. 50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' diam.) 1. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' diam) UPL species x5 = 1. Poa sp. 25 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Phalaris arundinacea 5 no FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Ranunculus repens 15 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Juncus effusus 5 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 25, 20% = 10 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: --) 1. - Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present; passes Dominance Test. Bare ground result of leaf fall and ponded water. Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands City/County: Renton/King County Sampling Date: 11/20/2017 Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray, Stephanie Modjeski Section, Township, Range: S14, T23N, R05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.476229 Long: -122.1264357 Datum: -- Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland indicators present. Data point located in ponded depressional areas west of shop. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 0-10 10YR 4/2 89 10YR 4/1 5 D M loam saturated 10YR 4/6 3 C M 10YR 3/3 3 10-16 10YR 2/1 100 loam dry 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: -- Depth (inches): -- Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. Soils saturated above 10 inches depth. 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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 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 Stresses 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4" Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0" Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators present. Area had ponded water during the site investigation. Soils were dry at 10" depth, which indicates a compacted subsurface that is causing water to pond long enough to cause hydric soil indicators to develop. Ponded water was greater than 6 depth in places and was flowing into a seasonal draiage that runs throigh the center of the property. Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 1 2907 Harborview Drive, Suite D Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Technical Memorandum To: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner From: Don Babineau, Environmental Planner, Soundview Consultants LLC File Number: 1155.0024 Date: January 31, 2018 Re: 14120 160th Ave. SE- Technical Memorandum - Ref. No.: 32847.B Dear Alex Morganroth, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Harbour Homes LLC with a response to the third-party review conducted by OTAK, Inc. (OTAK) of the Revised Critical Areas Report written and submitted to the City of Renton by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Sewall) regarding the proposed Cedars at the Highlands preliminary plat located at 14120 160th Avenue Southeast in Renton, Washington, 98059 (King County Parcel number 145750-0110). SVC reviewed the Sewall and the OTAK documents and made a brief site visit on December 15, 2017 to preliminarily assess the situation. Upon the initial site visit, SVC shared OTAK’s concerns regarding the area of ponded water in the northwest portion of the site and the additional wetland areas extending from the property to the north onto the site in its northeast corner. Following the initial site visit, SVC conducted a formal wetland and fish and wildlife assessment in early January 2018 and upon encountering signs of fill activity enlisted the use of an excavator to expand the depth of investigation. SVC concurs with OTAK’s general observation of wetland presence in the northwest corner of the subject property but found no type Ns stream on the subject property or on the property to the north. Wetland A is classified as a Palustrine Forested/Shrub Scrub Seasonally Saturated, slope wetland. Using the correct slope hydrogeomorphic class, Wetland A is a Category IV slope wetland. The drainage observed on the property north of the subject property discharging to Wetland A is an excavated ditch. This ditch conveys water from a pipe installed to drain a wetland on the adjacent property north of the Mindy’s Place plat. In addition, this ditch receives water from the Mindy’s Place detention pond outfall prior to draining into Wetland A. A separate manmade drainage crosses the subject property entering at the northwest end and flows to the southeast by a series of drain pipes, upland drainage swales, and areas of sheet flow draining to a ditch and culvert system flowing south from the southeast corner of the property along the east side of an RECEIVED 02/09/2018 amorganroth PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 2 existing gravel trail. The onsite manmade drainage system originates from the roadside ditch along the west side of the property. During SVC’s assessment, five hand-dug data plots (DP1-DP5) were taken in the northwest portion of the site where surface water was observed by Otak during their third-party review and by SVC staff during our initial site visit. Four of the five preliminary data plots (DP2-DP5) revealed a distinct layer of compacted fill above the native soil horizon. However, due to the compacted soils conditions, digging these pits to depth was not possible before the surrounding perched water flooded them and compromised the hydrologic analysis rendering the data inconclusive. To assist in reliable soils data collection, an excavator was brought in on the afternoon of the site assessment to dig deeper data pits across this area of concern. Biologists were present during excavation to observe immediate hydrologic soils conditions before they could be compromised by surface water flooding the pits. In addition, the excavated pits were observed 30 minutes after excavation for to allow depth of groundwater to equalize. Further investigation with the excavator revealed two layers of compacted fill in portions of the flooded area below the perched surface water and above the native soil horizon. In these areas, a recent layer of compacted fill is clearly visible above an undecomposed layer of vegetation which formed over an older layer of fill. The combination of the two compacted fill layers is creating a perched surface water condition during wet weather. Analysis of aerial imagery confirmed that new fill was placed in portions of the area in June or July of 2016 after Sewall’s early spring 2016 investigation which would explain the shift in vegetation from the established upland species Sewall describes in their assessment of the area, to the aggressive, early successional, facultative, invasive vegetation currently found in the area. The filled area lacked indications of wetland hydrology within or below the compacted fill surface. This area of concern also lacked hydric soil formation below the fill layers in the native profile. Although the fill layers appear to meet for hydric soil indicators, they were clearly sourced from offsite subsoils of indeterminate depth. Additionally, the native, non-hydric soil profile observed below the fill corresponds with onsite undisturbed upland soils as demonstrated by data pits (DP1, DP6, EP4, EP6, and EP9). The presence of aggressive, facultative vegetation supports SVC’s results of non-wetland findings within this area of multiple disturbance events in the northwest portion of the subject property (see results for further detail). Methods Formal site investigations were performed by qualified SVC staff in January of 2018. The investigation consisted of a walk-through survey of the subject property and any publicly accessible areas within 300 feet of this area for potentially-regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitat species as specified in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV, Chapter 3 (Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts). Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features per RMC Chapter 3 and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland boundaries were determined in accordance with RMC Title IV, Chapter 3: 4-3-050 (9)(b), and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 3 Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010). Qualified SVC wetland scientists marked boundaries of any onsite wetlands with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations (DP-1 through DP-8 for hand-dug pits) and (EP-1 through EP-9 for excavated pits) to mark the points where detailed data was collected. Wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems, and evaluated using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al, 2000). Following classification, wetlands were assessed and categorized using the current Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established in RMC Title IV, Chapter 3: 4- 3-050 (9)(c). The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visit by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. Experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife presence potentially regulated under RMC Title IV, Chapter 3. Results The 4.16-acre subject property currently contains a single-family residence and associated infrastructure with a recently closed home mechanic business. The site is heavily disturbed and historically manipulated. Upland forest vegetation on the subject property is dominated by an overstory of Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). The site investigation identified one onsite wetland (Wetland A) in the northeast corner of the subject property, as depicted on the site map in Attachment A. The identified wetland contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. A Type Ns stream was also identified offsite approximately 100 feet east of the subject property to which Wetland A drains. No stream was found within or upstream of Wetland A. No other potentially-regulated wetlands and/or fish and wildlife habitat were observed on or within 300 feet of the site. Wetland data and rating forms are provided in Attachments B and C, respectively. Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 4,721 square feet in size, of which approximately 2,414 square feet is located onsite. Wetland A is fed by stormwater and a seasonal drainage ditch to the north. The source of this drainage is a stormwater pond to the northwest and a wetland much further to the north drained by a storm pipe. In addition, hydrology for Wetland A may be partly provided by a seasonally- high groundwater table, direct precipitation, and surface sheet flow from surrounding uplands. The drainage to the north has been heavily manipulated, channelized, and culverted resulting in areas of scour and sorting within the wetland unit; however, no defined bed or bank was observed upstream DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 4 or within the wetland. Wetland vegetation is dominated by a canopy of red alder (Alnus rubra), and red cedar (Thuja plicata) with an understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and lady fern (Athyrium cyclosorum). Wetland A is a Palustrine Forested, Continuously Saturated (PFOD) wetland. Chapter 3, using Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014), Wetland A is classified as a Category IV slope wetland. Table 1. Wetlands Summary. Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size On site (acres) Buffer Width (feet)5 Cowardin1 HGM2 WSDOE3 City of Renton A PFOD Slope IV IV 0.05 40 Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979) Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013 or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested; Modifier for Water Regime or Special Situations: C= Seasonally Flooded, D=Permanently Saturated 2. Brinson, M. M. (1993). 3. WSDOE rating according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised Hruby (2014). 4. FWRC 19.145.420(1)(c) definition. 5. FWRC 19.145.420(2) buffer standards. Table 3. Wetland Summary. WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Located northeast corner of subject property Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA Lower Cedar River WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV City of Renton Rating IV City of Renton Buffer Width 40 feet Wetland Size 0.11 acre Cowardin Classification PFOCD HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-7W Upland Data Sheet (s) DP-6U Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation Wetland A is dominated by a canopy of red alder and red cedar, with an understory of salmonberry, creeping buttercup, and lady fern Soils Hydric soil indicator A4 (hydrogen sulfide) and A12 (thick dark surface) was observed Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by a seasonal drainage to the north, surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally-high groundwater table. Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by point of saturation and a transition to a hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Local rating is based upon WSDOE’s current rating system and RMC T-IV, Ch.3: 4-3-050 (9)(c) Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland A has a low potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to its sloped topography and lack of herbaceous vegetation. Wetland A’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6). DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 5 Hydrologic Wetland A has a very limited potential to provide hydrologic function to the landscape due to sloped topography, a lack of dense, ridged vegetation and position in the surrounding landscape. Wetland A’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is low (4). Habitat Wildlife habitat functions provided by Wetland A are moderate and may include general habitat suitability for small mammal and bird species but is limited for amphibian or aquatic species due to its sloped topography and seasonal flow. Wetland A’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5). Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland A is highly disturbed and dominated by Himalayan blackberry, red cedar, red alder, and sword fern. Discussion of Non-Wetland Areas Initially, five hand-dug data plots were taken in the northwest portion of the site where surface water was observed by Otak during their review and SVC staff during our initial site visit. However, due to the compacted soils conditions, digging the pits to depth was not possible before the surrounding perched water flooded them and compromised the hydrologic analysis rendering the data inconclusive. The hand dug profiles revealed a distinct layer of compacted fill above the native soil horizon. Further investigation with an excavator revealed two layers of compacted fill in some areas below the perched surface water and above the native non-hydric soil horizon. In these areas, a recent layer of compacted fill is clearly visible above an undecomposed layer of vegetation which is present above an older layer of fill. The combination of two compacted fill layers is limiting infiltration to form perched surface water conditions. Although the fill appears to potentially meet for hydric conditions, it was clearly sourced from offsite subsoils of indeterminate depth and not from its current location. Analysis of aerial imagery confirmed that new fill was placed in portions of the area in June or July of 2016 after Sewall’s early spring 2016 investigation. The identification of recent fill accounts for the shift in vegetation from the established upland species Sewall describes in their assessment of the area, to the aggressive, early successional, facultative, invasive species currently found in the area. Lack of hydrology and hydric soils in the native soil horizon, suggests this area was likely a non-wetland swale that was repeatedly filled in an attempt to re-direct stormwater from entering the subject property from the roadside ditch. In current condition the area is acting as an anthropogenically-caused impervious surface and not providing any wetland functions. In addition, the historic soils profile demonstrates the area did not provide any wetland function prior to the imported fill. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 6 Figure 1 shows the location of all data points taken including excavated pits (EP) and hand dug pits (DP). Figure 1. Data Point Location and Wetland Map Figure 2. Data Point Summary (area of concern only) Data Point Surface Water Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology New Fill Historic Fill Native Soil Vegetation (Current) Data collected in and around perched surface water DP-1 1" 0"-16" FACU DP-2 6" 0"-4" 4"-22" FAC DP-3 -14" 0"-18" 18"-32" FAC DP-4 6" 0"-10" 10"-16" FAC DP-5 4" 0"-14" 11"-26" FAC EP-1 -14" 0"-16" 16"-36" FAC EP-2 -32" 0"-10" 10"-14" 14"-55" FAC EP-3 -32" 0"-8" 8"-20" 20"-40" FAC EP-4 -14" 0"-26" FAC EP-5 -21" 0"-5" 5"-14" 14"-40" FAC EP-6 -6" 0"-40" FACU EP-7 -30" 0"-6" 6"-10" 10"-45" FAC EP-8 -40" 0"-18" 18"-48" FAC EP-9 -34" 0"-43" FAC DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 7 Figure 2 shows the wetland status for soils, hydrology and vegetation criteria for each data point within the area of concern. Data point forms are located in Attachment B. From Figure 2 it is clear to see the depth to groundwater is a negative for wetland hydrology in all but possibly one of the data points in the area of concern. The data point potentially positive for hydrology (EP 6) is negative for hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Likewise, all of the data points within the area of concern lack hydric soils with the exception of EP8. Data point EP8 is negative for hydrology with groundwater at 22 inches below the top of native soils. Most of the data pits were positive for facultative vegetation meeting the FAC neutral test; however, the facultative vegetation present (cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, bent grasses, and creeping buttercup) are not reliably diagnostic of hydric conditions and likely indicative of a disturbed, problematic situation. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 8 Figure 3. Soil Profile Graphic Figure 3 is a graphic representation of the soils profile showing depth of perched surface water, new fill, historic fill, seasonal groundwater, and native soils. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 9 Three additional hand-dug data plots were collected throughout the site to confirm Wetland A boundaries and non-wetland findings associated with the southern drainage ditch. Although the southern drainage ditch does transport a moderate amount of stormwater during high precipitation, it fails to meet wetland or stream criteria. Additionally, the native soils observed elsewhere on site correspond to the native soil profile observed below the fill layers discussed previously. In summary, the lack of hydrology within or below the compacted fill, the lack of hydric soil formation below the historic fill layers, and the presence of aggressive, facultative species all help confirm that the area of multiple disturbance events does not meet wetland criteria and did not likely meet wetland criteria before successive fills (see results for further detail). Conclusion Based on the above observed results from the site visits in January 2017, the northwest portion of the site where surface water was observed by Otak and by SVC staff does not meet all three necessary wetland criteria. Below the distinct layers of fill, no indicators of hydric soils are present with suitable hydrology. Additionally, the disturbed nature of the site, aggressive, facultative vegetation, and perched surface hydrology appear to be recent conditions resulting from site modification, excess rainfall, and the offsite water source to the northwest. Although these factors produce challenging conditions for wetland delineation, SVC is confident Wetland A, is a Category IV slope wetland and not a Type Ns stream and the only critical area present on the subject property. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 10 References Brinson, M. M., 1993. “A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands,” Technical Report WRP DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. NRCS. 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Null, William, Skinner, Gloria, and Leonard, William. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation. OTAK, Inc. 2017. Review of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Critical Areas Report. Redmond, WA. Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 2017. Title IV, Chapter 3 – Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Passed December 11, 2017. Snyder, Dale E., Gale, Philip S., and Pringle, Russell F. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 11 Attachment A – Site Photographs Site investigations took place January 4th and 5th, 2017. The following is a photographic series of sampled data plots (DP-1 through DP-8). Photograph 1 -DP-1 Photograph 2 -DP-1 Photograph 3 -DP-2 Photograph 4 – DP-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 12 Photograph 5-DP-3 Photograph 6 – DP-3 Photograph 7-DP-4 Photograph 8 – DP-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 13 Photograph 9- Buried cottonwood trunk near DP-5 Photograph 10- Buried cottonwood trunk and damage from machinery near DP-5 Photograph 11-DP-6 Photograph 12 – DP-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 14 Photograph 13-DP-7 Photograph 14 – DP-7 Photograph 15-DP-8 Photograph 16 – DP-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 15 Photograph Series taken January 4th and 5th, 2018 of excavated plots (EP-1 through EP-9) soil and hydrology. Photograph 13-EP-1 Photograph 14 – EP-1 Photograph 15-EP-2 Photograph 16 – EP-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 16 Photograph 13-EP-3 Photograph 14 – EP-3 Photograph 15-EP-4 Photograph 16 – EP-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 17 Photograph 13-EP-5 Photograph 14 – EP-5 Photograph 15-EP-7 Photograph 16 – EP-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 18 Photograph 13-EP-7 Photograph 14 – EP-7 Photograph 15-EP-8 Photograph 15-EP-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 19 Photograph 16-EP-9 Photograph 17 EP-9 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 20 Attachment B – Data Forms DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-1U Richard Peel, Emily Swaim 14, T23N, R 5E Valley Floor Concave 0 A2 47.4755832258041 -122.125776688075 WGS84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A 4 Reliable, relitively undisturbed forested area within area of review. Vegetation and soils are representative of site conditions pre-disturbance. However, hydro is unreliable/compromised due to adjacent perched surface water. Thuja plicata 90 Yes FAC 1 2 90 50% 0 0 0 0 90 270 0 10 40 0 0 Hedera helix 10 Yes FACU 100 310 3.1 10 No 0 90 Facultative and upland species are consistent with status of documented species previously observed (Sewall, 2017). DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-1U 0 - 4 10YR 2/1 100 SaLo Duff loam with organics 4 - 16 10YR 3/4 100 SaLo Some organics Soil data is reliably representative of undisturbed, native soil profile. No hydric soil conditions observed. Perched 0 0 Primary hydrologic indicators A1-A3 present. However, hydro data is non-conclusive due to compromise from adjacent perched surface water flowing in over compacted fill. Soils suggest no persistent high water table. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-2U Richard Peel, Emily Swaim 14, T23N, R5E Valley Floor Concave 0 A2 47.4762059748615 -122.126094102973 WGS84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A 4 4 4 Vegetation and soils heavily disturbed. Area recently partially cleared, filled and compacted. Hydro data from this data point is unreliable/compromised due to adjacent perched surface water entering pit. Thuja plicata 50 Yes FAC 3 Alnus rubra 10 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC 3 65 100% 1 1 0 0 159 477 0 0 0 0 0 Ranunculus repens 50 Yes FAC 160 478 Agrostis capillaris 49 Yes FAC Carex obnupta 1 No OBL 2.99 100 0 0 Recently disturbed area vegetated by early successional, non-native, aggressive, facultative species. Vegetation is not conclusive when compared against prior data (Sewall 2017) which noted FAC-FACU species. Single Carex shoot observed but not representative of strata. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-2U 0 - 4 ------FILL Compacted fill 4 - 7 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Compacted gravelly sandy loam 7 - 22 10YR 3/3 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam Compacted Fill 0-4 Compacted fill layer observed above native, non-hydric soil profile. Native soil horizon encountered at 4 inches below ground surface. Compacted fill at surface potentially sourced from adjacent development actions and from indeterminate depth. However, fill clearly sourced from subsoils. Perched Primary hydrologic indicators A1-A3 present. However, hydro data is non-conclusive due to compromise from adjacent perched surface water flowing over compacted fill. Please see EP-5 for reliable soil and hydro profile. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-3U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.4758461357048 -122.126203031025 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A 4 4 4 Vegetation and soils heavily disturbed. Area recently cleared, filled and compacted. Vegetation is inconclusive as species are facultative, aggressive, and non-diagnostic. Populus balsamifera 20 Yes FAC 5 5 20 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agrostis capillaris 25 Yes FAC 0 0 Ranunculus repens 20 Yes FAC Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC 0 Juncus effusus 20 Yes FACW Juncus species*10 No FAC* 95 No 0 5 Vegetation recently disturbed and replaced by early successional, non-native, aggressive, facultative species. Vegetation is not conclusive when compared against prior data (Sewall 2017) which noted FAC-FACU species. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-3U 0 - 18 5Y 4/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 CS M/PL FILL FILL 18 - 24 10YR 2/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam with organics 24 - 32 10YR 3/4 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam Fill 0 to 18 bgs Thick, compacted fill layer observed above native, non-hydric soil profile. Native soil horizon encountered at 18 inches below surface. Compacted fill at surface potentially sourced from adjacent development actions and from indeterminate depth. Fill is clearly sourced from subsoils and non-diagnostic of hydric soils. No primary or secondary hydrologic indicators observed. Hydrology observed but compromised due to adjacent hydro flowing into pit. Soil data suggests hydro is not persistent at 14 inches but likely much lower in the soil table. See nearest excavated pit EP-1. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-4U Richard Peel,Emily Swaim 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.4752258103897 -122.126210496796 WGS84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A 4 4 4 Data collected at base of established Populus to establish native soil horizon. Vegetation is faculative, aggressive, non-native, and non-conclusive. Hydro data compromised by adjacent perched surface water. See EP-2 for conclusive soil and hydro data. Populus balsamifera 80 Yes FAC 5 5 80 100% Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FAC 0 0 20 40 150 450 10 0 0 0 0 Agrostis capillaris 30 Yes FAC 170 490 Ranunculus repens 30 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 20 Yes FACW 2.88 80 No 0 20 Early successional, non-native, aggressive, facultative species observed. Large Populus faculative but not conclusive when compared against prior data (Sewall 2017) which noted majority FAC-FACU species. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-4U 0 - 10 10YR 4/2 98 10YR 5/6 2 CS M FILL Compacted FILL 10 - 11 10YR 2/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam 11-16 10YR 3/4 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam Compacted fill 11 Compacted fill observed above native soil horizon. No hydric soils noted in native soil profile. Fill clearly sourced from subsoils and likely from adjacent development actions. Primary hydrologic indicators A2-A3 present. However, hydro data is non-conclusive due to compromise from adjacent perched surface water flowing over compacted fill. Please see EP-5 for reliable soil and hydro profile. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-5U Richard Peel,Emily Swaim 14, T23N, R5E Valley Floor Concave 0 A2 47.4757839075375 -122.127275813379 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A 4 4 4 Data collected near drainage pipe through filled area. Area is highly disturbed, partially cleared, filled, and compacted. Collected adjacent to perched surface water. Faculative, invasive, aggressive vegetation observed. Populus balsamifera 90 Yes FAC 3 3 90 100% 0 0 30 60 100 300 0 0 0 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Yes FACW 130 360 Agrostis capillaris 10 Yes FAC 2.77 40 No 0 60 Non-diagnostic, non-native, aggressive, facultative vegetation observed. Established Populus appears damaged by large machinery and partially buried at base in fill. Vegetation observed by prior consultant appears to have been removed. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-5U 0 - 14 5Y 5/1 98 10YR 5/4 2 CS M FILL Compacted fill 14 - 26+10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy loam Compacted fill 0 to 14 14 inches of compacted fill observed above native, non-hydric soil profile. Compacted fill at surface potentially sourced from adjacent development actions and from indeterminate depth. Fill is clearly sourced from subsoils and non-diagnostic of hydric soils. Native soil profile appears consistent with previous pits (DP1-DP4). Perched surface water observed adjacent to data pit but not observed in pit until after waiting 30 minutes for water table to normalize. Hydro not conclusive as capillary action may have compromised data pit. See EP-3 for reliable data. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/05/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-6U Kyla Caddey, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Hillslope Concave 15 A2 47.4769398 -122.1239371 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A Data collected upland of Wetland A. Majority upland vegetation observed along clear boundary. Soils representative of non-hydric native profile. Thuja plicata 80 Yes FAC 1 5 80 20% Vaccinium parvifolium 15 Yes FACU Oemleria cerasiformis 10 Yes FACU Symphoricarpos albus 10 Yes FACU 0 0 0 0 80 240 35 80 320 0 0 Polystichum munitum 45 Yes FACU 160 560 3.5 45 0 55 Majority FACU upland vegetation along wetland upland edge. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-6U 0 - 2 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 2 - 18 10YR 3/3 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam No hydric soil indicators observed. Representative soil profile of undisturbed native non-hydric soil. No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Data collected upland of clear hydrologic wetland edge. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/05/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-7W Kyla Caddey,Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Hillslope Concave 1 A2 47.4768419 -122.1239639 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A Data collected within Wetland A. Vegetation FAC-FACW and distinct from uplands. Alnus rubra 95 Yes FAC 5 5 95 100% Rubus spectabilis 45 Yes FAC Rubus armeniacus 35 Yes FAC 0 0 0 0 265 795 80 0 0 0 0 Tolmiea menziesii 45 Yes FAC 265 795 Ranunculus repens 30 Yes FAC Athyrium cyclosorum 10 No FAC 3 Urtica dioica 5 No FAC 90 0 10 Vegetation FAC-FACW and distinct from uplands. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-7W 0 - 24+10YR 2/1 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Hydric soil indicators A4 and presumed A12 observed. Unable to reach depleted layer below black (10YR 2/1) layer. +2 surface 0 Primary hydrologic indicators A1-A3 and C1 observed. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/05/2018 Harbour Homes, Geonerco Properties LLC WA DP-8U Kyla Caddey, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Hillslope Concave 3 A2 47.4751897 -122.1262292 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes N/A Data collected adjacent to drainage on southeast border. Vegetation disturbed and invasive. Not all three wetland criteria observed. 2 2 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 40 Yes FAC Rubus laciniatus 10 No FACU 0 0 0 0 60 180 50 10 40 0 0 Ranunculus repens 20 Yes FAC 70 220 3.14 20 0 80 FAC-FACU invasive, aggressive vegetation observed. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: DP-8U 0 - 6 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 6 - 16 10YR 3/4 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam No hydric soil indicators observed. Soils representative of native, non-hydric soil profile. No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Surface hydrology immediately adjacent to data pit. No infiltration observed below surface. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-1U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476257 -122.12607264 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A 4 4 Mechanically excavated pit in recently disturbed and historically filled area. Vegetation recently partially removed and inconclusive. Pit dug directly adjacent to perched surface water above compacted fill. Populus balsamifera 20 Yes FAC 6 Thuja plicata 5 Yes FAC 6 25 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 0 0 0 5 0 0 Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC 0 0 Ranunculus repens 20 Yes FAC Agrostis capillaris 25 Yes FAC 0 65 No 0 35 Previously observed upland vegetation (Sewall 2017) removed and early succession, aggressive, non-native vegetation has populated the disturbed area. Vegetation is not diagnostic of hydric conditions. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-1U 0 - 16 5Y 4/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 cs M/PL FILL Compacted fill 16 - 22 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 22 - 36+10YR 4/4 99 10YR 3/6 1 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Fill 0 to 16 Compacted gravelly, sandy fill observed above native soil horizon. Native, non-hydric soil observed at and below 16 inches. Lower, native soil profile is consistent with undisturbed, upland soil profiles nearby on site. Compacted fill clearly sourced from subsoils of indeterminate depth. 14 Small amount of hydrology observed entering pit at 14 inches. However, based on soil data it is likely this is a result of a seep and not the natural water table depth. Perched surface water was observed adjacent to pit but does not penetrate below compacted fill layer. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-2U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476196 -122.12608272 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A 4 4 Pit mechanically excavated directly abutting perched surface water. Area is highly disturbed, filled, and cleared. Vegetation is early successional, faculative, aggressive and non-diagnostic. In and around pit is clearly compacted fill. Populus balsamifera 10 Yes FAC 3 3 10 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 0 0 0 5 0 0 Ranunculus repens 50 Yes FAC 0 0 0 50 No 0 50 Previously observed upland species have been cleared (Sewall 2017). Majority early successional, aggressive, non-native species observed. Mature Populus partially buried in fill, and scraped by equipment. Populus is faculative but non-diagnostic. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-2U 0 - 5 10YR 4/1 100 ----FILL New fill 5 -10 10YR 5/2 98 7.5YR 4/4 2 Conc M FILL Historic fill 10 - 14 5Y5/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M FILL Historic fill 14 - 40 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 40 - 55+10YR 4/4 97 10YR 3/6 3 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Fill 0 to 14 Non-hydric, native soil profile beginning at 14 inches. Multiple layers of compacted fill suggests area has been historically filled. Fill colors not recognized as hydric as they are imported and clearly sourced from subsoils of indeterminate depth. 51 32 No primary or diagnostic secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Pit excavated directly adjacent to perched surface water. Hydrology clearly not penetrating compacted surface fill. Pit left open for 30 minutes to allow natural water table to normalize at 51 inches. Water table depth is confirmed by native soil profile. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-3U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476196 -122.12608272 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A 4 4 Pit mechanically excavated in heavily disturbed area. Area has been partially cleared, filled, and compacted. Majority of diagnostic vegetation removed. Adjacent to perched surface water. Populus balsamifera 10 Yes FAC 3 3 10 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 0 0 0 5 0 0 Ranunculus repens 50 Yes FAC 0 0 0 50 No 0 50 Previously observed upland species have been cleared (Sewall 2017). Majority early successional, aggressive, non-native species observed. Mature Populus partially buried in fill, and scraped by equipment. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-3U 0 - 8 10YR 5/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 Conc PL/M FILL New fill 8 - 20 10YR 4/2 93 10YR 3/4 7 C PL/M FILL Historic fill layer 20 - 32 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 32 - 40+10YR 4/4 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Fill 0 to 20 Heavily compacted fill observed about native profile. Non-hydric, native soil layer beginning at 20 inches. Fill layers above native soil horizon appear to be both historic and new. 27 32 No primary or diagnostic secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Pit excavated directly adjacent to perched surface water. Hydrology clearly not penetrating compacted surface fill. Pit left open for 30 minutes to allow water table to normalize at 27 inches. Soils suggest water table is transitory and likely drains rapidly. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-4U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476234 -122.12637610 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A Pit mechanically excavated in relatively undisturbed upland area. Majority of vegetation has been removed but native soil profile remains intact. Pit hydrology was compromised by adjacent perched surface water. Thuja plicata 90 Yes FAC 5 5 90 100% Rubus armeniacus 15 Yes FAC Rubus spectabilis 15 Yes FAC 0 0 0 30 0 0 Ranunculus repens 50 Yes FAC 0 0 Hedera helix 25 Yes FACU 0 75 No 0 25 Majority of previously observed upland vegetation has been removed (Sewall 2017). FAC-FACU, aggressive, non-native vegetation now dominating site. Remaining vegetation coincides with previous assessment. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-4U 0 - 19 10YR 2/1 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam duff w/ organics 19-26 10YR 3/4 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam with organics No hydric soils observed. Soil profile is likely representative of conditions on site before new or historic fill disturbance. 14 19 No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. However, hydrology compromised by adjacent perched surface water. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-5U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476190 -122.12619856 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A 4 4 Pit mechanically excavated in heavily disturbed upland area directly adjacent to perched surface water. Area has been cleared, filled, and occupied by non-determinate, invasive species. Populus balsamifera 40 Yes FAC 5 5 40 100% Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FAC 0 0 0 10 0 0 Agrostis capillaris 30 Yes FAC 0 0 Ranunculus repens 30 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 20 Yes FACW 0 80 No 0 20 Aggressive, invasive, non-native species observed. Mature Populus is faculative but non-diagnostic. Vegetation is not conclusive when weighed against prior non-hydrophytic data (Sewall, 2017) DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-5U 0 - 5 10YR 5/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C M/PL FILL New compacted fill 5 - 14 10YR 4/2 93 10YR 3/4 7 C M/PL FILL Historic compacted fill 14 - 36 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 36 - 40+5Y5/1 48 10YR 3/6 3 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 2.5Y5/3 47 10YR 3/6 2 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Mixed Matrix ^ Compacted Fill 0 to 14 No hydric soil indicators observed. Native soil profile observed at 14 inches below compacted fill layers. Does not meet thick dark surface requirements as the layer above the depleted layer (5Y5/1) does not have a chroma of 1 or less. Compacted fill layers clearly sourced from subsoils of indeterminate origin. Perched 21 20 No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Perched water not counted towards actual primary indicators. Soil profile completely dry from 6-20 inches. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-6U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476253 -122.12615053 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A Pit mechanically excavated on perimeter of mature cedar canopy. Soils and vegetation likely representative of per-disturbance conditions. Hydrology compromised by adjacent perched surface water entering pit. Thuja plicata 90 Yes FAC 2 5 90 40% Gaultheria shallon 20 Yes FACU 0 0 95 285 20 40 160 0 Rubus ursinus 15 Yes FACU 135 445 Ranunculus repens 5 Yes FAC Hedera helix 5 Yes FACU 3.3 25 No 0 75 Canopy of mature cedars likely representative of per-disturbance conditions. Vegetative status is consistent with prior data (Sewall, 2017). DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-6U 0 - 4 10YR 2/1 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam duff w/organics 4 -16 10YR 3/4 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam w/organics Native soil profile is consistent with other undisturbed plots on site. Likely representative of per-disturbance/fill conditions. 6 4 Hydrology compromised by adjacent perches surface water entering excavated pit. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-7U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476030 -122.12621037 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A 4 4 Pit mechanically excavated south of perched surface water. Vegetation partially cleared from area and populated by aggressive species. Populus balsamifera 10 Yes FAC 5 5 10 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 0 0 0 5 0 0 Ranunculus repens 65 Yes FAC 0 0 Agrostis capillaris 20 Yes FAC Holcus lanatus 5 Yes FAC 0 90 No 0 10 Vegetation partially cleared from area and replaced by aggressive, early successioal, invasive species. Mature Populus appears damages by machinery and is likely not-diagnostic of hydric conditions. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-7U 0 - 6 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Recent compacted fill 6 - 10 5Y 4/1 98 7.5YR 2.5/3 2 C M FILL Historic compacted fill 10 - 15 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 15 - 22 10YR 4/4 99 10YR 3/6 1 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 22 - 35 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 35 - 45+10YR 3/3 98 10YR 3/6 2 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Compacted Fill 0 to 10 Multiple compacted fill layers observed above non-hydric native soil profile. Native soil layers correspond to excavated profiles from undisturbed portions of the site. 30 33 No primary nor secondary indicators observed. Hydrology observed after 30 minutes to allow hydrology to normalize. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-8U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476030 -122.12621037 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A 4 4 Mechanically excavated pit to the southeast of the perched surface water. Vegetation has been removed and populated by early successional, aggressive species. Native soils are borderline but hydro is negative. Populus balsamifera 10 Yes FAC 5 5 10 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 0 0 0 5 0 0 Ranunculus repens 65 Yes FAC 0 0 Agrostis capillaris 20 Yes FAC Holcus lanatus 5 Yes FAC 0 90 No 0 10 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. Met via dominance test. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-8U 0 - 18 10YR 3/2 100 ----FILL Compacted fill 18 - 21 10YR 4/4 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam 21 - 48 10YR 5/1 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Compacted Fill 0 to 18 Compacted fill observed above native soil horizon. Native soil profile meets for hydric indicator F3. No primary nor secondary indicators observed. No water encountered at or above 48 inches. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 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: 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? 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 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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: 1155.0024 - Cedars at the Highlands Renton / King 01/04/2018 Harbour Homes Geonerco Properties LLC WA EP-9U Emily Swaim, Richard Peel 14, T23N, R5E Terrace Concave 0 A2 47.476030 -122.12621037 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slope N/A mechanically excavated pit to the southwest of the perched water table. Likely soil conditions of undisturbed profile. Vegetation is consistent with prior observations of site (Sewall, 2017). Pseduotsuga menziesii 50 Yes FACU 3 Alnus rubra 25 Yes FAC 5 75 60% Ilex aquifolium 10 Yes FACU Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 0 0 0 0 95 285 15 85 340 0 0 Ranunculus repens 60 Yes FAC 180 625 Geranium robertianum 15 No FACU Carex leptopoda 5 No FAC 3.47 Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU Tanacetum vulgare 5 No FACU 90 No 0 10 Vegetation FAC-FACU and majority aggressive, invasive species. Vegetation is positive as per the dominance test but does not meet as per the prevalence index. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: EP-9U 0 - 8 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 8-26 10YR 4/6 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 26-43 2.5Y 5/3 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 43+10YR 5/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam Soil represents a mostly undisturbed, native soil profile. No compacted fill observed. 40 34 No primary nor secondary indicators observed. Water table encountered near 3 feet after 30 minutes to allow the height to naturalize. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 21 Attachment C – Wetland Rating Form DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!aaa a a a a aaaPictometry International Corp. 2015 ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1/23/2018 DLS 1 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - WETLAND RATING MAP 14120 160TH AVE SE, RENTON, WA 98059 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:45750-0106 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 1155.0024 1 " = 90 ' 0 90 18045 Feet Cowardin Map Forested Scrub-Shrub ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ditch a a OHW Wetland Channel Site Boundary 150' BoundaryBuried Plastic Pipe DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!aaa a a a a aaaPictometry International Corp. 2015 ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1/23/2018 DLS 2 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - WETLAND RATING MAP 14120 160TH AVE SE, RENTON, WA 98059 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:45750-0106 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 1155.0024 1 " = 90 ' 0 90 18045 Feet Hydroperiod Map Saturated ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ditch a a OHW Wetland Channel Site Boundary 150' Boundary DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Pictometry International Corp. 2015 ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1/16/2018 DLS 3 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - WETLAND RATING MAP 14120 160TH AVE SE, RENTON, WA 98059 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:45750-0106 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 1155.0024 1 " = 1,500 ' 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet Habitat Map High Intensity Undisturbed Habitat Moderate & Low Intensity 1 KM Polygon Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 0.49% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 2.05% Accessible Habitat 1.51% Undisturbed Habitat 8.96% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 12.22% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 15.07% High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 78.82% H.2.2 H.2.3 H.2.0 Wetland A H.2.1 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR,N Robinson,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen and the GIS User Community ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1/16/2018 DLS 4 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - WETLAND RATING MAP 14120 160TH AVE SE, RENTON, WA 98059 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:45750-0106 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 1155.0024 1 " = 2 mi 0 2 41 Miles 303d Map 303d Assessed Waters Hydrography Sub Basin SITE Listing ID Category Parameter Media Waterbody Waterbody Type 70688 5 Total Phosphorus Water FRANCIS LAKE Lakes 10655 5 pH Water CEDAR RIVER Rivers/Streams 72584 5 Temperature Water TAYLOR CREEK Rivers/Streams 72569 5 Temperature Water MAPLEWOOD CREEK Rivers/Streams 70140 5 Bioassessment Other UNNAMED CREEK (TRIB TO LAKE WASHINGTON)Rivers/Streams 70078 5 Bioassessment Other MOLASSES CREEK Rivers/Streams 72581 5 Temperature Water PETERSON (LAYTON) CREEK Rivers/Streams 70079 5 Bioassessment Other MADSEN CREEK, S.F.Rivers/Streams 4816 5 Temperature Water CEDAR RIVER Rivers/Streams 70077 5 Bioassessment Other UNNAMED CREEK (TRIB TO CEDAR RIVER)Rivers/Streams 10654 5 Dissolved Oxygen Water CEDAR RIVER Rivers/Streams DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 1/5/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 9/29/2016 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 IV (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three X Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) L L 9 = H, H, H L L 8 = H, H, M LHTotal 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 Esri Arc GIS Wetland A Richard Peel Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 63514 H Improving Water Quality LSite Potential Landscape Potential Habitat M FUNCTION None of the above CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Slope RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (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) 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 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 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 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 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 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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) S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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 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. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington 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. 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 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 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 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. Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in rating Riverine Depressional Lake Fringe Depressional Depressional Riverine Treat as 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. ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Riverine + Lake Fringe Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1% - 2% points = 2 Slope is > 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 Yes = 3 No = 0 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 - 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance ) 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ):0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. 2 S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?1 S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list?0 1 2 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found ? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: SLOPE WETLANDS The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)0 S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? 0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?0 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1 /8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows 0 S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 S6.0 - please see Technical Information Report for downstream flood analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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 or 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 1 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 ). 1 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 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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 4 Rating of Site Potential If Score is: 15 - 18 = H 7 - 14 = M 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ). Calculate: 0.49 % undisturbed habitat + ( 2.05 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 1.515% 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: 8.96 % undisturbed habitat + ( 12.22 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 15.07% 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 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 ) 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) 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 ) 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 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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 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 14 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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. 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. 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. 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. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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. 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. 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) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 17 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog p, p, y p ( p ) listed 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 18 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Wetland name or number 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 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). 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. 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 19 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 22 Attachment D – Qualifications Don Babineau Environmental Planner/Project Manager Professional Experience: >10 years Don Babineau is an Environmental Planner and Project Manager with a diverse background in urban and commercial forestry, land planning, landscape architecture, stormwater monitoring and civil engineering. Don has experience as a Forester with Washington State Department of Natural Resources stream typing and delineating stream protection zones, as well as implementing Washington State’s Habitat Conservation Plan to foster the creation of old-growth forest characteristics on state trust lands. Don earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Forest Ecosystems Management and a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree, both from the University Of Idaho. Don has been formally trained by the Washington State Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System. In addition, he has received formal training in wetland delineation from the Northwest Environmental Training Center and is an experienced certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL). He is also a Pierce County qualified Professional Forester. Emily Swaim Wetland Scientist/Field Geologist Professional Experience: 4 years Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in conducting Phase I, II and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), underground natural gas pipeline and overhead electrical transmission line project assessment and environmental inspections, construction oversight, stormwater compliance inspections, soil sampling, delineating and assessing wetland and aquatic systems, and stormwater, floodplain, and wetland permitting. Ms. Swaim’s expertise focuses on projects involving sensitive wetland and stream habitats where extensive team coordination and various regulatory challenges must be carefully and intelligently managed from project inception to completion. Emily earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Illinois State Un iversity and Wetland Science and Management Professional Certification from the University of Washington, Seattle. She is also educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. Her education and experience has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils, wetland science, hydrogeology, sedimentology, environmental law, environmental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology. Ms. Swaim has been formally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and is Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour Construction certified. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wetland Professional In-Training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC January 31, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 23 Richard Peel Wetland Scientist Professional Experience: 5 years Richard Peel is a Wetland Scientist with professional experience in wetland ecology, monitoring, and delineation throughout Washington and Oregon. Richard is Washington State trained in conducting wetland delineations, assessing wetland systems, mitigation planning and design, implementation of monitoring programs, mitigation monitoring and reporting. He also has extensive experience in an analytical laboratory using state-of-the-art equipment in bacteriological and chemical analysis of soil and water samples. Richard is a graduate of The Evergreen State College, with dual degrees in Ecology and Economics. He has focused his academic career on ecology, disturbance ecology, chemistry, and the economic impacts of current environmental management. Richard has extensive training and field experience in wetland related disciplines, and has experience in wetlands both east and west of the Cascades. He has been trained by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Wetland Ecology and Monitoring team in the use of the wetland delineation, mitigation, monitoring, and restoration techniques. In addition, he was directed by WSDOT’s Wetland Protection and Preservation Policy to ensure wetlands are preserved and protected whenever possible. This direction ensures no net loss in the quantity or quality of wetlands in the future and minimization of impacts to wetlands in the present. Erin Harker Staff Scientist Professional Experience: 3 years Erin Harker is a Staff Scientist with diverse ecological experience in both field and laboratory settings in the Pacific Northwest. She has gained hands-on experience involving research on water quality, salmon runs, restoration project performance, and marine mammal hydro-acoustics. Erin is proficient in collecting and analyzing environmental data; riparian restoration and wetland mitigation monitoring principles and techniques; analyzing local, state, and federal environmental code and regulations; and technical writing. Erin has additional experience engaging students in a suite of environmental curriculums. She currently assists clients through the various stages of land use planning by conducting environmental code analysis; preparing environmental assessments, mitigation reports, and biological evaluations; and completing permit applications. Erin graduated from Western Washington University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science with a Marine Ecology focus. She has recei ved formal training through the WSDOE and Coastal Training Program in conducting forage fish surveys; amphibian identification and survey guidance; using the credit-debit system for estimating wetland mitigation needs, determining the ordinary high water mark; Puget Sound coastal processes; conducting eelgrass delineations; using the 2014 wetland rating system; and using field indicators for hydric soils. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC April 4, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 1 2907 Harborview Drive, Suite D Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Technical Memorandum To: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner File Number: 1155.0024 City of Renton, CED, Planning Division From: Don Babineau, Environmental Planner Date: April 4, 2018 Re: 14120 160th Ave. SE- Technical Memorandum - Ref. No.: 32847.B - follow-up site visit. Dear Alex Morganroth, Thank you for taking the time to meet with our team and OTAK onsite on March 14, 2018. This memorandum is in response to the comments made during the meeting with OTAK regarding the critical areas review for the proposed Cedars at the Highlands preliminary plat located at 14120 160th Avenue Southeast in Renton, Washington, 98059 (King County Parcel number 145750-0110). Non-Wetland Areas and Onsite Southern Drainage Otak and Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) discussed the ponded areas in the northwest portion of the site which Sewall originally assessed as uplands prior to the recent fill brought onto the site. OTAK agreed that the SVC memo adequately assessed and documented the area as anthropogenically altered as a result of the compacted fill and was not a natural wetland area. As such, it was agreed the area would not be considered a regulated critical area. The culverted drainage through the ponded area draining to the southeast corner of the site was also determined to be a nonregulated manmade feature. Wetland A and Associated Drainage Otak and SVC discussed Wetland A and the associated drainage through the wetland. While the drainage associated with Wetland A does not meet the definition of a stream per City of Renton code as it does not flow to a perennial waterbody via an above ground channel system, because the channel exhibited natural stream like characteristics, it was agreed that the drainage would be treated as a Type Ns stream. While Otak staff agreed with the delineation of Wetland A, they maintained their assessment of the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification of the wetland as a depressional wetland. SVC does not concur with this classification. From the onsite inspection, it was clear there is no significant depressional function of the wetland to meet the threshold of being classified as a depressional wetland. While there are obstructions (tree branches and logs) slightly impeding the surface flow of the drainage within the wetland, there are not adequate depressions within the streambed to classify the wetland as depressional. To confirm the lack of depressions within Wetland A, following the site, RECEIVED 04/05/2018 amorganroth PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC April 4, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 2 visit SVC conducted a highly precise LIDAR analysis of the topography of the wetland area (see Attachment A). From the analysis it is clear to see the geomorphology of Wetland A resembles a chute with an even gradient along the channel and no depressions or hummocks which would create depressional areas. For a wetland to be depressional, it must impound water. Wetland A does not have the capability to significantly impound water. SVC correctly used the accepted HGM classification system as outlined by Brinson (1993) and in accordance with Section 5.1 and the classification key of the rating form located in Appendix A of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Otak staff cited a portion of Section 5.1 during the sit visit as justification for classifying Wetland A as depressional and the citation was one sentence taken out of context. He said that according to the manual, slope wetlands do not receive water through surface flow. The following is the full, accurate portion of the manual to which he referred: Slope wetlands with surface flows can be distinguished from Riverine wetlands by the lack of a defined stream bed with banks. Slope wetlands may develop small rivulets along the surface, but they serve only to convey water away from the wetland. There is no surface flow coming into the wetland through channels. This portion of the manual is in regard to distinguishing slope versus riverine wetlands, and it was agreed Wetland A is clearly not a riverine wetland. This portion of the manual has nothing to do with determining if a wetland is depressional. To determine a wetland’s HGM classification, the rapid assessment procedure is to follow the key located in the front of the 2014 rating form which consists of a set of progressive yes/no questions. The first three questions on the key determine if the wetland is either a tidal fringe, flats, or lake fringe wetland and are obviously not applicable. The fourth question deals with slope wetlands and has three criteria required to meet the classification: • The wetland is on a slope, • The water flows through the wetland in one direction and usually come from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheet flow or in a swale without distinct banks, • The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. Wetland A has a clear, continuous slope with seasonal main channel flowing through it and a saturated slope edge which feeds into the main channel. Hydrology flows through the wetland in one direction. The wetland receives its hydrology from groundwater and direct precipitation and leaves the wetland without significant impoundment. The second criteria may appear to add some uncertainty but having a stream channel at the lowest point cross-sectionally within a slope wetland is common. Technically, Wetland A is actually two separate wetlands flowing on either side of the stream channel to that channel; however, per the 2014 manual guidance, slope wetlands are to be treated as one wetland when the stream bisecting them is as narrow as Stream Z. From the attached LIDAR exhibit, it is clear to see that most of the wetland area is uphill from the channel running through the wetland. This is an important distinction because it shows the wetland does not receive the majority of its hydrology from the stream. Instead, it contributes to the stream’s hydrology through lateral flow to the central DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC April 4, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 3 stream channel. At times of heavy flow, the stream will encroach on a small portion of the wetland area, but this increased flow is not the main source of wetland hydrology. When the stream stops flowing, Wetland A persists in its hydrated state because groundwater is the wetland’s main source of hydrology. A depressional classification would infer that the wetland has areas of significant impoundment that would allow for stagnation and fallout of particulates. The wetland on the subject property was observed to have micro-depressions that are receiving flow from the main channel, however these micro-depressions were observed to be continuously flowing, highly oxygenated, and not providing the potential for anaerobic conditions. Soil data supports these observations with a lack of obvious hydric soil conditions that would be expected in a depressional wetland. Conclusion Because the Wetland A is properly classified as a slope wetland, it is accurately rated per SVC’s previous assessment as a Category IV wetland which requires a standard 40-foot buffer per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV, Chapter 3 (4-3-500). Per SVC’s original assessment and the site meeting, this is the only regulated wetland onsite. SVC and Otak agreed the drainage flowing through Wetland A is the only regulated stream feature and should be treated as a Type Ns stream requiring a 50 -foot buffer per RMC Title IV, Chapter 3 (4-3-500). Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, April 4, 2018 Don Babineau Date Environmental Planner/Project Manager Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive, Suite D Gig Harbor, WA 98335 don@soundviewconsultants.com DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC April 4, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 4 References Brinson, M. M., 1993. “A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands,” Technical Report WRP DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. NRCS. 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Null, William, Skinner, Gloria, and Leonard, William. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation. OTAK, Inc. 2017. Review of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Critical Areas Report. Redmond, WA. Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 2017. Title IV, Chapter 3 – Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Passed December 11, 2017. Snyder, Dale E., Gale, Philip S., and Pringle, Russell F. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC April 4, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 5 Attachment A – Lidar Analysis Exhibit DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS OF THE HIGHLAND - LIDAR EXHIBIT DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: VARIES FIGURE NO. 3/16/2018 DLS 1 CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVE SE, RENTON, WA 98059 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:45750-0106 1155.0024 ! ! ! ! ! !Wetland Centerline Wetland Boundary Elevation in Feet 426.6 - 428.1 425.7 - 426.6 425 - 425.7 424.3 - 425 423.7 - 424.3 423.1 - 423.7 422.5 - 423.1 421.8 - 422.5 421.1 - 421.8 420.3 - 421.1 419.6 - 420.3 418.8 - 419.6 418.1 - 418.8 417.3 - 418.1 416.6 - 417.3 415.9 - 416.6 415.3 - 415.9 414.7 - 415.3 414 - 414.7 413.3 - 414 412.5 - 413.3 411.8 - 412.5 411.2 - 411.8 410.4 - 411.2 409.5 - 410.4 408.7 - 409.5 407.8 - 408.7 407.1 - 407.8 406.5 - 407.1 405.9 - 406.5 405.2 - 405.9 404 - 405.2 Top Elevation 418.5 Feet Bottom Elevation 408 Feet Length of Centerline 316 Feet Wetland A 3.3% Slope ¢DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC April 4, 2018 1155.0024 – Harbour Homes Page 6 Attachment D – Qualifications Don Babineau Environmental Planner/Project Manager Professional Experience: >10 years Don Babineau is an Environmental Planner and Project Manager with a diverse background in urban and commercial forestry, land planning, landscape architecture, stormwater monitoring and civil engineering. Don has experience as a Forester with Washington State Department of Natural Resources stream typing and delineating stream protection zones, as well as implementing Washington State’s Habitat Conservation Plan to foster the creation of old-growth forest characteristics on state trust lands. Don earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Forest Ecosystems Management and a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree, both from the University Of Idaho. Don has been formally trained by the Washington State Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System. In addition, he has received formal training in wetland delineation from the Northwest Environmental Training Center and is an experienced certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL). He is also a Pierce County qualified Professional Forester. Richard Peel Wetland Scientist Professional Experience: 5 years Richard Peel is a Wetland Scientist with professional experience in wetland ecology, monitoring, and delineation throughout Washington and Oregon. Richard is Washington State trained in conducting wetland delineations, assessing wetland systems, mitigation planning and design, implementation of monitoring programs, mitigation monitoring and reporting. He also has extensive experience in an analytical laboratory using state-of-the-art equipment in bacteriological and chemical analysis of soil and water samples. Richard is a graduate of The Evergreen State College, with dual degrees in Ecology and Economics. He has focused his academic career on ecology, disturbance ecology, chemistry, and the economic impacts of current environmental management. Richard has extensive training and field experience in wetland related disciplines, and has experience in wetlands both east and west of the Cascades. He has been trained by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Wetland Ecology and Monitoring team in the use of the wetland delineation, mitigation, monitoring, and restoration techniques. In addition, he was directed by WSDOT’s Wetland Protection and Preservation Policy to ensure wetlands are preserved and protected whenever possible. This direction ensures no net loss in the quantity or quality of wetlands in the future and minimization of impacts to wetlands in the present. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Technical Memorandum 11241Willows Road NE Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 At the request of the City of Renton (City), biologists from Otak, Inc. (Otak) met on site on March 14, 2018 with the applicant and their representatives for a follow up meeting regarding critical areas on Parcel #1457500110 in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. The project proponent, Harbour Homes LLC, is proposing a 14-lot preliminary plat on the property. Otak initially conducted a review of the Revised Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands”, dated October 3, 2017, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., for the proposed project, and provided the City with a critical areas review memo (dated December 6, 2017) regarding consistency with the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). The applicant submitted a technical memorandum prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC, dated January 31, 2018, in response to Otak’s critical areas review memo that requested additional site information and revisions to the critical areas report for the property. The site meeting on March 14, 2018 was arranged to discuss potential wetland areas in the northwest corner of the property west of the outbuildings, watercourses on the property, and the delineation and classification of wetlands previously identified on the northeast corner of the property. Based on discussions from the site meeting on March 14, 2018, Soundview Consultants LLC provided a second technical memorandum dated April 4, 2018. Otak has reviewed the second memo and provides the following response. Otak concurs that wetlands regulated under RMC 4-3-050 are not present in the northwest corner of the property. The applicant submitted sufficient hydrological and soil information to reasonably conclude that the presence of wetland indicators in this portion of the property are artificial in nature and the result of previous activities on site. Otak concurs that the watercourse emanating from the roadside drainage along 160th Ave SE is not regulated under RMC 4-3-050. As stated in Otak’s critical areas review memo from December 6, 2017, the seasonal watercourse that flows through a series of culverts from west to east across the center of the property from 160th Ave SE was intentionally created to discharge stormwater from To: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner City of Renton From: Jeff Gray, MS, PWS Kevin O’Brien, Senior Ecologist Copies: Date: April 16, 2018 Subject: Cedars at the Highlands Critical Areas Review Project No.: 32847.B RECEIVED 04/16/2018 amorganroth PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Page 2 April 16, 2018 2 residential developments along 160th Ave SE, and meets the definition of a non-regulated watercourse under RMC 4-3-050. Otak maintains that the wetland located in the northeast corner of the property is classified as a Category III wetland with a 100-foot buffer as stated in our initial review memo from December 6, 2017. Soundview Consultants states in their April 4, 2018 memo that this wetland should be classified as slope under the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014). However, this wetland has characteristics of slope, depressional, and riverine characteristics which makes the hydrogeomorphic classification of this wetland difficult. This wetland receives surface water inputs from the seasonal stream upslope and the stormwater discharge just east of the property boundary, and groundwater from seeps along the edges of the ravine in which the wetland is situated. The wetland has shallow ponding throughout much of the area, which is indicative of depressional and riverine wetlands. Wetlands that contain two or more hydrogeomorphic classes, or are difficult to classify under the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, should be rated as depressional since hydrologically complex wetlands tend to always have some features of depressional wetlands (Hruby 2014). References Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication #14-06-029. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 1 of 13 To: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner File Number: 1155.0024 From: Don Babineau, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: June 28, 2018 Re: Conceptual Wetland Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan 14120 160th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 Dear Mr. Morganroth, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Harbour Homes (Applicant), a wetland and fish and wildlife assessment for the Cedars at the Highlands preliminary plat application. The property consists of one parcel located in the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Number 1457500110). Following assessment review and negotiations with the City of Renton (City) and the City’s environmental consultant (Otak), SVC is assisting the applicant with the preparation of a conceptual wetland buffer reduction and enhancement plan for an approximately 4.16-acre property located in the City of Renton at 14120 160th Ave SE (Figure 1). This wetland buffer reduction and enhancement plan has been prepared to accompany a proposed preliminary plat application on the subject property. This Technical Memorandum has been prepared to document regulatory considerations and planning elements for wetland buffer reduction and enhancement. SVC was hired by the Applicant to assess the subject property and respond to the December 6, 2017 review by the Otak. of an assessment previously conducted by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. dated October 3, 2017. SVC conducted the site assessment in January of 2018 in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) methodology, as adopted by the City, and documented the assessment results and response to Otak review comments with a technical memorandum dated January 31, 2018. The results of the SVC assessment identified one Category IV slope wetland located in the northeast portion of the subject property extending offsite to the north and east containing a small seasonal drainage feature bisecting the slope wetland. Following the SVC assessment, a site visit with the Applicant, staff from the City, Otak, and SVC was conducted to review SVC’s results. While Otak concurred with a majority of the results documented in the SVC assessment, Otak did not concur with the slope hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification of the wetland and has incorrectly added classifications to the wetland having a multiple HGM classes to include slope, riverine and depressional wetland classes through improper interpretation of the approved WSDOE classification methodology as outlined in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). As a result of the incorrect classification, Otak rated the wetland as a Category III wetland requiring a 100-foot standard buffer. The wetland clearly meets the Technical Memorandum Exhibit 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 2 of 13 classification criteria of having a single slope wetland HGM class as detailed in the technical memorandum by SVC dated April 4, 2018. When SVC requested independent guidance of the disputed wetland classification to potentially include consultation with WSDOE staff, the City stated it would follow Otak’s recommendations, treating Otak as an extension of City staff. The position adopted by City staff does not leave a reasonable alternative for the applicant to resolve the disputed HGM classification prior to the hearing. In an effort to expedite the preliminary plat application, the applicant has agreed to treat the wetland as a Category III wetland with a reduced 75-foot buffer. Figure 1. Subject Property Location. The following sections present the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan to address the minor indirect impacts associated with the proposed development. The proposed reduction and enhancement actions outlined below are designed to closely adhere to RMC 4-3-050I (Alterations to Critical Areas Buffers). Regulatory Considerations Per negotiations with the City of Renton, Wetland A is being treated as a Category III wetland. Per RMC 4-3-050 G(2), Category III wetlands in non-low impact land uses with a moderate habitat function receive a standard 100-foot buffer. Wetland buffers may be reduced up to a maximum of 25 percent under RMC 4-3-050 I.1. As existing buffer function is compromised with invasive species and intrusion of an existing structure, and to accommodate allowable housing density on the subject property, the project proposes reducing the Wetland A buffer by 25 percent from 100 feet to 75 feet and enhancing the Wetland A buffer to improve buffer function. Subject Property Location DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 3 of 13 Wetland buffer reduction and enhancement projects are required to meet the following criteria as determined by the reviewing official per RMC 4-3-050I.3: i. The reduced buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer; and The buffer in its current state is highly disturbed containing a mowed lawn, existing barn/shop, junk cars and debris, and invasive Himalayan blackberry. The proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan consists of removing all cars and debris from the buffer and replacing invasive plant species throughout the entire 75-foot width of the reduced buffer on the west side of the wetland with native emergent, shrub and tree species to create a structurally diverse plant community. The existing building will also be removed from the buffer and the area restored with native plantings. The planting design will increase habitat function by creating a dense thorny and evergreen shrub component and intermediate tree canopy within the outer portion of the buffer to provide a screen from the proposed residential development. This design feature will prevent light penetration and human and pet intrusion into the buffer and wetland. A split rail fence and Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) signs will also be installed at the outer edge of the buffer. These enhancement actions will improve the habitat, water quality and hydrologic function provided by the wetland buffer. ii. An enhanced buffer shall never be less than seventy five percent (75%) of the standard width at its narrowest point; and The proposed buffer reduction proposes a 75-foot buffer around Wetland A on the subject property, retaining 75% of the standard 100-foot buffer width. iii. The buffer area has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes and no direct or indirect, short-term or long- term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City, and The proposed reduced buffer area has less than 15% slopes. No adverse impacts to Wetland A are expected from the reduced buffer. Potential temporary impacts will be addressed using best management construction practices to avoid sediment delivery to the wetlands. The enhancement activities will not only avoid log term impact, the removal of the building and replacement of the invasive species with native plantings will increase habitat, water quality and hydrologic function to the wetland. iv. The proposal shall rely upon a site-specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology Publication No. 05- 06-006, March 2005) and Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-008, April 2005), or similar approaches; and Proposed buffer enhancement actions will increase water quality function as described in Section 5.5.3 by removing sediment from runoff with the increased woody stem and root density and increased surface roughness associated with the enhancement plantings which will decrease flow velocities to act as a mechanical filter and allow for greater residence time to increase infiltration potential and nutrient and toxin uptake. The increased infiltration potential will also increase the hydrologic function of the buffer by providing a more even flux of hydrology to the wetland from subsurface flow. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 4 of 13 Per Section 5.5.4.2, wetland buffers screen wildlife from human and pet activities (noise, light, movement) and that dense shrubs and trees in a wetland buffer can limit intrusion and screen light and noise generated by human activity. The proposed enhancement plantings are specifically designed to prevent human and pet intrusion and screen light, noise and visibility of human movement/activity. v. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; and The proposed reduced buffer with enhancement actions is consistent with the best available science as evidenced by the response to the above RMC 4-3-050 I(3) subsection iv which demonstrates the use of prescribed actions is in accordance with multiple vetted sources. The wetland buffer reduction provisions in RMC have also been reviewed and approved by WSDOE. vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Buffer enhancement is appropriate in this case as the buffer in its current state is highly disturbed containing a mowed lawn, existing barn/shop, junk cars and debris, and invasive Himalayan blackberry. The establishment of a Native Growth Protection Area NGPA is required to protect wetlands and their buffers from proposed development per RMC 4-3-050.G.3.iv. The proposed project includes establishing an NGPA around Wetland A and its reduced buffer through a critical areas tract. Buffer Reduction Plan The following sections present the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan to address the minor indirect impacts associated with the proposed development. The proposed reduction and enhancement actions outlined below are designed to closely adhere to RMC 4-3-050I (Alterations to Critical Areas Buffers). Description of Impacts and Enhancement Strategy The standard 100-foot buffer width of Wetland A will be reduced by 25 percent from 100 feet to 75 feet, resulting in a reduction of approximately 7,884 square feet of Wetland A buffer. The reduced buffer will be enhanced over an area of approximately 15,460 square feet. Impacts to the diminished habitat, hydrologic, and water quality function provided by the disturbed existing buffer as a result from the proposed buffer reduction are being offset by a buffer enhancement actions. The buffer in its current state is highly disturbed containing a mowed lawn, existing barn/shop, junk cars and debris, and invasive Himalayan blackberry. Buffer enhancement actions consist of removing the existing building, junk cars and debris, and replacing the invasive plant species native plantings to create a structurally diverse plant community. Wetland hydrology and water quality function will be improved through a planting design to decrease the flow rate and improve the potential for stormwater infiltration. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 5 of 13 Effective buffer enhancement design will not only offset and improve stormwater impacts associated with buffer reduction, a well thought out planting design can increase buffer screening function. The strategy of the buffer enhancement activities proposed will be to provide a dense vegetated screen in the shrub and intermediate tree canopy layers at the outer edge of the buffer between the development and the wetland. In addition, all exposed areas will be stabilized with a native seed mix and interior invasive shrubs under the existing native tree canopy will be replaced with native species. Additional trees within the reduced buffer area will be planted where gaps in the canopy are present and understory plantings will be provided where they are lacking. The dense native plantings at the edge of the buffer where sunlight penetration is greatest will also help prevent invasive Himalayan blackberry from becoming reestablish where it is most likely to occur. Adjacent to the dense outer shrub screen, a second screen consisting of evergreen trees further inside the buffer will provide for the gaps in the mid canopy creating a complex vertical layering at the buffers edge as the enhancement plantings mature. Coordination with the Project Biologist will be required to determine location and amount of planting required within the interior buffer areas to adequately replace the invasive species. Enhancement Approach and Best Management Practices The proposed enhancement plan is intended to provide increased wetland protections by maintenance or improvement of wetland functions. Impacts to buffer are being minimized through careful planning efforts and project design. The enhancement actions should occur immediately after development actions have concluded and should be completed during one enhancement effort. TESC measures will be implemented that consist of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native vegetation along the reduced perimeter of the buffer, silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development and enhancement actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the wetland and buffer, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept out of the wetland and buffer area. Following completion of the development activities, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment features will need to be implemented as designed by the project engineer. Following completion of the proposed project, all wetland and associated buffer areas adjacent to the planned development areas will be protected by installation of split-rail fencing and critical areas signage to discourage intrusion and improper use of these areas. Enhancement Actions Enhancement actions for the wetland and buffer include, but may not be limited to, the following recommendations: • Prior to all planned enhancement actions, pre-treat invasive plants with a Washington Department of Agriculture approved herbicide. After pre-treatment, grub to remove the DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 6 of 13 invasive plants and replant all cleared areas with native trees and shrubs. Pre-treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeks prior to removal; • Enhance approximately 15,460 square feet of Wetland A’s buffer with native species plantings and invasive species removal as needed based on existing vegetative conditions; • Remove any trash, debris junk cars and the existing building from wetlands and buffers; • An approved native seed mix will be used to seed disturbed areas after planting; • Maintain and control invasive plants annually, at a minimum, or more frequently if necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if warranted; • Provide dry-season irrigation as necessary to ensure native plant survival; • Direct exterior lights away from the wetlands wherever possible; and • Place all activities that generate excessive noise (i.e. generators and air conditioning equipment) away from the wetlands where feasible. Recommended Enhancement Goals, Objectives, and Performance The proposed buffer enhancement actions are capable of improving habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions for the wetland and wetland buffers. The goals and objectives of the enhancement actions are as follows: Goal 1 – provide equivalent wetland protection provided by existing standard buffers by enhancing approximately 15,460 square feet of Wetland A’s buffer with native species plantings and invasive species removal as needed based on existing vegetative conditions. Objective 1 – Enhance Wetland A perimeter buffer areas by providing a dense vegetative thorny and evergreen screen of native shrub and species with a vigorous native sapling tree canopy within five years in the outer 30 feet of the reduced wetland buffer width. Performance Standard 1 – The perimeter wetland buffer enhancement area will be planted with native shrub and tree species. Performance Standard 2 – By the end of Year 1, native plant survival for the perimeter wetland buffer enhancement areas will be 100 percent. Performance Standard 3 – At least 2 native tree species and 3 shrub species will be present in the perimeter wetland buffer enhancement areas in all monitoring years. To be considered, the native species must make up at least five (5) percent of the vegetation class. Performance Standard 4 – The perimeter wetland buffer enhancement area will contain at least 30 percent total cover by native tree species and 50 percent total cover by native shrub species by Year 5. Performance Standard 5 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 5 percent total cover within the perimeter wetland buffer enhancement areas in any growing season following year 1. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 7 of 13 Objective 2 – Effectively control and/or replacement of non-native invasive shrub species from the interior wetland buffer enhancement areas with native shade-tolerant shrubs and/or groundcover and provide for tree plantings in areas where existing tree canopy is lacking. Performance Standard 6 – By the end of Year 1, native plant survival for the interior wetland buffer enhancement areas will be 100 percent. Performance Standard 7 – At least 2 native tree species and 3 shrub species will be present in the interior wetland buffer enhancement areas in all monitoring years. To be considered, the native species must make up at least five (5) percent of the vegetation class. Performance Standard 8 – The interior wetland buffer enhancement area will contain at least 60 percent total cover by native tree species and 20 percent total cover by native shrub species by Year 5. Performance Standard 9 – Non-native invasive shrubs will not make up more than 5 percent total cover within the interior wetland buffer enhancement area in any growing season following year 1. Enhancement Specifications The following specifications are established as a set of minimum standards for proper implementation of the enhancement actions. Additional actions, modifications, and/or substitutions may be necessary at the time of construction and may be approved by the responsible Wetland Scientist and Project Engineer. Plant Materials and Installation Plant Materials All plant materials to be used for enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will exhibit normal, densely- developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation. Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. All plant material shall be inspected by a qualified Wetland Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch in size and 1/2 inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials salvaged from the land clearing activities. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 8 of 13 Plant Scheduling, Species, Density, and Location Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of development activities as possible to limit temporal loss of function provided by the wetland and associated buffer. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. Planting shall be under the direction of the Wetland Scientist. A proposed plant list is provided in the site plans in Attachment A. All planting will be installed according to the procedures detailed in the following subsections. Quality Control for Planting Plan All plant material shall be inspected by a qualified Wetland Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. The landscape contractor shall provide the responsible Wetland Scientist with documentation of plant material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and plant sizes. Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the Wetland Scientist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the mitigation plan with the Wetland Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Wetland Scientist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate to the mitigation actions outlined above. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Wetland Scientist. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of four (4) inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 9 of 13 Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water and install a four (4)- to six (6)-inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for mitigation are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the approved mitigation actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two (2) growing seasons while the native plantings become established. Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species to be removed include reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, cut-leaf blackberry, and all other listed noxious weeds. To ensure these species do not expand following the enhancement actions, non-native invasive species within the buffer enhancement areas will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (i.e. Rodeo) approximately 30 days prior to being cleared and grubbed from the buffer area. The pre-treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned enhancement actions, and spot treatment of any recurring invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum of three (3) years. Conceptual Maintenance and Monitoring Plan The Applicant is committed to compliance with the mitigation plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the mitigation area, keeping the site free from of non- native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. The buffer enhancement actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the enhancement actions are successful. Therefore, the enhancement site will be monitored for a period of 5 years with inspections by a qualified Wetland Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled annually for the duration of the monitoring period. Monitoring will consist of plant counts and percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying enhancement plantings, photographs taken at fixed locations, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and buffer function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plot. Circular sample plots, approximately 20 feet in diameter (314 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified wetland areas and terminate at the observed wetland boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 20-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. A list of observed tree and shrub species including percent areal cover of each species will be included within the monitoring report. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 10 of 13 June 22, 2018 Routine maintenance is necessary to ensure the integrity and success of the enhancement actions. Long-term management actions include continuous invasive plant removal, removal of potential garbage, and ensuring survival of native plant species. Reporting Following each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the wetland buffers, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Renton within 90 days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the enhancement plan, performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval. Contingency Plans If monitoring results indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with regulatory approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency plans can include additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 2. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after two (2) growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 3. Irrigating the mitigation areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 4. Reseeding and/or repair of wetland buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs; 5. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and 6. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. The Applicant proposes a buffer reduction and enhancement plan consistent with the requirements in RMC 4-3-050I. This proposed plan will reduce the Wetland A buffer by 25% from 100 feet to 75 feet. Buffer enhancement will consist of removing invasive species, junk cars the existing building and any debris and trash from the buffer and planting native tree and shrub species to create a structurally diverse community within the Wetland A buffer. If you have any questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ____________________________ _________________ Don Babineau Date Environmental Planner/Project Manager DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 11 of 13 References Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. City of Renton, 2018. Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 – Critical Areas Regulations. Passed June 04, 2018. Website: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/renton0403 /renton0403.html Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Otak. 2017. Technical Memorandum: Cedars at the Highlands Critical Areas Review. Redmond, WA. December 2017. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 2017. Revised Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands.” Fall City, WA. October 2017. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. March 2005. Soundview Consultants, LLC (SVC). 2018a. Technical Memorandum re 1420 160th Ave SE – Technical Memorandum – Ref. No.: 32847.B. Gig Harbor, WA. January 2018. Soundview Consultants, LLC (SVC). 2018b. Technical Memorandum re 1420 160th Ave SE – Technical Memorandum – Ref. No.: 32847.B – follow-up site visit. Gig Harbor, WA. April 2018. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 12 of 13 Attachment A – Site Plans DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 160TH AVE SE162ND AVE SEWETLAND A CATEGORY III PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY 100' STANDARD BUFFER 75' REDUCED BUFFER PER RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 4-3-050 I (1) EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHIN BUFFER TO BE REMOVED CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 BY: DS SCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMES NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, OR ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET CEDARSAT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVESERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059THE SE 14 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23N,RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2018 JOB: 1155.0024 SHEET OF 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 160TH AVE SE162ND AVE SEWETLAND A CATEGORY III PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY 100' STANDARD BUFFER 75' REDUCED BUFFER PER RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 4-3-050 I (1) EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHIN BUFFER TO BE REMOVED CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 BY: DS SCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMES NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, OR ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET CEDARSAT THE HIGHLANDS14120 160TH AVESERENTON, WASHINGTON 98059THE SE 14 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23N,RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2018 JOB: 1155.0024 SHEET OF 4 B DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC 1310112121ROAD ATRACT C43567TRACT A89TRACT B160TH AVE SE 162ND AVE SELOT LINESWETLAND ACATEGORY IIIPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARY75' REDUCED BUFFERPER RENTON MUNICIPALCODE 4-3-050 I (1)BUFFER ENHANCEMENTAREA (GREEN HATCH)15,461 SFEXISTING STRUCTUREWITHIN BUFFERTO BE REMOVEDBUFFERREDUCTIONAREA(GRAY HATCH)7,741 SFCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - PROPOSED PROJECT 2BY: DSSCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVESE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 THE SE 1 4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2018JOB: 1155.0024SHEET OF 4DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC WETLAND ACATEGORY III75' REDUCEDBUFFERCONIFEROUSTREESSHRUBPLANTINGAREASCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - PRELIMINARY BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN 3BY: DSSCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVESE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 THE SE 1 4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2018JOB: 1155.0024SHEET OF 4SCALE: 1" = 30'PRELIMINARY REDUCED BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANPRELIMINARY NATIVE PLANT SCHEDULEBUFFER PERIMETER (OUTER 30')DENSE PLANTING TO PROVIDESCREEN FOR WETLAND(TREES, SHRUBS AND SEEDING)BUFFER INTERIOR (INNER 40')POCKETS OF DENSE SHRUBS (PRIMARILY)PLANTED IN AREAS WHERE INVASIVESHAVE BEEN REMOVED AND BETWEENEXISTING TREES(TREES, SHRUBS AND SEEDING)DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS - PRELIMINARY BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN 4BY: DSSCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETCEDARS AT THE HIGHLANDS 14120 160TH AVESE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 THE SE 1 4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2018JOB: 1155.0024SHEET OF 4NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREANOT TO SCALESPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAILNOT TO SCALENGPA SIGN DETAIL70-80 % OF STAKE STORAGE OF LIVE STAKESALL WOODY PLANT CUTTINGS COLLECTEDMORE THAN 12 HR PRIOR TOINSTALLATION, MUST BE CAREFULLYBOUND, SECURED, AND STORED OUT OFDIRECT SUNLIGHT AND SUBMERGED INCLEAN FRESH WATER FOR A PERIOD OFUP TO TWO WEEKS.OUTDOOR TEMPERATURES MUST BE LESSTHAN 50 DEGREES F AND TEMPERATUREINDOORS AND IN STORAGE CONTAINERSMUST BE BETWEEN 34 AND 50 DEGREES F.IF THE LIVE STAKES CANNOT BEINSTALLED DURING THE DORMANTSEASON, CUT DURING THE DORMANTSEASON AND HOLD IN COLD STORAGE ATTEMPERATURES BETWEEN 33 AND 39DEGREES F FOR UP TO 2 MONTHS.INSTALLED BELOW GRADE 1. LIVE STAKES TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH DIAMETER 24 TO 32 INCHES LENGTH.2. USE 1/2 INCH DIAMETER REBAR OR ROCK BAR TO MAKE PILOT HOLE.3. INSTALL LIVE STAKES TAPER END DOWN WITH BUDS POINTED UP.4. MINUMUM TWO BUDS ABOVE GRADE.5. SET LIVE STAKES WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER.6. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.NOTES:NOT TO SCALELIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAILNOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES INGROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWNON PLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHTLINES TO ACHIEVE A NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTSTO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORMTABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUBNOT TO SCALETREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADEDocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Soundview Consultants LLC June 28, 2018 1155.0024 Cedars at the Highlands – Conceptual Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan Page 13 of 13 Attachment B — Qualifications All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland Buffer Reduction Plan Technical Memorandum prepared for Harbor Homes, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Don Babineau of SVC. In addition, report preparation was assisted by Laura Livingston. Don Babineau Environmental Planner/Project Manager Professional Experience: >12 years Don Babineau is an Environmental Planner and Project Manager with a diverse background in urban and commercial forestry, land planning, landscape architecture, stormwater monitoring and civil engineering. Don has experience as a Forester with Washington State Department of Natural Resources stream typing and delineating stream protection zones, as well as implementing Washington State’s Habitat Conservation Plan to foster the creation of old-growth forest characteristics on state trust lands. Don earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Forest Ecosystems Management and a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree, both from the University of Idaho. Don has been formally trained by the Washington State Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System. In addition, he has received formal training in wetland delineation from the Northwest Environmental Training Center and has experience as certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL). He is also a Pierce County qualified Professional Forester. Laura Livingston Staff Environmental Planner Professional Experience: 1 year Laura Livingston is a Staff Environmental Planner with a background in water quality monitoring, invasive species monitoring, wildlife monitoring, wilderness stewardship, and erosion control projects. Laura has field experience working on natural resources projects, with an emphasis on stream and river projects, in the Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest United States. She has also worked on a variety of environmental science research, grant, and teaching projects requiring scientific writing, science communication, laboratory work, and statistical analysis. She currently performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process. Laura earned a Master of Science degree in Environmental Science from Washington State University, Pullman. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC March 21, 2017 Harbour Homes, LLC Attn: Chris Burrus 1441 N. 34th Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Re: Cedars at the Highlands (formerly the Madison Reserve) Plat – City of Renton Revised Trip Generation Letter Report Dear Mr. Burrus: We are pleased to submit this revised trip generation letter report for the proposed Cedars at the Highlands (formerly the Madison Reserve) Plat consisting of 14 single family homes. The original traffic memo was for 13 lots. The proposed project is located at 14120 160th Ave SE in the City of Renton. Access to the site is via a new site access street to 160th Ave. SE. Per City of Renton guidelines, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is only required for projects that generate 20 or more trips in either the AM or PM peak hour. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 is the preliminary site plan of the proposed 14 single family homes. Vehicle access is provided by a new site access street to 160th Ave. SE. The parcel number is 1457500110. One existing home will be removed by this development resulting in a net increase of 13 homes. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 13 net single-family units resulting from development of the Madison Reserve Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: RECEIVED 04/07/2017 cclose PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Time Period Trip Rate Trips per unit Trips Entering Trips Exiting Total Average Weekday 9.52 62 50% 62 50% 124 AM Peak Hour 0.75 2 25% 8 75% 10 PM Peak Hour 1.00 8 63% 5 37% 13 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Ninth Edition for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Since the proposed project generates less than 20 trips in any one hour period, a TIA is not required and no significant adverse impact is created due to traffic generated by the development. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC ProjectSite CedarsattheHighlandsPlat VicinityMap Figure 1 * DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC CedarsattheHighlandsPlat SitePlan Figure 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC Cedars at the Highlands Construction Mitigation Description The following narrative is provided to describe the proposed construction mitigation measures that Harbour Homes, LLC “Harbour Homes” and the to be named general contractor “Contractor” for Stinde will implement throughout the duration of the site development and infrastructure period as well as during building construction. Proposed Construction Dates (Site Work): May 2018-October 2018 Harbour Homes anticipates on beginning clearing and site development work in the spring of 2018 depending on the timing of approvals. Harbour Homes anticipates roughly a 180 day schedule to finalize all grading, storm, sewer, water and first lift of asphalt on the site. The goal will be to have the site completely stabilized by November 1st, 2018 before the winter. Proposed Construction Dates (Building Construction): Harbour Homes plans on beginning construction of a model home in May of 2018 and anticipates starting two homes per month thereafter with an average construction timeline of seven months to complete. Hours & Days of Operation Normal site hours of operation will be in compliance with the allowable working hours in the City of Renton which are as follows: For new single-family residences and non-residential construction, the permitted work hours are 7:00am-8:00pm Monday through Friday, 9:00am-8:00pm Saturday, and no work shall be permitted on Sunday. Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes The Cedars at the Highlands site is located on 160th Avenue SE, north of SE 144th St. The Contractor anticipates utilizing one haul route to and from SR-169. Heading south on 160th Avenue SE, head west on SE 144th Street, north on 156th Ave SE, south on 154th Pl SE to SR-169 then heading east or west dependin g on the type of material import/export. Measures to Minimize Impacts Harbour Homes and the Contractor will make every effort to minimize the impacts from this project on the surrounding neighbors, the environment and traffic circulation for the RECEIVED 04/07/2017 cclose PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC immediate area. The Contractor and Harbour Homes’ contact information will be clearly posted at the site and the job trailer to ensure communication and immediate responses to any questions or inquiries from the community. Dust/Mud/Erosion Impacts- The Contractor will implement and maintain the TESC measures approved for the Stinde project at all times. Measures such has water trucks, street sweepers and maintaining perimeter erosion fencing help to mitigate impacts. In addition, regular inspections by the City of Renton and the project’s certified erosion control and sediment lead (to be determined), as well as regular meetings between Harbour Homes and the Contractor to ensure compliance. Traffic/Transportation Impacts- Harbour Homes and the Contractor will secure all necessary Right-of-Way use permits including providing traffic control measures to minimize the impact of the frontage improvements associated with the project. Haul routes and hours will be adhered o and Harbour Homes is attempting to minimize the amou nt of import/export needed on the project through careful design of the finishing grade within the site. Utilizing the on -site material and repurposing wood chips and top soil from the clearing activities minimize the need for ongoing truck and trailer loads. Noise- The Contractor will comply with the allowable working hours in the City of Renton (see above) to minimize the impact to neighbors during the site construction and building construction. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Page 1 of 6 LUA**-000*** ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use action. Planning: (Contact: Name, 425-430-7219, amorganroth@rentonwa.gov) 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o’clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o’clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o’clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o’clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed bet ween the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division’s approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Wetlands Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and signage, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and moni toring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, “NO TRESPASSING – Protected Trees” or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. 8. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) and /or your U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. Development Engineering: (Contact: Name, 425-430-7298, rnair@rentonwa.gov) 1. See Attached Development Engineering Memo dated August 17, 2017 Exhibit 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT Page 2 of 6 LUA**-000*** Fire Authority: (Contact: Corey Thomas, 425-430-7024, cthomas@rentonwa.gov) Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $718.56 per single family unit. This fee is paid at building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Ther e are no existing hydrants within 300-feet of the proposed homes. Existing 4-inch water main in 160th Ave SE will not provide the minimum required fire flow, new on-site and off-site water mains will be required. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. Fire sprinkler systems may be required if insufficient fire flow cannot be obtained. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minim um of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 75-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. An approved cul-de-sac type 90-foot diameter turnaround is required for all dead end streets exceeding 300-feet in length. Building: (Contact: Craig Burnell, 425-430-7290, cburnell@rentonwa.gov) 1. Recommendations of the geotechnical report must be followed as a condition of building permits. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT Page 3 of 6 LUA**-000*** DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 17, 2017 TO: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner FROM: Rohini Nair, Civil Engineer III, Plan Review SUBJECT: Cedars at the Highlands Plat 14120 160th Ave SE LUA17-000189 I have reviewed the preliminary plat application for the above-referenced proposal located at parcel 1457500110 and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is approximately 4.49 acres in size and is rectangular in shape. The existing site is developed with an existing workshop, one shed and gravel driveway. The site includes: Water Water service is provided by King County Water District 90 (425-255-9600 or www.kcwd90.com). The site is located outside of an Aquifer Protection Area. Sewer Wastewater service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 10-inch wastewater main located in 160th Ave SE (see City plan no. S-3235). There is an existing 8-inch wastewater main located in 162nd Ave SE (see City plan no. S-3613). Storm There is an existing 12-inch stormwater main located in 160th Ave SE. There is an existing stormwater ditch located in 160th Ave SE fronting the subject property. Streets The proposed development fronts 160th Ave SE along the west property line(s). 160th Ave SE is classified as a Residential Access Road. Existing right-of-way (ROW) width is approximately 60 feet. The proposed development fronts 162nd Ave SE along the east property line(s). 162nd Ave SE is classified as a Residential Access Road, and is an unimproved right-of-way. Existing right-of-way (ROW) width is approximately 60 feet. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A water availability certificate from King County Water District 90 was provided with the site plan submittal. The water availability certificate noted that a flow rate of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) can be provided to the site by an 8” water main extension to the site. 2. Review of the water plans will be conducted by King County Water District 90 and the Renton Regional Fire Authority. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT Page 4 of 6 LUA**-000*** 3. Plans approved by King County Water District 90 shall be routed to the City for final review prior to permit issuance. SEWER 1. The development is subject to a wastewater system development charge (SDC) fee. The 2018 SDC fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. The current sewer fee for a 1 -inch meter install is $2,837.00 per meter. Each lot shall have a separate meter. The final fee amount is calculated and payable at the time of construction permit issuance. 2. The development is in the Central Plateau Interceptor Special Assessment Districts (SADs). a. The Area SAD fee for the Central Plateau Interceptor SAD is $351.95, plus interest of $0.05111 per day, for each lot. As of 8/7/2018, the total SAD fee is calculated as $519.78 per lot. The final fee amount is calculated and payable at the time of construction permit issuance. b. The Frontage SAD fee for the Central Plateau Interceptor SAD is $5,810.34, plus interest of $0.84369 per day, for each lot with frontage along 160th Ave SE. As of 8/7/2018, the total SAD fee is calculated as $8,581.03 for each lot that has frontage on 160th Ave SE. The final fee amount is calculated and payable at the time of construction permit issuance. 3. The existing sewer main along 160th Avenue SE along with the existing sewer service located on Lot 1 as shown on the composite utility civil plan submitted with the Land Use Application. 4. The proposed sewer main improvements as shown on the composite utility civil plan submitted with the Land Use Application provides the required 8-inch sewer main extension from the existing sewer main located in 162nd Avenue SE and extending west into Cedars at the Highlands for future extension by the City. The required extension of the new 8-inch sewer main from 162nd Avenue SE into the future public ROW is shown on the conceptual utilities plan and provides the required sanitary sewer service to lots accessing off of internal project street except Lot 1 which will utilize the existing sewer service on the lot. The lots accessing from 160th Avenue SE will obtain sanitary sewer service from the existing 8-inch sewer main within 160th Avenue SE. a. A 15-foot public sewer easement is shown A 15-foot public sewer easement shall be provided for the extension of the sewer main through the stormwater tract for any portion of the extension located outside of the public ROW. 5. All new side sewers shall be 6”. All side sewers shall flow by gravity to the main at a minimum slope of 2%. As shown on the preliminary utility plan, each lot shall have its own side sewer. SURFACE WATER 1. The development is subject to a storm water system development charge (SDC) fee. The 2018 SDC fee for storm water is $1,718.00 for each new lot. The final fee amount is calculated and payable at the time of construction permit issuance. 2. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by DR Strong dated June 29, 2018 were submitted to the City as part of the site plan submittal. The site is located in the City’s Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Site Conditions). The site is located in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin. The TIR was completed in accordance with the standards found in the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). All nine core and six special requirements were addressed. A detention vault is proposed to meet the flow control facility requirement to satisfy Core Requirement #3. The detention vault has been sized to the City’s Flood Problem Flow Control Standard (King County Level 3) using WWHM to help mitigate potential downstream drainage issues. The project matches the pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow and peak discharge rates for the 2 and 10- year return periods as required in the City’s Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Site Conditions) area. In addition, the site matches the 100-year peak discharge rate to the pre-developed 100-year peak discharge rate to meet the City’s Flood Problem Flow Control Standard. The project is subject to Basic Water Quality treatment standards to satisfy Core Requirement #8. A stormwater quality vault following the detention vault will be utilized to address this requirement. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT Page 5 of 6 LUA**-000*** The project is subject to on-site BMP requirements found in Core Requirement #9. Full dispersion and full infiltration are not feasible on-site BMPs as the minimum design requirements cannot be met. Permeable pavement, bioretention, and rain gardens were deemed infeasible per the infiltration testing in the geotechnical report. Limited infiltration is deemed infeasible due to the till soils. Basic dispersion may be feasible. If feasible, basic dispersion should be implemented to the maximum extent feasible which may be more than 10% of the total lot area. Feasibility of on-site BMPs for each lot will be reviewed at the time of single family building permit. The restricted footprint BMP can still be used in addition to receive the 10% lot area modeling credit when sizing the detention vault. Final TIR should clearly explain how target surfaces from plat infrastructure (road and sidewalk) are mitigated by on-site BMPs or how BMPs are infeasible for these surfaces. 3. A geotechnical report evaluating site soil conditions was prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC dated February 23, 2017 and a Geotechnical Infiltration Evaluation prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC dated July 13, 2017. The report describes the site’s erosion hazard level as low. The soils on site were described as 4 to 10 inches of organics over medium dense silty sand with gravel and dense poorly graded sand were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of 11.5 feet below existing grade. There was approximately 1.0’ to 4.0’ of fill encountered in the northwest portion of the site. Earth Solutions NW LLC evaluated onsite soils for infiltration using the “Pilot Infiltration Testing” at four locations. The Pilot Infiltration Test is an approved infiltration testing procedure per Section C.1.3 of the RSWDM. No infiltration was observed in three out of the four locations. At the fourth location (TP-104, located in the southeast portion of the site) there was limited infiltration however advancing the test pit deeper than the infiltration test depth resulted in an observed confining layer of silt that limits the capacity of the underlying subgrade to infiltrate. It is the geotechnical engineer’s opinion that this confining soil layer can result in lateral migration of water which can create flooding rated issues on the neighboring properties to the south of the subject site since it is sited lower in the elevation than the subject property. 4. The report concludes that infiltration of stormwater and low impact development (LID) techniques at the site are infeasible. 5. There is an existing Unspecified Drainage Conveyance System flowing through the project site that appears to convey upstream tributary from 160th Avenue SE. The Applicant is proposing to capture and convey this upstream flow to the downstream conveyance system via a storm water piped system that will be routed through the future proposed right of way through the project site. The size of the bypass conveyance system shall be determine in accordance with the RSWDM and provided as part of the Civil Construction Permit Application. 6. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required if clearing and grading of the site exceeds one acre. TRANSPORTATION 1. Each new lot is subject to a transportation impact fee. The 2018 transportation impact fee is $5,430.85 per single family home. A credit for one lot will be issued due for the existing home. The transportation impact fee is due at the time of building permit issuance for each individual home. 2. The proposed development fronts 160th Ave SE along the west property line(s). 160th Ave SE is classified as a Residential Access Road. Existing right-of-way (ROW) width is approximately 60 feet, which satisfies the RMC 4-6- 060 required minimum required ROW width of 53 feet. No additional right-of-way fronting the site will be required. To provide consistency with the existing pavement width in the corridor adjacent to the project site, a half street paved width of 16 feet, gutter, 0.5 feet wide curb, 8 feet wide landscaped planter, 5 feet wide sidewalk, street trees, storm drainage improvements and undergrounding of any overhead utility lines along the frontage of the property are required on the project frontage. 3. The proposed development fronts 162nd Ave SE along the east property line(s). 162nd Ave SE is classified as a Residential Access Road, and is an unimproved right-of-way. Existing right-of-way (ROW) width is approximately 60 feet, which satisfies the RMC 4-6-060 required minimum required ROW width of 53 feet. Per RMC 4-6-060, a paved half street width of 13 feet, a 0.5-foot curb, an 8-foot planting strip, an 5-foot sidewalk, street trees, storm drainage improvements, and undergrounding of all utilities are required on the project frontage. However, the applicant has submitted a street modification request to allow the existing street and frontage section to remain. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT Page 6 of 6 LUA**-000*** The modification was requested due to the presence of the stream that runs through the ROW and altering the existing conditions of 162nd Ave SE would impact the stream and the adjacent critical area. Staff supports the requested modification. 4. A dead end public street with 53 feet ROW width and 26 feet wide pavement is proposed for the internal site access. 0.5 feet wide curb, 8 foot wide planters and 5 foot wide sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the internal street. The proposed widths meet the minimum required widths mentioned in RMC 4-6-060. Undergrounding of all utilities is required. 5. Current City of Renton standards require a cul-de-sac turnaround for dead-end streets greater than 300 feet and less than 500 feet. Reference RMC 4-6-060H. a. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved and landscaped radius of 45 feet with a right-of-way radius of 55 feet for the turnaround. b. The cul-de-sac turnaround shall have a design approved by the Administrator and Fire and Emergency Services. 6. Refer to City code 4-4-080 regarding driveway regulations. a. A minimum separation of 5 feet is required between driveway and the property line. b. Maximum driveway slopes shall not exceed 15%. Driveways exceeding 8% shall provide slotted drains. c. The maximum width of single loaded garage driveway shall not exceed nine feet (9') and double-loaded garage driveway shall not exceed sixteen feet (16'). 7. Street lighting is required from a development that includes more than 4 residential units. A photometric study and street lighting plan per City standard shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review. 8. All ramps and sidewalks shall be designed in accordance with ADA Regulations. 9. Paving and trench restoration within the City of Renton right of way shall comply with the City’s Restoration and Overlay requirements. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The fees listed are for 2018. The fees that are current at the time of the respective permit issuance will be levied. Please see the City of Renton website for the current fee schedule. 2. Retaining walls that are 4’ or taller from bottom of footing and stormwater detention vaults will require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans prepared by a licensed engineer will be required as part of the building permit review. 3. All civil plans shall conform to the current City of Renton survey and drafting standards. Current drafting standards can be found on the City of Renton website. 4. A separate plan submittal will be required for a construction permit for utility work and street improvements. All plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of Washington. 5. Please see the City of Renton Development Engineering website for the Construction Permit Application and Construction Permit Process and Submittal Requirements. Please contact the City to schedule a construction permit intake meeting. 6. All utilities serving the site are required to be undergrounded. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA5EE113-EBEA-486A-A176-507A6F80B5DC