Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RS_Madsen_Creek_TIR_210420_v1
MADSEN CREEK FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT CITY OF RENTON IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PREPARED BY: AMANDA PIERCE P.E. PUBLIC WORKS – SURFACE WATER UTILITY CITY OF RENTON 1055 GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 425.430.7205 REVIEWED BY: JOE FARAH P.E. PUBLIC WORKS – SURFACE WATER UTILITY CITY OF RENTON 1055 GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 425.430.7248 APRIL 15, 2021 SWP-27-3976 MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existfng Conditfons ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Proposed Improvements .................................................................................................................. 4 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ................................................................................... 7 2.1 Core Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Locatfon ............................................................... 8 2.1.2 Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis ............................................................................................. 8 2.1.3 Core Requirement #3: Flow Control ................................................................................................. 8 2.1.4 Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System ..................................................................................... 9 2.1.5 Core Requirement #5: Constructfon Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon ......................................... 9 2.1.6 Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operatfons ...................................................................... 9 2.1.7 Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability ............................................................... 9 2.1.8 Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Facilitfes ................................................................................ 9 2.1.9 Core Requirement #9: On-Site BMPs ............................................................................................. 10 2.2 Special Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements ......................................... 10 2.2.2 Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineatfon .............................................................. 10 2.2.3 Special Requirement #3: Flood Protectfon Facilitfes ...................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Special Requirement #4: Source Controls ...................................................................................... 11 2.2.5 Special Requirement #5: Oil Control .............................................................................................. 11 2.2.6 Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protectfon Area ......................................................................... 11 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 11 4 FLOW CONTROL, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID), AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................ 11 4.1 Existfng Site Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 12 4.3 Performance Standard ................................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Flow Control System ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Water Quality System ..................................................................................................................... 13 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .................................................................................. 13 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ....................................................................................................... 15 7 OTHER PERMITS ............................................................................................................................... 15 8 CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .............. 15 8.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures ....................................................................................... 16 8.2 Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon and Spill Measures .................................................................. 18 8.2.1 Pollutfon and Spill Preventfon Source Controls and BMPs ............................................................. 19 MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page ii SWP-27-3976 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT ................................. 22 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ..................................................................................... 22 11 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix A : TIR Worksheet ......................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix B : Existing Condition Model Results .............................................................................................. 24 Existfng Conditfons 25-Year Maximum Flood Depths ................................................................................. 24 Existfng Conditfons 100-Year Maximum Flood Depths ............................................................................... 24 Existfng Conditfons 25-Year Maximum Velocitfes ....................................................................................... 24 Existfng Conditfons 100-Year Maximum Velocitfes ..................................................................................... 24 Appendix C : Proposed Condition Model Results ........................................................................................... 25 Proposed Conditfons 25-Year Maximum Flood Depths .............................................................................. 25 Proposed Conditfons 100-Year Maximum Flood Depths ............................................................................ 25 Proposed Conditfons 25-Year Maximum Velocitfes .................................................................................... 25 Proposed Conditfons 100-Year Maximum Velocitfes .................................................................................. 25 Appendix D : Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood and Sediment Assessment ................................ 26 Appendix E : Basis of Design Memo ............................................................................................................. 27 Appendix F : Lower Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report ............................................................................. 28 Appendix G : Mitigation Plan ........................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix H : Project Plans ............................................................................................................................ 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Cedar River 2001 Landslide ............................................................................................................1 Figure 2: Cedar River Aerial Photograph Near Ron Regis Park 1990.............................................................2 Figure 3: Cedar River Aerial Photograph Near Ron Regis Park After the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake ..........2 Figure 4: Site Map ..........................................................................................................................................6 Figure 5: High Flow Bypass Channel Existfng and Proposed Conditfon Profile .......................................... 14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Site Impervious and Pervious Area ..................................................................................................7 Table 2: Site Work Areas ...............................................................................................................................7 MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 1 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Madsen Creek Flood Control Improvement Project is a City of Renton Surface Water Capital Improvement Project funded by the King County Flood Control District. The project has been designed in accordance with the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (CORSWDM) and includes the required TIR Worksheet in Appendix A. The project consists of four (4) sites requiring improvements to restore and increase the lower Madsen Creek network flood protectfon and capacity, as well as provide routfne maintenance measures. The project is located in City of Renton and unincorporated King County, Washington in the west half of the southwest quarter of sectfon 23, township 23 north range 05 east, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington see Figure 4: Site Map. This project was instfgated during a February 2016 flooding event that caused damage to private property owners and a history of recent flooding in the area. The project work intends to restore the historic capacity of the creek and add small-scale improvements to increase the level of flood protectfon. 1.1 Background Madsen Creek is a tributary of the Cedar River and collects runoff from a large upland glacial plateau, and then descends through a steep hillside ravine before flowing into the Cedar River. Rapid development in the 1970s increased the amount of storm water runoff and sediment depositfon into the Madsen Creek system, causing flooding. As a result of flooding and increased sedimentatfon, King County constructed a sediment basin and high flow bypass channel in 1976 to help mitfgate the impacts. Further flood control improvements and changes to Madsen Creek network were made in 1989 through 2010. The improvements required maintenance dredging of the sediment basin and the high flow bypass channel. The sediment removal actfvitfes were documented by King County untfl 2009, when the area was annexed into the City of Renton. The City took over the maintenance for the Madsen Creek sediment basin and the upper portfon of the high flow bypass, from the sediment basin to SR 169. The Madsen Creek investfgatfon, maintenance, and improvements have been documented in the 2019 Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood and Sediment Assessment by Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE) found in Appendix D. As part of the 2019 WSE report the Madsen Creek drainage basin and sub-basins were defined in Figures 1 and 3, and the existfng land cover and soil classificatfons are shown in Figures 4 and 5 (Appendix D). The Madsen Creek and Cedar River confluence also underwent modificatfon during the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake which caused a landslide, temporarily damming the Cedar River as shown in Figure 1. This landslide and damming occurred at approximately River Mile 5.0, just north of the Ron Regis Park. This caused significant ponding, overbank flooding, and erosion to the area, altering the geomorphology and historical alignment of Madsen Creek as shown in the comparatfve aerial photos taken from Google Earth in 1990 (Figure 2) to 2002 (Figure 3). FIGURE 1: CEDAR RIVER 2001 LANDSLIDE MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 2 SWP-27-3976 FIGURE 2: CEDAR RIVER AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NEAR RON REGIS PARK 1990 FIGURE 3: CEDAR RIVER AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NEAR RON REGIS PARK AFTER THE 2001 NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 3 1.2 Existing Conditions The lower Madsen Creek network begins at the Madsen Creek Sedimentatfon Basin. Flow from the sediment basin is drained by two culverts; the culvert to the northeast diverts flows to the high flow bypass channel and the other culvert diverts flows east through the main channel or low flow channel. The low flow channel routes east, north, and west around the New Lift Church Soccer fields, following the historic creek alignment, untfl reaching the culvert crossing underneath the high flow bypass channel. The main channel contfnues west from the high flow bypass, parallel SR 169, untfl it crosses SR 169 north in front of the Wonderland Estates development. Once across SR 169, the low flow channel flows through the southwest corner of a residentfal property (15214 149th Ave SE), through a culvert under 149th Ave SE and into Ron Regis Park. The low flow routes west and north through Ron Regis Park untfl it reaches a designated wetland area where the historical alignment has been re-routed and undefined; alignment for this reach based on best available data. The Madsen Creek network is as defined in Figure 4. The high flow bypass channel, built in 1976, routes north from the sediment basin within a City of Renton easement on the New Life Church property untfl crossing over the low flow channel and underneath SR 169. When the bypass channel was built, the main channel was converted to a culvert where the high flow bypass crossed over. The bypass channel contfnues north from SR 169, where in outialls into the Cedar River. The high flow bypass channel requires maintenance to remove sediment. Sediment removal maintenance has occurred, and vaguely documented since 1976, but over tfme the channel has lost the capacity to adequately convey flood waters. Flooding has occurred more frequently as increased development flows enter the Creek from upstream the basin (Fairwood). The lower Madsen Creek network is maintained by the City of Renton, Washington State Department of Transportatfon (WSDOT), and King County. WSDOT maintains two box culverts within SR 169; i.e. the culvert directfng the high flow bypass north across SR 169 and the main channel culvert routed north to 149th Ave SE and Ron Regis Park. King County maintains the lower high flow bypass channel after it passes through the SR 169 channel. A small portfon of the main channel is also within unincorporated King County as it enters the 15214 149th Ave SE property. The City maintains all other features of Madsen Creek including the sediment basin, upper high flow bypass, the low flow culvert underneath the high flow bypass, and the 149th Ave SE culvert. The Madsen Creek sediment basin has an ongoing Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) to remove sediment, which is typically done on an annual basis. The last recorded sediment removal from the upper high flow bypass channel was in 2017; removal amount was not documented. The last removal from the lower high flow bypass (below SR 169) was recorded in 2019 by King County. Further informatfon on the sites existfng conditfons can be found in the 2018 WSE Existfng Conditfons Report (Appendix D). The lower Madsen Creek network is within, and adjacent to, multfple critfcal areas; zone 2 of the aquifer protectfon area, floodplain and floodway, wetlands, Cedar River regulated shoreline, seismic hazard area, regulated slopes (<=40%, mostly <=25%), and high erosion hazard (Figure 4). The Madsen Creek low flow channel is a perennial tributary to the Cedar River and is mapped by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as a Type F (fish bearing) water. The low flow channel begins at the Madsen Creek sediment basin through a flow-controlled outlet (plate covering the pipe face). The high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek is mapped by WDNR as a Type N (non-fish bearing) water. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 4 SWP-27-3976 The City manages this channel as a storm water facility (Facility ID# 146244) in relatfon to its purpose to route flood flows directly to the river. Flows within the high flow bypass channel are intermittent, occurring when the sediment basin engages the high flow bypass outlet weir, usually around the 2-year and greater events in the Madsen Creek drainage basin. The high flow bypass channel is mapped by the City as a Type F water for protectfon purposes according to the City’s Critfcal Areas regulatfons. The high flow bypass channel north of SR 169, within King County jurisdictfon, is considered a Type N water. The WDNR and Washington Division of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) do not consider any portfon of the high flow bypass channel as a Type F, or fish bearing water. Further documentatfon can be found in an Environmental Assessment Report: Madsen Creek Improvement Project developed in 2018 by Herrera Environmental Consultants. 1.3 Proposed Improvements The WSE 2018 Existfng Conditfons Report recommended several improvements to improve flood protectfon along the lower Madsen Creek system. The City of Renton Surface Water Utflity determined four (4) feasible improvements for implementatfon shown in Figure 4. The intended improvements are as follows: 1. Site 1: Raise the berm surrounding the sediment basin and add an emergency spillway that discharges to the high flow bypass. This will provide additfonal flood protectfon for the Wonderland Estates development in the event the outlet culverts are blocked, there is an extreme event, or any flood waves. Work at this site is adjacent to a high erosion hazard area; within, and adjacent to, a Type F water; within a seismic hazard area; within a zone 2 wellhead protectfon area; and within a sensitfve slope area. 2. Site 2: Remove Raise the right (east) bank of the upper high flow bypass channel to eliminate the low spot actfng as a weir, which currently directs flood waters to the low flow channel. These improvements will reduce the risk of flood water overwhelming and exacerbatfng the downstream flood conditfons within the low flow channel. The high flow bypass channel is classified as a surface water channel (facility ID# 146244) as well as a Type F stream. Work at this Site is within, and adjacent to a floodplain; within, and adjacent to, a City of Renton classified Type F water; within a seismic hazard area; and within a zone 2 wellhead protectfon area. 3. Site 3: Raise the elevatfon of the left (south) bank from the private property (14937 Maple Valley Hwy) through Wonderland Estates to the low flow culvert under SR 169. This will reduce the risk of flooding during the 100-year event and in any event the SR 169 culvert is impeded. Work at this Site is within, and adjacent to a floodplain; adjacent to a classified Type F water; within a seismic hazard area; and within a zone 2 wellhead protectfon area. 4. Site 4: Raise the right (north) bank berm of the low flow channel between the outlet of the SR 169 culvert to the 149th Ave SE culvert entrance. This will reduce the risk of flooding the propertfes along 149th Ave SE during the Madsen Creek 100-year flows. Work at this Site is within, and adjacent to a floodplain; adjacent to a classified Type F water; within a seismic hazard area; and within a zone 2 wellhead protectfon area. In additfon to these improvements, the high flow bypass capacity will be increased, and maintenance actfons and agreements will be implemented. The high flow bypass channel was historically built to MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 5 contain an indeterminate peak flow and under existfng conditfon has been shown through hydraulic modeling to convey less than the 25-year event. The high flow bypass requires maintenance to remove sediment accumulatfon and restore the historic capacity of the channel. The high flow bypass geometry was optfmized to allow for compensatory storage requirements as a result of adding flood control berms within the floodplain, to provide capacity and flood preventfon during a 100-year event, and to reduce the overall impact to the project site. The project also intends to create a monitoring and maintenance agreement between the various jurisdictfons responsible for maintaining the lower Madsen Creek network; these include King County and Washington Department of Transportatfon. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 6 SWP-27-3976 FIGURE 4: SITE MAP MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 7 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (CORSWDM) parameters require a “Full Drainage Review” according to the Figure 1.1.2.A. The project results in ≥2,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface and ≥7,000 sf of land disturbing actfvity as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The project is therefore required to comply with Core Requirements 1 through 9, and Special Requirements 1 through 6. TABLE 1: SITE IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS AREA Site Jurisdiction New Impervious Area (sf) New Pervious Surface (sf) Replaced Impervious Area (sf) 1 Renton 1,160 0 4,140 2 Renton 0 0 0 3 Renton 60 0 0 4 Renton 0 0 0 4 King County 0 0 0 Total 1,220 0 4,140 TABLE 2: SITE WORK AREAS Site Jurisdiction Site Area (SF) Land Disturbance Area (SF)* Landscape Mitigation Area (SF) Maintenance Area (SF) 1 Renton 7,170 1,160 1,160 0 2 Renton 27,500 16,850 16,850 12,630 3 Renton 2,250 1,820 1,820 0 4 Renton 1,490 380 380 0 4 King County 2,270 1,060 2,270 0 Total 40,680 21,270 22,480 12,630 Notes: Land disturbance area does not include areas where there is no change to the existfng surface conditfon (i.e. landscape mitfgatfon with no change in topography) or maintenance. 2.1 Core Requirements The Madsen Creek Improvement Project requires a full drainage review and is therefore required to comply with the following Core Requirements as outlined in the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.2.: 1. Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Locatfon 2. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis 3. Core Requirement #3: Flow Control Facilitfes 4. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System 5. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control 6. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operatfons 7. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 8 SWP-27-3976 8. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Facilitfes 9. Core Requirement #9: On-site BMPs 2.1.1 Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location The Madsen Creek network routfng is not being modified and already discharges at the natural locatfon, the Cedar River. 2.1.2 Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis The Madsen Creek Improvement Project is intended to improve the downstream drainage system by increasing the level of flood protectfon and maintaining the current Cedar River floodplain. As part of the Lower Madsen Creek Existing Condition Flood and Sediment Assessment Appendix D, a 2- dimensional HEC-RAS analysis was completed for existfng and proposed conditfons, also briefly described in Sectfon 3. The analysis showed the proposed improvements significantly decreased the potentfal for flooding from Madsen Creek up to the 100-year event, within the project area and downstream. The model also showed no difference in water surface elevatfon for the 100-year event at the outiall to the Cedar River, which is approximately 0.25 miles downstream from any project site. Therefore, the proposed project will have no significant adverse impact on the downstream drainage system. It is the City of Renton Surface Water Utflitfes opinion that enough evidence has been provided from previous studies and modeling results that this project is exempt from further offsite analysis based upon the outlined exemptfon requirement #1 of Sectfon 1.2.2 in the 2016 CORSWDM. 2.1.3 Core Requirement #3: Flow Control Site 2, 3, and 4 apply for a basic exemptfon in in 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.2.3, as the amount of new plus replaced impervious service is less than 5,000 square feet and new pervious surface is less than ¾- acres (Table 1). Site 1 work comprises of 5,300 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface and less than ¾-acres of new pervious surface (Table 1). However, Site 1 meets the requirements for a Direct Discharge exemptfon under Core Requirement #3 per Sectfon 1.2.3 in the KCSWDM and CORSWDM. The onsite natural drainage area drains to the Cedar River, a major receiving water, and meets the requirements for Direct Discharge as follows: a) The discharge point or most downstream end of Madsen Creek for Site 1 is within ¼-mile of the 100-year floodplain. b) Site 1 work is entfrely within, or will be within, a public utflity easement and the conveyance system between the project site and the Cedar River is of manmade conveyance elements. The spillway directs the floodwaters to the high flow bypass channel which routes directly to the Cedar River. c) The sediment basin at Site 1 has an existfng weir to divert moderate to large flows through the high flow bypass channel, as well as a separate outlet blocked with plate to restrict the flow rate into the low flow channel. The high flow bypass is engaged at approximately the 2-year event. Site 1 conveyance and the flow ratfng curve will not change below the 100-year event and the proposed spillway will divert events larger than the 100-year to the high flow bypass channel. Site 2 proposes to increase the capacity of the high flow bypass channel to contain up to 100- year event with a minimum of 6-inches of freeboard. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 9 d) The spillway at Site 1 will have a woven geotextfle for soil stabilizatfon between the existfng soil and bedding rock with a spillway rock mix for erosion control. Site 2 proposes an erosion control seed mix to be installed after sediment removal and widening to prevent erosion of the channel. e) The proposed improvements, based on the HEC-RAS two-dimensional, unsteady flow modeling results, will not have an adverse impact to the existfng wetlands or stream. The proposed improvements are intended to improve flood containment of the Madsen Creek network. Impacts to the surrounding critfcal areas has been assessed and discussed further in the 2021 Mitigation Plan (Appendix G) prepared for this project by Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2.1.4 Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System The project consists of work within an existfng conveyance system following, and exceeding conveyance requirements per Sectfon 1.2.4 in the 2017 CORSWDM. The existfng high flow bypass channel conditfon was assessed and shown to be under capacity for the 25-year peak flow as shown in the existfng conditfon model results in Appendix B. The high flow bypass in its current state has been identffied as one of the causes of flooding issues downstream of the network as outlined in the Lower Madsen Creek Existing Condition Flood and Sediment Assessment (Appendix D). The channel configuratfon for the high flow bypass channel was optfmized based upon historic channel geometry, required capacity, compensatory storage, site impacts, and 6-inches of freeboard. Sediment removal maintenance is planned to restore the historic geometry and capacity. Additfonally the channel will be widened 2.25- feet to the east to account for compensatory storage requirements from adding flood control berms within the floodplain at Site 3 and 4; as well as providing additfonal capacity, 6-inches of freeboard, and minimizing the area of impact to the site. No additfonal flows will be added to the system. The method for analysis and design to verify hydraulic capacity is briefly outlined in Sectfon 5: Conveyance System Analysis and Design. 2.1.5 Core Requirement #5: Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention An erosion and sediment control plan has been developed for the site in accordance with the 2017 CORSWDM sectfon 1.2.5 and Appendix D. The erosion and sediment control plan is described further in Sectfon 8: Constructfon Storm water Pollutfon Preventfon (CSWPP) Analysis and Design. 2.1.6 Core Requirement #6 : Maintenance and Operations The maintenance and operatfons for this project, and its associated facilitfes, are within the City right-of- way or a City owned easement and will remain under City responsibility upon project completfon. 2.1.7 Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability As a public project, financial guarantee and liability requirements are not applicable. 2.1.8 Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Facilities The Sites of the project are exempt from water quality facilitfes under the surface area exemptfon under Sectfon 1.2.8 of the 2017 CORSWDM. All Sites have less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed and less than ¾-acre of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 10 SWP-27-3976 2.1.9 Core Requirement #9: On -Sit e BMPs Site 1 work requires 5,300 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface with 1,160 square feet of land disturbing actfvity. Site 2 requires 16,850 square feet of land disturbing actfvity but has zero new or replaced impervious surface requiring treatment. Site 3 and 4 are exempt from on-Site BMPs based the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.2.9 basic exemptfon with less than 2,000 square feet new plus replaced impervious area and less than 7,000 square feet of land disturbing actfvity. Site 1 qualifies as exempt from the flow control facility under the Direct Discharge Exemptfon in accordance with 2017 CORSWDM 1.2.3.1 and is not required to achieve LID performance standard, bioretentfon, permeable pavement, and full dispersion. The work at Site 1 will direct runoff from a crushed rock berm into either the existfng Madsen Creek sediment basin, a nearby wetland, the high flow bypass channel, the access roadside ditch, or low flow channel. The site work does not drastfcally change this existfng runoff routfng as it is intended to divert flood waters above the 100-year away from Wonderland Estates and low flow channel into the high flow bypass channel. There is a small portfon that may runoff into Wonderland Estates to the north and east of the sediment basin but due to the existfng basin locatfon and property boundary, it is infeasible to change the runoff characteristfcs to prevent this. Site 1 area is within an existfng easement and is confined by natural features which limit the feasibility of on-site BMPs. See the project plans for site constraints in Appendix H. 2.2 Special Requirements The project is subject to a full drainage review and will abide by all special requirements as outlined in the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.3 and as follows: 1. Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements 2. Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineatfon 3. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protectfon Facilitfes 4. Special Requirement #4: Source Controls 5. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control 6. Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protectfon Area 2.2.1 Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements There are no area-specific regulatfons that apply to this Project. 2.2.2 Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation The Project is located within, and adjacent to, the Cedar River floodplain. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 0984G was used for delineatfng the floodplain. The FIRM panel is dated September 15, 2017 and is adopted by King County and the City of Renton. The FIRM map shows that Site 2 and Site 3 are located in Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area. The presumed base flood elevatfon for these sites was determined conservatfvely by interpolatfng and assuming the Zone AE BFE on the north side of SR-169 was the same on the south side. Further explanatfon on the assumptfons for flood hazard delineatfon at Site 2 and Site 3 can be found in the Lower Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report in Appendix F. Site 4 is located within Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area with a base flood elevatfon of 102-feet (North American Vertfcal Datum of 1988). The floodplain is delineated on the site improvement plans and profiles and also shown in Figure 4. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 11 2.2.3 Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities The proposed flood control berms and short floodwall are no more than 2-feet high and 12-feet wide (bottom width). They are intended to reduce the risk of local residentfal flooding from the Madsen Creek network during the 100-year flows. These flood protectfon berms have been determined by a licensed professional engineer to conform with necessary sitfng, structural stability, environmental, and all other standards cited in the regulatfons and documents found in the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.3.3. The berms being constructed along the banks of Madsen Creek are not intended to provide protectfon against the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River and is not proposing to modify the existfng floodplain. 2.2.4 Special R equirement #4: Source Controls The Madsen Creek Project work does not include adding additfonal flows to the Madsen Creek system and there are no defined pollutant generatfng surfaces being added or impacted by the project. The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site permit. 2.2.5 Special Requirement #5: Oil Control The Madsen Creek Project sites are not considered high-use sites. Site 1 and 2 are fenced and gated to restrict use of no more than one routfne vehicle access per week. Site 3 and 4 are on private property or City ROW that will not have regular vehicular access. 2.2.6 Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area The Project is located in a zone 2 aquifer protectfon area. The channel being modified is an existfng channel with no increase to pollutant generatfng surfaces. 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS This project meets the exemptfon outlined in exemptfon requirement #1 of Sectfon 1.2.2 in the 2016 CORSWDM and does not require an offsite analysis. The Surface Water Department deemed an offsite analysis exemptfon based on the comprehensive analyses outlined in Sectfon 6: Special reports and Studies of this document. The Lower Madsen Creek Existing Condition Flood and Sediment Assessment (Appendix D) and Lower Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report (Appendix F) have shown significant evidence to prove this project will have no adverse impacts on the downstream and, or upstream drainage system. The 2D HEC-RAS modeling results of the existfng and proposed flood depths have been provided as support and reference to the exemptfon, see Figures in Appendix B and Appendix C. The project is intended to improve the overall drainage system functfon and flood hazard protectfon. 4 FLOW CONTROL, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID), AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology The Madsen Creek watershed collects runoff from approximately 1,400-acres from 21 subbasins before discharging to the Cedar River. The project site receives 1,245-acres of runoff upstream of the sediment basin (Site 1) with land use consistfng of medium density residentfal, golf course development, and steep forested hillslopes. The remaining downstream runoff consists of a mobile home park, a large MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 12 SWP-27-3976 church, high density residentfal development, portfons of SR-169 highway, a sparsely developed park, and pastures which include portfons of the Cedar River floodplain. The existfng site hydrology is detailed in the Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood and Sediment Assessment (Appendix D). The hydrology was developed using a Hydrologic Simulatfon Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) model and calibrated using the Madsen Creek stream gage for the Madsen Creek drainage basin. The model was based upon the King County model developed as part of the Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report (King County, 1993). Topographic data was determined from 2016 LiDAR obtained from Washington Department of Natural Resources LiDAR portal and on-site survey of the Creek’s geometry just upstream of the Sediment Basin to the Cedar River and all hydraulic structures. Land coverage was based on GIS processing of USGS NAIP imagery and divided into 6 categories: impervious, bare ground, pasture grass, lawn or turf, forest, and open water. Soil data for the basin were obtained from NRCS SSURGO database where soils were grouped into three categories: tfll, outwash, and wetland or water based on the hydrologic soil propertfes. Meteorological data included precipitatfon data from the closest King County gages at 15-minute intervals and the Puyallup Experimental Statfon for 1948-2012 daily evaporatfon data. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology The proposed work will not change the existfng site hydrology as the boundary conditfons, subbasins, soil types, land cover, runoff coefficients, and drainage facilitfes will not be fundamentally changing as a result of the flood reductfon improvements. 4.3 Performance Standard The project area follows the forested flow control standard according to 2017 CORSWSDM Sectfon 1.2.3.1 and correlatfng map. However, the project meets the requirements for basic and direct discharge exemptfon as discussed in Sectfon 2.1.3 Core Requirement #3: Flow Control. The project work will not change the flow from existfng conditfons and modeling has shown there are no adverse effects downstream of the site due to the intended improvements. The existfng flow control facilitfes consist of a plate covering the outlet of the sediment pond and a weir directfng larger flows to the high flow bypass channel, neither of which is being modified. The project will include a new flow control facility by adding a spillway from the sedimentatfon basin to divert flood flows greater than the 100-year into the high flow bypass channel instead of the Wonderland States development and low flow channel. A majority of Site 1 runoff is diverted to natural or existfng conveyance facilitfes. The site is surrounded by steep hillside, enclosed by an existfng easement on the New Life Church property and the Wonderland Estates property. The new plus replaced impervious surfaces are all crushed rock and the overall runoff routfng will not change drastfcally from the existfng conditfon. BMPs at this Site are infeasible due to the existfng manmade and natural site constraints, see the project plans in Appendix H. Site 2 is creatfng no impervious surface to treat and is therefore not implementfng any BMPs. Site 3 and Site 4 are exempt from BMPs requirements. The Madsen Creek sediment basin and high flow bypass channel are existfng conveyance systems built in 1976 by King County. The high flow bypass channel was originally designed to an undetermined flow capacity, but the existfng conditfons model shows it is under capacity for the 25-year event. The high MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 13 flow bypass channel has accumulated sediment and requires maintenance to remove and restore capacity. Since the sediment basin and high flow bypass were first constructed, developments from upstream have increased the peak flow rates and volume of water directed through the lower Madsen Creek network reducing the effectfve capacity of the original design. The design improvements have modified the high flow bypass channel to convey the 100-year event with at least 6 inches of freeboard through a combinatfon of maintenance sediment removal, widening the existfng channel, and raising the right bank berm. These modificatfons will change the flow characteristfcs of the channel by complying with the conveyance requirements in 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.2.4.2. These improvements are shown to reduce the flood problems downstream of Madsen Creek as shown in the proposed conditfon model results in Appendix C. The Madsen Creek sediment basin is an existfng water quality facility for the site and the water quality benefit will not be modified as a result of the proposed work. The proposed work is exempt from providing further water quality facilitfes as no pollutant generatfng surfaces are being created. Source control and oil control are not required as no new flows are being added and the project sites are not considered high use. 4.4 Flow Control System Flow control system is not applicable to this project. 4.5 Water Quality System A water quality system is not applicable to this project. 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN An existfng conditfon model was developed to determine flooding issues along the Lower Madsen Creek Network. Several issues were identffied, and multfple solutfons were iterated to determine feasible flood control measures for improvement, identffied as a proposed conditfons model. Multfple solutfons encompassing four sites along the network were chosen by the Surface Water Department to implement for design and constructfon. A two-dimensional, unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was used to assess hydraulics of the Lower Madsen Creek. Detailed informatfon on the hydrological and hydraulics analysis can be found in the Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood and Sediment Assessment (Appendix D). The proposed hydraulics model used the same input parameters as the existfng conditfons model but includes the spillway, the high flow bypass channel widening, and berms and short floodwall along the high flow bypass and low flow channel. Figure 5 shows the existfng and proposed 100-year flood profiles within the high flow bypass channel. The Figures in Appendix B show the 25-year and 100-year existfng maximum flood water depth and velocity maps. The Figures in Appendix C show the proposed conditfon flood water depth and velocity maps. See the Basis of Design Memo in Appendix E and Lower Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report in Appendix F for further proposed conditfon design analyses. The design of the spillway and high flow bypass modificatfons can be found in Appendix H. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 14 SWP-27-3976 FIGURE 5: HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITION PROFILE MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 15 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The project work is located within, and adjacent to, multfple critfcal areas. The project work is centered on increasing the flood protectfon of the lower Madsen Creek network. The project area has known flooding and sedimentatfon issues and a history of improvements. An assessment of the existfng hydrology and hydraulics were completed to identffy the major causes of flooding and identffy potentfal flood reductfon improvements. Improvements were chosen as a result of the studies and in order to facilitate the work without degrading the critfcal areas, multfple reports and studies were conducted to understand and minimize impacts to the area. These reports are as follows: • Lower Madsen Creek Existing Condition Flood and Sediment Assessment: This report provides a flood assessment based on existfng hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for the lower Madsen Creek Network, as well as a sediment transport and depositfon investfgatfon. (Appendix D) • Environmental Assessment Report: This report summarizes the lower Madsen Creek Network wetland delineatfon, stream delineatfon, and stream habitat assessments. (Appendix to the Mitfgatfon Plan in Appendix G) • Lower Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report: This report summarizes the proposed improvements chosen from the Lower Madsen Creek Existfng Conditfon Flood and Sediment Analysis and an assessment of potentfal future solutfons for long term flood improvements. (Appendix F) • Mitigation Plan: This plan describes the proposed mitfgatfon sequencing to avoid, minimize, rectffy, and compensate for alteratfons to the City of Renton and King County regulated critfcal areas and associated protected buffers. (Appendix G) • Basis of Design Memo: Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for design and permitting of flood control improvements and evaluatfon of floodplain fill mitfgatfon. (Appendix E) 7 OTHER PERMITS The following additfonal permits are required as part of this project: • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) • King County Clearing and Grading permit • King County Critfcal Areas Review • King County Shoreline Exemptfon Permit • King County Flood Hazard Certfficatfon 8 CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The CSWPP plan include Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures and Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon (SWPPS) measures. These measures will maximize the preventfon, reductfon, and eliminatfon regarding the erosion, transport of sediment, pollutants, and other impacts related to land disturbing actfvitfes for the projects sites. The site work is proposed within or adjacent to critfcal areas and their buffers. Work will be scheduled during the dry season and all work shall be completed as quickly as MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 16 SWP-27-3976 possible with additfonal protectfon of critfcal areas as required. The proposed improvements will comply with the guidelines within 2017 CORSWDM Appendix D and partfcularly Appendix D.2.4.3. 8.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures The ESC measures presented are the minimum requirements to be met during the antfcipated constructfon. The ESC are meant to minimize erosion and sediment transport off a constructfon site, protect areas of existfng and proposed storm water facilitfes, and protect existfng critfcal areas. Unless specified in the constructfon documents, the contractor will decide which measures are appropriate. These measures will be assessed and revised as necessary prior to, or during constructfon, by the CSWPP supervisor or CED. All site work is proposed during the dry season to minimize impacts to Madsen Creek and associated critfcal areas. These measures are in accordance with the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon 1.2.5, Sectfon 2.3.1.3, and Appendix D. They are as follows: 1. Clearing Limits: Clearing limits will be defined at the start of constructfon. All areas to remain undisturbed will be delineated prior to any site clearing or grading per 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D2.1.1 and the constructfon documents. These limits will be adhered to throughout constructfon. The site work is within and adjacent to critfcal areas and will require plastfc or metal safety fences, stake and wire fences, or silt fencing with survey flagging to mark critfcal areas and buffers. 2. Cover Measures: Temporary and permanent cover measures will be put in place as required in Sectfon D.2.1.2 of the 2017 CORSWDM for all disturbed areas. Areas required for temporary or permanent cover or designated critfcal areas are as defined in the contract documents. 3. Perimeter Protectfon: The project will install perimeter filter fabric silt fencing and other erosion control BMPs to prevent the transportatfon of sediment from the site to adjacent propertfes or critfcal areas. Perimeter protectfon measures will be located downslope of all disturbed areas and installed prior to upslope grading. The project may also install perimeter ditches and rock check dams that will prevent constructfon storm water runoff from entering adjacent propertfes and direct the storm water runoff to a temporary sediment trap if necessary. Perimeter protectfon will adhere to the minimum requirements outlined in the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.3. The perimeter protectfon area is defined in the constructfon documents. 4. Traffic Area Stabilizatfon: A stabilized constructfon entrance will be provided at each access point to the sites, as necessary, prior to clearing and grading. If additfonal protectfon is needed to prevent constructfon vehicles from tracking sediment onto adjacent streets, then a wheel wash will be installed to prevent transport of sediment from vehicles onto the public roadways. Further BMPs may be required depending on site conditfons. All traffic area stabilizatfon will adhere to the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.4. Traffic stabilizatfon areas are as defined in the constructfon documents. 5. Sediment Retentfon: Sediment retentfon measures will be put in place prior to any clearing and grading of the contributfng area. The project will primarily use perimeter protectfon for sediment retentfon due to the limited disturbance area. However, sediment traps or other Erosion Control BMPs will be used, as needed, to prevent sediment from transferring downstream. Inlet protectfon will be also be used on all on-site and adjacent downstream catch basins, as necessary, to reduce sediment-laden water from entering the storm system during constructfon. All sediment retentfon measures will adhere to the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.5. Sediment retentfon measures area as defined in the constructfon documents. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 17 6. Surface Water Collectfon: The project will primarily use perimeter protectfon as a source of surface water collectfon due to the size of each site. The site work is proposed in the dry season and it is not antfcipated that any offsite discharge of the 2-year runoff event will occur. However, other collectfon measures will be used as the site conditfons require to intercept surface water from all disturbed areas and properly convey downstream. All surface water collectfon measures used will be installed concurrently with, or immediately following, rough grading. These measures will also be designed, constructed, and stabilized as needed to minimize erosion. All surface water collectfon measures will adhere to the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.6. 7. Dewatering Control: Dewatering is not expected to be necessary. If needed, the contractor shall secure the required permits prior to dewatering actfvitfes. All de-watering shall be discharged with appropriate approvals and managed according to the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.7. 8. Dust Control: If needed, the project will implement the use of water and, or water trucks, to minimize the wind transport of soils from being deposited in water resources. Dust control will be applied when exposed soils are dry to the point that wind transport is possible and roadways, drainage ways, or surface waters are likely to be impacted. When using water for dust control, the exposed soils shall be sprayed untfl wet, but runoff shall not be generated by spraying. Further recommendatfons on consideratfons, site preparatfons, and recommendatfons for applicatfon are found in the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.8. 9. Flow Control: Flow Control is not expected to be necessary during constructfon during the dry season. If needed, the project will employ flow control measures to prevent increasing the runoff peaks during the 2-year and 10-year events; such as installing a temporary pond or trap to retain runoff prior to discharging from the site. The sediment trap will release the sediment treated storm water using a gravel filter window at a rate no greater than the 2-year or 10-year runoff peak, whichever is applicable. If the constructfon site does not easily allow for a trap or pond, the contractor may use movable storage tanks; where storm water can be release offsite to an approved discharge locatfon. These measures shall be installed or otherwise provided prior to clearing and, or, grading and will adhere to the requirements in the 2106 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.9. 10. Control Pollutants: All constructfon debris will be promptly removed from the site to minimize demolitfon and constructfon impacts on the site. The site and constructfon equipment must be isolated and covered as required at the end of each day, prior to a storm event, or other situatfons where pollutants could potentfally contaminate the site or downstream waters. The contractor shall implement additfonal BMPs as required and, or recommended, by the City inspector or other agencies to prevent demolitfon and constructfon debris, waste material, fuel, oil, lubricants, and other fluids from discharging from the site. Facilitfes and materials required for pollutant control shall be kept onsite at all tfmes during the constructfon period. 11. Protect Existfng and Proposed Storm Water Facilitfes and On-site BMPs: The contractor shall identffy existfng storm water facilitfes and BMPs on or adjacent to the work sites prior to constructfon. Contractor will sequence work in a way that will maximize protectfon to storm water facilitfes and BMPs. The contractor shall protect all existfng and proposed infiltratfon BMPs onsite from over compactfon, pollutfon, and excess sedimentatfon. BMPs and storm water facilitfes will need to be protected and maintained through all stages of constructfon. Protectfng storm water facilitfes and BMPs shall follow the guidelines in 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.10. 12. Maintain Protectfve BMPs: The contractor shall monitor all protectfve measures as required per 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.4.4 at minimum. All protectfve measures shall maintain full functfonality to ensure contfnued performance in accordance with specific BMP or facility specificatfons and in compliance with 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.11. The contractor shall be MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 18 SWP-27-3976 accountable for the responsible removal or stabilizatfon of any trapped sediment on site. Permanent facilitfes will need to be inspected to meet the specificatfons in the constructfon documents prior to constructfon close out. The contractor shall also remove all temporary erosion and sedimentatfon control BMPs within 30 days of achieving final site stabilizatfon or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. 13. Manage the Project: The contractor shall assign a qualified CSWPP inspector responsible for documentfng and conductfng regular inspectfons and monitoring to ensure the installed erosion and sediment control measures are functfoning as intended. The CSWPP Supervisor will be required to be present onsite during constructfon actfvitfes and, or, on-call at all tfmes. Site inspectfons shall occur at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any discharge from the site. The contractor shall be required to manage, coordinate, and tfme each site’s work actfvitfes to implement, monitor or inspect, maintain, and update any protectfve measures for ESC and SWPPS designs and requirements. Management measures shall be accordance with the City, King County, and constructfon document guidelines and requirements. Further informatfon in managing ESC measures can be found in the 2017 CORSWDM Sectfon D.2.1.12. 8.2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Spill Measures The Madsen Creek Improvement Project disturbs less than 1-acre of land where constructfon will take place within critfcal areas and buffers. The project work requires SWPPS measures to be implemented and maintained to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to onsite, or adjacent, water resources and critfcal areas. All site work is proposed during the dry season to minimize impacts to Madsen Creek and associated critfcal areas. The Cedar River, at the point of confluence with Madsen Creek, is not listed on the 303d list; requiring no TMDL limitatfons. The contractor shall assign a qualified CSWPP supervisor responsible for the proper installatfon, inspectfon, and maintenance of all BMPs and protectfve measures within the TESC plan, ESC plan, and SWPP plan to reflect current field conditfons. The CSWPP Supervisor will be required to be present onsite during constructfon actfvitfes and, or, on-call at all tfmes. The CSWPP Supervisor is also responsible for ensuring that the project is in compliance with the State of Washington NPDES Constructfon Storm Water General Permit and the ESC Standards in Appendix D of the 2017 CORSWDM. The SWPPS measures presented are based on the existfng site conditfons and are the minimum requirements to be met during the antfcipated constructfon. These measures will be assessed and revised as necessary prior to, or during constructfon, by the CSWPP supervisor or CED. In the event the SWPPS plan must be revised, the updates must be made within 7 days and implementatfon must occurs within 10 days. The SWPP plan must be kept onsite and must address all phases of constructfon. The SWPPS plan is required to address the proposed constructfon-related pollutfon-generatfng actfvitfes, as well as include a site plan, a pollutfon preventfon report, and a spill preventfon cleanup report. The SWPPS plan will be updated as required by the contractor, once assigned, and include a descriptfon of the methods the contractor will use to ensure sub-contractors are aware of the SWPPS plan. This method of ensuring awareness will use some form or record statfng all sub-contractors have read and agree to the SWPPS plan. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 19 8.2.1 Pollution and Spill Prevention Source Controls and BMPs The pollutfon preventfon report and a spill preventfon cleanup report identffy, prevent, and mitfgate the expected sources of potentfal pollutfon and spills that may occur during constructfon. Measures have been determined which will identffy the source of potentfal pollutfon or spill for the site and identffy an appropriate BMP used for preventfon and response. Measures identffied in the SWPPS plan are in accordance with the 2017 CORSWDM Appendix D.2.3.4 and D.2.5.2. The minimum pollutfon generatfng actfvitfes which shall be addressed are as follows: • Actfvity Specific Informatfon o Storage and handling of liquids o Storage and stockpiling of constructfon materials and wastes o Fueling o Maintenance, repairs, and storage of vehicles and equipment o Concrete saw cutting, slurry, and washer disposal o Handling of pH elevated water 8.2.1.1 S TORAGE AND HANDLING OF LIQUIDS Storage of liquids may be contained in statfonary tanks or portable containers. Statfonary containers must be on secure bases and stable ground. A spill control device shall be installed in catch basins that collect water downstream from tank storage area if liquid is oil, gas, or other material that separates from or floats on water. Portable tanks require tfght-fitting on all containers containing liquids. Portable containers require drip pans or absorbent materials to be placed beneath all mounted container taps and at all potentfal drip and spill locatfons during filling and unloading of containers. Portable containers shall be raised off the ground to contain material in the event of a spill or accident. Metal drums are not allowed if the material is corrosive. All containers shall be labeled with product name and any hazards. All containers shall be stored such that if a container leaks or spills, the contents will get into the storm drainage system, surface water, or groundwater. Appropriate spill cleanup materials shall be stored and maintained near the container storage area. All storage areas shall be swept and cleaned as needed. Containers shall be checked daily for leaks and spills with replacement as necessary. All containers shall be covered with waterproof sheetfng during rain events. All spilled liquids will be collected and disposed of properly. Spill control devices shall be routfnely inspected on a weekly basis. The storage and handling of liquids shall abide by the King County Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon Manual specifically A-2 and A-3 at minimum. Storage cannot be within critfcal areas and may have more stringent requirements within buffer areas, if allowed. Further restrictfons shall be enacted and defined by the SWPPS supervisor. The storage and handling of liquids is unknown at this tfme and will be further assessed by the contractor upon award and before constructfon. The contractor will specify the proposed liquids to be used on site, specify the size and type of containment onsite, and describe any secondary containment methods for all liquid storage. These locatfons will also be shown on the SWPPS site plan, as necessary. 8.2.1.2 STORAGE AND STOCKPILING OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND WASTES The site has the potentfal to storage and stockpile soil, sand, and other erodible materials. Materials stored onsite shall be covered and contained, unless material cannot be blown away by the wind and there is no chance of material reaching storm drain systems or surface waters. Implement erosion MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 20 SWP-27-3976 control practfces if the stockpiles cannot feasibly be covered and contained. Materials, if possible, shall be stored on pallets or another raised method to prevent contact with storm water runoff. If raising the material is infeasible, protect surface waters and storm drain facilitfes through secondary containment such as curbs, berms, or dikes. Coverings shall be in place when material is not being used and shall be inspected weekly to ensure there are no holes or gaps and are functfoning properly. Clean and sweep surfaces to collect solid materials and do no hose down area to the storm system, critfcal areas, or surface waters. In the event of a spill, contaminated water and soil shall be adequately contained and disposed of properly. Contaminated water must be collected and disposed of in either a sanitary sewer, a storm water treatment system, or at a licensed decant facility. Solid waste shall be disposed of at a municipal solid waste disposal facility or through an offsite waste transportatfon and disposal service. Appropriate spill cleanup materials shall be stored and maintained near the storage area; such as brooms, dustpans, vacuum sweepers, etc. Storage area shall be swept and cleaned as needed. The storage of soil, sand, and other erodible materials shall abide by the King County Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon Manual specifically A-4, A-6, and A-44 at minimum. Storage cannot be within critfcal areas and may have more stringent requirements within buffer areas, if allowed. Further restrictfons shall be enacted and defined by the SWPPS supervisor. The full list for storage and handling of constructfon materials and wastes is unknown at this tfme and will be further assessed by the contractor upon award and before constructfon. The contractor will specify the proposed constructfon materials and wastes to be used on site, specify the cover measures, and any container storage specificatfons. These locatfons will also be shown on the SWPPS site plan, as necessary. 8.2.1.3 FUELING Fueling shall not occur onsite unless contractor can provide adequate justfficatfon. If fueling does occur onsite, the Contractor shall develop a containment plan for spills, and fueling shall only occur during normal working hours. Method of onsite fueling must be defined along with the locatfon shown on plans, tank type, and size of tank. Fueling may not occur within critfcal areas and may be limited or prohibited within buffers. The fueling of vehicles and equipment shall abide by the King County Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon Manual specifically A-48 at minimum. 8.2.1.4 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR O F VEHICLES Maintenance and repair of vehicles shall not occur onsite unless contractor can provide adequate justfficatfon. All incoming vehicles to the work site shall be inspected for leaks and use drip pans or absorbent material if necessary. Spill and cleanup materials will be stored and maintained in an easily accessible locatfon onsite. Spill and cleanup materials will be made accessible and be onsite during hours of constructfon. All vehicles, tools, and their storage will be inspected and maintained daily for possible contaminatfon hazards. If maintenance or repair of vehicles is required onsite, the Contractor shall develop a spill preventfon plan conforming to the 2017 CORSWDM. The maintenance and repair of vehicles shall abide by the King County Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon Manual specifically A-18 at minimum. 8.2.1.5 CONCRETE SAW CUTTING, SLURRY, AND WASH WATER DISPOSAL Concrete and asphalt applicatfon is proposed during constructfon. Drip pans, ground cloths, heavy cardboard or plywood will be used wherever concrete, asphalt, and asphalt emulsion, and drips are likely to fall unintentfonally, such as beneath extractfon points from mixing equipment. Storm drain inlet protectfon is being provided as shown on TESC plans. Storm drains shall be covered or have inserts to MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 21 prevent concrete and asphalt from entering the storm system. Catch basin inserts will be maintained daily if employed. Storm water that comes in contact with concrete and asphalt operatfons will be collected and discharged to an approved discharge locatfon. Contractor shall designate an area where applicatfon and mixing equipment cleaning will be conducted either off or onsite. Washout areas must be defined or noted on the SWPPS site plan. Onsite washout areas will be limited due to the proximity to the sites sensitfve or critfcal areas, as 50-feet minimum buffer is required. The pouring area shall be swept at the end of each day or more frequently if needed. Loose aggregate chunks and dust shall be collected. Areas shall not be hosed down. Dust suppression water shall not be discharged to the storm water system. Diesel fuel will not be used for cleaning or prepping asphalt tools and equipment. It may be necessary to cover portable mixing equipment with an awning or plastfc sheetfng to prevent contact with rainfall. Washing of tools and equipment shall occur as directed by the contractors approved CSWPP supervisor. Wash water, oily water, soapy water, or otherwise dirty water shall be collected to prevent contaminatfon and disposed of in the sanitary sewer with City or King County approval, or in a holding tank for offsite disposal. A washing area for hand tools will need to be identffied on the SWPPS site plan. Truck wheel washing will be required if constructfon causes material to be tracked off the designated site work areas. If constructfon work does not control mud and sediment track out, then a wheel wash system must be installed. Wheel wash systems must be inspected and maintained prevent contaminatfon to water resources, critfcal areas, and the storm water system. All employees must be familiar will appropriate spill cleanup materials and protocols. Washing is not allowed within 50-feet of critfcal areas and may not be allowed in buffers without prior City and CSWPP supervisor approval. Wash and process water is not allowed to enter critfcal areas, surface waters, or storm drain systems. All vehicles, tools, and their storage will be inspected and maintained daily for possible contaminatfon hazards. All wash and process water must be contained and disposed of at a proper disposal locatfon. Typical disposal can be done through the sanitary sewer with local agency approval or using an offsite waste transportatfon and disposal service. Process water generated from productfon, pouring, crushing, and equipment cleaning actfvitfes shall be discharged to a sump, process water recycling system, or to a sanitary sewer with local agency approval. The contractor shall define the size of any sumps and the methods of collectfng, treatfng, and disposal of all waste water. The concrete and asphalt constructfon, wash water and process water shall abide by the King County Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon Manual specifically A-11, A-19, A-20, A-44, and A-41 at minimum. 8.2.1.6 HANDL ING OF PH ELEVATED WATER pH elevated water shall not be discharged from the site. Contractor shall monitor storm water for pH prior to discharging from the site. Contractor shall implement a pH treatment plan if pH is not within the natural range. Contractor shall provide details on disposal of water with elevated pH or of the treated water. 8.2.1.7 APPLICATION OF CHEMICALS INCLUDING PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS The site has the potentfal to use dry pestfcides and fertflizers. If stored onsite shall be covered with plastfc sheetfng or stored in a sealed container. Materials shall be stored on pallets or another raised method to prevent any contact with water. In the event of a leak or spill, the materials shall be contained where the contents will not discharge, flow, or be washed into water resources. Maintenance requirements are the same as liquid materials described in Sectfon 8.2.1.1. The storage of soil, sand, and other erodible materials shall abide by the King County Storm Water Pollutfon Preventfon Manual; MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 22 SWP-27-3976 specifically, A-45 at minimum. Further restrictfons shall be enacted and defined by the SWPPS supervisor. The full extent for applicatfon of chemicals is unknown at this tfme and will be further assessed by the contractor upon award and before constructfon. The contractor will specify the proposed chemicals to be used on site, where and how chemicals will be applied, and where and how chemicals will be stored. These locatfons will also be shown on the SWPPS site plan, as necessary. 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The Madsen Creek Flood Control Improvement Project is a City of Renton Surface Water Utflity Capital Improvement Project funded by the King County Flood Control Zone District. This is a publicly funded and maintained project which does not require bond quantftfes, facility summaries, and a declaratfon of covenant. 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The work proposed for this project lies within existfng and proposed City of Renton Public Utflity easements, right-of-way, or temporary easements. The surface water facilitfes within the Madsen Creek project area and City of Renton will be maintained and operated by City of Renton Surface Water Maintenance Department as outlined in Appendix A of the 2017 CORSWDM. A separate operatfon and maintenance manual will be developed in coordinatfon with King County, Washington Department of Transportatfon, and private property owners (as required) to maintain the Lower Madsen Creek network conveyance capacity and flood control protectfon. 11 CONCLUSIONS The Madsen Creek Improvement Project will provide greater flood protectfon along the lower Madsen Creek network. The work is proposed through maintenance and modificatfon of the high flow bypass channel and adding flood control structures along specific banks along the low flow channel and sedimentatfon basin. The sedimentatfon basin will also be fitted with a spillway to increase the likelihood of extreme flood flows routfng safely through the Madsen Creek network instead of adjacent residentfal propertfes. This work was justffied in previous reports, put together by the City of Renton and its Consultants, identffying the problem flood areas and improvements to improve local flood protectfon. The proposed work is in conformance with the 2017 CORSWDM. MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-3976 Page 23 APPENDIX A : TIR WORKSHEET CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _____________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ Project Engineer ___________________________ Company _________________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Project Name __________________________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township ________________ Range __________________ Section _________________ Site Address __________________________ _____________________________________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.) Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR) Grading Right-of-Way Use Other _______________________ DFW HPA COE 404 DOE Dam Safety FEMA Floodplain COE Wetlands Other ________ Shoreline Management Structural Rockery/Vault/_____ ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Full Targeted Simplified Large Project Directed __________________ __________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Full Modified Simplified __________________ __________________ __________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS River/Stream ________________________ Lake ______________________________ Wetlands ____________________________ Closed Depression ____________________ Floodplain ___________________________ Other _______________________________ _______________________________ Steep Slope __________________________ Erosion Hazard _______________________ Landslide Hazard ______________________ Coal Mine Hazard ______________________ Seismic Hazard _______________________ Habitat Protection ______________________ _____________________________________ REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) Other ________________________________ Sole Source Aquifer Seeps/Springs Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________ Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________ SEPA________________________________ LID Infeasibility________________________ Other________________________________ _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _______________________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ On-site BMPs: _______________________________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________ Contact Phone: _________________________ After Hours Phone: _________________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Clearing Limits Cover Measures Perimeter Protection Traffic Area Stabilization Sediment Retention Surface Water Collection Dewatering Control Dust Control Flow Control Control Pollutants Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION Stabilize exposed surfaces Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description Detention Infiltration Regional Facility Shared Facility On-site BMPs Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ Vegetated Flowpath Wetpool Filtration Oil Control Spill Control On-site BMPs Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Drainage Easement Covenant Native Growth Protection Covenant Tract Other ____________________________ Cast in Place Vault Retaining Wall Rockery > 4′ High Structural on Steep Slope Other _______________________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date APPENDIX B : EXISTING CONDITION MODEL RESULTS Existing Conditions 25 -Year Maximum Flood Depths Existing Conditions 100 -Year Maximum Flood Depths Existing Conditions 25 -Year Maximum Velocities Existing Conditions 100 -Year Maximum Velocities Simulated Maximum Depths- 25yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 14 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Depths (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Figure 15 Simulated Maximum Depths- 100yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 14 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Depths (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Figure 16 Simulated Maximum Velocities- 25yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 06 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekExisting Conditions Figure 30 Simulated Maximum Velocities- 100yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 06 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekExisting Conditions Figure 31 APPENDIX C : PROPOSED CONDITION MODEL RESULTS Proposed Conditions 25 -Year Maximum Flood Depths Proposed Conditions 100 -Year Maximum Flood Depths Proposed Conditions 25 -Year Maximum Velocities Proposed Conditions 100 -Year Maximum Velocities Simulated Maximum Depths- 25yr Flood Event -UV169 CedarRiver 0 150 300Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen CreekProposed Conditions Simulated Maximum Depths- 100yr Flood Event -UV169 CedarRiver 0 150 300Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen CreekProposed Conditions Simulated Maximum Velocities- 25yr Flood Event -UV169 CedarRiver 0 150 300Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekProposed Conditions Simulated Maximum Velocities- 100yr Flood Event -UV169 CedarRiver 0 150 300Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekProposed Conditions APPENDIX D : LOWER MADSEN CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS FLOOD AND SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT FINAL LOWER MADSEN CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS FLOOD & SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT Prepared for: City of Renton Public Works Utility Systems -- Surface Water Utility Engineering 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Prepared by: 506 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98104 206-521-3000 March 20, 2019 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Watershed Science and Engineering would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in providing information that was utilized in this investigation: Landowners • Aran Church, King County Housing Authority • Donna Cleveland, Property Manager Wonderland Estates • John Schommer, Landowner City of Renton • Ron Straka, P.E., Utility Systems Director • Joseph Farah, P.E., Surface Water Engineering Manager Technical Consul t ants • Watershed Science & Engineering o Jeff Johnson, P.E., Project Manager and Hydraulic Engineer o Larry Karpack, P.E., Hydrologist o Bob Elliot, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer o Kaleb Madsen, EIT, Jr. Hydraulic Engineer o Hannah Hampson, Hydraulic Engineer Intern • Herrera Environmental Consultants • Pacific Geomatic Services Project Funded B y • City of Renton • King County Flood Control District March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions ii CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... i Landowners ............................................................................................. i City of Renton .......................................................................................... i Technical Consultants ................................................................................. i Project Funded By ..................................................................................... i Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 4 1.1. Special Notes.................................................................................... 4 2. Background ............................................................................................. 5 2.1. Watershed Geology, Development and Stormwater ....................................... 5 2.2. Flood Control Project Construction History ................................................ 7 2.2.1. Flood History ........................................................................ 10 2.2.1. Maintenance History ............................................................... 12 2.3. Existing Conditions Field Observations ..................................................... 14 2.3.1. Channel Characteristics by Sub-Reach .......................................... 14 3. Analysis ................................................................................................ 34 3.1. Hydrology ....................................................................................... 34 3.1.1. Hydrologic Setting ................................................................ 34 3.1.2. Hydrologic Model Development ................................................ 34 3.1.3. Hydrologic Model Calibration .................................................. 39 3.1.4. Hydrologic Model Application ..................................................... 40 3.2. Hydraulic Modeling ............................................................................ 46 3.2.1. Hydraulic Model Development .................................................... 46 3.3. Sediment Transport and Deposition ........................................................ 62 3.3.1. Sediment Deposition Locations ................................................... 62 3.3.2. Sediment Grainsize Characteristics .............................................. 74 3.3.3. Sediment Basin Performance and Basin Sediment Yield ....................... 84 4. Potential Solutions ................................................................................... 89 5. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 91 6. References ............................................................................................ 92 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions iii TABLES 1. Construction History Madsen Creek Flood Control Project. 2. Summary of Significant Flood Events 3. Estimate of Sediment Removed from Sediment Basin and High Flow Bypass 4. Madsen Creek Sub-Reaches. 5. Annual Instantaneous Peak Flows Madsen Creek at Entrance to Sediment Basin 6. Sediment Sample Data. 7. Channel and Incipient Velocities for Stream Sediments by Sub-Reach 8. Sediment pond capture efficiency calculation based on known or estimated volumes of sediment deposition between 1991 and 2018. F IGURES 1. Madsen Creek Drainage Basin & Project Location Map 2. Madsen Creek Sub-Reaches 3. Madsen Creek HSPF Sub-Basins 4. Madsen Creek Watershed Land Cover 5. Madsen Creek Watershed Soils 6. Comparison of HSPF Simulated verses Observed Flows for Water Year 2011 7. Comparison of HSPF Simulated verses Observed Flows for Water Year 2015 8. Flood Frequency Curves Generated from Gage and HSPF Model Data for Period 1989 to 2018 9. Flood Frequency Curves Generated from Gage and HSPF Model Data for Period 2001 to 2018 10. Flood Frequency Curves Generated from Gage and HSPF Model Data for Period 2004 to 2018 11. Hydraulic Model Domain & Boundary Conditions 12. Manning’s n Values – Existing Conditions 13. Simulated Maximum Depths 16 February 2017 Flood Event – Existing Conditions 14. Simulated Maximum Depths 2-yr Flood Event -- Existing Conditions 15. Simulated Maximum Depths 25-yr Flood Event -- Existing Conditions 16. Simulated Maximum Depths 100-yr Flood Event -- Existing Conditions 17. Cedar River Flood Depths > 10-year Event 18. Cedar River Flood Depths 50-year Event 19. Sediment Sample Locations & Bed Material Types 20. Profile Comparison 1974 to 2018 High Flow Bypass 21. Sediment Deposition Comparison Locations March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions iv 22. Upper High Flow Bypass Cross Section Comparison (1974 vs. 2018) 23. Lower High Flow Bypass Cross Section Comparison (1974 vs. 2018) 24. Profile Comparison 1989 to 2018 Madsen Creek Channel within Ron Regis Park 25. Park Channel Cross Section Comparison (1989 vs. 2018) 26. Grainsize Distribution Curves -- Upstream Channel and Sediment Basin 27. Grainsize Distribution Curves -- High Flow Bypass 28. Grainsize Distribution Curves -- Madsen Creek Channel Downstream from Sediment Basin 29. Simulated Maximum Velocity 2-year Flood Event -- Existing Conditions 30. Simulated Maximum Velocity 25-year Flood Event -- Existing Conditions 31. Simulated Maximum Velocity 100-year Flood Event -- Existing Conditions 32. Rate of Sediment Deposition in Sediment Basin for a Given Inflow 33. Fraction of Flow Exiting Sediment Basin Through the High Flow Bypass 34. Approximate Distribution of Sediment Delivered to and Existing the Sediment Basin March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 1 EXECUTIVE S UMMARY The portion of Madsen Creek located within the Cedar River valley is commonly referred to as the lower Madsen Creek. Flooding problems within this reach have grown more frequent within the past decade and the City of Renton, in partnership with King County, desires to reduce or eliminate them. The City retained a consultant team led by Watershed Science and Engineering to conduct an investigation to determine what is causing the flooding and to identify feasible solutions. The project is split into two parts -- Phase 1 which is an investigation to identify the factors that are responsible for the flooding, and Phase 2 which will be completed in 2019, will identify and develop solutions. This report documents the results of the Phase 1 investigation. Flooding has been a problem along lower Madsen Creek for decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, rapid development within the watershed increased stormwater runoff to the stream which in turn increased flow rates and flooding along lower Madsen Creek. To reduce flooding, King County constructed a sediment basin to decrease deposition; and a high flow flood bypass channel to convey flood flows directly to the Cedar River. The system, which was designed in 1974, built in 1976, and improved in 1990, has performed well over the past 42 years; however, recent flooding events indicate that further improvements are needed. The Phase 1 existing condition assessment consisted of five technical tasks: 1) topographic survey of the stream channel and flood bypass, 2) wetland identification and mapping, 3) hydrologic HSPF modeling, 4) hydraulic HEC-RAS 2D modeling, and 5) a sediment transport and deposition investigation. Items 3 through 5 are the focus of this report. Item 2 is the subject of a separate companion report prepared by Herrera Environmental. The results of these investigations revealed that sediment deposition is the primary cause of the flooding due to reduced channel capacity along sections of both Madsen Creek and the high flow flood bypass. The sediment basin is performing well, estimated to capture roughly 50% of the sediment that is delivered to the lower Madsen Creek from the upstream watershed. Approximately, fifty-percent passes through the basin with 90% transported by the high flow bypass and 10% by Madsen Creek (under the current sediment basin outlet configuration in which the inlet to the Madsen Creek culvert is partly blocked by a metal plate). On average about 800 yd3 of sediment deposits in the basin annually, which means about 800 yd3 passes through the basin. Of this, approximately 720 yd3 exits via the high flow bypass and 80 yd3 via Madsen Creek. The reach of Madsen Creek most impacted by sediment deposition is located within Ron Regis Park, downstream from 149th Avenue SE. This portion of Madsen Creek was originally constructed in 1989. It was much larger than it is today and therefore, had the ability to convey much larger flows. Today it is only about 25% of its original size due to sediment deposition. Several residents and stakeholders have suggested that this is the primary cause of recent flooding issues along 149th Avenue SE and within a mobile the home community Wonderland Estates. This is partially true, but it must be recognized that the channel, as March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 2 constructed in 1989, was not sustainable. The original channel was much too large to be maintained naturally by the flows carried by Madsen Creek and, therefore, it has effectively served as a sediment trap. A sustainable channel would have required either an active sediment management maintenance removal program or much larger flows. The size of the channel that exists today is much more in-line with what would naturally form given the flows that are actually carried by Madsen Creek. As a result, removing sediment from this section of the stream would only serve as a temporary solution and would require a sustained future sediment removal maintenance program. Additionally, sediment removal would require environmental permits, which may not be obtained due to the current habitat value of the reach. The investigation identified the specific locations where water leaves the channel network and floods adjacent developed properties. It also revealed that most of these flooding problems can be reduced or eliminated with maintenance actions or one-time improvement projects. Proposed solutions for each category are listed below in the order of relative importance as viewed by the consultant team: Recurring Maintenance Projects: 1. Restore the capacity of the high flow bypass and the SR169 culvert by removing accumulated sediment and developing an effective sediment removal and annual vegetation maintenance program. 2. Monitor sediment accumulations within the three culverts listed below. Remove the sediment if it starts to limit the capacity of the culvert to the point flooding upstream worsens. This may require removing sediment from the channel downstream of the culvert to prevent the culvert from rapidly refilling with sediment. a. Madsen Creek culvert under high flow bypass b. Madsen Creek SR169 culvert c. Madsen Creek 149th Avenue SE culvert It is recommended that the City, County, and WSDOT work together to develop a memorandum of understanding that specifies the entity responsible for each maintenance activity identified in this study and the frequency and timing of that maintenance. One-Time Improvement Projects: 3. Raise the right bank berm along the upper high flow bypass. 4. Continue to limit the amount of flow that enters Madsen Creek by either retaining the existing plates or installing a slide gate on the entrance to the Madsen Creek culvert at the outlet of the sediment basin. 5. Raise the right bank berm along the section of channel between SR169 and 149th Avenue SE. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 3 6. Raise the height of the ground that separates Madsen Creek from Wonderland Estates. 7. Raise the berm that surrounds the sediment pond and add a rock-lined emergency spillway that discharges to the high flow bypass. 8. Increase culvert capacity at the downstream end of the ditch along 149th Avenue SE either by improving the existing culvert outlet system, or preferably installing a second culvert outlet that drains to the Cedar River and not the high flow bypass. Also, consider enlarging the ditch. 9. Raise the ground height surrounding the entrance to the SR169 high flow bypass culvert to provide freeboard during the 100-year flood if the entrance to the culvert becomes partially blocked by woody debris. 10. Raise the right bank berm of Madsen Creek where it overtops near the downstream end of the park channel. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 4 1. I NTRODUCTION Flood and sediment deposition problems along Madsen Creek are typical of those found on small streams in reaches of transitioning channel slope. Madsen Creek collects runoff from a large upland glacial moraine plateau then descends 400 feet through a steep hillside ravine before flowing onto and across the floodplain of the Cedar River. The creek slope begins to flatten as it emerges from the ravine and flows across a small alluvial fan, and flattens further as it flows across the Cedar River floodplain before its confluence with the river. The rapid decrease in channel slope reduces the stream’s ability to convey sediment, which causes sediment to deposit in and beside the channel. This reduces channel capacity and in turn increases flooding. To reduce sediment deposition and flooding, King County constructed a sediment basin at the outlet of the ravine and a high flow flood bypass channel from the sediment basin to the Cedar River. The system, which was built in 1976 and improved in 1990, has performed well over the past 42 years; however, within the past decade significant flood problems have developed which are impacting residential and commercial properties adjacent to or near the stream. The City, in partnership with King County, has initiated this project to determine the causes behind the flooding problems and to identify feasible near- and long-term actions to reduce or eliminate them. Watershed Science and Engineering, along with subconsultants Herrera Environmental and PGS Surveying, were retained by the City to complete the investigation. The project is divided into two phases -- Phase 1 is an existing condition assessment to determine what is causing the flood problems, and Phase 2 is the identification and preliminary design of solutions. This report documents the findings of the Phase 1 Existing Condition Assessment. 1.1. Special Notes • The terms right and left are used in this report to identify the right and left sides of the stream channel, assuming the reader is looking downstream. • Elevations reported in this document are referenced to vertical datum NAVD’88. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 5 2. B ACKGROUND 2.1. Watershed Geology, Development and Stormwater Madsen Creek collects runoff from a large upland glacial moraine plateau and then descends through a steep hillside ravine before flowing across the historical floodplain of the Cedar River (Figure 1). In the 1970s, the upper plateau saw rapid residential development (Fairwood) with stormwater runoff collected and discharged directly to Madsen Creek and its tributaries. The larger volume of stormwater increased the frequency and magnitude of peak flows in Madsen Creek which increased sediment recruitment and transport to the project area, necessitating the installation of the sediment basin and high flow flood bypass channel. Over past 40 years, actions have been taken within the upper watershed to reduce stormwater impacts including the construction of multiple stormwater detention facilities. These improvements have reduced sediment transport to the project area, but sediment deposition continues to be a problem. MadsenCreekUnn a m e d Summ erfieldCr eekUn n a m e d Madsen CreekUnnamed MadsenCreekM adsenCreek MadsenCreek UnnamedMolassesCreek MadsenCreekUnnamed MadsenCreek S u m m erfield Creek M adsen Creek M a d s e n Creek Cedar River King CountyRentonRentonKing CountyRentonKing CountyRenton Esri., Inc., City of Renton, WA, City of Renton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet ´City of Renton Legend Renton City Limits Potential Annexation Area Stormwater System Renton Private Print Date: 05/05/2017 Madsen CreekSediment Basin 149th Avenue SE Ron Regis Park Madsen CreekChannel Madsen Creek High Flow Bypass Channel Madsen CreekLow FlowChannel Madsen Creek Drainage Basin & Project Location Map Total Basin Area = 2.09 sq miBasin Area in King County = 1.88 sq miBasin Area in Renton = 0.21 sq mi Madsen Creek Drainage Basin: Lower Madsen Creek Project Reach Figure 1Figure created by Renton Public Works March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 7 2.2. Flood Control Project Construction History Table 1 provides a historical account of the construction of the Madsen Creek flood control system, compiled from existing documents and discussions with landowners and property managers. Each key event is identified in the table and described in greater detail following the table. Table 1. Construction History Madsen Creek Flood Control Project. Year Event 1976 King County built the original flood control system which included: • sediment basin. • high flow bypass channel. 1989 King County relocated Madsen Creek downstream from 149th Avenue SE to flow through land owned by City of Renton Parks, now Ron Regis Park. The project included: • new culvert under 149th Avenue SE. • small “sediment trap” just downstream from 149th Avenue SE. • improvements to the ditch along the east side of 149th Avenue SE. • filling of the abandoned portion of Madsen Creek downstream from 149th Avenue SE. • log weirs at the mouth of Madsen Creek to allow fish to enter the stream from the Cedar River. 1993 to 1995 (est.) WSDOT widened SR169. Project included: • new box culvert under SR169 and the Cedar River Trail for high flow bypass channel. • extension of Madsen Creek box culvert under SR169 and the Cedar River Trail. • new Madsen Creek box culvert under high flow bypass channel. • modifying Madsen Creek channel along south side of SR169 in front of Wonderland Estates. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 8 1996 King County modified the primary sediment basin to make sure that during low flow periods the water entering the sediment basin exited to Madsen Creek and not to the high flow bypass. Project included: • lowering the floor of the sediment basin one foot. • lowering the 36” CMP culvert that discharges to Madsen Creek one foot. • installing a weir just upstream from the high flow bypass outlet culvert to divert low flows directly into the Madsen Creek low flow channel. • elevating the floor of the high flow bypass outlet culvert 0.8 feet. • installing an additional log weir at the inlet to the sediment basin. 1997/1998 City of Renton installed a bridge over Madsen Creek as part of building the entrance road to Ron Regis Park. 1998 King County replaced the log weirs at entrance to sediment basin. 2002 King County constructed a concrete side weir just upstream from the 149th Avenue SE culvert on the right bank at entrance to road-side ditch. 2009/2010 New Life Church detention pond was expanded and a new outlet pipe system discharging directly to Madsen Creek was installed. The discharge point from the outlet is 20 feet upstream from the Madsen Creek culvert that passes under the high flow bypass. Additional detail describing the events in Table 1 • 1976 (King County, 1974) – Original flood control system was constructed. System elements included: o Sediment basin outlet: ▪ The entrance to the high flow bypass was an open trapezoidal channel. ▪ The connection to Madsen Creek was through two 36” by 22” CMP culverts. o High flow bypass channel: ▪ Three 58” by 36” CMP culverts carried the high flow bypass under SR169 and a wooden trestle carried it under the railroad. o Two 36” by 22” CMP culverts carried Madsen Creek under the high flow bypass just upstream from the SR169. • 1989 (King County, 1989) – Madsen Creek downstream from 149th Avenue SE was relocated to flow through land owned by City of Renton Parks. Project included: o New 9’2” by 3’3” structural arch culvert under 149th Avenue SE near intersection with SR169. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 9 o Channel was diverted from the roadside ditch along the east side of 149th Avenue SE into a newly constructed channel through park land. The roadside ditch remained. o Downstream portion of the roadside ditch along 149th Avenue SE was extended to the high flow bypass channel just upstream from the two 72” CMP culverts that connect the high flow bypass to the Cedar River. The ditch extension included an open ditch segment and two 18” culvert pipe segments in series, one that included an inline 48” type 2 catch basin which houses a backflow check value. o Two 36-inch existing culverts originally carried the roadside ditch portion of Madsen Creek under 149th Avenue SE at a site approximately 700 feet north of SR169. One culvert has been plugged with concrete and at the other a 48” type 2 catch basin was installed at its outlet. The basin does not have an outlet other than a grate on top. • 1993 to 1995 (est.) (WSDOT 1993) – SR169 was widened and three new box culverts installed. Project included: o New 8’ by 6’ concrete box culvert was installed to carry the high flow bypass under SR169. This new culvert was extended north to pass under the Cedar River Trail (formally the railroad grade). o The existing Madsen Creek culvert under SR169 was extended north to accommodate the highway widening and to pass under the trail. The existing culvert was a 6’ by 3’ concrete box. It was extended by adding a 6’ by 4’ box to the north end and filling the floor of the extension with 12 inches of stream bed gravel. o New 6’ by 4’ concrete box culvert was installed to carry Madsen Creek under the high flow bypass. It replaced two 36’ by 22’CMP culverts. • 1996 (King County, 1996) – sediment basin inlet and outlet were modified. Project included: o One log weir was added at sediment basin inlet 10 feet downstream from existing log weirs. o One log weir was installed at sediment basin outlet approximately 10 feet upstream from the 36” CMP culvert that connects to Madsen Creek. o A concrete weir was installed approximately five feet upstream from concrete box culvert that connects to the high flow bypass. o The 36” CMP outlet pipe to Madsen Creek was lowered one foot. o The fill along the downstream side of the sediment basin was raised to elevation 120.5 feet (datum not specified). • 1997/1998 (City of Renton, 1997) – New bridge installed over Madsen Creek along the park entrance road. Project included: o An 18-foot wide reinforced cast-in-place single span bridge. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 10 • 1998 (King County, 1997) – The log weirs at the entrance to the sediment basin were replaced • 2002 (King County, 2002) – A concrete weir was constructed at entrance to the road- side ditch along east side of 149th Avenue SE. o This was installed to reduce flooding along 149th Avenue SE by limiting the amount of flow entering the road-side ditch. • 2009/2010 (Barghausen, 2009) – New Life Church detention pond was expanded and a new outlet pipe system installed that discharges to Madsen Creek just upstream from high flow bypass undercrossing. o The pipe is a 24” Corrugated Poly Ethylene Pipe (CPEP). 2.2.1. Floo d Hi story Madsen Creek has experienced a number of notable floods since the early 1970s. Significant events are identified in Table 2 below, followed by a description of many of these events by persons that live and work in the area. Table 2. Summary of Significant Flood Events. Year Event 1960 to 1972 No noteworthy floods occurred February 28, 1972 First major flood in 1972 March 2, 1972 Second major flood in 1972 September 21 to 23, 1972 Third major flood in 1972. This event produced major landslides in Madsen Creek ravine 1970 to 1990 Other instances of flooding between 1972 and 1990 have likely occurred but were not reported or documented. January 9, 1990 Flood of record December 2005 and January 2006 Floods inundated portions of Wonderland Estates 1990 to 2016 Other instances of flooding between 1990 and 2016 have likely occurred but were not reported or documented. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 11 October and November 2016 Flooding along 149th Avenue SE February 9 and 15- 16, 2017 Significant flooding along 149th Avenue SE which resulted in a claim against King County and the City of Renton by a landowner January 11 and 15, and April 16 2018 Flooding within Wonderland Estates Mr. Kolcsey, owner and developer of the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park, provided the following written historical account of flooding problems along lower Madsen Creek (Kolcsey, 1990). • Mr. Kolcsey stated that prior to 1972 there were no flood problems. • First significant flood occurred February 28, 1972 and another one a few days later on March 2, 1972. In Mr. Kolcsey’s opinion the cause was “overloaded Madsen Creek by the Fairwood development, and lack of proper maintenance by King County.” • A third significant flood occurred between September 21 and 23, 1972. • The largest and most damaging flood occurred on January 9, 1990 flood. According to Mr. Kolcsey, the amount of water overwhelmed the stream, clogged culverts with debris and sediment, forcing flood over the sediment basin berm causing water to flow into and through Wonderland Estates. The property manager at Wonderland Estates met with project team members on June 28, 2018. She noted that flooding within the parking area at the front of Wonderland Estates has been relatively frequent, although the stormwater system improvements installed in 2012 have helped reduce flooding. She noted that in December 2005 and January 2006 floods inundated the Wonderland Estates office and that floods in 2018 on January 11 and 15 and April 16 flooded the parking area. The owner of the private residence immediately east of Wonderland Estates met with project team members on August 27, 2018. It was his opinion that recent flooding on his property and within Wonderland Estates is due to lack of capacity within Madsen Creek downstream from 149th Avenue SE. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 12 The property owner at 15205 149th Avenue SE also met with project team members on August 27, 2018 and provided the following observations and opinions: • The ditch along 149th Avenue SE has filled up with flood water 10 to 15 times in the past two years. • Water stops moving at the north end of 149th Avenue SE because the 18-inch CMP culvert(s) that connect the ditch to the high flow bypass channel is too small. • The property owner showed where two 36-inch concrete culverts used to carry Madsen Creek under 149th Avenue SE prior to the stream diversion into and through the park in 1989. The upstream culvert has been plugged with concrete. The downstream culvert is open and ties into a catch basin on the west side of the road. The catch basin is a tall standpipe with the top extending approximately one foot above the ground. The standpipe has an open grate on the top. During the 1990 flood, the property owner said someone broke a foot wide by six-inch tall hole in the side of the standpipe which allowed water to flow out and enter a neighboring constructed fish habitat channel. This helped drain water and lower flood levels on 149th Avenue SE. The hole has been filled. • He stated that the plate installed over the entrance to the culvert that exits the sediment basin has helped reduce the frequency of flooding along 149th Avenue SE. The plate was installed by the City in 2018. • His property flooded twice in February 2017. The first time was on the 9th and the second was on the 16th. During both events, water overtopped the right bank of Madsen Creek upstream from 149th Avenue SE. This water flowed to his house through a swale in the backyard of his neighbor. During the February 16 flood water rose to within one inch of the top step at his front door (about 14 inches deep), he had about 12 inches of water in his garage, and water rose to the first row of siding along the south side of his house. • He stated that King County mows the high flow bypass downstream from SR169 once or twice a year. He agreed that this is good, but he is concerned that the County also needs to improve conveyance by removing other obstructions in the floor the channel (e.g. sediment, old stumps and rocks, etc.). • He said that following the 2017 floods, King County concluded that the 149th Avenue SE ditch was not the cause of the flooding, but rather the ditch was receiving too much flow due to lack of capacity within Madsen Creek downstream from 149th Avenue SE. 2.2.1. Maintenance History Maintenance records provided by the City reveal that the sediment basin has been cleaned almost annually since 1981 and that portions of the high flow bypass channel have also been cleaned several times (Table 3). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 13 Table 3. Estimate of Sediment Removed from Sediment Basin and High Flow Bypass. Year1 Volume Removed from Sediment Basin and High Flow Bypass Channel (yd3) Notes 1981 912 Approx. 680 yd3 from basin, 232 yd3 from channel 1984 1428 Unknown if material removed from high flow bypass 1985 624 20% additional volume removed from high flow bypass 1986 1630 Same as above 1987 1424 Same as above 1988 948 Same as above 1989 720 Same as above 1990 6386 Same as above 1991 1860 Unknown if material removed from high flow bypass 1992 552 Same as above 1993 280 Same as above 1994 890 Same as above 1995 830 Same as above 1996 3430 Same as above 1997 1100 Same as above 1998 460 No sediment removed from the high flow bypass 1999 500 Same as above 2000 260 Same as above 2001 270 Same as above 2002 1117 Same as above 2003 70 Same as above 2004 850 Same as above 2005 390 370 yd3 from basin 20 yd3 from high flow bypass 2006 500 No sediment removed from the high flow bypass 2009 unknown2 Same as above 2010 unknown2 Same as above 2011 unknown2 Same as above 2013 unknown2 Same as above 2014 unknown2 Same as above 2015 unknown2 Same as above 2016 unknown2 Same as above 2017 unknown2 Sediment removed from upper high flow bypass. Quantity unknown. 2018 unknown2 No sediment removed from the high flow bypass 1King County cleaned the sediment basin 1981 through 2006. The City of Renton took over maintenance in 2009. 2The volume removed from the sediment basin was not recorded. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 14 2.3. Existing Conditions Field Observations 2.3.1. Channel Characteristics by Sub -Reach The channel network includes a number of geomorphically unique sub-reaches. These sub- reaches are identified in Table 4 and shown in Figure 2. A description and photographs of each sub-reach are provided after the figure. Table 4. Madsen Creek Sub-Reaches. Sub-Reach Location A Madsen Creek upstream from sediment basin B Sediment basin C Madsen Creek from sediment basin to culvert under high flow bypass D Madsen Creek from culvert under high flow bypass to 149th Avenue SE E Madsen Creek from 149th Avenue SE through Ron Regis Park F Madsen Creek open water wetland downstream from Ron Regis Park to Cedar River G High flow bypass channel upstream from SR169 H High flow bypass channel downstream from SR169 I Ditch along east side of 149th Avenue SE !(B !(A !(D !(F !(I !(H !(G !(E !(C Figure 2 Madsen Creek Sub-Reaches 27 Jan 2019 0 270 540 Feet Scale: 1:4,555NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonNorth FIPS 4601 Feet U March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 16 Sub-Reach A: Madsen Creek Upstream of Sediment Basin Channel Type: Pool Riffle Bed Material Characteristics: Gravel / Cobble, d50 = 50mm, d90= 250mm Large Wood: Typical characteristics of small natural streams found in the pacific northwest-- logs visible in stream bed, downed trees spanning channel from bank to bank. Vegetation Characteristics: Naturally vegetated stream banks and floodplain – alder and maple trees, salmon berry, black berry, etc. Comments: Channel appears to be stable and in equilibrium. Photo 1. Typical channel upstream from sediment basin (Photo taken June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 17 Sub-Reach B: Sediment Basin Channel Type: Constructed Basin Bed Material Characteristics: Gravel with a few small cobbles, d50 = 10mm at head of basin grading to fine sand and silt at the outlet. Vegetation Characteristics: Alder trees line the banks except along the right (east) side which is intentionally open to allow machinery access to clean sediment from the basin annually. Structures: Inlet weirs and outlet weirs and culverts. Photo 2. Viewing south (upstream) across sediment basin to weirs at entrance (January 19, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 18 Photo 3. Viewing northeast (downstream) toward the outlet of the sediment basin (January 19, 2018). Photo 4. Viewing upstream (south) to log weirs at the entrance to the sediment basin (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 19 Photo 5. The inlet to flow bypass pipe located within weir reach at upstream end of the sediment basin. Plate that covers inlet is missing. Photo 6. The culvert at the basin outlet that carries water from the sediment basin to Madsen Creek. Two metal plates have been installed to reduce the amount of flow that is conveyed to Madsen Creek. They cover approximately three-quarters of the inlet (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 20 Photo 7. Viewing downstream (north) to the box culvert and weir at the outlet of the sediment basin which discharges to the high flow bypass. The floor of the culvert is partially undermined (June 2018). Photos 8 and 9. Concrete weir at sediment basin outlet (flow is from right to left). The outlet pipe to Madsen Creek is visible in background. Photo 9 is viewing upstream to the outlet of the culvert that discharges to the high flow bypass (June 7 and January 19, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 21 Sub-Reach C: Madsen Creek natural channel between sediment basin and culvert under high flow bypass Channel Type: Pool-Riffle Bed Material Characteristics: Gravel upstream grading to fine sand at high flow bypass undercrossing. Vegetation Characteristics: Thick buffer of alder trees and blackberry. Large Wood: Reach does not contain large pieces of wood, but it does contain numerous small trees on the banks and across the stream. Structures: A small wooden foot bridge in the upper portion of the reach provides the church access to the track and play field. Photos 10 and 11. Typical example of Madsen Creek within sub-reach C (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 22 Photo 12. Stormwater pipe outlet. Pipe carries stormwater to Madsen Creek from the church property and development east of church (June 7, 2018). Photo 13. Inlet to Madsen Creek culvert under high flow bypass (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 23 Sub-Reach D: Madsen Creek channel from culvert under high flow bypass to 149th Avenue SE Channel Type: Constructed ditch upstream from SR169. Channel downstream from SR169 has a natural appearance, but likely has been modified over the past 40 years. Bed Material Characteristics: Fine gravel to sand and silt Vegetation Characteristics: Grass along ditch upstream from SR169 and blackberries and small alder trees downstream. Large Wood: Ditch segment has no wood. Small maple and alder trees line banks downstream from SR169. Structures: Culverts under High Flow Bypass and SR169 Photo 14. Viewing east (upstream) along excavated ditch along the south side of SR169. Photo 15. Typical channel between SR169 and 149th Avenue SE. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 24 Photos 16 and 17. Entrance to Madsen Creek culvert under SR169 viewing upstream (east) and downstream (west) respectively (June 7, 2018). Photos 18 and 19. Entrance to Madsen Creek 149th Ave SE Culvert (June 7 & January 19, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 25 Sub-Reaches E and F: Madsen Creek channel from 149th Avenue SE through Ron Regis Park to Cedar River Channel Type: Plain Bed Bed Material Characteristics: Fine sand with silt at channel margins and on inset benches Vegetation Characteristics: Small alder and thick blackberries. Large Wood: Small diameter pieces are present on the channel bed. Large wood was installed in the channel bed when the channel was constructed in 1989, but it has been completely covered with silt and sand. Numerous small live maple tree trunks crisscross the channel. Structures: 149th Avenue SE culvert, Sediment Trap (oversized channel segment) in channel just downstream from 149th Avenue SE, Park entrance road bridge. Photo 20. Viewing upstream (east) along Madsen Creek through sediment trap to 149th Avenue SE culvert (January 19, 2018). Photo 21. Typical channel segment between the sediment trap and the bridge on the park entrance road (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 26 Photo 22. Typical Madsen Creek channel within Park. Photo 23. Abandoned channel that once carried the stream to the Cedar River before it was diverted into the pond in Photo 24 below. It is now filled with Reed Canary grass. (Both photos taken June 7, 2018). Photo 24. Viewing into pond at location where Madsen Creek enters pond (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 27 Photo 25. Viewing downstream to the park entrance road bridge over Madsen Creek (June 7, 2018). Photo 26. Upstream side of park entrance road bridge over Madsen Creek. Photo 27. Flood protection berm/ecology block wall along west side of Madsen Creek along the Ron Regis Park cricket field (January 19, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 28 Sub-Reach G: High flow bypass channel upstream from SR169 Channel Type: Constructed trapezoidal earth channel Bed Material Characteristics: Riprap is visible in the floor of the upstream portion of the channel; but no riprap was visible in the downstream portion above the Madsen Creek culvert undercrossing. Riprap is present between the undercrossing and the SR169 culvert. Vegetation Characteristics: Grass Large Wood: None Structures: Madsen Creek natural channel culvert undercrossing and SR169 culvert. Photo 28. Viewing upstream (south) along high flow bypass upstream from SR169. Photo 29. Viewing downstream (north) to SR169 (Both photos taken January 19, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 29 Photo 30. Viewing upstream (south) to exposed top of culvert that carries Madsen Creek under the high flow bypass (June 7, 2018). Photo 31. Viewing downstream (north) to SR169. Person is standing on top of the Madsen Creek culvert that passes under high flow bypass channel (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 30 Photo 32. Viewing downstream (north) to entrance of culvert that carries the high flow bypass under SR169 (June 7, 2018). Photo 33. Viewing upstream (south) to the outlet of the high flow bypass culvert under SR169 (June 7, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 31 Sub-Reach H: High Flow Bypass channel downstream from SR169 Channel Type: Constructed trapezoidal earth channel Bed Material Characteristics: Silt and sand Vegetation Characteristics: Grass, blackberries, and brush. Large Wood: None Structures: Two 72-inch CMP pipes at outlet to Cedar River. Photos 34 and 35. Viewing downstream (north) along High flow bypass downstream from SR 169. Photo 34 taken on January 19, 2018 shortly after the channel was mowed. Photo 35 was taken June 7, 2018; vegetation in channel is eight feet tall and dense. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 32 Photo 36. Viewing downstream (north) to the inlet of the twin 6-foot CMP pipes at the end of the high flow bypass (January 19, 2018). Photo 37. Viewing downstream (northwest) along Cedar River at outlet of high flow bypass culverts (January 19, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 33 Sub-Reach I: Ditch along east side of 149th Avenue SE Channel Type: Constructed ditch Bed Material Characteristics: Silty sand Vegetation Characteristics: Grass and black berries Large Wood: None Structures: Concrete side weir into ditch, Multiple driveway bridges, 18-inch CMP culvert connecting ditch to high flow bypass, and 36-inch concrete culvert under 149th Avenue SE near north end of road that connects to a vertical catch basin. Photo 38. Viewing downstream (north) along ditch along the east side of 149th Avenue SE (January 19, 2018). Photo 39. One of the 18-inch culverts at end of ditch (June 28, 2018). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 34 3. A NALYSIS Three technical disciplines were examined as part of the existing condition assessment – hydrology, hydraulics, and sediment transport and deposition. Methods and results for each are presented below. 3.1. Hydrology 3.1.1. Hydrologic Setting Madsen Creek collects runoff from a 1,400-acre upland glacial moraine plateau to the south side of the Cedar River valley, in the community of Fairwood east of Renton. The Madsen Creek drainage basin saw rapid development, primarily in residential construction, in the 1970s and 1980s. This development led to higher discharges, and subsequently, the current flooding and sedimentation problems in Madsen Creek, as described previously. The Madsen Creek drainage basin includes approximately 1,245 acres upstream of the sediment basin. Land-use upstream of the sediment basin consists primarily of medium density residential, golf course development, and steep forested hillslopes. Downstream of the sediment basin the Madsen Creek drainage basin covers approximately 155 acres. Land uses in this area include a mobile home park, a large Church, high density residential development, portions of SR-169, and less developed park and pasture areas in the Cedar River floodplain. King County operates a stream gaging station (KC Gage 31d) on Madsen Creek upstream of the sediment basin. This gage has been in operation since October 1987 and provides 15-minute flow and stage data for Madsen Creek. 3.1.2. Hydrologic Model Development A Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) model was developed and calibrated for the Madsen Creek drainage basin. The HSPF model includes 21 sub-basins as shown in Figure 3. Previous hydrologic modeling for the Madsen Creek basin was completed in the early 1990s by King County as part of the Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report (King County, 1993). That model was obtained from King County (Jeff Burkey, personal communication, 2018) for this study and used as the basis for the current model development. Updates to the model were made to reflect current data, changed land-use conditions, additional or modified stormwater management facilities, and the requirements of the current project. The HSPF model developed for this project was calibrated to data from the Madsen Creek stream gage. Sediment Basin 39 42 6057 36 18 9 1 27 33 12 3 13 24 21 30 54 6 45 48 51 CedarRiver Madsen Creek Watershed §¨¦5 §¨¦90 28 Jan 2019 0 1,100 2,200 Feet Scale: 1:19,487NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Figure 3 Sub-Basins March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 36 Input data for the HSPF model were derived from the following sources: • Topographic data - 2016 LiDAR dataset available on WADNR LiDAR Portal • Land cover data – based on GIS processing of USGS 2012 NAIP imagery • Soils Data: NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database Drainage subbasins in the Madsen Creek drainage basin were delineated at key hydraulic controls and points of interest. Subbasins were delineated using the 2016 LiDAR topographic data and these delineations were checked against the earlier King County model. Differences or discrepancies between these delineations were field verified to confirm the new model basin boundaries were appropriate. Stage storage discharge relationships (FTABLEs in HSPF) for each subbasin were adapted from the earlier King County model or developed based on review of the conveyance system characteristics in each subbasin. Land cover inputs for the HSPF model were developed by image processing of the multispectral NAIP aerial photos. This process utilizes the four bands available in the NAIP imagery (red, green, blue, and near infrared) and performs a textural analysis to delineate areas with similar land cover. The following six categories of land cover were delineated: impervious, bare ground, pasture grass, lawn or turf, forest, and open water. Land cover in several “test areas” was first hand delineated and used to train the classification process. Land cover for the entire drainage basin was then delineated using the automated process, and spot checks were made to verify the final delineation. The final land cover classification is shown in Figure 4. Soils data for the Madsen Creek basin were obtained from the NRCS SSURGO database. Data were downloaded from the Web Soil Survey at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Soils data were grouped into three categories as follows: till, outwash, and wetland/water based on hydrologic properties of the soil units. All but a small portion of the basin is underlain by Till as shown in Figure 5. The subbasins, land cover, and soils data were then overlain with each other in GIS and polygons created for each combination of these (e.g. Sub basin 1/Forest/Till). The output of the GIS processing was then imported into Excel and post processed to generate HSPF inputs. HSPF requires the acreage of each combination of soil and land cover for each subbasin. For most land cover classes this simply involved summing the polygons by soil and cover. For impervious areas, however, an additional step was required. The spectral image processing delineates total impervious area (TIA) but hydrologic modeling is typically based on effective impervious area (EIA). The difference is that EIA assumes that some portion of the TIA is not well connected to the conveyance system (for example older residential roof top drainage spilling out onto lawns) and as such responds hydrologically more like grass than impervious. There is no single value of the ratio between TIA and EIA that is appropriate for all areas but WSE’s experience is that in a basin with mostly older residential development like the Madsen Creek basin this ratio should be approximately 50%. Therefore, for the current work, a value of 50% was initially selected and then tested as part of the model calibration process. CedarRiver Watershed Land Cover §¨¦5 §¨¦90 13 Dec 2018 0 1,100 2,200Feet Scale: 1:19,357NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Madsen Creek Figure 4 Bare Ground Forest Impervious Pasture Turf/Lawn Open Water CedarRiver Watershed Soil Classifications §¨¦5 §¨¦90 13 Dec 2018 0 1,100 2,200 Feet Scale: 1:19,357NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Madsen Creek Figure 5 Outwash Till Wetland March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 39 HSPF defines runoff response using 16 parameters for each pervious hydrologic unit (PERLND) and four parameters for each impervious unit (IMPLND). PERLNDs corresponding to the following classes were defined in HSPF: Till forest all slopes, Till pasture all slopes, Till grass all slopes, Outwash forest all slopes, Outwash pasture all slopes, Outwash grass all slopes, and saturated soils all covers and slopes. PERLND and IMPND parameters for the initial model setup were obtained from the King County model. These parameters were subsequently calibrated as described below. The HSPF model was configured using the sub-basin, soils and cover data described above. The other major input required for the HSPF model is meteorological data. Meteorological data for the current study was obtained from the following sources: • Precipitation data – 15-minute data from King County gage 31Y2 Fairwood (2009-2018), King County gage 31Y Fairwood (1995-2009), and King County gage 31W Layton (1987- 1995). Missing data in the precipitation data time series were infilled using data from King County gage 31Z Hobart times a multiplier of 0.75. • Evaporation Data – daily data from Puyallup Experimental Station for 1948 – 2012 provided by King County (Jeff Burkey, personal communication, 2018) extended using long term monthly averages 3.1.3. Hydrologic Model Calibrat ion The HSPF model was configured using the data described above and run for the period October 1, 1987 through May 14, 2018. Discharges at key locations in the model were saved to WDM database and reviewed as part of the model calibration. Simulated data for Madsen Creek upstream of the sediment basin was saved as Data Set (DSN) 130. These data were compared to the observed King County Madsen Creek gage data and the following parameters were evaluated: mean annual flow, mean winter (November – March) flow, and annual peak flows. Although the King County gage data extends back to 1987 the comparisons were only made for data from 2001 to present. Review of the King County data and discussions with King County staff (Dan Smith, personal communication, 2018) led WSE to conclude that data prior to 2001 was suspect. Initial calibration runs showed a fair match to the observed data. However, some of the HSPF PERLND parameters used in the earlier King County model seemed unusual relative to more recent model calibration studies (Dinicola, 2001). Therefore, WSE changed the model PERLND parameters to match values determined by the USGS in a regional study of Puget Sound (Dinicola, 1990) and then made final calibration adjustments to that parameter data set. The calibrated HSPF model matched observed annual runoff volumes within 4% and observed seasonal runoff volumes within 2%. Calibration of peak flows was evaluated by comparing simulated and observed runoff over the period of record. Figures 6 and 7 show plots of average daily flows for two years in the record, water year 2011 which had one of the highest flows in recent years and water year 2015 which had more moderate flows. As shown in Figures 6 and 7 the simulated results generally match the observed data quite well including March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 40 the rise, peak, and recession of significant storm events as well as base flows. Flood flow frequency curves generated from the simulated and observed data were also compared. Figures 8 to 10 show this comparison for three different periods of record as follows: • 1989 – 2018 covering the full period of record for both the simulation and the Madsen Creek gage (Figure 8) • 2001 – 2018 covering the period for which the flow data are considered reasonably accurate and used for volume comparisons (Figure 9) • 2004 – 2018 covering the period with the most accurate gage data, based on review of the peak discharge observations and discussions with KC staff (Figure 10) As seen in these figures, the HSPF simulated peak flows do a reasonably good job at matching flow frequency quantiles across each of the reporting periods (2- through 100-year flows matched within 15% or better for all comparison periods). In particular, the match for the period 2004 to 2018 is exceptionally good. This is the period with the most reliable gage data. However, it should be noted that because the period of record for this last comparison is quite short from a frequency analysis perspective caution must be used when making judgements based on these curves. Fortuitously for the current study, the frequency analyses for all three periods result in very similar flow quantiles meaning that the flow frequency data for any of these periods can be used for this and other locations without biasing the results. Table 5. Annual Instantaneous Peak Flows Madsen Creek at Entrance to Sediment Basin. Flow Quantile (cfs) Period of Comparison 2-year 10-year 100-year 1989 - 2018 100 173 286 2001 - 2018 102 176 284 2004 - 2018 109 184 294 3.1.4. Hydr ologic Model Application The calibrated HSPF model was used to generate inflows to the hydraulic model. A version of the HSPF model was set up without any streamflow routing downstream of the sediment basin (except in the few locations where the conveyance system was not included in the hydraulic model). This HSPF model was run for the period of record and unrouted outflows for each hydraulic model inflow point were saved to the WDM. These were then exported from the WDM and imported to a HEC-DSS database for use in the hydraulic modeling described in Section 3.2. Figure 6. Comparison of HSPF Simulated verses Observed Flows for Water Year 2011. Data from Water Year 2011 Madsen Creek upstream of Sediment Basin Simulated versus Observed Flows Data Set:summed over 24 hours Summed over a 24 hour fixed window Madsen Creek Above Sed Pond (KC Gage 31D) Madsen Creek SB 30 Flow (KC Gage) WSE Parm KC-WLRD 15-MIN PRECIP GAGE 31Y2 [Aux Axis] OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPVolume (acft)0. 30. 60. 90. 120. 0.0 5.0Precip(in/d)? Figure 7. Comparison of HSPF Simulated verses Observed Flows for Water Year 2015. Data from Water Year 2015 Madsen Creek upstream of Sediment Basin Simulated versus Observed Flows Data Set:summed over 24 hours Summed over a 24 hour fixed window Madsen Creek Above Sed Pond (KC Gage 31D) Madsen Creek SB 30 Flow (KC Gage) WSE Parm KC-WLRD 15-MIN PRECIP GAGE 31Y2 [Aux Axis] OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPVolume (acft)0. 30. 60. 90. 120. 0.0 5.0Precip(in/d)? Figure 7. Flood Frequency Curves Generated from Gage and HSPF Model Data for Period 1989 to 2018. Percent Chance Exceedance Madsen Creek Above Sed Pond (KC Gage 31D) Madsen Creek SB 30 Flow (KC Gage) WSE Parm Fit Type:Log Pearson III distribution using the method of Bulletin 17B, Hosking Plotting Position Annual Peak Frequency Analysis Observed versus Simulated Peak Flows at Sediment Basin Madsen Creek Flood Flow Frequency Analysis Discharge (cfs)0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 240. 280. 320. Ret Period(years)-->100251052 19649010802050 Figure 8. Flood Frequency Curves Generated from Gage and HSPF Model Data for Period 2001 to 2018. Percent Chance Exceedance Madsen Creek Above Sed Pond (KC Gage 31D) Madsen Creek SB 30 Flow (KC Gage) WSE Parm Fit Type:Log Pearson III distribution using the method of Bulletin 17B, Hosking Plotting Position Annual Peak Frequency Analysis Observed versus Simulated Peak Flows at Sediment Basin Madsen Creek Flood Flow Frequency Analysis Discharge (cfs)0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 240. 280. 320. Ret Period(years)-->100251052 19649010802050 Figure 9. Flood Frequency Curves Generated from Gage and HSPF Model Data for Period 2004 to 2018. Percent Chance Exceedance Madsen Creek Above Sed Pond (KC Gage 31D) Madsen Creek SB 30 Flow (KC Gage) WSE Parm Fit Type:Log Pearson III distribution using the method of Bulletin 17B, Hosking Plotting Position Annual Peak Frequency Analysis Observed versus Simulated Peak Flows at Sediment Basin Madsen Creek Flood Flow Frequency Analysis Discharge (cfs)0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 240. 280. 320. Ret Period(years)-->100251052 99 19649010802050 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 46 3.2. H ydrau lic Modeling 3.2.1. Hydraulic Model Development Hydraulic conditions within the project area are complex; therefore, WSE elected to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS numerical model of the entire stream network. The model domain, which is illustrated in Figure 11, begins upstream of the sediment basin, and includes the basin, the stream channel, high flow bypass, ditch along 149th Avenue SE and all surrounding floodplain areas that may be impacted by flooding. The colored lines and dots in Figure 11 are boundary condition locations which are discussed below. Topographic Surface The topographic surface used in the HEC-RAS 2D model was developed from existing LiDAR and ground survey data collected as part of this investigation. The LiDAR was collected in 2016 and was obtained from the Washington Department of Natural Resources LiDAR portal (WADNR, 2018). The ground survey included cross section and profile surveys of all channel segments including the sediment basin, stream channel, high flow bypass, and 149th Avenue SE ditch. It also included surveys of all culverts and bridges. The survey was performed by Pacific Geomatic Services (PGS) in June and July 2018 (PGS, 2018). Hydraulic Structures Bridges, culverts, and weirs are present throughout the model domain. Each structure was represented in the model geometry using the HEC-RAS 2D flow connection and structure editor. Structure dimensions were based on field survey data collected by PGS and supplemented with field measurements collected by WSE. The latest version of HEC-RAS 2D at the time of this analysis (version 5.0.5, USACE, 2016) does not have the capability to represent bridges. Therefore, bridges are represented as culverts in the model, which given the small size of the bridges is a reasonable assumption. Hydraulic Roughness Surface roughness, in the form of Manning’s n values, is based on engineering judgement and was refined during model validation. Final n values used in the existing condition model are shown in Figure 12. Noteworthy comments regarding the values are: 1) The portion of the high flow bypass downstream from SR169 was assigned an elevated roughness because the channel was choked with dense and tall vegetation during field inspections in October 2018, just prior to flood season. King County is responsible for maintaining this reach and they mowed the channel in January 2018, and again in November 2018 following a letter sent by the City of Renton. However, for the purpose of existing conditions modeling, a conservative approach has been taken and the higher roughness reflecting the dense vegetation was assigned to this reach. 2) Instead of modifying the terrain to include the numerous mobile homes, carports, and sheds within Wonderland Estates and the housing development just to the west, the entire March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 47 area was assigned a high n-value designed to account for the blockage effect of the structures. !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( Basin 27 Basin 6 Basin 24 Basin 13 Basin 21 Basin 9 Basin 1 Basin 33 Basin 18 Madsen -Upstream Basin 3 Basin 12 Hydraulic Model Domain & Boundary ConditionsUV169 UV169 CedarRiver 11 Dec 2018 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:5,357NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Madsen Creek Model Domain Figure 11 !(Internal Point-Inflow Boundary Normal Depth Boundary Stage Boundary Basin # corresponds to sub-basin output of HSPF model 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.045 0.15 0.045 0.04 0.045 0.03 0.15 0.045 0.045 0.05 0.02 0.2 0.15 0.045 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.035 0.06 0.05 0.03 Existing Conditions Manning's n ValuesUV169 UV169 CedarRiver 11 Dec 2018 0 290 580 Feet Scale: 1:5,115NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Madsen Creek Figure 12 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 50 Boundary Conditions Three external and twelve internal boundary condition nodes were coded into the model domain. These are identified by the colored lines and dots in Figure 11. External boundaries (double yellow and red dashed lines) are locations where water surface elevations within the Cedar River had to be estimated for each event modeled on Madsen Creek. Water surface elevations at the downstream end of the model domain were estimated automatically by the model using normal depth methods. Water levels at the outlet of the high flow bypass and at the outlet of the constructed King County habitat channel were estimated from stage discharge curves generated from an existing hydraulic model of the Cedar River (explained below). Internal boundaries (red dots) are locations where inflows are specified to the model domain as predicted by the HSPF hydrologic model. For each Madsen Creek model simulation, water surface elevations within the Cedar River had to be input at the outlet of the high flow bypass and King County habitat channel. Stage hydrographs were developed for both sites using an existing hydraulic model of the Cedar River developed by WSE for King County’s Cedar River Interactive Mapping Project (CRIMP) (WSE, 2013). For the February 16, 2017 validation model run, the stage hydrographs at these locations represent the actual flow that occurred on the Cedar River on that day as estimated from data collected at the two USGS Cedar River stations -- Landsburg (12117500) and Renton (12119000). Similarly, the 2-year event that was modeled is based on a flood that occurred on January 30, 2006; therefore, boundary conditions for the Cedar River are the actual hydrographs that occurred on that day. The 25-year and 100-yr event hydrographs on Madsen Creek are both scaled versions of the January 9, 1990 flood. Therefore, boundary conditions on the Cedar River are represented by the actual January 9, 1990 Cedar River hydrograph. The same set of hydrographs was used for both events. Model Validation Although limited data availability precluded full model calibration, WSE validated the model with sensitivity testing, interviews with residents who observed flooding, flood photograph and historical records, and other anecdotal information. The primary flood event used for model validation occurred on February 16, 2017 and had a peak discharge measured at the Madsen Creek stream gage of approximately 150 cfs, which corresponds to about an 8-year event. During this event, significant flooding occurred along 149th Avenue SE and on private parcels adjacent to the road (Photos 40 and 41). Flood water overtopped the right bank berm of the high flow bypass channel upstream from SR169, and flowed onto the church field and entered Madsen Creek. Photo 42 shows grass and leaf debris left by the overtopping flow along the bottom of a chain link fence that sits on top of the berm. The stream did not flood Wonderland Estates (Photo 43). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 51 Photo 40. Viewing south along 149th Avenue SE at the residence located at 15205 (February 16, 2017, City photograph). Photo 41. Viewing east across the 149th Avenue SE ditch at the residence located at 15205 (February 16, 2017, City photograph). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 52 Photo 42. Viewing northeast across the upper high flow bypass. The right bank berm overtopped at the peak of the storm, leaving debris along the bottom of the fence (February 16, 2017, City photograph). Photo 43. Viewing west along Madsen Creek at Wonderland Estates. Flow overtopped the sandbags on the left bank, but significant flooding in Wonderland Estates was not reported (February 16, 2017, City photograph). March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 53 The initial validation model run did not replicate the February 16, 2017 flood well. Computed water levels were too low to overtop the right bank berm of the upper high flow bypass. This resulted in flowrates along 149th Avenue SE which were too low to produce the flooding that was observed. Further investigation revealed that the City removed sediment from the floor of the bypass channel after the flood, which was prior to the survey that was completed for this investigation; therefore, the capacity of the high flow bypass in the HEC-RAS model is greater than it was at the time of the flood. To compensate for this added channel capacity, WSE estimated the discharge that overtopped the berm based upon the height of the debris left on the chain link fence and added this flow to Madsen Creek at the lower end of the church field. After accounting for the overtopping of the high flow bypass berm, the existing condition model successfully reproduced the pattern of observed downstream flooding along and in the vicinity of 149th Avenue SE. The results are presented in Figure 13 which shows maximum flow depth at the peak of the event. Model Results Existing Condition The validated model was used to estimate hydraulic conditions within the project area for existing conditions for three flood events -- the 2-, 25-, and 100-year annual instantaneous peak floods. The results, presented in the form of maximum flow depth, are illustrated in Figures 14, 15, 16. General insights and observations revealed from the inundation maps are: 1. The sediment basin is able to pass the 100-year flood without overtopping the berm that surrounds the basin assuming debris does not block any portion of the outlet. There is, however, no freeboard on the berm during the 100-year flood. 2. The right bank berm of the high flow bypass channel upstream of SR169 currently does not overtop during the 2-year event, but it does during the 25- and 100-year floods. The overtopping flow enters the church field where it ponds and eventually drains to Madsen Creek, passing through the culvert beneath the high flow bypass. Currently the berm begins to overtop at an 8- to 10-year event, but overtopping will occur more frequently over time if sediment is allowed to accumulate within the bypass. During the 25- and 100-year events approximately 50 and 100 cfs overtop the berm respectively, which causes flow rates in Madsen Creek to increase significantly. This added flow is one of the principal causes of the flooding within Wonderland Estates and along 149th Avenue SE. 3. Water overtops the banks at the entrance to the SR169 high flow bypass culvert and the left bank immediately downstream during the 25-year and 100-year floods. This is because the capacity of the high flow bypass has been reduced due to sediment deposition in the SR169 culvert along with sediment deposition and vegetation in the high flow bypass downstream from the culvert. Flows that overtop the left bank upstream of the SR169 culvert increase flooding within Wonderland Estates, and those March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 54 that overtop the left bank downstream of the culvert, increase flooding within the residential properties east of 149th Avenue SE. 4. The 25-year and 100-year floods overtop the left bank of Madsen Creek along Wonderland Estates, flooding the north end of the mobile home park. 5. The 100-year flood overtops the left bank of the high flow bypass at the entrance to the Madsen Creek SR169 culvert. This water flows through the front yard of the private residential property east of Wonderland Estates, then through Wonderland Estates, and into the housing development west of Wonderland. 6. The existing right bank berm along the section of Madsen Creek between SR169 and 149th Avenue SE overtops during the 25-year and 100-year events. It also overtopped during the February 16, 2007 event (about an 8-year event). The overtopping water flows north to flood several residential properties. In addition, water that leaves the channel at this location is the first contributor to flooding along the 149th Ave SE properties, as shown by the inundation map of the 2-year event. Water overtopping the 149th Ave SE ditch seems to occur following the overtopping of the Creek and only during events larger than the 2-year flood. 7. The culvert that carries Madsen Creek under 149th Avenue SE was generally free of sediment and therefore, does not restrict flow. However, as will be described in the next section, the channel in the park has filled with sediment which has reduced its capacity. 8. Water ponds up along 149th Avenue SE because the existing culvert drain at the north end of the ditch does not have sufficient capacity. In addition, because the culvert empties into the high flow bypass just above its outlet to the Cedar River, the capacity of the culvert will be reduced when water levels within the high flow bypass are high. 9. Flooding along Madsen Creek through the park is generally contained in the stream corridor by existing berms and concrete eco-block walls. The only significant exception is near the downstream end of the cricket fields where water leaves the channel both to the west and east. The flow to the west enters a large undeveloped natural wetland area while to the east it enters the backyard of a private residence. Simulated Maximum Depths- 16 Feb 2017 Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 14 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Depths (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Figure 13 Simulated Maximum Depths- 2yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 14 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Depths (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Figure 14 Simulated Maximum Depths- 25yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 14 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Depths (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Figure 15 Simulated Maximum Depths- 100yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 14 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Depths (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Figure 16 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 59 Cedar River Flooding Although Madsen Creek is the focus of this investigation, it is important to recognize that even if Madsen Creek flooding is reduced, properties along 149th Ave SE will remain at risk because they are in the Cedar River floodplain. Figures 17 and 18 show Cedar River flood depth and inundation limit estimates for approximately the 10-year and 50-year annual instantaneous peak floods, revealing that Cedar River flooding continues to pose a serious threat to these properties. The data used to create these figures were obtained from a hydraulic modeling project known as the CRIMP (Cedar River Interactive Mapping Project) which was completed by WSE for King County in 2013 (WSE, 2013). > 10-year Cedar RiverInnundation DepthsUV169 UV169 CedarRiver 12 Mar 2019 Figure 17 0 280 560 Feet Scale: 1:5,000NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Depth (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 Note: This figure represents flooding that would occur during a King County Phase 4 flood alert. The discharge is slightly higher than a 10-year flood. 50-year Cedar RiverInnundation DepthsUV169 UV169 CedarRiver 12 Mar 2019 Figure 18 0 280 560 Feet Scale: 1:5,000NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Depth (ft) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 >3 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 62 3.3. Sediment Transport and Deposition Sediment deposition has reduced the capacity of portions of Madsen Creek and the high flow bypass. To determine how sediment is moving through the system, where it has accumulated and what type of sediment it is, WSE conducted: 1) a detailed field inspection that included collecting sediment samples throughout the system; 2) estimating sediment deposition volumes within the high flow bypass and portions of Madsen Creek by comparing channel cross sections and profiles surveyed for this study to the original channel design drawings; and 3) evaluating the trap efficiency of the sediment basin. These investigations provided an understanding of sediment transport and deposition processes that are active within the system, an understanding that is required to develop effective solutions. The results of the sediment investigation are summarized below. 3.3.1. Sedim ent Deposition Locatio ns WSE identified where sediment has accumulated within the channel system, both through field observations and data analyses. Figure 19 uses different colors to identify the typical type of sediment that is found on the bed of Madsen Creek and the high flow bypass. In general, the reaches highlighted in yellow have experienced significant sediment deposition. These sediment deposits are discussed below. The figure also shows where sediment samples were collected. Collected data is presented and discussed later in this report. D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D A1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 E1 E3 E2 E7 D1 Sediment Sample Locations& Bed Material Types 14 Dec 2018 0 190 380 Feet Scale: 1:3,279NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonNorth FIPS 4601 Feet U D SedimentSampleLocations Bed Material Type Silt Fine Sand Medium Sand (Fine Sand to Coarse Gravel) Medium to Coarse Gravel Coarse Gravel to Cobbles Riprap Figure 19 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 64 High Flow Bypass Upper High Flow Bypass (upstream from SR169) Figure 20 compares the longitudinal profile from the 1974 high flow bypass design plan set (blue line) to the profile surveyed for this investigation (orange line). The comparison reveals that there has been significant deposition from approximately station 1000 to station 2100, while the remainder of the high flow bypass experienced minor levels of degradation. Within the upper high flow bypass, deposition begins at approximately station 1000, which is about 100 ft upstream of the change in slope. The 1974 profile shows that the channel along the upstream 600 feet of the bypass was constructed at a slope of 0.025 (2.5%) while the next 400 feet of channel was built at a slope of 0.0028 (0.28%), nearly a ten-fold decrease. The maximum deposition, equaling 20 inches, occurs near the point of the slope change (station 1125). Hence, the significant extent of deposition is primarily attributed to the flatter slopes in the downstream reaches of the watershed. In 2017 the City removed an unknown amount of sediment from the upper high flow bypass (upstream of SR169); however, we do not know the exact location or the amount of material that was removed. Visible excavation signs on the channel banks suggest that the pre- excavation profile may have been something in the vicinity of the black dashed line in Figure 20. Sediment was also removed from the upper high flow bypass multiple times in the 1980s and 1990s. Notes in Table 3 indicate that sediment was removed routinely between 1981 and 1990 and may have been removed between 1991 and 1997 and again in 2005. There is no information about the exact location and quantity of sediment removal. The table does show that 232 yd3 was removed from the bypass in 1981 and 20 yd3 in 2005. It also shows that about 20% of the amount removed from the Sediment Basin was removed from the high flow bypass each year from 1985 through 1990, but removal locations are not provided. The table suggests that no sediment was removed from the bypass from 1998 through 2006 with the exception of the 20 yd3 removed in 2005. The City took over maintenance of the sediment basin and the upper high flow bypass in 2009, and according to City staff no sediment was removed between 2009 and 2016. In summary, this information suggests that sediment was not removed from the high flow bypass from 1998 through 2018, except in 2005 and 2017. Figure 21 identifies locations along the upper high flow bypass and lower Madsen Creek where the design cross section is compared to the 2018 surveyed cross section. The cross sections in the upper high flow bypass are shown in Figure 22. The comparisons reveal that the steeper upstream reach has not seen significant deposition, but rather channel incision within the downstream one-half. The deepest incision, approximately 18 inches, is at cross section 963. Within the flatter downstream reach, the changes caused by sediment deposition since 1974 are clearly visible in both the profile (Figure 20) and the cross-section comparisons. The channel is narrower and shallower due to deposition on both the banks and bed. Sediment was removed from the channel in 2017 prior to the 2018 survey, so these comparisons do not capture the considerable sediment deposition that existed at that time. Figure 20. Profile Comparison 1974 to 2018 high flow bypass. Culvert Outlet to Cedar SR169 Culvert Inlet Top of Low Flow Culvert Sediment Basin Outlet 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750Elevation (ft, NAVD88)Distance Along Channel (ft) High Flow Bypass Profile 1974 Design 2018 Survey Estimated Channel Prior to Recent Excavation Slope = 0.025 Slope = 0.0028 Slope = 0.0036 1753 1928 248472189 2360 1391 963 1048 459 687 785 Sediment Deposition Comparison Locations 05 Dec 2018 0 175 350 Feet Scale: 1:25,000NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U TextText Figure 21 Full Cross Section ComparisonsThalweg Comparison Points 110 109 111 112 113 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 785 104 103 105 106 107 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 1048 101 100 102 103 104 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 1391 105 104 106 107 108 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 963 1974 Design Cross-Section 2018 Surveyed Cross-Section Fill Cut Upper High Flow Bypass Cross Section Comparison (1974 vs. 2018) Figure 22 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 68 SR169 Culvert The floor of the SR169 high flow bypass culvert has filled with fine to medium sand. The deposit is approximately 18 inches deep at the culvert entrance and 24 inches at the outlet. Lower High Flow Bypass (downstream of SR169) Within the lower high flow bypass, the channel has been impacted by sediment deposition both on the channel bed and banks. As shown by the profile and cross section comparisons in Figures 20 and 23, the most significant deposits are within the first 300 feet downstream of the SR169 culvert. The floor of the channel has risen up to 20 inches near the culvert outlet tapering to zero approximately 300 feet downstream. This deposit is an extension of the sediment that has filled the SR169 culvert. As shown by the cross-section comparisons, the channel has also narrowed significantly within the reach downstream of SR169 due to deposition on the banks. In the downstream half of the lower high flow bypass, however, there has been little to no deposition and up to six inches of incision at cross section 2360. The pattern of sediment deposition within the channel suggests that vegetation has been present within the channel during the most recent floods, because vegetation increases roughness which increases sediment deposition. Vegetation management is critical within this reach because sediment deposition therein, would also contribute to sediment depositing within the SR169 culvert. 98 97 99 100 101 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 1753 96 95 97 98 99 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 2189 95 94 96 97 98 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 2360 97 96 98 99 100 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 1928 1974 Design Cross-Section 2018 Surveyed Cross-Section Fill Cut Lower High Flow Bypass Cross Section Comparison (1974 vs. 2018) Figure 23 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 70 Madsen Creek Channel through Ron Regis Park Figure 24 compares the 1989 longitudinal profile of Madsen Creek downstream of 149th Avenue SE from the original design plan set (blue line) to the profile surveyed for this investigation in 2018 (orange line). The comparison reveals significant deposition along the entire length of the constructed channel, with the stream bed profile rising an average of approximately 1.5 feet. Changes in cross section area along this reach are shown in Figure 25, and cross section locations are shown in Figure 21. Deposition has been substantial throughout the reach, and the channel is now only about 25% of the size that it was when it was constructed in 1989. This equates to approximately 1600 yd3 of deposited sediment in the Ron Regis Park reach of the creek. To our knowledge, no sediment has been removed from the channel here since it was constructed, with the exception of occasional removals from a short section of channel immediately downstream from 149th Avenue SE, an area that is referred to as a “sediment trap” on the 1989 plan set. The reduction in channel cross section area is not surprising, because the channel was constructed too large to self-maintain. According to commonly used regime principles (ASCE, 1996), channels flowing through unconsolidated alluvium will typically size themselves to carry a dominate channel forming discharge. In the Pacific Northwest, the channel forming discharge for alluvial streams like Madsen Creek is typically a 1.5- to 2-year annual instantaneous peak flood. Based upon the hydrologic investigation conducted for this investigation, a two-year event on Madsen Creek at the entrance to the sediment basin is approximately 100 cfs; however, most of this flow never reaches the park channel because it is diverted into the high flow bypass and transported directly to the Cedar River. During a 2- year event, the hydrologic and hydraulic models predict that approximately 20 cfs will pass through the 149th Avenue SE culvert and enter the park channel. Regime formulas predict that a channel with a dominate discharge of 20 cfs and a channel slope of 0.0028 (0.28%) (the design slope) will have a depth of approximately two feet and a top width of approximately eight feet. Assuming near vertical banks, the cross-section area will be approximately 16 sq ft. Based upon the 2018 survey, the channel currently has a cross section area of approximately 15 sq ft, which is in line with what should be expected. To maintain the channel cross section that was constructed in 1989 would require a dominate channel forming discharge of approximately 200 cfs, about 10 times the size of the flow that actually reaches the park channel. Figure 24. Profile Comparison 1989 to 2018 Madsen Creek Channel within Ron Regis Park. ~ 50 ft downstream of 149th Ave SE culvert Upstream face of park entrance road bridge End of constructed channel 93 94 95 96 97 98 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Elevation (ft, NAVD88)Distance Along Channel (ft) Madsen Creek Profile through Park 2018 Survey 1989 Design Channel 97 96 98 99 100 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 47 96 95 97 98 99 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 459 95 94 96 97 98 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 687 97 96 98 99 100 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)10 20 30 40 50 Station (ft) Cross-Section 248 1989 Design Cross-Section 2018 Surveyed Cross-Section Fill Cut Constructed Channel ·Top Width 30 ft ·Depth 4 ft Natural Channel ·Top Width 8 ft ·Depth 2 ft Park Channel Cross Section Comparison (1989 vs. 2018) Figure 25 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 73 Other Reaches and Features Madsen Creek from Sediment Basin to High Flow Bypass Undercrossing Significant sediment deposition was not observed along the reach of Madsen Creek that extends from the sediment basin to where the stream turns west at SR169 (upstream of the high flow bypass undercrossing). However, significant deposits of fine sand are present within the reach of the stream that parallels SR169. This reach has a much flatter slope than the upstream portion, which is the primary reason sediment has deposited. Madsen Creek Culvert under High Flow Bypass Fine sand has deposited on the floor of this 4’ X 6’ concrete box culvert. The sand is 15 inches and 20 inches deep at the entrance and exit respectively. Madsen Creek Channel between Culvert under High Flow Bypass and SR169 No significant deposition was observed within this reach. Madsen Creek SR169 Culvert Fine sand has deposited on the floor of this 3’ X 6’ concrete box culvert. The sand is 0 inches and 15 inches deep at the entrance and exit respectively. Madsen Creek between SR 169 Culvert to 149th Avenue SE The channel bed is covered with fine sand and silt. 149th Avenue SE Culvert Fine sand has deposited on the floor of this 2’ X 8’ aluminum arch-type culvert (due to unique shape of the culvert the dimensions are approximate). The sand is 4 inches and 8 inches deep at the entrance and exit respectively. 149th Avenue SE Ditch The ditch along 149th Avenue SE appeared to be relatively clean and free of sediment. The only exception is that fine sand and silt have partially filled the two 18” culverts that connect the ditch in series to the High Flow Bypass Channel. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 74 3.3.2. Sediment Gr ainsize Cha racteristics To identify the characteristics of the sediments that are depositing, WSE collected sediment samples at 16 locations throughout the system (Figure 19). A Wolman Pebble Count was also performed to determine the grainsize distribution for sample A1 which is located in the natural channel upstream from the sediment basin. Grainsize distributions were determined by laboratory sieve analyses of bulk samples collected at the other 15 locations. At three of these sites an additional hydrometer test was performed because the samples contained a large amount of silt. The grainsize distribution curves for all 16 samples are presented in Figures 26, 27, and 28. Figure 26 shows the curves within the sediment basin and the natural channel upstream. Figure 27 shows curves for the high flow bypass and Figure 28 includes those for Madsen Creek downstream from the sediment basin. The D50 size of each sample and the material classification based upon the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) are presented in Table 6. Conclusions about the sediment characteristics within each reach, drawn from the grainsize distributions, are revealed on the following pages. Table 6. Sediment Sample Data. Sediment Sample No. D50 (mm) Classification1 Location of Sample A1 50 coarse gravel Channel Bed B2 10 fine gravel Upstream end of basin B3 0.4 fine to medium sand Middle of basin B4 0.1 fine sand and silt Downstream end of basin F1 0.12 fine sand and silt Channel Bank F2 0.085 fine sand and silt Channel Bank F3 0.25 fine to medium sand Floor SR169 Culvert G2 0.055 Silt Channel Bed C1 17 fine to coarse gravel Channel Bed C2 13 fine gravel Channel Bed C3 0.35 fine sand Channel Bed D1 0.25 fine sand Channel Bed E1 0.35 fine sand Channel Bed E2 0.045 Silt Floodplain Bench E3 0.35 fine sand Channel Bed E7 0.35 fine sand Channel Bed 1 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Percent Finer, %Grain Size (mm) Madsen Creek Grainsize Distribution Curves Upstream Channel and Sediment Basin A1 Channel Bed Upstream from Sediment Basin Wollman Pebble Count B2 Sed Basin Delta B3 Mid Sed Basin B4 Sed Basin Lower Figure 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000Percent Finer, %Grain Size (mm) F1 Upper High Flow Bypass Bank F2 Upper High Flow Bypass Bank F3 Inside SR-169 High Flow Bypass Culvert G2 Lower High Flow Bypass Bed Madsen Creek Grainsize Distribution Curves High Flow Bypass 1000.000 Figure 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000Percent Finer, %Grain Size (mm) Madsen Creek Grainsize Distribution Curves Madsen Creek Channel Downstream from Sediment Basin C1 Madsen Creek Bed C2 Madsen Creek Bed C3 Madsen Creek Bed D1 Madsen Creek Bed E1 Madsen Creek Sediment Trap E2 Madsen Creek Bank E3 Madsen Creek Bed E7 Madsen Creek Bed Figure 25 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 78 Sediment Basin and Channel Upstream As documented by the grainsize distribution curves shown in Figure 26, the bed of the natural channel upstream from the sediment basin is comprised of sand, gravel, and cobble. Within the sediment basin grainsize decreases from upstream to downstream. Near the inlet, the material is a mixture of sand, gravel, and small cobbles. The grain size decreases to fine to medium sand near the middle of the basin, and fine sand and silt near the outlet. The basin is performing well, capturing nearly all coarse bedload material and a significant percentage of fine sand and even some silt. That said, the sediment deposition documented in both the high flow bypass and Madsen Creek reveal that some sand and silt pass through the basin. The performance of the sediment basin is discussed in the next section. High Flow Bypass Figure 27 shows four grainsize distribution curves for deposit samples collected within the high flow bypass. Samples F1 and F2, which were taken from the banks of the channel, are located in the upper high flow bypass (Figure 19), F3 is from the floor of the SR169 Culvert and G2 is from the bed of the high flow bypass near the Cedar River. Curves F1 and F2 reveal that fine sand and silt have deposited on the banks of the high flow bypass. Sample F3 reveals that the sediment that has filled the bottom of the SR169 culvert is fine to medium sand. This is the same material that has deposited on the bed within the first 300 feet of the high flow bypass channel immediately downstream from SR169. It is likely that these deposits are in-part due to slow velocities caused by tall and dense vegetation in the channel. It is our understanding that the County usually mows the vegetation each year in January, which means that thick vegetation is present in the channel in November and December, the first two months of the flood season. As previously stated, it is important to mow the lower high flow bypass before the flood season to decrease both the probability of flooding and the potential for sediment deposition. Relatively little sediment has deposited within the downstream half of the lower high flow bypass. The material present in the latter reach is silt. Madsen Creek Channel Figure 28 shows eight grainsize distribution curves for deposit samples collected within Madsen Creek downstream of the sediment basin. Samples C1, C2, and C3 are in the channel upstream of the high flow bypass; sample D1 is in the short section of channel between SR169 and 149th Avenue SE; and, samples E1, E2, E3, and E7 are within the channel in the park. Within the reach that passes through the church property, the bed material decreases in size from gravel in the upper reach, to medium/coarse sand in the middle, to fine sand at the culvert under the high flow bypass. This decrease in size is directly related to a decrease in the channel slope which occurs along the reach. Within the reach downstream of SR169, the bed and bank materials are fine sand and slit respectively. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 79 Channel Velocities and Sediment Deposition The type of sediment that deposits within each sub-reach is directly correlated to flow velocity. Figures 29, 30, and 31 show maximum simulated velocities under existing conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year events. Table 7 lists these velocities and compares them to the velocity that is required to move the average particle size found on the bed of the different sub-reaches (commonly referred to as incipient motion velocity). Table 7. Channel and Incipient Velocities for Stream Sediments by Sub-Reach. Sub-Reach Dominate Bed Material Type Average Channel Velocity During 2- to 100-year Flood (fps) Incipient Motion Velocity (fps)1 Upstream Sediment Basin Coarse Gravel (D50 = 50mm) 5 to 8 7 Sediment Basin Full Range Cobble to Silt (D50 = 0.1 to 10mm) 1 to 3 2 to 4 Upper High Flow Bypass Riprap (upper half) Sand (Lower Half) (no sediment sample from bed) 6 to 8 4 to 5 N/A (Sediment size on bed unknown) Lower High Flow Bypass (just downstream from SR169)2 Fine Sand (same material in SR169 culvert) (D50 = 0.25 mm) 2 to 3 2 North-South portion of Madsen Creek along Church Property Coarse Gravel to Medium Sand (D50 = 13 to 17mm) 3 to 5 4 to 5 Madsen Creek Parallel to SR169 Fine Sand (D50 = 0.35mm) 0.5 to 2 2.5 Madsen Creek within Park Fine Sand (D50 = 0.35mm) 1 to 2 2.5 1Incipient motion velocity for each material type obtained from USACE, 1994 assuming flow depth < 5 ft. 2Assumes channel vegetation has not been mowed/maintained. Simulated Maximum Velocities- 2yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 06 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekExisting Conditions Figure 29 Simulated Maximum Velocities- 25yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 06 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekExisting Conditions Figure 30 Simulated Maximum Velocities- 100yr Flood Event - UV169 UV169 CedarRiver 06 Dec 2018 0 150 300 Feet Scale: 1:2,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Velocities (ft/s) 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 > 10 Madsen CreekExisting Conditions Figure 31 March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 83 Noteworthy take-aways from the table are: 1. Velocities within the sediment basin are low enough to capture the full range of sediments transported by Madsen Creek. However, as will be described in the next section, approximately 50% of the suspended sediment load that enters the basin passes through the basin. 2. Once Madsen Creek turns left (west) to parallel SR169, average velocities for all three events fall to less than 2 fps. This continues downstream through the park. This is lower than the incipient motion velocity required to move fine sand which is why these reaches have experienced significant deposition. 3. Velocities within the upper high flow bypass slow downstream at mid-reach where the slope flattens, however, velocities tend to remain relatively high. A bed material sample was not be collected within the lower half of this reach because most of the material had been removed in 2017 when the City cleaned the channel. 4. Velocities within the lower high flow bypass slow significantly if vegetation is not mowed or maintained. This is likely the reason fine sand has deposited within the SR169 culvert and the first 300 feet of the channel. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 84 3.3.3 . Sedimen t Basin Performance and Basin Sediment Yield It would be useful to know how much sediment is delivered to the sediment basin and project reach each year. The most reliable estimates are those generated from actual sediment data of which we have two data sets from within the project reach: 1) the volume of sediment that has been removed from the sediment basin annually and 2) the amount of sediment that has deposited within the reach of Madsen Creek that was constructed within Ron Regis Park. The volume of deposited sediment that is removed from the basin can be used to create a rating curve which relates stream discharge to volume of sediment deposited within the basin, assuming the original basin topography was restored with each cleaning. The relationship between flow and sediment deposition can be described as: , where is the rate of sediment deposition, is the discharge entering the basin, and a and b are fitting coefficients. Through a series of statistical analyses which compared 15 minute flow data to the total volume of sediment removed from the basin each water year, WSE found that the discharge to sediment deposition relationship is best described when a = 0.00004 and b = 2.66, where is cubic yards of sediment deposited over a 15-minute period and is the average flow rate into the basin in cubic feet per second as observed at 15-minute intervals at the King County stream gage located at the entrance to the basin. The rating curve represented by this formula is illustrated in Figure 32. Figure 32. Rate of Sediment Deposition in Sediment Basin for a Given Inflow. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 85 While the above relationship provides an estimate of the rate of sediment deposition in the basin for a given flow rate, it does not provide an estimate of the volume of sediment that passes through the basin. Sediment leaving the basin will either enter the high flow bypass where most of it will be conveyed to the Cedar River, or to Madsen Creek where nearly all of it will deposit along the flatter slopes of the channel because velocities slow and the stream has been diverted into a series of ponds and no longer connects directly to the Cedar River. If we assume that the volume of sediment leaving the basin via the high flow bypass and Madsen Creek is directly proportional to the discharge that each route carries, then Figure 33 can be used to compute these volumes. The figure shows the percentage of the total flow leaving the sediment basin through the high flow bypass, as calculated by the project HEC-RAS model. The figure includes two curves, one that assumes the entrance to the culvert that discharges to Madsen Creek is completely open (bottom curve), and another that represents the current condition in which the entrance is partially covered by metal plates. This pair of curves suggest that during the large events (greater than about a 2-year (100 cfs)) the high flow bypass has carried 60% to 90% of the total flow leaving the basin. Figure 33. Fraction of Flow Exiting Sediment Basin through the High Flow Bypass. (Two conditions presented – one with the Madsen Creek culvert entrance partially blocked by metal plates and the other with it fully open.) March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 86 To estimate the trap efficiency of the current sediment basin, we need to make an estimate of the quantity of sediment that has passed through the basin since it was built in 1991. Although sediment data is limited, we know that approximately 1600 yd3 of sediment has deposited within the 1000-ft long section of Madsen Creek that was constructed through Ron Regis Park since 1989. This alone does not tell us how much sediment passed through the Madsen Creek culvert at the outlet of the sediment basin, but if we make several, albeit broad assumptions, we can estimate the amount. Reports from residents and historical photographs indicate that a significant amount of sediment was delivered to and deposited within the constructed park channel during the 1990 flood when the sediment basin berm was breached and failed. The basin was rebuilt following that event, so the current basin configuration has existed since 1991, therefore, we need to reduce the 1600 cubic yard estimate by the amount that was deposited by the 1990 flood. We don’t know how much sediment deposited in the park channel during the event, but we do know it was large enough that King County considered removing it (based upon King County maintenance notes reviewed for this investigation). We know that it did not fill the channel and we also know, based upon eye witness accounts, that most of the sediment from the event deposited within Wonderland Estates and other properties upstream from SR169. Therefore, based upon the anecdotal information, it may be reasonable to assume that no more than a third of the 1600 yd3 of sediment was delivered during the 1990 flood. If true, then roughly 1100 yd3 has deposited since 1991. This estimate is only a portion of the total load that has moved through and deposited in Madsen Creek downstream from the sediment basin; and we need to know the total load in-order to estimate trap efficiency. Unfortunately, due to a lack of data we can only make broad assumptions to arrive at this estimate. Based upon field observations, we know that a significant amount of sediment has deposited on the floodplain adjacent to the Madsen Creek within Ron Regis Park, within the channel and on the floodplain in the large wetland downstream from the park, along the relatively flat section of Madsen Creek between the park and the point that the stream first encounters SR169 upstream from the high flow bypass, and on the floodplain between SR169 and the sediment basin; however, due to the steeper channel slope in this reach, the quantities are less than along the flatter reaches downstream. In addition, in the early 1990s the channel maintained a direct connection to the Cedar River so some sediment passed through Madsen Creek to the river. The channel no longer connects directly to the Cedar River, but instead has been diverted into a relatively large pond adjacent to the river. The total length of these reaches is approximately four times that of the constructed channel. If, we use this channel length ratio to assume that the total amount of sediment delivered to and deposited within Madsen Creek downstream from the sediment basin is 3 to 5 times the 1100 yd3 that we have assumed has accumulated in the park channel between 1991 to 2017, then the total sediment delivered to Madsen Creek would be in the range of 3,000 to 6,000 yd3 (see Table 8). If, based upon Figure 33 above, we assume that during this time an average of 80% of the flow exited the sediment basin through the high flow bypass, then one also can assume that 80% of the sediment exited through it too. This suggests that four times as much sediment has been transported through the high flow bypass as compared to Madsen Creek. Multiplying the Madsen Creek sediment deposition volume estimate by four, suggests that the amount of sediment transported by the high flow bypass since 1991 may be in the range of 12,000 to March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 87 24,000 yd3. This combined with the Madsen Creek volume, provides a very rough range suggesting that 15,000 to 30,000 yd3 of sediment may have passed through the basin since 1991, most of it finding its way to the Cedar River via the high flow bypass. To estimate trap efficiency, we need to compare the estimate above to the quantity of sediment that actually deposited in the sediment basin between 1991 and 2017. Sediment basin cleaning removal records in Table 8 indicate that approximately 12,500 yd3 of material was removed from the basin between 1991 and 2006. Removal records are not available for the period 2007 to 2017 except for 2009, but they can be estimated using 15-minute flow data from the King County gage and the sediment basin deposition rating curve in Figure 32. This method suggests that approximately 9000 yd3 deposited between 2007 and 2017 for a total deposition within the basin of 21,500 yd3 between 1991 and 2017. Comparing this value to the 15,000 to 30,000 yd3 that we have estimated passed through the basin, suggests that the basin is capturing 40% to 60% of the total volume of sediment that is transported to the project reach. The sediment basin removal records indicate that on average approximately 800 yd3 of sediment accumulates within the basin each year. If the basin captures 50% of the sediment load, then approximately 800 yd3 passes through. Under the current sediment basin outlet configuration which in which metal plates block 75% of the entrance to the Madsen Creek culvert, approximately 90% (720 yd3) currently leaves the basin through the high flow bypass and 10% (80 yd3) through Madsen Creek. Table 8. – Sediment Basin Capture Efficiency Calculations Based on Known or Estimated Sediment Volumes Deposition between 1991 and 2017. Location of Sediment Volume of Sediment (yd3) Assumption/Calculation Madsen Creek Channel downstream from Sediment Basin 3,000-6,000 (years 1991 to 2017) Very rough estimate based on known deposition in Ron Regis Park combined with field observations along stream Sediment Passing through the sediment basin 15,000-30,000 Based upon assumption that 80% of sediment passes through High Flow Bypass and 20% through Madsen Creek Deposition in Basin (1991-2006) 12,500 Recorded by King County (Table 3) Deposition in Basin (2007-2017) 9,000 Estimate based on flow record and sediment rating curve (Figure 32) Total Sediment Captured by Basin 21,500 Period 1991 to 2017 Sediment Basin Capture Efficiency 40% - 60% Total Captured Sediment / (Total Captured Sediment + Total Passing Sediment) March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 88 Figure 34 shows a conceptual layout of sediment distribution within and leaving the basin. Based upon the rational described above, of the sediment that enters the basin, approximately 50% is captured and 50% passes through. Of the 50% portion passing through, currently about 45% leaves via the high flow bypass and 5% through Madsen Creek. Based upon the sediment samples collected for this investigation, the basin captures nearly all particles larger than medium sand, and a significant portion of the fine sand and silt. The material that leaves the basin is primarily fine sand and silt transported as suspended load. Trap efficiency in the range of 50% is relatively good for sediment basins of this type, therefore, it is our opinion that it was well designed and is serving its intended purpose. Figure 34. Approximate Distribution of Sediment Delivered to and Existing the Sediment Basin. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 89 4. P OTENTIAL S OLUTI ONS Based upon our understanding of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and sediment transport characteristics of Madsen Creek gained through this existing condition assessment, the following solutions are suggested. The proposed solutions are grouped into two categories: 1) recurring maintenance activities, and 2) one-time capital improvement projects. Within each category the solutions are listed in the order of relative importance as viewed by the consultant team: Recurring Maintenance Projects: 3. Restore the capacity of the high flow bypass and the SR169 culvert by removing accumulated sediment and developing an effective sediment removal and annual vegetation maintenance program. 4. Monitor sediment accumulations within the three culverts listed below. Remove the sediment if it starts to limit the capacity of the culvert to the point flooding upstream worsens. This may require removing sediment from the channel downstream from the culvert to prevent the culvert from rapidly refilling with sediment. a. Madsen Creek culvert under high flow bypass b. Madsen Creek SR169 culvert c. Madsen Creek 149th Avenue SE culvert It is recommended that the City, County, and WSDOT work together to develop a memorandum of understanding that specifies the entity responsible for each maintenance activity identified in this study and the frequency and timing of that maintenance. One-Time Improvement Projects: 11. Raise the right bank berm along the upper high flow bypass. 12. Continue to limit the amount of flow that enters Madsen Creek by either retaining the existing plates or installing a slide gate on the entrance to the Madsen Creek culvert at the outlet of the sediment basin. 13. Raise the right bank berm along the section of channel between SR169 and 149th Avenue SE. 14. Raise the height of the ground that separates Madsen Creek from Wonderland Estates. 15. Raise the berm that surrounds the sediment pond and add a rock-lined emergency spillway that discharges to the high flow bypass. 16. Increase culvert capacity at the downstream end of the ditch along 149th Avenue SE either by improving the existing culvert outlet system, or preferably installing a second culvert outlet that drains to the Cedar River and not the high flow bypass. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 90 Also, consider enlarging the ditch. 17. Raise the ground height surrounding the entrance to the SR169 high flow bypass culvert to provide freeboard during the 100-year flood if the entrance to the culvert becomes partially blocked by woody debris. 18. Raise the right bank berm of Madsen Creek where it overtops near the downstream end of the park channel. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 91 5. C ONCLUSION S The existing condition assessment described here in has identified the significant factors that are responsible for the flood and sediment problems that are currently impacting lower Madsen Creek. It has also revealed that there appear to be feasible solutions that can be implemented with relative ease, solutions that consist of a series of one-time construction activities and a renewed commitment to a multi-jurisdictional updated and improved maintenance program. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 92 6. R EFERENCES ASCE, 1996. “Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects.” Technical Engineering and Design Guides as adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 20. Published by ASCE Press 345 East 47th Street New York, New York. Barghausen, 2009. “New Life Church”. Proposed site development plan set showing modified stormwater drainage plan and detention pond. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Kent, WA. Sheets R-348301 to R-348316. Plans are NOT identified as “As-Built”. Plan set contains multiple dates all between 2008 to 2009. City of Renton, 1997. “Plan Set Cedar River Regional Park, Madsen Creek Bridge.” City of Renton Department of Parks and Recreation. Sheets 81 to 84. Plans are NOT identified as “As-Built”. Plan set is dated September 16, 1997. Dinicola, R.S. 1990. Characterization and Simulation of Rainfall-Runoff Relations for Headwater Basins in Western King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Water-Resources Investigation Report 89-4052. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA. Dinicola, R.S. 2001. Validation of a Numerical Modeling Method for Simulating Rainfall-Runoff Relations for Headwater Basins in Western King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Water Supply Paper No. 2495. Prepared in Cooperation with the King County Department of Public Works, and Department of Planning and Community Development. USGS, Tacoma, WA. King County, 1974. “Plan Set Madsen Creek Settling Basin and Channel Relocation”. King County Dept. Of Public Works, Division of Hydraulics. Three sheets numbered consecutively from F-67-1 to F-67-3. Plans are NOT identified as “As-built”. King County, 1989. “As-Built Plan Set, October 2, 1989. Madsen Creek Channel Improvements Near 149th. Ave S.E. & Maple Valley Highway – (SR169)”. King County Dept. Of Public Works, Paul Tanaka Deputy Director, Surface Water Management Division. Seven sheets numbered consecutively from 2000-60 to 2000-60F. King County, 1995. “Plan Sheet Madsen Creek Sediment Pond” improvements. King County Dept. of Public Works, Survey & Mapping. Single plan sheet identified as 1 of 14. Dated February 1995. King County, 1998. “Madsen Creek Sediment Pond Fish Ladder” plan set. King County Surface Water Management. Plan Set dated March 31, 1998. Three sheets numbered 1 to 3, plus a fourth unnumbered log notched detail sketch. King County, 2002. “149 Avenue SE Concrete Cutoff Wall”. Design plan for concrete weir structure to limit flow into ditch along east side of 149th Avenue SE. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Stormwater Service Section. Dated August 20, 2002. March 2019 Madsen Creek Existing Conditions 93 Kolcsey, Stephen, J., 1990. “Catastrophic Flood January 9, 1990 to Mobile Home Wonderland & The Kolcsey Residence from the 16-year Old King County Madsen Creek Drainage System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016, “HEC-RAS River Analysis System 2D Modeling User’s Manual”. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1994, “Stability of Flood Control Channels. EM1110-2- 1418”. WADNR (2018), Washington Department of Natural Resources online LiDAR portal, https://www.dnr.wa.gov/lidar, accessed July 2018. WSDOT, 1993. “SR169 196th Avenue S.E. / Jones Road to Maplewood” SR 169 highway widening project. Plan sheets 91,103, 247 of 333. Plans stamped “for “As Constructed Plans” Only. Multiple dates appear on the plan set all between July and August 1993. WSE (2013), “Cedar River Interactive Mapping Project Model and Mapping Development”, Watershed Science and Engineering, technical memorandum to King County, 21 August 2013. APPENDIX E : BASIS OF DESIGN MEMO WATERSHED SCIENCE & ENGINEERING · 506 2nd Ave, Suite 2700, Seattle, WA 98104 · 206-521-3000 Memorandum To: Amanda Pierce, City of Renton From: Kaleb Madsen, Watershed Science & Engineering Mark Ewbank, P.E., Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Date: March 10, 2021 Re: Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project—Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for Design and Permitting of Flood Control Improvements and Evaluation of Floodplain Fill Mitigation INTRODUCTION Watershed Science & Engineering and their subconsultant Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) was retained by the City of Renton to investigate causes of flooding and propose design solutions to reduce flooding along the lower Madsen Creek network. An existing conditions report was developed in 2019 identifying the sources of flooding and provided several potential solutions to mitigate 100-year flooding. The City chose multiple solutions at four sites for design and construction. The improvements include constructing berms and a small floodwall along the low flow channel, constructing a berm along the high flow bypass channel, and the removal of sediment accumulation in the high flow bypass channel to improve flood conveyance capacity. The proposed improvements are within regulated critical areas and will require mitigation and permitting. Hydraulic modeling was done to support the design and permitting of the modifications to the Madsen Creek network. The modeling and existing conditions also determined the design approach for providing compensatory flood storage to offset displaced flood storage, due to placement of berm fill in regulated floodplain areas. PROPOSED DESIGN PLANS AND INFORMATION NEEDED FOR PERMITTING The project proposes several berms and a small floodwall adjacent to existing stream channels to contain flood flows in three areas (Sites 2, 3, and 4 in the project design plans). WSE utilized the existing hydraulic model to determine the necessary design for flood control improvements to contain the Madsen Creek 100-year peak flood flow. The model and proposed improvements are not designed to protect against extreme flooding within the Cedar River. The flood containment berms and wall are within the Cedar River floodplain and require mitigation. The berm and floodwall at Site 3, as well as a berm at Site 4, will displace existing flood storage in a regulated floodplain. The proposed flood containment facilities at Sites 2 and 3 are entirely located within city limits. The proposed berm at Site 4 will be partially in King County jurisdiction. Therefore, the displaced flood storage and required mitigation at Site 4 needs to address King County code requirements in addition to City requirements. The City plans to provide compensatory flood storage (as required by City and County codes) for all of the berm fill and floodwall impacts in mapped floodplain areas via widening a portion of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel (which extends from the Madsen Creek sediment basin at the upstream end to the Cedar River at the downstream end). The City also plans to redefine the originally Page | 2 constructed (in 1976) high flow bypass channel bed in conjunction with improvements at Site 2, providing necessary capacity for flood protection. The design plans need to satisfy City engineering standards for freeboard in the 100-year flood event within the Madsen Creek network, while also serving as a basis for defining impacts to regulated critical areas for permitting purposes and mitigating those impacts. The rationale for the proposed design plans is presented below, followed by a discussion of project impacts and mitigation in regulated floodplain areas. This memo also documents analysis of the area inundated by the peak 2-year flood flow through the high flow bypass channel in existing conditions as a surrogate for the ordinary high water mark along that channel, which is essential information needed for permitting of impacts to wetland and stream buffers. SEDIMENT REMOVAL NEEDED TO RESTORE ORIGINAL HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL GEOMETRY The high flow bypass channel was constructed in 1976 to convey high flows in Madsen Creek directly to the Cedar River. Figure 1 shows the high flow bypass channel elevation profile with the bottom surface elevation as surveyed in 2018 and the original (1976) channel bottom elevation profile based upon best available data. The 1976 design consists of a channel profile and one typical cross-section applicable to the length of the bypass channel upstream of State Route (SR) 169. In the absence of “as-built” detail, the City necessarily assumes that this information reflects what was built in 1976. The original design profile shows the channel tied into the top of the low flow channel (LFC) concrete box culvert (at elevation 96.4), graded upstream at a slope of 0.28 percent for 395 feet, then at a slope of 2.52 percent from there upstream to the sediment basin outlet. The LFC culvert was rebuilt by WSDOT in the early 1990s and is shown in as-built drawings prepared by WSDOT as being 0.1 foot higher (elevation 96.5) than the original top-of-box elevation but in the same location. The WSDOT as-built drawings also match well between the original and new location of the high flow bypass culvert under SR 169, as well as in comparison to recent survey data for the height of the concrete wall on the upstream end of the low flow channel culvert. Given that the 1976 bypass channel design tied directly into the top of the LFC box culvert, and the top of the rebuilt LFC culvert was 0.1 foot higher, this comparison assumed that the original design profile of the high flow bypass channel should be assumed to be 0.1 foot below the top of the existing LFC box culvert (which is definitively surveyed) and then extended upstream per the original design profile slopes and typical channel cross-section. A topographic surface model was constructed using these parameters to define the extents of sediment removal in the bypass channel to restore the 1976 channel design geometry. This volume of sediment removal is estimated to be 200 cubic yards (54 cubic yards below 100-year floodplain and 146 cubic yards above), and is considered to be maintenance of the channel to restore it to historical conditions for the purposes of the City’s Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife specific to the high flow bypass system. Figure 2 shows a typical cross-section in the midst of Site 2 with the originally constructed (and as proposed to be restored) channel geometry. It is assumed that the finished grade of the original channel bed and banks was at the top of a 1-foot-thick layer of riprap shown in the original design cross-section. ADDITIONAL BYPASS CHANNEL WIDENING FOR COMPENSATORY FLOOD STORAGE The mapped floodplain area that overlaps with Sites 2 and 3 does not have a defined 100-year flood peak water surface elevation (it is a “Zone A” flood hazard area on the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map Page | 3 [FEMA 2017]). It is assumed that the water surface elevation in those areas during the 100-year flood would be controlled by backwater from the Cedar River floodplain to the north of State Route (SR) 169 (Renton-Maple Valley Road), and thus the mapped 100-year flood elevation (also called the base flood elevation [BFE]) on the north side of the highway (102.5 feet [NAVD88]) is a reasonable basis for determining the peak 100-year flood level at Sites 2 and 3. Mitigation for displaced flood storage associated with berm and floodwall construction at Site 3, and berm construction at Site 4, requires an additional 64 cubic yards of flood storage below elevation 102.5 feet and contiguous with the existing Cedar River floodplain straddling SR 169. The high flow bypass channel is within the same flow conveyance network as Sites 3 and 4, while also being directly connected with the existing Cedar River backwater floodplain area upstream of SR 169. Adjusting the high flow bypass channel geometry beyond channel maintenance allows for the creation of additional flood storage capacity to effectively mitigate for displaced flood storage caused by the project. Deepening of the channel beyond the 1976 channel bed and banks would result in major changes to the hydraulics of the channel, adjacent structures, and the City’s existing easement for channel maintenance. Thus, the City’s design team chose to widen the bypass channel to create the necessary flood storage, reduce impacts, and retain the channel integrity. The high flow bypass channel will be widened 2.25 feet to the east – while retaining the 1976 channel bed surface elevation profile and re-creating the 1976 side slopes of the channel on both sides. A total of 125 cubic yards of excavation will occur below elevation 102.5 feet, of which 71 cubic yards is added flood storage and the remaining 54 cubic yards are maintenance to restore the historic channel capacity. The 71 cubic yards of added flood storage will be used to compensate for 71 cubic yards of displaced flood storage at Sites 3 and 4 as documented later in this memorandum. SITE 2 BERM DESIGN FOR 100-YEAR FLOOD CONTAINMENT The proposed berm along the east side of the widened high flow bypass channel at Site 2 will be raised to contain the 100-year peak flood flow with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard per the City’s design standards. The 6 inches of freeboard is based on the modeled 100-year Madsen Creek flood flows and not the 100-year flood inundation depicted on Cedar River FEMA flood insurance rate maps, as the Madsen Creek flood elevations are higher. The berm is designed to have a low-permeability core of compacted soil with topsoil for riparian plantings surrounding the core. The top elevation of the berm core is set to be equivalent to 6 inches above the simulated 100-year peak water surface elevation profile through the length of Site 2, with the proposed channel geometry modifications accounted for. This will assure that floodwaters cannot erode the portion of the berm that provides flood containment. The topsoil on the berm will promote lush vegetation growth, which is needed to offset project impacts to wetland and stream buffers. SIMULATED 2-YEAR FLOOD INUNDATION IN THE HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL Permitting of the proposed improvements also requires defining the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream channels in relation to stream buffer impacts. Herrera delineated the OHWM of the Madsen Creek low flow channel at Sites 3 and 4 as part of field work to document existing environmental critical areas in 2018. The OHWM was not delineated in the high flow bypass channel since there is no “ordinary” flow within channel that create visual indicators of the OWHM on the channel banks. However, permitting of the work proposed at Site 2 requires analysis of stream buffer impacts and the OHWM in a stream Page | 4 channel is the City’s standard basis for assessing such impacts. The hydraulic model was also used as a basis for defining the OHWM at Site 2, using the simulated 2-year flood inundation area as a surrogate for the OHWM. The 2-year flood elevation throughout the bypass channel was used as an acceptable determination of the OHWM based upon the Department of Ecology’s Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (2016). Figure 3 presents existing conditions model results for the 2-year flood event as a surrogate for the OHWM, used for calculating stream buffer impacts. HYDRAULIC MODELING SUMMARY FOR DESIGN OF SITES 2 AND 3 The Madsen Creek hydraulic model is a 2-dimensional, unsteady flow, HEC-RAS model. It was constructed using LiDAR and survey topography. Hydrology was developed using precipitation records, a stream gage record, and a numerical hydrologic simulation. The original hydraulic model was based on the existing conditions survey, but it was modified to simulate various design improvements throughout the system. The model was used to determine the height and length of the proposed flood containment berm on the east side of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 and the dimensions of a floodwall and flood containment berm on the south side of the low flow channel at Site 3. The flood improvements at Sites 2 and 3 are designed to contain 100-year flood flows with sufficient freeboard to satisfy City of Renton design requirements for flood containment performance. FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE 2 A proposed design surface, representing the high flow bypass channel after sediment removal, and adjacent berm installation at Site 2, was input into the hydraulic model to evaluate performance. Iterative adjustments in the design were tested with the model to yield the optimum design configuration. The final design surface was then modeled for the 100-year recurrence flood event peak flow to yield a water surface elevation profile for use in confirming the top elevation of the low permeability berm core fill needed for sufficient freeboard. The model also confirmed that berming the east side of the bypass channel will reduce the probability that 100-year flood flows will overtop the existing maintenance access driveway on the west side of the channel. As stated previously, a peak 100-year flood elevation of 102.5 feet (NAVD88) was used to calculate the volume of fill in the regulated floodplain at Site 2. The berm fill to be placed above existing ground at Site 2 is all above elevation 102.5 feet, and therefore berm construction at this site will not displace any existing flood storage. FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE 3 The design for Site 3 includes a small berm on the Wonderland Estates property adjacent to the Madsen Creek low flow channel, and a small floodwall extending to the east across City-owned land in front of (north of) a single-family residential property with the same top elevation as the berm. The berm will tie into high ground at the west end where the low flow channel enters a culvert under SR 169. The west end of the floodwall will tie into the east end of the berm. The east end of the floodwall will tie into high ground near the outlet end of the culvert that conveys the Madsen Creek low flow channel beneath the high flow bypass channel. Page | 5 Figure 4 shows a cross-section of the Madsen Creek low flow channel and the proposed berm on the left bank side of the channel at Site 3. Calculating the volume of flood storage displaced by the floodwall and the berm fill below the 100-year flood elevation used the same backwater base flood elevation of 102.5 feet (NAVD88) as at Site 2. This is because the high flow bypass and low flow channels are currently hydraulically linked in the 100-year flood backwater pool that forms upstream of SR 169. The volume of proposed berm fill above existing ground level (which ranges in elevation from 101 to 102 feet) and below elevation 102.5 feet will be 30.5 cubic yards at Site 3. The volume of flood storage displaced by a small concrete masonry unit floodwall equates to 8 inches wide in plan view and 90 feet in total length. This type of thin concrete wall will displace approximately 2.5 cubic yards of existing flood storage below elevation 102.5 feet. Thus, the total floodplain fill at Site 3 is estimated to be 33 cubic yards. Mitigation for that displaced flood storage will occur via widening beyond the as-built high flow bypass channel geometry at Site 2 as described above. FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE 4 Figure 5 shows a cross-section of the Madsen Creek low flow channel and the proposed berm on the right bank side of the channel at Site 4. The 100-year flood elevation used to calculate fill proposed in the floodplain at this site is 102.0 feet (NAVD88), taken from FEMA (2017). The berm at Site 4 is not meant to provide flood protection for the private residence north of the Madsen Creek low flow channel when the Cedar River is in a 100-year flood condition, as that residence and others to the north of it are within the river’s floodplain. The top of the berm is designed at an elevation that would be completely submerged in a 100-year flood event in the river. The berm is meant to reduce the risk of flooding during a 100-year event or less within Madsen Creek. The net volume of berm fill placement, minus the removed volume of existing concrete blocks and soil below elevation 102.0 feet, is estimated to be approximately 38 cubic yards. The average existing ground elevation where the berm will be placed ranges from 99 to 101 feet. Mitigation for that displaced flood storage will occur via widening the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 as described above. SUMMARY OF FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION Table 1 lists the amount of displaced flood storage at each of Sites 2, 3, and 4, and the volume of created flood storage at Site 2 within the high flow bypass channel. Table 1. Flood Storage Displacement and Mitigation. Displaced Flood Storage Flood Storage Created Site 2: 0 cubic yards Site 2: 71 cubic yards Site 3: 33 cubic yards Site 3: none Site 4: 38 cubic yards Site 4: none Total: 71 cubic yards Total: 71 cubic yards FLOOD HAZARD CERTIFICATION The portion of the project that is within King County jurisdiction requires a flood hazard certification, specifically for berm construction within the mapped floodplain at Site 4. King County requires a flood hazard certification be prepared by a licensed professional engineer as a condition of floodplain permit approval. Attachment A to this memorandum contains the flood hazard certification form, based upon Page | 6 the information presented in the body of this memorandum and the floodplain shown on Figure 3 in the Mitigation Plan report to which this memorandum is appended. Page | 7 REFERENCES Anderson, P.S.; S. Meyer; P. Olson; and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Ecology. Publication 1606029. Washington State Department of Ecology. FEMA. 2017. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 53033C0984G. US Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. September 15. WSDOT. 1993. SR 169 196th Ave. S.E. / Jones Road to Maplewood as-built design plans. Washington State Department of Transportation. WSE. 2019. Final Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood & Sediment Assessment. Prepared for the City of Renton Public Works. Watershed Science & Engineering, Seattle, Washington. March 20. Page | 9 ATTACHMENT A– FLOOD HAZARD CERTIFICATION Project Name: ______________________________________________________________ Parcel Number(s): ______________________ DPER Permit Number:__________________ This form is current as of August 29, 2013. Section A.1 (to be completed by applicant or applicant’s engineer) Site Location Within Floodplain The proposed development site lies at least partially within the King County regulatory floodplain based on review and determination from any of the following sources: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Panel #____________________ Panel date:____________ Special Study as required by section 4.4.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual Other: (please note source)________________________________________________________________ Zero-Rise Analysis Based on section 21A.24.250 of the King County Code, and section 4.4.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the proposed development cannot create a measurable change to the water surface elevation or energy grade line for the 100- year flood event (base flood elevation). This is to be determined and certified by a registered professional engineer using standard methods and practices accepted by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) and will be referred to as a “zero-rise analysis”. Based on a review of the potential impacts of this project, a “zero-rise analysis”: Is required. Completion of Section B of this form by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a condition of the issuance of this permit. Is not required for the following reasons: Elevating or improvement to an existing structure without increasing the foundation footprint of the structure. Post and pier foundation system with no significant impedance to flow. Coastal “A”, “VE”, “AE” zone. Shallow flooding area (AO/AH zone) not adjacent to a riverine system. (Explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Ineffective flow area. (Explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Proposed project lies within a hydraulic shadow. (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Other (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ King County Flood Hazard Certification The goal of Section A.1 is to identify the type and location of the flood hazards on the project parcel and identify study requirements. If the proposed project does not meet the exemptions listed under Zero-Rise Analysis, Compensatory Storage Analysis, or Base Flood Depth and Base Flood Velocity Analysis, then you may need to do the specific analysis. If there are flooding issues on the project parcel, but they are not mapped, then you may need to do the specific analysis. Find FEMA Map information at http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/maps.aspx or go directly to FEMA’s site https://msc.fema.gov Madsen Creek Flooding Improvements Project 2323059070 X 0984G 9/15/2017 X Compensatory Storage Analysis: Based on section 21A.24.240 of the King County Code, the proposed development cannot reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain, and must provide compensatory storage if grading or other activity displaces any effective flood storage volume. This is to be determined and certified by a registered professional engineer using standard methods and practices accepted by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) and will be referred to as a “compensatory storage analysis”. Based on a review of the potential impacts of this project, a “compensatory storage analysis”: Is required. Completion of Section B of this form by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a condition of the issuance of this permit. Is not required for the following reasons: Elevating or improvement to an existing structure without increasing the foundation footprint of the structure. Post and pier foundation system with no significant reduction in flood storage. Grading or fill placed within the foundation of an existing residential structure to bri ng the interior foundation grade to the same level as the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Other (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Base Flood Depth and Base Flood Velocity Analysis Based on section 21A.24.240 of the King County Code, development proposals and alterations are not allowed if the base flood depth exceeds three feet and the base flood velocity exceeds three feet per second. This is to be determined and certified by a registered professional engineer using standard methods and practices accepted by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) and will be referred to as a “base flood depth and base flood velocity analysis ”. Based on a review of the potential impacts of this project, a “base flood depth and base flood velocity analysis”: Is required. Completion of Section B of this form by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a condition of the issuance of this permit. Is not required for the following reasons: The structure is an agricultural structure and will not be used for human habitation . Elevating or improvement an existing structure without increasing the foundation footprint of the structure. Other (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Submitted by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ Applicant or Applicant’s Engineer Section A.2 (to be completed by the DPER Drainage Engineer when applicable) DPER Drainage Engineer Certification (For sites in unmapped flood hazard areas) The development proposal site is not within the unmapped flood hazard area based on inspection of the site, and therefore further flood hazard review is not required. The development proposal does not involve any site disturbance, clearing, or grading, and therefore only requires a permit or approval under K.C.C. chapter 16.04 or 17.04. Further flood hazard review is not required. Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ DPER Drainage Engineer X X X This is a flood hazard mitigation project that will improve flooding conditions for nearby land Mark Ewbank, PE 11/12/2020 Section B (to be completed by the applicant’s engineer) I have considered the hazards represented on Panel __________________ of the Flood Insurance Study for King County, dated _________________, _______, and the supporting documentation for DPER Permit Number_______________. I have also searched for and considered all other available information including: Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (P-FIRMs); Preliminary Flood Insurance Studies; Draft flood boundary work maps and associated technical reports; Critical areas reports prepared in accordance with FEMA standards set forth at 44 C.F.R. Part 65 and consistent with the King County Surface Water Design Manual provisions for floodplain analysis set forth at section 4.4.2; Letter of Map Amendments (LOMAs); Letter of Map Revisions (LOMRs); Channel migration zone maps and studies; Historical flood hazard information; and Site topography and ground elevations. All sources are clearly identified in the attached report. In addition, I have created new data where existing sources are not sufficient to assure compliance, and the attached report clearly documents my methods and assumptions. I certify that the attached technical data supports the fact that this submitted design will meet requirements for protection of floodplain storage and floodplain conveyance, as well as base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements, as set forth in King County Code, Title 21A. Compliance is achieved as described below. Code Requirement Analytical Methodology (check one or more) Engineering Certification Required? No impact to 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations and floodway widths (no encroachments or obstruction of floodwaters). No reduction in floodplain conveyance both onsite and on adjacent properties, during 100-year flood event (“zero-rise” floodplain). Hand calculations showing that flood conveyance (K=1.49/n AR2/3) will equal or exceed existing values at every location. Yes HEC-RAS analysis showing that neither the water surface nor the energy grade will rise by even 0.01 feet at any location when proposed conditions are compared to existing conditions. Yes Other. See attached information.Yes Compensatory floodplain storage provided (no net fill). Volumetric calculations to show that compensatory storage provides equivalent volume at equivalent elevations to that being displaced, and is hydraulically connected to the source of flooding. For this purpose, equivalent elevations means having similar relationship to ordinary high water and to the best available ten-year, fifty-year and one-hundred-year water surface profiles; Yes Other. See attached information.Yes Base flood depth does not exceed 3 feet or base flood velocity does not exceed 3 feet per second. Base flood depth and base flood velocity mapping and data show less than 3 feet depth or less than a velocity of 3 feet per second at the project location. Yes Other. See attached information.Yes Attached are all support data and calculations. _____________________________________________ Signature _____________________________________________ Date _____________________________________________ Name and Title _____________________________________________ Company _____________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________ City, State, Zip Professional Engineer’s stamp, if methodology requires certification. The goal of Section B is to identify and present which analytical methodologies were used to demonstrate compliance with the King County Code. This section shall be completed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington when an analysis is required per Section A. 0984G X November 12, 2020 Mark Ewbank, Principal Engineer Herrera Environmental Consultants 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98121-1820 May 16 1995 Section C (to be completed by the DNRP, RFMS engineer) Based on a review of the subject development proposal, the River and Floodplain Management Section of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks determines the following: No flood hazard analysis is required. A flood hazard analysis is required and the development proposal meets the zero rise, compensatory storage, and base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements of King County Code 21A.24.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.4.2. This determination does not include a review of the other flood hazard areas standards in King County Code 21A.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260, 21A.24.270, and 21A.24.272. A flood hazard analysis is required and the development proposal meets the zero rise, compensatory storage, and base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements of King County Code 21A.24.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.4.2; however this approval is with additional comments or conditions (DNRP, RFMS shall provide comments in an e-mail or another written format to DPER). A flood hazard analysis is required and the development proposal does not meet the zero rise, compensatory storage, and base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements of King County Code 21A.24.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.4.2. Reason(s) not approved: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ DNRP, RFMS Engineer Page | 11 FIGURES STATION1160+500+77ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108112961001041081120+000+501+001+502+002+50ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108112961001041081122+503+003+504+004+505+00ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108112961001041081125+005+506+006+507+007+25O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 1.High Flow Bypass ChannelBottom Elevation Profile UnderExisting and ProposedConditions.EXISTING CHANNEL BOTTOMPROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOMSEDIMENT REMOVAL100-YEAR FLOOD (MODELED, EXISTING CONDITIONS)100-YEAR FLOOD (MODELED, PROPOSED CONDITIONS) ELEVATION IN FEET96100104108 112961001041081120+000+400+70EASEMENTROAD 8.6'EXISTINGPROPOSED1976 CHANNEL DESIGNCUT BELOW BFEBFE (102.5 FT)100-YR FLOOD (MODEL)COMPACTED FILLTOPSOILO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 2.Proposed High Flow BypassDesign Cross-section at Site 2LEGENDEXISTING GROUND SURFACEPROPOSED GROUND SURFACE1976 CHANNEL DESIGN TYP SECTION100-YR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION 0 80 16040Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\GISWorking\HydraulicModelingReprt\Fig3-2-yearHFB.mxd Figure 3. Existing Conditions 2-Year Modeling Results for the Upper High Flow Bypass.E King County (2019) Legend 2-Year Water Surface Elevation High : 110 Low : 100 Cut Grade Fill Grade ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+40O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 4.Proposed Design Cross Sectionat Site 3.LEGENDEXISTING GROUND SURFACEMAPPED 100-YEAR FLOOD BACKWATERPROPOSED BERM ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+40O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 5.Proposed Design Cross Sectionat Site 4.LEGENDEXISTING GROUND SURFACEMAPPED 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION, 102.0 FTPROPOSED BERM APPENDIX F : LOWER MADSEN CREEK BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT LOWER MADSEN CREEK BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT Prepared for: City of Renton Public Works Utility Systems -- Surface Water Utility Engineering 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Prepared by: 506 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98104 206-521-3000 December 18, 2020 November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 2 Contents Contents ..................................................................................................... 2 Figures ....................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4 Background .................................................................................................. 4 Phase 1 Investigation Summary ........................................................................... 7 Methods ................................................................................................... 7 Flood Problem Sites ..................................................................................... 8 Flood Reduction Solutions ............................................................................. 14 Phase 2 -- Selected Flood Reduction Solutions ........................................................ 15 Future Restoration and Flood Reduction Concepts ................................................... 17 Hydraulic Modeling of Future Alternatives .......................................................... 18 FA #1 - Reconnect Channel to the Cedar River ..................................................... 18 FA #2 – Relocate and Restore Madsen Creek ........................................................ 33 Geomorphic Assessment of Future Alternatives .................................................... 38 Environmental Permitting Considerations ........................................................... 41 Future Alternative Conclusions ....................................................................... 43 References ................................................................................................. 44 Appendix A ................................................................................................. 45 November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 3 Figures Figure 1 - Madsen Creek Watershed ..................................................................... 5 Figure 2 - Detailed diagram of lower Madsen Creek................................................... 6 Figure 3 - Flooding sources ............................................................................... 10 Figure 4 - 2-year flooding, existing conditions ........................................................ 11 Figure 5 - 25-year flooding, existing conditions ...................................................... 12 Figure 6 - 100-year flooding, existing conditions ..................................................... 13 Figure 7 - Future Alternative #1, Variation 1 .......................................................... 21 Figure 8 - Future Alternative #1, Variation 2 .......................................................... 22 Figure 9 - Future Alternative #1, Variation 3 .......................................................... 23 Figure 10 - FA#1 (Variation 1), 2-Year Flood .......................................................... 24 Figure 11 - FA#1 (Variation 1), 25-Year Flood ......................................................... 25 Figure 12 - FA#1 (Variation 1), 100-Year Flood ....................................................... 26 Figure 13 - FA#1 (Variation 2), 2-Year Flood .......................................................... 27 Figure 14 - FA#1 (Variation 2), 25-Year Flood ......................................................... 28 Figure 15 - FA#1 (Variation 2), 100-Year Flood ....................................................... 29 Figure 16 - FA#1 (Variation 3), 2-Year Flood .......................................................... 30 Figure 17 - FA#1 (Variation 3), 25-Year Flood ......................................................... 31 Figure 18 - FA#1 (Variation 3), 100-Year Flood ....................................................... 32 Figure 19 - Future Alternative #2 ....................................................................... 34 Figure 20 - FA#2, 2-Year Flood .......................................................................... 35 Figure 21 - FA#2, 25-Year Flood ......................................................................... 36 Figure 22 - FA#2, 100-Year Flood ....................................................................... 37 Figure 23 - Longitudinal profiles of future alternative channels ................................... 40 Figure 24 - Average channel velocities of future alternatives ...................................... 40 November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 4 Introduction Lower Madsen Creek in the City of Renton (City), Washington frequently floods public and private lands. In 2018, the City retained Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) to determine the cause of the flooding and to identify solutions. WSE completed the first phase (Phase 1) of the investigation in December 2018 and presented the findings both in a written report (WSE, 2019) and an oral presentation to City staff. The report documented the history of flooding along with maintenance activities and structural improvements that have been built over the past 40 plus years to reduce flooding. It also describes 10 actions the City can complete to reduce flooding, including both one-time capital projects and recurring annual maintenance and monitoring. Based upon WSE’s findings and recommendations, the City selected four actions to carry forward to design. All are relatively simple, inexpensive, and easy to permit solutions. The City retained WSE and partner Herrera Environmental (Herrera) to develop detailed plans, cost estimates and specifications for each action and to work with City staff to secure the permits required for construction. This report documents the basis of the design of each action. Herrera led the design and permitting effort with support provided by WSE. The Muckleshoot Indian tribe has expressed a desire for a much larger and all-inclusive project to solve flooding and restore fish habitat within Lower Madsen Creek. At the request of the tribe, the City agreed to develop concepts for two future comprehensive alternatives to restore habitat and reduce flooding. These alternatives are not feasible at this time because they are complex and/or expensive; however, they will serve as a starting point for future discussions among stakeholders. At the request of the City, WSE developed two concepts which are presented in the last section of this report. Background Madsen Creek originates on a large glacial plateau in east Renton before it descends through a steep ravine to the Cedar River floodplain (Figure 1). The portion of the creek that flows across the Cedar River floodplain is referred to as lower Madsen Creek and is the subject of this investigation. Commercial and residential development on the glacial plateau in the 1960 and 1970s increased runoff and sediment supply to lower Madsen Creek, increasing the frequency and severity of flooding. A complete history of flooding is presented in the Phase 1 report (WSE, 2019). In response to the increase in flooding, King County designed and constructed a flood bypass system along lower Madsen Creek in 1976. The system includes an inline sediment pond at the location where the stream exists the ravine and a high-flow bypass channel that captures and conveys flood water from the sediment pond directly to the Cedar River (Figure 2). The Madsen Creek low-flow channel remains active and conveys low flows from the sediment pond to the Cedar River via a circuitous route including passing through culverts under the High- Flow Bypass, SR-169, and 149th Ave SE, before flowing through Ron Regis Park and on to the Cedar. Ma d s e n Cr e e k CedarRiver Madsen Creek Watershed§¨¦90 §¨¦5 02 Jul 2020 0 1,000 2,000Feet Scale: 1:19,487NAD 1983 HARNStatePlane WashingtonSouth FIPS 4602 Feet U Figure #1 Lower Madsen Creek 149th Ave SE150th Ln SE Oak Dr154th Pl SE150th Ave SEAccess RdMaple DrPedestrian Walk Birch Dr145th Ave SE146th Pl SESE 158th St SE 157th Pl SE 155th Pl 1 4 2 n d P l S E Pr iva te Rd BirchDrPed e s t r i a n W a l k 1 4 3 r d A v e SE SE Jon e s P l 152nd Ave SECedar River T r a i l Maple Valley H w y SE 154th St SE 153rd Pl SE Jo n e s R d 1 4 0 t h W a y SE Access RdPine DrPrivate RdCedar River MadsenCreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekLower Madsen Creek SystemUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,658NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington North FIPS 4601 Feet U Madsen Creek Figure #2 Madsen Creek passesunder the High-FlowBypass Channel Sediment Pond Channel is confined toa steep gully upstreamof the Sediment Pond Channel terminates intoWetland Ponds Wonderland Estates Church Field 149th Ave Ditch Ron Regis Park November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 7 Phase 1 Investigation Summary Methods To identify the cause of the flooding and the locations where it is occurring, WSE and partners Herrera Environmental and Pacific Geomatic Services (PGS) completed a detailed discovery investigation which included the tasks listed below. Study methods, results and conclusions are fully documented in the Phase 1 report (WSE, 2019). Phase 1 tasks: 1. Topographic Survey PGS conducted a topographic survey of lower Madsen Creek starting upstream of the sediment pond and extending to the Cedar River. The survey included the low-flow Madsen Creek channel, the High-Flow Bypass, and all hydraulic structures. 2. Wetland Delineation & Preliminary Permitting Requirements Herrera Environmental completed a wetland delineation along both the low-flow and high-flow bypass channels. They also identified the permits that would be required to perform channel maintenance activities and construct flood reduction projects. 3. Flood & Maintenance History A flood and maintenance history was compiled based upon a review of flood photographs, and conversations with local residents, City, and King County personnel. 4. Field Investigation WSE staff examined and documented flow conveyance conditions in both the low-flow channel and High-Flow Bypass. This included examining each culvert crossing to determine if it was partially filled with sediment and debris. 5. Hydrologic Modeling and Analysis WSE created a hydrologic model of the Madsen Creek watershed and used it to estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood flows entering the lower Madsen Creek system. 6. Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis WSE used the topographic survey completed by PGS and available LiDAR data to create a two-dimensional hydraulic model of lower Madsen Creek project, which includes both the low-flow channel and the High-Flow Bypass. WSE used the model to evaluate existing channel capacity, identify sites where water floods adjacent parcels by overtopping the channel banks, and to aid in the design and evaluation of flood reduction actions. Hydraulic modeling efforts are discussed in more detail in the following section. 7. Sediment Transport and Deposition Analysis November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 8 WSE examined sediment transport and deposition characteristics throughout both the low-flow and High-Flow Bypass channels. Flood Problem Sites The discovery investigation led to the identification of multiple flooding sources which are identified in Figure 3 and described below. The magnitude of flooding is illustrated in Figures 4 – 6 which show the flood inundation extents of the 2-, 25-, and 100-year floods for existing conditions as computed with the hydraulic model. Primary Flooding Sources - 1. Overtopping of the right (east) berm of the Upper High-Flow Bypass The High-Flow Bypass is contained between earthen berms extending between the sediment pond and SR-169. The left berm (viewing downstream) serves as an access road to the sediment pond and is slightly higher than the right berm. Hydraulic modeling reveals that the right berm begins to overtop at less than a 25-year flood. Flow passing over the berm floods the church field to the east before entering and overwhelming the Madsen Creek low-channel. These overflows are responsible for a majority of the flooding that occurs along the low-flow channel and 149th Ave SE downstream of the High-Flow Bypass. 2. Sedimentation in the Bypass Channel and SR-169 Culvert Sediment has deposited in both the upper and lower sections of the High-Flow Bypass channel and within the culvert that carries it under SR-169. This has reduced the capacity of the High-Flow Bypass which has increased the frequency of overtopping of the right-bank berm along the upper High-Flow Bypass. 3. Excessive Vegetation in the Lower High-Flow Bypass Channel The lower High-Flow Bypass channel not only has accumulated sediment, but at times also contains substantial vegetation. King County is responsible for maintaining the lower High-Flow Bypass channel which they do through annual mowing; however, mowing usually occurs in January which is after flood season starts in November. The vegetation increases channel roughness which reduces channel capacity and decreases flow velocities. The low flow velocities are partially responsible for excess sediment deposition in this reach. 4. Low Left Bank along the Wonderland Estates Reach The left bank of the Madsen Creek low-flow channel overtops during floods downstream from the High-Flow Bypass and upstream of SR-169. The water floods the front yard of a residential property and portions of Wonderland Estates, a King County Housing Authority housing complex. 5. Low Berm along the Right Bank between SR-169 and 149th Ave SE November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 9 An existing earthen/concrete ecology block berm is too low along the Madsen Creek low-flow channel between SR-169 and 149th Ave SE culverts. During high flows the berm overtops and water floods several residential properties north of the channel. 6. Lack of Capacity in the 149th Ave SE Ditch and Culverts A small lateral weir located in the right bank of the channel at the inlet to the 149th Ave SE culvert allows water to flow into a roadside ditch that heads north away from Madsen Creek. At the north end of the ditch, two small culverts connect the ditch to the High-Flow Bypass channel. Water in the ditch is supposed to empty into the High- Flow Bypass; however, the culverts are too small to convey the large amount of water carried by the ditch; therefore, water backs up and floods the road and several adjacent residential properties. 7. Sedimentation in Madsen Creek Channel in Ron Regis Park Within Ron Regis Park, Madsen Creek has lost approximately 75% of its capacity due to sediment deposition. This not only causes flooding problems in the Park and on adjacent private parcels, it also causes water to back-up in the channel which increases flooding along 149th Ave SE, as well as along Wonderland Estates. # # # # ## #High Flow BypassHigh Flow BypassMadsenCreekMadsen CreekCed a r R i v e r 1 3 5 2 6 7 4 Flooding Sources UV169 CedarRiver 0 150 300Feet Scale: 1:2,485NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek #Flooding Sources Figure #3 Ce d a r R i v e r Existing Conditions2-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 200 400Feet Scale: 1:3,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 2-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #4 Ce d a r R i v e r Existing Conditions25-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 200 400Feet Scale: 1:3,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 25-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #5 Ce d a r R i v e r Existing Conditions100-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 200 400Feet Scale: 1:3,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 100-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #6 November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 14 Flood Reduction Solutions The Phase I investigation revealed that many of the flooding problems within the project reach could be reduced or solved with relatively simple design and maintenance solutions. The range of solutions were divided into two categories - maintenance actions and one-time capital improvements. These are described below: Maintenance Actions: • Restore the capacity of the High-Flow Bypass and the SR-169 culvert by removing sediment and developing an effective sediment removal and annual vegetation maintenance program. • Monitor sediment accumulations within the three culverts listed below. Remove the sediment if it starts to limit the capacity of the culvert and increase flooding upstream. This may require removing sediment from the channel downstream from the culvert to prevent the culvert from rapidly refilling with sediment. o Madsen Creek culvert under High-Flow Bypass o Madsen Creek SR-169 culvert o Madsen Creek 149th Avenue SE culvert One-Time Capital Improvement Projects: 1. Raise the right bank berm along the upper High-Flow Bypass between the sediment pond and the SR-169 culvert. 2. Continue to limit the amount of flow that enters Madsen Creek by either retaining the existing plates or installing a slide gate on the entrance to the Madsen Creek culvert at the outlet of the sediment basin. 3. Raise the right bank ecology block berm along the section of channel between SR-169 and 149th Avenue SE. 4. Raise the height of the ground or provide other flood protection measures in the area separating Madsen Creek from Wonderland Estates and the residential property immediately upstream. 5. Raise the berm that surrounds the sediment pond and add a rock-lined emergency spillway that discharges to the high flow bypass. 6. Increase culvert capacity at the downstream end of the ditch along 149th Avenue SE either by improving the existing culvert outlet system, or preferably installing a second culvert outlet that drains to the Cedar River and not the high flow bypass. Also, consider enlarging the ditch. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 15 7. Raise the ground height surrounding the entrance to the SR-169 High-Flow Bypass culvert to provide freeboard during the 100-year flood if the entrance to the culvert becomes partially blocked by woody debris. Phase 2 -- Selected Flood Reduction Solutions The City has elected to pursue both recommended maintenance actions and four of the eight one-time capital projects. The City’s plan to move forward is discussed below. Maintenance Actions: 1. The City has initiated discussions with both King County and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to restore the capacity of the High-Flow Bypass and the low- flow culverts under SR-169. King County agreed to and has already removed sediment and vegetation from the High-Flow bypass downstream from SR-169. They also agree to shift their annual channel mowing program to the fall prior to flood season and to monitor and remove sediment as needed to maintain capacity. Discussions are on-going with WSDOT regarding the monitoring and removal of sediment from both the High-Flow Bypass culvert under SR-169, and the Madsen Creek low-flow channel under SR-169. The City plans to remove sediment from the Upper High-Flow Bypass when they raise the right bank berm as described in capital project No. 2 below. They also plan to monitor channel conditions annually and remove sediment and vegetation as needed to maintain capacity. 2. The City has agreed to monitor sediment accumulations within both the Madsen Creek culvert under the High-Flow Bypass and under 149th Avenue SE culvert. One-Time Capital Improvement Projects: The City elected to pursue four of the capital improvement projects, based on the knowledge that each provides a significant flood hazard reduction benefit, is affordable, is supported by stakeholders, and is likely to be approved by permitting agencies. The four projects are: 1. Sediment Pond Berm Improvements. (Derived from One-Time Capital Improvement Project No. 5 -- Raise the berm that surrounds the sediment pond and add a rock-lined emergency spillway that discharges to the High-Flow Bypass.) 2. Upper High-Flow Bypass Improvements. (Derived from One-Time Capital Improvement Project No. 1 -- Raise the right bank berm along the upper High-Flow Bypass.) 3. Wonderland Estates Berm Improvements. (Derived from One-Time Capital Improvement Project No. 2 -- Raise the height of the ground or provide flood control measures in the area separating Madsen Creek from Wonderland Estates and the residential property immediately upstream.) November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 16 4. Right Bank Berm Improvements SR-169 to 149th Ave SE. (Derived from One-Time Capital Improvement Project No. 3 -- Raise the right bank berm along the section of channel between SR-169 and 149th Avenue SE.) The City requested that the WSE team develop detailed plans, opinions of cost, specifications and bid documents for each. This effort was led by Herrera Environmental with WSE providing support. As of the writing of this report, the design process is ongoing. However, initial design considerations and assumptions are documented below and the preliminary, permitting plan set which includes the four alternatives is presented in Appendix A. Sediment Pond Berm Improvements Hydraulic modeling during Phase 1 revealed that the existing culvert configuration at the outlet of the sediment pond could barely pass the 100-year flood. In fact, given model tolerances, it is possible that the 100-year event would overtop the berm. The City chose, therefore, to elevate the sediment pond berm and create an emergency spillway to safely handle an overtopping event. The plan is illustrated in Design Plan Sheets C-2 and C-6 in Appendix A. Key elements of the project include: • Elevate the sediment pond berm near the outlet culverts a minimum of 12 inches using permeable ballast. • Construct a trapezoidal, armored emergency spillway over the top of the high flow bypass culvert using quarry spalls. Upper High-Flow Bypass Improvements The Phase 1 investigation identified this alternative as a top priority as it will provide the greatest flood reduction benefit. The initial plan is illustrated in Design Plan Sheets C-3 and C-7 in Appendix A. The final design, however, is likely to vary from these plans. Key elements of the project will include: • Remove sediment from the upper high flow bypass to restore channel capacity. • Raise the right berm of the high flow bypass such that large flows will be contained in the channel, but the right berm will remain lower than the left-hand access road. This will prevent flooding of Wonderland Estates during extreme events. Wonderland Estates Berm Improvements During high flows, the short reach of Madsen Creek between the high flow bypass channel and the crossing underneath SR-196 does not have adequate capacity causing flows to escape over the left bank and flood a residential property and portion of Wonderland Estates. Much of this flooding will be mitigated by the repair of the high flow bypass channel which will significantly reduce flow in this segment of Madsen Creek. However, there is still a need to November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 17 provide additional protection; therefore, the City has elected to construct a small berm or wall along the left bank of this reach. Although subject to change, the initial plan is illustrated in Design Plan Sheets C-4 and C-8 in Appendix A. Key elements of the project include: • Construct a berm or wall that extends approximately 240 ft, connecting the high ground of the high flow bypass access road and the SR-169 road prism. • The structure will rise approximately 1.5 feet above the existing ground level. Right Bank Berm Improvements SR-169 to 149th Ave SE The Phase I investigation showed that the small earth/ecology block berm on the right bank between SR-169 and 149th Ave SE will overtop during large events. Flow escapes to the northeast and floods residences along 149th Ave SE. To prevent this, the City has adopted a plan to improve the berm. The berm will be raised and extend to the west where it will tie into an existing weir at the head of the 149th Ave SE ditch, and to the east where it will tie into the Cedar River Trail. The plan for this improved berm is illustrated in Design Plan Sheets C-5 and C-9 in Appendix A. Key elements of the project are listed below. (Note -- Flooding of residential properties along 149th Ave SE is also caused by water leaving the ditch that parallels the east side of the road. Raising the berm will not reduce this flooding. This flooding, discussed in the Phase I report is caused by inadequate capacity of the culverts at the end of the ditch, as well as, high tailwater conditions when the Cedar River is elevated.) • Improve and raise approximately 120’ of existing berm with suitable structural fill • Tie the berm into the high ground of the Cedar River Trail (parallel to SR-169) and into the elevation of the existing concrete weir at the head of the 149th Ave SE ditch. Future Restoration and Flood Reduction Concepts As stated earlier, the City agreed to develop concepts for two future comprehensive alternatives to restore habitat and reduce flooding along Lower Madsen Creek. The alternatives are to serve as a starting point for future discussions among stakeholders. At the request of the City, WSE has developed two concepts which are presented and described below. They will be referred to as Future Alternatives (FA): • FA #1: Reconnect Existing Madsen Creek Channel to the Cedar River • FA #2: Relocate and Restore Madsen Creek The future alternatives were analyzed at a conceptual level to begin to guide future selection and design efforts. WSE evaluated these concepts by creating hydraulic models of each alternative, observing basic hydraulic trends, and evaluating preliminary geomorphological concerns. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 18 Hydraulic Modeling of Future Alternatives The hydraulic models were adapted from the existing conditions hydraulic model mentioned earlier in this report and discussed extensively in the Phase I report for this project (WSE, 2019). The following model components were adapted from the existing conditions model: • Hydrology – Hydrologic inputs to the future alternatives models were directly based on existing conditions hydrology. For the Phase I analysis, WSE created a hydrologic model of the Madsen Creek basin (WSE, 2019). Using this model, flow hydrographs were generated as inputs to the hydraulic model. The same flow hydrographs developed for the existing conditions model were input into the future alternative models, although the exact locations of some of the subbasin inputs were adjusted to represent the new topography. For example, some runoff from SR-169 was rerouted into the new channel systems. • Topography – Model terrain was altered to represent future alternative conditions by creating new channel segments in the LiDAR topography. There are many potential configurations for each future alternative. For this conceptual level analysis, WSE selected likely channel sizes and alignments, but future analysis of selected alternatives should include additional variations. • Landcover – Roughness values were updated to reflect the new topography. In general, new channel segments were assigned a manning’s n roughness of 0.04, with overbank roughness assumed to be 0.15. • Crossing Structures – Two of the future alternative variations include new crossing structures under SR-169. In the model these were represented simply as gaps in the SR-169 road prism. This simulates a scenario where the hydraulic structures have been sized appropriately so as not to impede flow. FA #1 - Reconnect Channel to the Cedar River The primary focus of FA#1 is to more or less maintain the existing alignment of Madsen Creek downstream from the high-flow bypass and to reconnect the channel to the Cedar River. The primary reason for doing this is to continue to supply water to existing wetlands and habitats within and north of Ron Regis Park. Three variations of the alternative are presented to encourage discussions between stakeholders. The concepts are illustrated in Figures 7 to 9. The 2-year, 25-year, and 100-year flood inundation extents for each variation are shown in Figures 10 - 18. The first variation (Figure 7) simply reconnects the existing stream channel directly to the Cedar River. At the north edge of Ron Regis Park, Madsen Creek has been diverted into a series of wetland ponds which do not connect to the river; therefore, there is currently no definitive way for fish to access Madsen Creek. In this variation of FA #1, a new channel would be excavated that would bypass the ponds and connect directly to the Cedar River. The high-flow bypass would be retained because the Madsen Creek channel does not have the capacity to pass large floods. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 19 The second variation (Figure 8) would include variation 1, but also would include enlarging the channel downstream of 149th Ave SE through Ron Regis Park. This would temporarily provide adequate hydraulic conveyance to eliminate flooding along 149th Ave SE; however, over a period of several decades the channel will fill with silt and vegetation and the flooding along 149th Ave SE would then return. To maintain the enlarged channel through the park would require peak flows to be increased significantly. This could be accomplished by reconfiguring the culvert outlets at the sediment pond; however, this would increase flooding upstream from 149th Ave SE for the existing channel system does not have the capacity to carry larger flows, which leads to the third variation. The third variation (Figure 9) would include variations 1 and 2, as well as removing the high- flow bypass and the sediment pond. This would allow sediment deposition in the form of an alluvial fan on the church property, create a new flood protective flow corridor from the outlet of the ravine to Ron Regis Park, and require constructing a new culvert crossings under SR-169 and possibly 149th Ave SE. This variation is a hybrid between FA #1 and FA #2 (described in the next sections) in that Madsen Creek would maintain an alignment similar to existing, but it would also be restored to a more natural character by eliminating the high- flow and sediment control systems. There is limited capacity for improvement within the right-of-way along Wonderland Estates, just north of SR-169, and 149th Ave SE; therefore it would be more sensible to alter the channel alignment away from its existing constricting reaches. Figure 9 shows one possible alignment that has the advantage of not requiring a new crossing under 149th Ave SE. The Pros and Cons of each variation are presented below to foster discussions among stakeholders: FA #1 -- Variation 1 (reconnect existing channel to Cedar) Pros: • Restores fish access to Madsen Creek • Continues to supply water to existing wetlands within and north of Ron Regis Park Cons: • Does not reduce flooding along 149th Ave SE • Reduces or eliminates inflow to existing habitat ponds • Retains high-flow bypass and sediment pond FA #1 – Variation 2 (enlarge channel downstream of 149th Ave SE and reconnect to Cedar) Pros: • Restores fish access to Madsen Creek • Continues to supply water to existing wetlands within and north of Ron Regis Park • Reduces/eliminates flooding along 149th Ave SE Cons: • Unsustainable – channel will gradually fill with sediment and vegetation and flooding along 149th Ave SE will return. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 20 • Reduces or eliminates inflow to existing habitat ponds • Retains high-flow bypass and sediment pond FA #1 – Variation 3 (eliminate sediment/high-flow system, reconnect larger channel to Cedar) Pros: • Restores fish access to Madsen Creek • Increases both aquatic and riparian habitat • Continues to supply water to existing wetlands within and north of Ron Regis Park Reduces/eliminates flooding along entire system Cons: • Requires significant land acquisition (approximately 4 private parcels) • Requires new culvert crossings under SR-169, Cedar River Trail, and possibly 149th Ave SE (depending on alignment) • Reduces or eliminates inflow to existing habitat ponds Ced a r R i v e r MadsenCreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekFuture Alternative (FA) #1Variation 1UV169 Ced a r R i v e r 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:5,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek Reconstructed Channel Existing Channel King County Public Property 2ft Contours Figure #7 King County City of Rento n Reconnect channel toCedar River Maintain Sediment Pondand High Flow Bypass Ced a r R i v e r MadsenCreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekFuture Alternative (FA) #1Variation 2UV169 Ced a r R i v e r 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:5,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek Reconstructed & Enlarged Channel Existing Channel King County Public Property 2ft Contours Figure #8 King County City of Rento n Reconnect channel toCedar River, but enlarge entire channel downstream of 149th Ave SE Maintain Sediment Pondand High Flow Bypass Ced a r R i v e r MadsenCreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekFuture Alternative (FA) #1Variation 3UV169 Ced a r R i v e r 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:5,000NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek Possible New Alignment Existing Channel Aluvial Fan Development Zone King County Public Property 2ft Contours Figure #9 Replace the existing bypass culvert with a new, larger crossing Allow natural channel migration and alluvial fan development Abandon a Portion ofExisting Channel Restore Madsen Creekto new combined flow channel King County City of Rento n Purchase properties Reconnect channel toCedar River Terminate 149th Ave SE Berm along 149th Ave SE Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 12-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,460NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 2-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #10 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 125-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,459NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 25-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #11 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 1100-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,460NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 100-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #12 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 22-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,459NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 2-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #13 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 225-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,459NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 25-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #14 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 2100-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,460NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 100-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #15 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 32-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,459NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 2-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #16 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 325-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,459NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 25-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #17 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #1 - Variation 3100-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600Feet Scale: 1:4,460NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 100-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #18 November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 33 FA #2 – Relocate and Restore Madsen Creek FA #2 would relocate Madsen Creek to the east so that it follows a more direct path to the Cedar River. The sediment pond and high-flow bypass will be removed and sediment would deposit in the form of an alluvial fan on the large field that is currently owned by the adjacent church. A new channel would be constructed to SR-196, a new water crossing would be built to pass the stream under SR-196 and the Cedar River Trail, a new channel would be excavated to the Cedar River, and the entire corridor between the berms would be planted to produce a vibrant riparian corridor. The west berm of the existing bypass channel would be retained to protect Wonderland Estates and the residences along 149th Ave SE. Figure 19 shows a conceptual layout of FA #2. The flood inundation extents of this concept are shown in Figures 20 -22. The pros and cons of the concept are: Pros: • Reduces/eliminates flooding along entire system • Restores fish access to Madsen Creek • Increases both aquatic and riparian habitat • Minimizes sediment management requirements (see following section) • King County owns several parcels along the proposed route north of SR-169,limiting the extent of land acquisition with inter jurisdictional coordination Cons: • Land acquisition (approximately 4 parcels) • Requires new crossing under (SR-169/Cedar River Trail) • Shorter low-flow channel length than exists today • Will impact existing wetlands and ponds within and north of Ron Regis Park Cedar River High Flow BypassMadsen CreekHigh Flow BypassMadsen CreekFuture Alternative (FA) #2 UV169 CedarRiver 0 200 400 Feet Scale: 1:3,210NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek Existing Channel Proposed Alignment Aluvial Fan Development Zone King County Public Property 2ft Contours Figure #19 New SR-169 Crossing Structure Allow natural channel migration and alluvial fan development Abandon Existing ChannelsAbandon Existing Channels Restore Madsen Creekto new combined flow channel King County City of Rento n Ce d a r R i v e r FA #225-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600 Feet Scale: 1:4,459NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 25-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #21 Ce d a r R i v e r FA #2100-year FloodUV169 CedarRiver 0 300 600 Feet Scale: 1:4,460NAD 1983 HARN StatePlaneWashington South FIPS 4602Feet U Madsen Creek 100-year Flood Depths (ft)0.5123>3Figure #22 November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 38 Geomorphic Assessment of Future Alternatives Lower Madsen Creek is generally stable; although, it is prone to a gradual sedimentation. A good example of this is within the channel that flows through Ron Regis Park. This reach of the stream was constructed in 1989 as a much larger channel than it is today. Over the past 30 years, sediment has been transported to and settled within this reach significantly reducing cross-sectional area and channel capacity. Each proposed future alternative can be expected to remain generally stable, with the exception that several will be prone to gradual sedimentation and, therefore, loss of capacity. In the future the rate of sediment delivery to lower Madsen Creek is likely to remain similar to past rates or increase slightly due to higher flows produced by climate change; therefore, the future alternatives need to address sediment deposition. Factors that need to be considered include: • Flow Velocity – The alternatives should seek to maintain velocities that are high enough to transport most sediment through to the Cedar River. Channel velocity is directly correlated to channel slope. If the slope is too flat, sediment will deposit within the channel which is what happened to the reach through Ron Regis Park. Figures 23 and 24 show channel bed profiles and average velocities for the future alternatives considered. FA#2 is preferable to the three variations of FA#1 because high velocities are maintained due to a shorter and therefore, steeper channel. Of the FA#1 variations, Variation 3 is the most desirable for a similar reason. Variations 1 and 2, however, will suffer from the same low slope as the existing channel. • Sediment Capture - The existing sediment basin has been essential in prolonging the life of lower Madsen Creek and some form of sediment basin or capture facility will be required for all future alternatives. Variations 1 and 2 of FA#1 both assume the sediment basin will remain. In variation 3 of FA#1 and FA#2 the sediment basin has been removed and replaced with an alluvial fan that will be allowed to form naturally at the south end of the church field. Coarse sediment transported from the upstream ravine will deposit in this area because here there is a significant reduction in channel slope. Over decades the fan will gradually grow and as it does the channel will shift back and forth across the face of the fan. The fan will capture nearly all cobbles and course gravel along with a significant portion of small gavels and sands. If the channel slope downstream from the fan is steep enough, velocities will be high enough to transport fine gravel, sand and slit through to the Cedar River. FA#2 maintains the highest velocities; therefore, it has the best chance of transporting sediment. • Reduced Number of Road Culverts – Alternatives that seek to reduce the number of road culverts have a better chance of transporting sediment through to the Cedar River. The existing culverts tend to fill with sediment because they have relatively flat slopes. Lower Madsen Creek currently passes through four culverts after leaving the sediment basin. These four structures are maintained for variations 1 and 2 of FA#1, but variation 3 of FA#1 and FA#2 include only one culvert which would be a new crossing under SR-169. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 39 • Vegetation Management – If vegetation is allowed to grow within the channel, as it currently does in the high flow bypass or in the reach of Lower Madsen Creek just downstream from Ron Regis Park, velocities will slow and sediment will deposit. Vegetation management will be a critical piece to consider for all four alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 2 of FA#1 will require annual mowing or removal of vegetation from the high flow bypass, and measures to remove and prevent reed canary grass from filling channel below Ron Regis Park. Alternatives 3 FA#1 and FA#2 are much less likely to be impacted by vegetation because they will each maintain year-round flow. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000Average Velocity (ft/s)Distance from Sediment Pond Outlet (ft) Average 2-Year Velocity along Channel FA #1 (Variation 2) FA #1 (Variation 3) FA #2 Figure 24 –Average in-channel velocities of Future Alternatives. Not shown here is FA#1 Variation 1,which follows a similar trend to Variation 2, except with reduced velocities in the lower channel. 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Elevation (ft, NAVD88)Distance from Sediment Pond (ft) FA #1 (Variation 1 and 2) FA #1 (Variation 3) FA #2 Figure 23 –Longitudinal profiles of the streambed. Note: FA#2 Variation 1 and 2 share the same profile. Variation 1 and 2 profile shows the terrain over each culvert November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 41 Environmental Permitting Considerations In regards to environmental permitting, any of the alternatives (and variations of them) would require federal review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for Section 401/404 Clean Water Act authorization, which mandates additional compliance reviews with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and concurrence by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, for Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) protection. The alternatives would also require a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish of Wildlife (WDFW), and King County compliance reviews associated with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), critical areas, floodplain management and land disturbance regulations, and a jurisdictional shoreline (associated with the Cedar River). It is anticipated that King County would be the lead entity for SEPA administration. These permits and approvals represent the entire range of environmental regulatory requirements that a creek-related project can encounter in the region, and thus represent a complex permitting process to undertake. However, the ecological improvement that would result from the project is such that there could be some elements of the process eligible for streamlined documentation and application requirements. Alternative #1 – Variation 3 and Alternative #2, both of which extend south into the City of Renton, would additionally require compliance with the City’s environmental regulations and permit requirements, including critical areas compliance for stream and wetland alternations and geotechnical designs. Coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) would be required for the review and approval of the new State Route 169 Crossing Structure under FA#1 – Variation 3 and FA#2. The following table summarizes agency reviews and permitting requirements for the future alternatives. Permit planning and coordination with applicable agencies should be initiated within the 30% design phase of the project in order to determine feasible approaches for project implementation according to best available science, sequencing to avoid environmental impacts, and mitigation strategies to minimize environmental impacts if unavoidable impacts would occur. Project permitting may require a year or more for agencies to complete their project reviews and issue authorizations, especially at the federal level regarding ESA compliance. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 42 Environmental Permitting Regulatory Reviews and Authorizations Applicable to Future Alternatives Regulatory Agency Permit/Authorization Application/Compliance Requirements Future Conceptual Design Alternatives: FA 1 V 1 FA 1 V2 FA 1 V3 FA 2 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act Section 404/401 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Section 106 Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act Section 7 of Endangered Species Act Consultation - Biological Evaluation/Assessment Required for All Alternatives Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Section 401 Water Quality Certification Construction Stormwater General Permit Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan, SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan), and likely a construction- phase Water Qualit y Monitoring and Protection Plan Construction Stormwater General Permit Application Required for All Alternatives Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS) Online Submittal and JARPA Required for All Alternatives King County SEPA Clearing and Grading Critical Areas Floodplain SEPA Categorical Exemptions, Checklist and Determination Permit Packet Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Drainage Control Plan and Flood Hazard Certification Required for All Alternatives City of Renton SEPA Critical Areas SEPA Determination from King County Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Drainage Control Plan Not Applicable Not Applicable Required Required November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 43 Future Alternative Conclusions It is WSE’s opinion that FA #2 is superior to all variations of FA #1 because: • It restores Madsen Creek to its original, pre-development alignment and function (no high flow bypass/sediment pond and allowance for an alluvial fan). • Impacts fewer private parcels (when compared to FA #1 - variation 3) • King County already owns multiple parcels along the route. • Requires only one new water crossing through SR-69/Cedar River trail • The channel slope is steeper and therefore, sediment that does not deposit on the alluvial fan or floodplain is more likely to move through the system rather than deposit within the stream channel. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 44 References WSE, 2019. “Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood & Sediment Assessment”, project report prepared for the City of Renton Public Works, by Watershed Science & Engineering. March 20, 2019. November 2020 Madsen Creek Basis of Design Report 45 Appendix A PROF E SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E W BA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\G-1.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:19 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE A C-4 1 C-1 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1/4 MILE PROJECT LOCATION NOTE AND DETAIL/SECTION REFERENCING "-" INDICATES THAT THE DETAIL/SECTION IS SHOWN ON THE SAME SHEET "TYP" INDICATES THAT THE DETAIL/SECTION IS UNIFORMLY TYPICAL THROUGHOUT PROJECT EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED "VAR" SPECIFIES THAT DETAIL/SECTION WAS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS DRAWINGS SCALE: DETAIL 1 C-1NTS SCALE: SECTION/PROFILE A C-2NTS OWNER: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 PHONE: (425) 430-7205 CONTACT: AMANDA PIERCE, P.E. ENGINEER: HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2200 SIXTH AVENUE SUITE 1100 SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE: (206) 441-9080 CONTACT: MARK EWBANK, P.E.DETAIL REFERENCE NUMBER DRAWING ON WHICH DETAIL IS SHOWN DETAIL REFERENCE NUMBER DRAWING FROM WHICH DETAIL WAS TAKEN SECTION REFERENCE LETTER DRAWING ON WHICH SECTION IS SHOWN SECTION/PROFILE REFERENCE LETTER DRAWING FROM WHICH SECTION/PROFILE WAS TAKEN SITE LOCATION SHEET INDEX SHEET DRAWING DESCRIPTION 1 G-1 COVER PAGE 2 G-2 NOTES & LEGEND 3 G-3 ALIGNMENT STATIONING 4 C-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & INDEX SHEET 5 C-2 SITE PLAN - SITE 1 6 C-3 SITE PLAN - SITE 2 7 C-4 SITE PLAN - SITE 3 8 C-5 SITE PLAN - SITE 4 9 C-6 PROFILES - SITE 1 10 C-7 PROFILES - SITE 2 11 C-8 PROFILES - SITE 3 12 C-9 PROFILES - SITE 4 13 L-1 PLANTING PLAN - SITE 1 14 L-2 PLANTING PLAN - SITES 1 AND 2 15 L-3 PLANTING PLAN - SITE 2 16 L-4 PLANTING PLAN - SITE 3 17 L-5 PLANTING PLAN - SITE 4 18 L-6 PLANTING DETAILS 19 L-7 PLANTING PLAN SECTIONS COVER PAGE G-1 1 PROF E SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E W BA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\G-2.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:20 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE NOTES & LEGEND G-2 2 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, KING COUNTY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (EDDS), AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE BY THESE PLANS 2. IN CASE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE REGULATORY STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT SHALL PREVAIL. 3. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AT ALL TIMES. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMMENCE WORK UNTIL WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY OWNER. 5. A PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND A 24-HOUR NOTICE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ARRANGE THE PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ALL CONCERNED PARTIES (OWNER AND ENGINEER). 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY AND ALL REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND PERMITS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. 7. FRANCHISED UTILITIES OR OTHER INSTALLATIONS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN HEREIN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNLESS A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE AGENCY. 8. APPROVAL OF THESE DRAWINGS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN. THESE PLANS ARE FOR STANDARD ROAD, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ONLY. 9. CONSTRUCTION NOISE SHALL BE LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL CODE; OR 7 AM TO 7 PM ON WEEKDAYS AND 9 AM TO 6 PM ON WEEKENDS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT. 10. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKER SAFETY AND DAMAGE FROM CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS TO STRUCTURES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN, REPLACE OR RESTORE ALL VEGETATION IN RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND ACCESS TRACTS THAT IS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 12. THE OWNER WILL COORDINATE AND NOTIFY RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES IN ADVANCE OF ANY WORK AFFECTING ACCESS OR SERVICE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE INTERRUPTIONS TO DRIVEWAYS FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT. COONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER ONE (1) WEEK PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK TO PROVIDE THE OWNER TIME TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. 13. PROTECT EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, TRAIL, DRIVEWAYS, AND ROAD SHOULDERS (PAVED OR GRAVEL) FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. DEMOLISH ONLY THOSE FACILITIES INDICATED ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE AT THEIR COST ANY FACILITY TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. SITE PREPARATION NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN (SPCC PLAN) FOR ALL FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1-07.15(1) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE WSDOT REPORT TEMPLATE REFERENCED IN THAT SECTION. 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT TEMPORARY TRAFFICE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSBILE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS WHETHER OR NOT THESE UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITY. IF CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING UTILITIES ARISE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPOSIBLE FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, INCLUDING PROTECTION OF ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION. 5. PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE SITE WORK, HIGHLIGHT VISIBLE MARKERS SUCH AS BRIGHT ORANGE BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY NGPA BOUNDARIES. PRIOR TO RECORDING, ALL NGPA'S SHALL BE CLEARLY AND PERMANTENTLY MARKED ON THE PROJECT SITE. SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED NO GREATER THAN 100 FEET APART AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE NGPA, NEITHER CLEARING OF ANY VEGETATION NOR GRADING ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE NGPA AREAS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR, GRUB, AND REMOVE ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FROM THE SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. RENTON AND KING COUNTY TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. APPROVAL OF THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF PERMANENT ROAD OR DRAINAGE DESIGN (E.G., SIZE AND LOCATION OF ROADS, PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS, RETENTION FACILITIES, UTILITIES, ETC.). 2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE ESC PLANS AND THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESE ESC FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IS APPROVED. 3. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED BY SURVEY TAPE OR FENCING, IF REQUIRED, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (SWDM APPENDIX D). DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTED WHEEL WASH SYSTEMS OR WASH PADS, MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN AND TRACK OUT TO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT OCCUR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 5. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CLEARING AND GRADING SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT TO SURFACE WATERS, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, FLOW CONTROL BMP LOCATIONS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED),AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES IS MINIMIZED. 6. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THESE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS AND MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGING SITE CONDITIONS (E.G. ADDITIONAL COVER MEASURES, ADDITIONAL SUMP PUMPS, RELOCATION OF DITCHES AND SILT FENCES, PERIMETER PROTECTION ETC.) AS DIRECTED BY KING COUNTY. 7. THE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR AND MAINTAINED TO ENSURE CONTINUED PROPER FUNCTIONING. WRITTEN RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT OF WEEKLY REVIEWS OF THE ESC FACILITIES. 8. ANY AREAS OF EXPOSED SOILS, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE DAYS DURING THE WET SEASON OR SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC METHODS (E.G., SEEDING, MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING, ETC.). 9. ANY AREA NEEDING ESC MEASURES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. 10. THE ESC FACILITIES ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED A MINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH DURING THE DRY SEASON, BI-MONTHLY DURING THE WET SEASON, OR WITHIN TWENTY FOUR (24) HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM EVENT. 11. AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN ONE (1) FOOT OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN A CATCH BASIN. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM. 12. ANY PERMANENT RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY USED AS A TEMPORARY SETTLING BASIN SHALL BE MODIFIED WITH THE NECESSARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY. IF THE FACILITY IS TO FUNCTION ULTIMATELY AS AN INFILTRATION SYSTEM, THE TEMPORARY FACILITY MUST BE ROUGH GRADED SO THAT THE BOTTOM AND SIDES ARE AT LEAST THREE FEET ABOVE THE FINAL GRADE OF THE PERMANENT FACILITY. FLOW CONTROL BMP AREAS (EXISTING OR PROPOSED) SHALL NOT BE USED AS TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENTATION AND INTRUSION. 13. COVER MEASURES WILL BE APPLIED IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL. 14. PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON (OCT. 1), ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES CAN BE SEEDED IN PREPARATION FOR THE WINTER RAINS. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON. A SKETCH MAP OF THOSE AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND THOSE AREAS TO REMAIN UNCOVERED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DPER INSPECTOR. TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERIM TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION ON OR ALONG TRAVELED CITY ROADS. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS SECTION XX. 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW SHALL REQUIRE TRAFFIC CONTROL. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK COVERED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 4. ALL BARRICADES, SIGNS AND FLAGGING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MUTCD. SIGNS MUST BE LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE AND SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY IF NOT APPLICABLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION HOURS. APPROX APPPROXIMATE AVG AVERAGE BLDG BUILDING BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE BSB BARFUSE SETBACK BERM BVC BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE CB CATCH BASIN CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CG CLEAR AND GRUB C/L, CL CENTERLINE CONC CONCRETE CONST CONSTRUCT, CONSTRUCTION COS CITY OF SEATTLE CP CONTROL POINT CSBC CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE CSTC CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE DEMO DEMOLITION DIA DIAMETER DWG DRAWING E EAST, EASTING EA EACH EL ELEVATION ELS ENGINEERED LOG STRUCTURE EVC END VERTICAL CURVE EX, EXIST EXISTING FT FEET/FOOT HMA HOT MIX ASPHALT HOR HORIZONTAL HR HAFFNER REVETMENT HT HEIGHT HSC HAFFNER SIDE CHANNEL IN INCH/INCHES L LENGTH LF LINEAL FOOT/FEET LT LEFT ABBREVIATIONS MAX MAXIMUM MIN MINIMUM N NORTH/NORTHING NA NOT APPLICABLE NO NUMBER NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER PC POINT OF CURVATURE PI POINT OF INTERSECTION PREP PREPARATION PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION QTY QUANTITY RD ROAD REF REFERENCE RM RIVER MILE ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY RT RIGHT S SOUTH, SLOPE SPEC SPECIFICATION SRR SETBACK ROCK REVETMENT STA STATION STD STANDARD SWDM SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (KING COUNTY) SWPPP STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN TESC TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL TYP TYPICAL VCL VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH W WEST, WATER WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WSE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ALIGNMENT STATIONING G-3 3PROF E SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E W BA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\G-2.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:20 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / /SHEETS C-2, L-1SHEETS C-4, L-5SHEETS C-5, L-6SHEETS C-3, L-3SHEETS C-3, L-4OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOH W OHW OHW OH W OH W OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW PROFESSIONAL ENGI N E ERREGISTERED STA T E OF WASHINGTON29434M ARK EWBANK75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\3 C-1.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:20 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEEXISTING CONDITIONS & INDEX SHEETC-14SEDIMENT PONDMADSEN CREEKWETLANDS (TYP)WONDERLAND ESTATESHIGH FLOW BYPASSLOW FLOW CHANNELSR-16 9 HIGH FLOW BYPASSCRITICAL AREASBUFFER BOUNDARY (TYP)CULVERTSGRAVEL ACCESS ROAD600601201"=60'APPROXIMATE MAINTENANCEEASEMENT BOUNDARYRON REGIS PARK149TH AVE SESITE 1SITE 2SITE 3SITE 4MADS E N C R E E K / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / /0+000+66OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOH W OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X X SITE PLAN - SITE 1C-2575% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-SITE PLANS.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:21 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESEDIMENT PONDHIGH FLOW BYPASSMADSEN CREEKMAD S E N C R E E K LOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETEBOX CULVERT(11.8' x 3.0')EX HIGH FLOW BYPASS WEIR (~118 FT)10010201"=10'AC-6RAMP DOWN TO ACCESSROAD AT 5:1RAMP DOWN TOACCESS ROAD AT 5:1WONDERLAND ESTATES18 IN MIN DEPTH CLASS A ROCK FOR EROSION AND SCOURPROTECTION PER SECTION 9-13.4 OF THE STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS. EACH LIFT BACKFILLED WITH PERMEABLEBALLAST PER SECTION 9-03.9(2) IF THE STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS TO FILL VOIDS AND CREATE A SOLIDDRIVEABLE SURFACE. EACH LIFT COMPACTED TO 95% OFMAX DENSITY PER METHOD C OF SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OFTHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.INSTALL RISER TO MATCHPROPOSED GRADE PER CITYOF RENTON STANDARD PLAN 400.1EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD12 IN MIN DEPTH PERMEABLEBALLAST PER SECTION 9-03.9(2)OF THE STANDARDSPECIFICATIONSSILT FENCE PER CITY OF RENTONSWDM SECTION D.2.1.3.1 (TYP)SILT FENCE DURINGCONSTRUCTIONEXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADNOTES:1. SEE ARMORED SPILLWAY SECTION, SHEET C-6, FOR SUBSURFACETREATMENTS.2. KEY NEW SPILLWAY RIPRAP INTO EXISTING RIPRAP IN BOTTOM OFDOWNSTREAM CHANNEL.12 IN MIN DEPTH PERMEABLEBALLAST PER SECTION 9-03.9(2)OF THE STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /2+002+37 102103 OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHWOHW1+002+003+004+005+006+006+251+002+003+004+005+005+482+003+004+005+006+007+007+25XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XIIIIII/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /0+00OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW0+000+000+001+00X X75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-SITE PLANS.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:21 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE PLAN - SITE 2C-3620020401"=20'MADSEN CREEKHIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNELMATCHLINE - SEE BELOW MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE AC-7BC-7LOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETE BOX CULVERTFOR LOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETE BOX CULVERTUNDER SR 169SR-169 WONDERLAND ESTATESRAISE ACCESS ROAD (320 LF),PERMEABLE BALLAST PER STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS SECTION 9-03.9(2)ELEVATE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROLBERM (430 LF), BERM EMBANKMENT FILLPER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSCHANNEL DREDGING AND WIDENING (635 LF)NOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION ON BOTH SIDES OFCREEK CHANNEL WITHIN PLANTING AREAS SHOWN IN SHEET L-4.2. STOCKPILE SUITABLE DREDGED MATERIAL FOR REUSE IN BERM.3. SEE SHEET G-3 FOR STREAM CHANNEL, MAINTENANCE ACCESSROAD, AND BERM CENTERLINE STATIONING TABLES.4. TREES SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATION.SILT FENCE DURINGCONSTRUCTIONSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE PER CITY OF RENTONSWDM SECTION D.2.1.4.1RED ALDER (23.4" DBH)NORWAY MAPLE (26.8" DBH)COMMON HAWTHORN (15.9" DBH)NORWAY MAPLE (14.0" DBH)OREGON ASH (5.8" DBH)RED ALDER (10.8" DBH)BIG LEAF MAPLE (25.0" DBH)EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADEXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / /0+00 1+002+002+370+00 0+40 / / // / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /102102103103102102103103OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOH W OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHW6+00 6+25 5+48 X X X X X X X XXX X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-SITE PLANS.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:21 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE PLAN - SITE 3C-4710010201"=10'NEW LEFT BANK BERM(215 LF)PROTECT EX SHRUBSSR-169WONDERLAND ESTATESPAVED PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAEX CULVERTMADSEN CREEKB C-8 AC-8INSTALL RISER TO MATCHPROPOSED GRADE PER CITYOF RENTON STANDARD DETAIL 400.1REMOVE EX VEGETATION IN12 FOOT ACCESS CORRIDORREMOVE EX VEGETATION IN12 FOOT ACCESS CORRIDORCURB AT EDGEOF PAVEMENTNOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN ACCESSCORRIDORS.2. PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS.3. SEE SHEET G-3 FOR BERM CENTERLINE STATIONING TABLE.4. PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWNWITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.STRAW WATTLESOR EQUIVALENTEXISTING TELEPHONE POLE (EXISTINGGUY WIRE TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS)REMOVE 16 LF OF EX CHAIN LINK FENCEAND POST(S) AND REPLACE IN KIND UPONCOMPLETION OF BERM CONSTRUCTIONSEE NOTE 4 / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /0+001+001+19 12'1001011011001011010 + 0 0 0 + 4 0 OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWO H W OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSF75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-SITE PLANS.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:21 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE PLAN - SITE 4C-58REMOVE ECOLOGYBLOCK WALL(APPROX 60 LF)10010201"=10'REMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING FENCE AS NECESSARYNEW RIGHT BANK BERM(115 LF)REINFORCE EXISTING WOODBRIDGE WITH STEEL PLATEDURING CONSTRUCTIONMADSEN CREEKSR-169149TH AVE SE AC-9BC- 9 EX CONCRETE CULVERTCONCRETE CULVERTEXISTING DRIVEWAYKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONHIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCEPER WSDOT STANDARDPLAN I-30.17-01NOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN ACCESSCORRIDORS.2. PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS.3. SEE SHEET G-3 FOR BERM CENTERLINE STATIONING TABLE.4. PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWNWITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.SEE NOTE 4PROTECT EXISTINGFENCE AND GATESTABILIZES CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PERCITY OF RENTON SWDM SECTION D.2.1.4.1 ONSOUTH EDGE EXISTING UNPAVED DRIVEWAY ELEVATION IN FEET STATION1161201241281161201241280+000+500+662.0'5.0'616121216 IN18 IN75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:21 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEPROFILES - SITE 1C-69HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - ARMORED SPILLWAY AT SITE 1AC-31"=5'2X12 IN MIN DEPTH PERMEABLE BALLASTPER SECTION 9-03.9(2) OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONSEXISTING GROUND SURFACEFINISHED GRADEEXISTING CONCRETEBOX CULVERTNOTES:1. 18 IN MIN DEPTH CLASS A ROCK FOR EROSION AND SCOURPROTECTION PER SECTION 9-13.4 OF THE STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS. EACH LIFT BACKFILLED WITH PERMEABLEBALLAST PER SECTION 9-03.9(2) IF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSTO FILL VOIDS AND CREATE A SOLID DRIVEABLE SURFACE. EACHLIFT COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAX DENSITY PER METHOD C OFSECTION 2-03.3(14)C OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS,COMPACTED PER SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OFTHE SPECIAL PROVISIONSWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FOR SOILSTABILIZATION PER SECTION 9-33 OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS6 IN DEPTH BEDDING ROCK WITH 34 IN TO112 IN COARSE AGGREGATE FOR PORTLANDCEMENT CONCRETE PER SECTION 9-03.1(4)OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS,COMPACTED PER SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OFTHE SPECIAL PROVISIONSWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FOR SOILSTABILIZATION PER SECTION 9-33 OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS12 IN MIN DEPTH PERMEABLE BALLASTPER SECTION 9-03.9(2) OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONSSEE NOTE 1 ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108961001041080+000+501+001+502+002+50ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108961001041082+503+003+504+004+505+00ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108961001041085+005+506+006+507+007+25ELEVATION IN FEET STATION929610010410811292961001041081120+000+500+601.4' FREEBOARD10.00'5.00'4.00'50' EASEMENT (APPROXIMATE)75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:22 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEPROFILES - SITE 2C-710HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - UPPER HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL BOTTOMAC-31"=10'2XHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:TYPICAL SECTION AT CHANNEL STATION 6+00BC-31"=5'1"=5'EXISTING CHANNEL BOTTOM (TYP)PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM (TYP)EXCAVATE CHANNEL (TYP)BERM EMBANKMENT FILL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSRAISE EXISTING ROAD WITHPERMEABLE BALLAST PER STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS SECTION 9-03.9(2)EXISTING GROUND SURFACEFINISHED GRADEREMOVE SEDIMENTAND VEGETATIONNOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION IN AREAS OF BERMCONSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL.2. TOP ELEV OF PROPOSED ROAD AND BERM VARIES.3. PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETBETWEEN BERM FILL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)BOF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.LOW FLOW CHANNEL CULVERTSR-169KEY BASE OF BERM INTOSUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHTABOVE EXISTING GROUND3.9%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.25%100-YR WLBERM PLANTING SOILOHWFENCE(APPROX)SEE NOTE 3 ELEVATION IN FEET STATION981001041081001041080+000+501+001+502+002+37ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+404.0'WETLAND212175% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:22 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEPROFILES - SITE 3C-811HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - SITE 3 LEFT BANK BERMAC-41"=10'2XHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION AT STATION 1+37BC-41"=5'2XFLOOD CONTROL BERMTOP ELEV = 103 FTALIGN NORTHERN END OF BERMTO PROTECT TALL SHRUBSFLOOD CONTROL BERMTOP ELEV = 103 FTEXISTING GROUNDNOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION ON SOUTH SIDE OFCREEK CHANNEL WITHIN PLANTING AREAS SHOWN IN SHEET L-3.2. PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETBETWEEN BERM FILL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)BOF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS..EXISTINGGROUNDSURFACEKEY BASE OF BERM INTOSUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHTABOVE EXISTING GROUND100-YR WLBERM PLANTING SOILBERM EMBANKMENT FILLPER SECTION 9-03.16 OFTHE SPECIAL PROVISIONSSEE NOTE 2 ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+501+001+19ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+403.0'WETLANDWETLAND75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:22 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEPROFILES - SITE 4C-912FLOOD CONTROL BERMTOP ELEV = 101.4 FT1212REMOVE ECO-BLOCK WALLEXISTING GROUND SURFACENOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION ON BOTH SIDES OFCREEK CHANNEL WITHIN PLANTING AREAS SHOWN IN SHEET L-4.2. PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETBETWEEN BERM FILL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)BOF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS..FLOOD CONTROL BERMTOP ELEV = 101.4 FTEXISTING GROUND SURFACEKEY BASE OF BERM INTOSUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHTABOVE EXISTING GROUND100-YR WL 102.0 FTBERM PLANTING SOILBERM EMBANKMENT FILLPER SECTION 9-03.16 OFTHE SPECIAL PROVISIONSHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - SITE 4 RIGHT BANK BERMAC-51"=10'2XHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION AT STATION 0+36BC-51"=5'2XSEE NOTE 2 / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR 1 0 0 Y R 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR0+000+66SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SFS F S F S F S F TSHE ALRU ALRU ALRU ALRU THPL THPL THPL THPL L-11375% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:23 PM | Jonathan Waggoner JUNE 202018-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®19DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEN O. 1 4 4 8 E X P. 1 2 /12/19 KATHR Y N SUZANNE FORESTERSTA T E OF WASHINGTONLICENSED LANDSCAPE AR C HITECT 10010201"=10'MADSEN CREEK MADS E N C R E E K H I G H F L O W B Y P A S S C H A N N E L LEGENDGENERAL NOTES:1. PROTECT EXISTING NATIVEVEGETATION AND SOILS FROMDAMAGE OR COMPACTION DURINGWEED REMOVAL AND PLANTING.2. AFTER REMOVAL OF INVASIVE ANDWEEDY VEGETATION, PLANTNATIVE SPECIES WITHIN PLANTINGZONES.PLANTING PLAN - SITE 1ALRUALNUS RUBRATHUJA PLICATASHRUB ZONEPSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESIITSUGA HETEROPHYLLAEXISTING TREESSITE 1EDGES OF RAISED ACCESS ROADSHALL NOT BE PLANTED OR SEEDEDTO MAINTAIN DRIVING SURFACESITE 1 MITIGATION PLANTING -SEE SHEET L-2 FOR MORE DETAILR. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTER / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /100YR100YR 0+00 1+00 0+00 0+00 0+00 0+00 0+00 1+00/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100Y R 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR100YRSF S F SF L-2 14 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:24 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/19KATHRYN S U Z A NNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CENS E D LANDS C A P E A RCHITECT10 0 10 20 1"=10'MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL LEGEND ALRU ALNUS RUBRA THUJA PLICATA NATIVE SHRUB ZONE PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET ###SITE 1 MITIGATION PLANTING - SEE SHEET L-1 FOR SITE 1 PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING TREES SITE 2 MITIGATION PLANTING - SEE SHEET L-3 FOR ADDITIONAL SITE 2 PLANTING GENERAL NOTES PLANTING PLAN - SITE 1 R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / /100YR100YR100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100Y R 100Y R 100Y R 100Y R 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR5+00 6+00 7+00 7+25 4+00 5+00 6+00 6+25 4+00 5+00 5+48 4+00 5+00 6+00 6+25 4+00 5+00 5+48 5+00 6+00 7+00 7+25 SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSF SF/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /100YR100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR 100YR100YR 100YR 100YR100YR2+00 3+00 1+00 2+00 1+00 2+00 1+00 2+00 1+00 2+00 2+00 3+00 L-3 15 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:24 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/19KATHRYN S U Z A NNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CENS E D LANDS C A P E A RCHITECT10 0 10 20 1"=10'MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE ABOVERENTON-MAPLE VALLEY ROAD - SR 169MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL LEGEND ALRU ALNUS RUBRA THUJA PLICATA NATIVE SHRUB ZONE PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA MATCHLINE - SEE ###SITE 3 - SEE SHEET L-4 EXISTING TREES SITES 1 AND 2 PLANTING PLAN BERM PLANTING - EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX AND NATIVE SHRUBS EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX GENERAL NOTES R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /100YR 100 Y R 100Y R 100Y R 10 0 Y R 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR 100Y R 100YR 100Y R 100YR 100YR 100YR 100 Y R 100 Y R 100 Y R 100YR100YR1 0 0YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100Y R 100YR100YR100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR1 0 0 Y R 100YR 100Y R 7+007+256+006+255+480+001+00 2+00 2+370+000+40/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /102 102 103 103 102 102 103 103 6+006+255+487+007+25SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFIIIIII III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III II I II I III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III L-4 16 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:24 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/19KATHRYN S U Z A NNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CENS E D LANDS C A P E A RCHITECT10 0 10 20 1"=10' RENT O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R O A D - S R 1 6 9 MADS E N C R E E K LEGEND NATIVE SHRUB ZONE EMERGENT ZONE GROUNDCOVER ZONE TEMPORARY ACCESS PATH, REPLACED IN-KIND WITH NATIVE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS PLANTING PLAN - SITE 3 BERM PLANTING - NATIVE SHRUBS AND BARK MULCH GENERAL NOTES 1. P 2. AVOID DISRUPTING EXISTING ARBORVITAE HEDGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / X X X 100YR 100YR 100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100 Y R 100YR100YR100YR100 Y R 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR 100YR100YR1 0 0 Y R 100YR 100 Y R 100Y R 100YR100 Y R 100YR100YR 100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100YR100 Y R 100YR100YR1 0 0 Y R 1 0 0 YR 1 0 0YR 1 0 0YR 1 0 0 Y R 100Y R 100YR 100YR1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 + 0 0 1+00 1+1912' 100 101 101 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0+000+40H V S F H V S F HVSF HVSF HVSF HVSF HVSF HVSF HVSF RENTON KC L-5 17 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:24 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/19KATHRYN S U Z A NNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CENS E D LANDS C A P E A RCHITECT10 0 10 20 1"=10' RENT O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R O A D - S R 1 6 9MADSEN CREEKLEGEND ALRU ALNUS RUBRA THUJA PLICATA NATIVE SHRUB ZONE EMERGENT ZONE GROUNDCOVER ZONE PLANTING PLAN - SITE 4 BERM PLANTING - EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX AND NATIVE SHRUBS GENERAL NOTES BLACK COTTONWOOD (TO REMAIN) RED ALDER 18" (TO REMAIN) SITKA WILLOW 15" (TO REMAIN) SITKA WILLOW 8" (TO REMAIN) SITKA WILLOW 8" (TO REMAIN) SITKA WILLOW 12" (TO REMAIN) SITKA WILLOW 8" (TO REMAIN) BLACK COTTONWOOD 24" (TO REMAIN) BLACK COTTONWOOD 20" (TO REMAIN) WILLOW SHRUBS (TO BE REMOVED*) R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER 10" SCALE: DETAIL - 10" DEEP ROOT PLUG PLANTING 2 L-6NTS PLANT AT SAME LEVEL AS GROWN IN POT REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTINGKEEP MULCH AWAY FROM BASE OF PLANT SCALE: LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL 4 L-6NTS 1. SOAK BOTTOM 6" OF ALL STAKES IN WATER FOR MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS PRIOR TO PLANTING NOTES: PLANT LIVE STAKE WITH MIN 2 LATERAL BUDS ABOVE GRADE PRE-DIG HOLE BEFORE INSERTING LIVE STAKE, TAMP SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS MINIMUM 2/3 OF LENGTH BELOW GROUND BACKFILLED AMENDED SOIL SCALE: DETAIL - BAREROOT TREE OR SHRUB PLANTING 1 L-6NTS BUILD A SMALL SOIL BERM RING AT PLANT DRIP LINE TO INCREASE WATER RETENTION 8 WHILE BACKFILLING, FIRM SOIL AROUND PLANT GENTLY WITH HANDS TO ELIMINATE AIR POCKETS. DO NOT INJURE ROOT SYSTEM WHILE BACKFILLING AND COMPACTING. ALL ROOTS SHALL BE BURIED BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE 7 ROOT-SHOOT INTERFACE SHALL BE AT SOIL SURFACE. DO NOT BURY TREE COLLAR WHERE TRUNK FLARE OCCURS IN ORDER TO AVOID ROTTING DUE TO BURIAL 6 PLACE ROOTS INTO PLANTING HOLE ON TOP OF SOIL MOUND AND GENTLY SPREAD ROOTS OUT EVENLY WITH FINGERS, CAREFUL NOT TO CAUSE HARM OR DAMAGE TO ROOTS. NO BUNCHING, J-ROOTING, OR TANGLING OF ROOTS SHALL OCCUR 5 BUILD A SMALL SOIL MOUND IN CENTER OF PLANTING HOLE TO PROVIDE A STABLE BASE FOR PLANTING THE TREE OR SHRUB. COMPACT SOIL MOUND TO REDUCE SOIL SETTLING EFFECTS 4 ROUGHEN SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE WITH SHOVEL OR SPADE 3 REMOVE ROOTS, ROCKS, AND WOODY DEBRIS LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM PLANTING HOLE. 2 EXCAVATE PLANTING HOLE 2x THE ROOT WIDTH AND 1.5x ROOT DEPTH WITH ENOUGH ROOM TO ALLOW ROOTS TO BE SPREAD DOWNWARDS AND LATERALLY THROUGHOUT THE SOIL PROFILE. EDGES OF THE PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE CUT PERPENDICULARLY TO THE SOIL SURFACE 1 SCALE: DETAIL - CONTAINER TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING 3 L-6NTS 6" FINISHED GROUND. INSTALL A 4-FOOT MULCH RING FOR EACH TREE AND A 2-FOOT MULCH RING FOR EACH SHRUB.PLANT AT SAME LEVEL AS GROWN IN CONTAINER PLANTING HOLE/ EXCAVATION 2X GREATER THAN ROOTBALL OR CONTAINER WIDTH GREATER THAN ROOTBALL OR CONTAINER DEPTH COMPRESS SOIL INTO SMALL, FLAT TOPPED MOUND BENEATH ROOTBALL FOR SUPPORT EXCAVATE SOIL FOR PLANTING TO DIMENSIONS SHOWN. FIRM SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL AND WATER SETTLE. DO NOT LEAVE AIR POCKETS. DO NOT DAMAGE ROOTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS GENTLY LOOSEN AND SPREAD ROOTS AT BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:25 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/19KATHRYN S U Z ANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLICEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECTK. FORESTER K. FORESTER L-6 18 PLANTING DETAILS K. FORESTER R. GLEASON 2 1 1 2 OHW WETLANDWETLANDELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 92 96 100 104 108 112 92 96 100 104 108 112 0+00 0+50 0+60 1. PLANT GROUNDCOVERS, SHRUBS, AND TREES AS SHOWN ON PLAN. GROUNDCOVERS AND SHRUBS SHALL BE IN CLUSTERS OF UNEVEN NUMBERS (E.G. THREE, FIVE, SEVEN, ETC.) 2. PLANTS SHALL BE ARRANGED SO THAT AS THEY MATURE, THEY GROW IN TO MASSINGS AND FULLY COVER THE SOIL SURFACE. 3. PROVIDE A 3 FOOT RADIUS MULCH-ONLY AREA AROUND EACH TREE AND A 2 FOOT RADIUS MULCH-ONLY AREA AROUND EACH SHRUB. PLANTING LAYOUT NOTES: TREE, TYP GROUNDCOVER SHRUB, TYP 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\LA-PLANTING_75Prct.dwg | 6/11/2020 2:25 PM | Jonathan WaggonerJUNE 2020 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below. Call before you dig. ® 19 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/19KATHRYN S U Z ANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLICEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECTK. FORESTER L-7 19 PLANTING PLAN SECTIONS HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SITE 3 PLANTING SECTION (TYP.)3 L-71"=5' 2X MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY 100-YR WL BERM EMBANKMENT FILL BERM PLANTING SOIL NATIVE FLOWERING SHRUBS TO REPLACE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS WONDERLAND ESTATES MADSEN CREEK NATIVE EMERGENTS AT WATER EDGE EXISTING ARBORVITAE SHRUB TO REMAIN NATIVE GROUNDCOVER BETWEEN BERM AND CREEK 12" DEEP BERM PLANTING SOIL BERM EMBANKMENT FILL HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SITE 4 PLANTING SECTION (TYP.)4 L-71"=5' 2X HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SITE 2 PLANTING SECTION (TYP.)1 L-71"=5' 2X HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: PLANTING DETAIL (TYP.)3 L-71"=5' 2X NATIVE SHRUBS PLANTED TO ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) 100-YR WL MADSEN CREEK HI-FLOW BYPASS NATIVE SHRUBS ON BERM AND ADJACENT TO THE BERM ACCESS ROAD EROSION CONTROL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIXEROSION CONTROL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX BERM EMBANKMENT FILL 12" DEEP BERM PLANTING SOIL 100-YR WL MADSEN CREEK 100-YR WL MADSEN CREEK NATIVE SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER ON BERM NATIVE PLANTINGS ALONG WETLAND EDGE PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE K. FORESTER R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER J. WAGGONER APPENDIX G : MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for City of Renton Public Works Utility Systems—Surface Water Utility Engineering Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will print correctly when duplexed. MITIGATION PLAN MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for City of Renton Public Works Utility Systems—Surface Water Utility Engineering 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: 425-430-7293 and Watershed Science & Engineering 506 Second Avenue, Suite 2700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: 206-521-3000 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080 March 10, 2021 i mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx CONTENTS Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Setting ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 City of Renton Code .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Shorelines and Floodplains .................................................................................................................... 9 Streams ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Other Critical Areas ................................................................................................................................. 11 King County Code ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Shorelines and Floodplains .................................................................................................................. 11 Streams ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Impacts Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Design Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Assessed Alterations ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Floodplain Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................. 24 Mitigation Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Mitigation Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Responsible Party ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Mitigation Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................................... 27 Mitigation Planting And Seeding ................................................................................................................... 27 Goals, Objectives, And Performance Standards ....................................................................................... 29 Goals ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................................... 31 Monitoring and Reporting .................................................................................................................... 32 ii mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx Maintenance and Contingencies ........................................................................................................ 33 References........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Plans Appendix B Mitigation Planting Plan Appendix C Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for Design and Permitting of Flood Control Improvements and Evaluation of Floodplain Fill Mitigation Appendix D 2004 Wetland Rating Forms Appendix E Arborist Survey of Trees Potentially Impacted Along Madsen Creek High Flow Bypass Channel Appendix F FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment for Endangered Species Act Compliance Appendix G Environmental Assessment Report iii mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx TABLES Table ES-1. Alterations to Regulated Shoreline and Critical Areas and Mitigation for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. ................................................................... viii Table 1. City of Renton Environmental Regulations Applicable to Sites 1 Through 4. ..................... 8 Table 2. Alterations to Regulated Shoreline and Critical Areas and Mitigation for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. ............................................................................ 15 Table 3. Plant List and Quantities for Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Areas. ..................................... 28 Table 4. Erosion Control Seed Mix (57 PLS pounds per acre) and Quantities for Buffer Restoration Sites. ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 5. Sites (1 through 4) Performance Standards for the Madsen Creek Flood Reduction Improvement Project. ....................................................................................................... 31 FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. ..................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Map for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. ............................................ 3 Figure 3. Mapped 100-year Floodplains in the Project Area...................................................................... 23 v mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx DISCLAIMER Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., has prepared this report for use by the City of Renton. The results and conclusions in this report represent the professional opinion of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. They are based upon examination of public domain information concerning the study area, site reconnaissance and investigation, and data analysis. Other environmental regulatory agencies, including the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife (Ecology, WDFW) and King County’s Department of Local Services, that have jurisdiction within the project area, may require reviews of the final site development plans for regulatory compliance. Therefore, it is recommended that the findings and conclusions in this report be reviewed by all appropriate regulatory agencies before any construction activities are initiated. vii mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This mitigation plan for the proposed Madsen Creek Flood Reduction Improvement Project has been prepared in accordance with current City of Renton and King County environmental regulations and guidance. Madsen Creek is a perennial, fish-bearing stream that is a tributary of the Cedar River, a designated Shoreline of the State. In the 1970s through 2010, King County completed several modifications to the Madsen Creek channel in order to address flooding and sedimentation issues resulting from development in the drainage basin. The historical modifications included channel realignment, construction of a sediment basin, construction of a high flow bypass channel to route flood flows directly to the river, and other stream channel alterations. Despite these modifications, flooding still occurs on both the north and south sides of State Route 169, on the east side of 149th Avenue Southeast, and on adjacent residential properties (see Figure 1 in the Introduction section). Furthermore, the Madsen Creek channel constructed in Ron Regis Park is no longer well defined due to sediment accumulation within the channel and the Nisqually earthquake landslide damming the Cedar River and historic Madsen Creek confluence. The City of Renton received a King County Flood Control District Flood Reduction Grant to identify and evaluate existing conditions at the downstream end of the Madsen Creek drainage basin, survey the drainage basin, develop and evaluate alternatives for flood improvements, and prepare preliminary designs of the preferred alternative. The study area is located within the Renton city limits and within unincorporated King County. In June and July 2018, scientists from Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., conducted an assessment within an approximate 43-acre study area that included the high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek, managed by the City of Renton as a stormwater facility, and the low flow channel of Madsen Creek. Nine wetlands were delineated and results are provided in the Environmental Assessment Report for the Madsen Creek Flood Reduction Improvement Project (Herrera 2018; included as Appendix G to this report). The proposed flood reduction project follows mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, rectify, and compensate for alterations to City and County regulated critical areas and associated protected buffers. During project design, analysis to minimize impacts resulted in the selection of a preferred alternative that incorporates implementation of a variety of flood reduction measures at four sites: these are called Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the project design (see Figure 2 in the Introduction section). Sites 1 and 2 are associated with the high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek, which is maintained by the City as a stormwater management facility. Sites 3 and 4 are located along the low flow channel of Madsen Creek, which includes two riverine associated wetlands. Portions of Sites 2, 3, and 4 are situated within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River. Site 4 is within the jurisdictional limits of the City and also extends into unincorporated King County. viii mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx Table ES-1 provides a summary of assessed environmental impacts and mitigation associated with the project’s actions to be implemented at each site. No direct impacts to wetlands are associated with the project. Table ES-1. Alterations to Regulated Shoreline and Critical Areas and Mitigation for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. Site ID Type of Alteration Mitigation 100-year Floodplain In-Stream (below OHWM) Buffer (square feet) Area (square feet) Volume (cubic yards) Area (square feet) Volume (cubic yards) Ratio Type Area (square feet) 1 N/A 100 square feet Fill: 10 Proposed Spillway: 1,160a 1:1 Buffer Enhancement 1,160 2 Channel Maintenance: 3,485 Channel Maintenance: 54 (cut) Channel Maintenance: 4,276; 500 linear feet Cut: 110 Fill: 0 Net: -110 Channel Maintenance: 12,625 Berm Construction Right Bank: 4,225 Total: 16,850b,c 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 16,850 Berm Construction: 0 Channel Widening for Flood Storage: 71 (cut) Total: 3,485 Total: 125 (cut) 3 Berm: 1,120 Wall: 60 Total: 1,180 Fill: 33 Not Applicable Fill: 1,180 Temporary Access: 640 Total: 1,820 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 1,820 4 972 Fill: 38 Not Applicable Renton: Berm: 380 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 380 King County: Berm: 755 3:1 2,270d Temporary Access: 300e 0e Total: 1,435 TOTAL: 5,637 Net: -54 4,376 Net: -100 21,265 22,480 N/A – Not Applicable a Excludes overlay of gravel on existing maintenance access road, which is not assessed as a buffer impact. b Excludes minor overlay of gravel on existing maintenance access roadway along left (west) bank at completion of construction to fill ruts (up to 4,500 square feet). c Grass seed will be broadcast as an erosion control measure along the edges of the elevated roadway. d Includes restoration of the temporary access routes. e Temporary access areas are currently private lawn – grass to be restored in kind. ix mdf 18-06779-000_mitigationplan_madsencrkfip_20210310.docx The preliminary project design plans are included in Appendix A. The majority of the proposed spillway construction at Site 1 will overlay an existing gravel-surfaced maintenance access road. The assessment of buffer alterations at Site 1 is limited to only that portion of the work that extends beyond the existing roadway. In-water work is restricted to approximately 10 cubic yards of rock placement within an area of 100 square feet where the downstream end of the spillway will extend to the bottom of the high flow bypass channel at Site 1. Site 2 work proposes removing sediment accumulation below the OHWM in the high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek, along with minor widening of the channel beyond its originally constructed dimensions to increase flood storage. The in-stream work at Site 2 is considered to be a temporary alteration because the channel will require periodic maintenance in the future when the extent of sediment accumulation reaches a level that affects 100-year flood conveyance capacity. It is anticipated that new sediment and vegetation within the channel will regenerate naturally with time. Mitigation to compensate for project-associated alterations to the floodplain and stream buffers will be provided to achieve no net loss of habitat area and functions within the City of Renton’s regulated critical areas. Reduction of public flood hazard areas is considered an exempt activity if buffer restoration and enhancement is provided at a 1:1 ratio (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-3-050.C.3) (Renton 2020). Mitigation for impacts to the City of Renton’s protective buffer areas will be compensated by the removal of invasive vegetation and the installation of native plants in direct proportion to the disturbed area. Temporary impacts resulting from construction access and equipment operation will be mitigated for by restoring in-kind; thus, no additional mitigation is necessary in those areas. Mitigation for buffer alterations resulting from the proposed flood control berm installation in the portion of Site 4 that is situated within King County’s jurisdiction are to be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 per Section 21A.06.750 of King County Code (King County 2020). Native vegetation will be removed and all disturbed areas where the berms are installed will be planted with native vegetation to improve habitat, water quality, and hydrologic conditions along the stream bank and associated riparian wetlands. In addition to restoring the vegetation on 710 square feet of constructed berm area in King County at Site 4, an additional 1,420 square feet of adjacent buffer area will be enhanced through nonnative vegetation removal and the installation of native plants to meet the County’s 3:1 mitigation requirements for buffer alterations. Total project-associated buffer alterations associated with berm and floodwall construction and temporary construction access corridors at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent 1,163 square feet; 16,475 square feet; 1,816 square feet; and 1,272 square feet, respectively. Proposed buffer mitigation, through the removal of nonnative invasive species and the installation of native plants, is anticipated to enhance existing buffer functions within a total area of 21,846 square feet. The Mitigation Planting Plan is included in Appendix B. All planting zones will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years. The monitoring plan requires quarterly site visits for the first year, and annual visits for four subsequent years; maintenance recommendations; contingency plans; and annual reports to document progress in meeting performance standards and goals. The annual monitoring reports will be submitted to King County no later than December 31 of each monitoring year. March 2021 1 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project INTRODUCTION The City of Renton (City) seeks to improve upon existing flooding conditions in the lower reaches of Madsen Creek where it flows through residential areas and a City park. The City received a King County Flood Control District Flood Reduction Grant to investigate existing conditions, identify and develop alternatives to reduce flooding, prepare design plans for flood reduction improvements, and commence permit applications for those improvements. This report describes the proposed project’s actions in association with regulated critical areas and associated protective buffers, and prescribes compensatory restoration and mitigation measures as required for environmental regulatory compliance with City of Renton and King County ordinances and codes. P ROJECT S ETTING The project area is located within the Renton city limits and unincorporated King County, in Sections 22 and 23 of Township 23 North, Range 05 East of the Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). The Madsen Creek drainage basin is within the Lower Cedar River Watershed and Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8: Cedar-Sammamish. An Environmental Assessment Report prepared in July 2018 by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) (included as Appendix G to this report) examined a 43-acre study area. This included both the low flow and high flow bypass channels of Madsen Creek. The upstream end of the study area coincides with the Madsen Creek stream channel where it approaches the instream sediment basin. The downstream end of the study area corresponds to the confluences of the high flow bypass and low flow channels with the Cedar River. Areas within 200 feet of the stream channels are also included (Figure 2) (Herrera 2018). For the wetland and stream delineations, the study area was further divided into delineation and reconnaissance study areas, since the more detailed delineation work was focused within the areas most likely to be impacted by future project work. The delineation portion of the study area includes the Madsen Creek low flow and high flow bypass channels, and areas within 200 feet of the channels within Renton city limits; Ron Regis Park; the State Route (SR) 169 right-of-way; and the west and south half of the New Life Church property, which is located south of SR 169. The reconnaissance portion of the study area includes King County-owned parcels east of Ron Regis Park and west of 149th Avenue Southeast, King County-owned parcels east of 149th Avenue Southeast, and the right-of-way of 149th Avenue Southeast. Privately owned parcels within the northern half of the study area were not accessible and were observed from the right-of-way or from King County-owned parcels. LakeYoung ¬«169 LakeWashington LakeSammamish Cedar River Madsen Creek DuwamishRiver §¨¦5 ¬«167 §¨¦90 §¨¦405 ¬«18 Auburn Bellevue Burien Covington Issaquah Kent Mercer Island Maple Valley Newcastle Renton Seattle Sammamish SeaTac Tukwila Pictometry, King County King County, Aerial (2017) 0 2 41Miles Legend Study area County boundary City limits Stream(King County) Roads PACIFIC OCEANOREGON WASHINGTON Area ofmap detail K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\Report\Figure1_vicinity_map_letter.mxd E Figure 1.Vicinity Map for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen Creek Low Flow Cha n n e l King County Ron Regis Park New Life Church Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site Wonderland Estates Sediment Basin Wetland E (2018) Wetland F (2018)Renton SE RENT O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )MAPLE DRSE J O N E S R D 145TH AVE SE142NDP LSE146THPLSESE 1 5 7 T HPL154TH PL SESE 155TH P L 143 R D AVESE150THLNSE152ND AVE SESE 154T H S T SE 153R D P L 1 4 0 T HWAYSE149TH AVE SEOAK DRPINE DRSEJONESPL Site 4 Site 3 Site 2 Site 1 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\Report\Figure2_SiteMap_letter_less.mxd Figure 2. Site Map for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. E Legend 2018 Environmental Assessment Report study area Approximate location of proposed project sites Jurisdiction boundary Parcel Inundation boundary Wetland area (HEC, 2018) March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 4 The topography of the study area is generally flat due to its landscape position within the Cedar River Valley. Herrera scientists delineated nine wetlands, labeled as Wetlands A through I, in the study area, which are discussed in detail in the Environmental Assessment Report (Herrera 2018; see Appendix G). The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Madsen Creek low flow channel was delineated using the definition in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) and according to methods in the publication Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). Herrera scientists flagged the OHWM of the Madsen Creek low flow channel within the delineation study area in June and July of 2018 (Herrera 2018). The boundary of the OHWM within the high flow bypass channel was not delineated in the field because there is no “ordinary” flow condition in that channel. The channel intermittently conveys flows in relation to moderate to large flood events, and the frequency and depth of those flows varies considerably year to year. Therefore, the OHWM in the high flow bypass channel upstream of SR 169 was defined based on the simulated area (i.e., depth) of inundation in the 2-year flood event in accordance with the Washington State OHWM guidelines. A memorandum summarizing the hydraulic modeling used for high flow bypass OHWM definition, project design, and compensatory flood storage analysis is included as Appendix C. The study area for the Environmental Assessment Report included developed and undeveloped areas. The developed areas consist of recreational fields, paved roads and driveways, and residential housing. The undeveloped areas are located north of Ron Regis Park near the Cedar River and south of the New Life Church’s recreation field. Two habitat restoration sites along Madsen Creek are located within the study area: 1) King County recently constructed the Elliott Bridge Reach Off-Channel Habitat and Floodplain Reconnection Project mitigation site <https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/wlr/sections-programs/river-floodplain- section/capital-projects/elliott-bridge.aspx> near the north end of 149th Avenue Southeast amid the Madsen Creek confluence with the Cedar River, and 2) a small restoration site on the New Life Church property located between the recreation field and the Madsen Creek low flow channel near SR 169. P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION The City proposes to improve flood control at four locations (Sites 1 through 4) within and adjacent to Madsen Creek. Preliminary project design plans are provided in Appendix A. The City’s project team studied existing flooding problems along the Madsen Creek low flow and high flow bypass channels. Stream flows generated by large storm events in the Madsen Creek drainage basin result in diversion of water via a sediment basin overflow weir that routes those flows through a concrete box culvert (beneath the maintenance access driveway at Site 1) into the high flow bypass channel. Those overflows from the sediment basin are conveyed directly to the Cedar River. All other flow in Madsen Creek is routed through the low flow channel to the river. Several alternatives to reduce the occurrence and severity of flooding were considered. Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) identified alternatives by analyzing cost, March 2021 5 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project construction footprint, project complexity, neighborhood cooperation, potential critical area impacts, and restoration opportunities (WSE 2019). Solutions were identified and defined according to two categories: recurring maintenance projects and one-time improvement projects. Recurring maintenance projects focus on regular sedimentation monitoring, vegetation maintenance along the high flow bypass channel, removal of sediment buildup in the high flow bypass channel, and restoration of the conveyance capacity of three culverts. These maintenance activities were determined to be of the highest priority, and as a result, King County implemented sediment and vegetation removal in the high flow bypass channel downstream of Renton-Maple Valley Road (State Route [SR] 169) in the summer of 2019. WSE also identified eight one-time improvement projects, four of which were prioritized for implementation (Figure 2). These four projects are briefly summarized below. Work at Site 1 will create an armored overflow spillway that directs overflows from the sediment basin into the high flow bypass channel in a major flood event. This spillway will ensure major flood flows entering the sediment basin will not overtop the north embankment, reducing the risk of flooding the adjacent Wonderland Estates housing development. The spillway will also provide protection against debris blocking the sediment basin outlets and limiting flow. Work at Site 2 will remove sediment accumulation in the high flow bypass channel, slightly widen the channel relative to its originally constructed dimensions to increase flood storage, and raise the existing grade via constructing a berm at the top of bank on the right (east) side of the high flow bypass channel. This site extends approximately 550 feet upstream of the culvert under SR 169. Flooding occurs at this site due to sediment accumulation and low ground elevation on the right bank that collectively allow flood flows to overtop the channel. This overflow condition routes flood flows into the New Life Church field east of the high flow bypass channel. The water eventually drains into the low flow channel and exacerbates flooding downstream in the Wonderland Estates development and in a residential neighborhood north of SR 169. Raising the existing ground elevation of the high flow bypass channel’s east bank will increase the level of flood protection and reduce the risk of the low flow channel inducing flooding of the adjacent private properties and roads. Work at Site 3 is adjacent to the south side of the SR 169 right-of-way, fronting Wonderland Estates and a single-family residence northeast of Wonderland Estates. Work consists of constructing a new berm along the left (south) bank of the Madsen Creek low flow channel on the Wonderland Estates property and a low floodwall extending from the east end of the berm on City-owned property (within the SR 169 right of way) north of the single-family residence’s lawn. The berm and wall need to extend, at a relatively constant elevation, for a total length of 210 feet along the left (south) creek bank and around the existing SR 169 culvert entrance to reduce overflows in the 100-year flood event. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 6 Work at Site 4 is located on the north side of SR 169 between the Cedar River Trail and the southwest corner of the property of a private residence on 149th Avenue Southeast. Work will raise the right (north) bank of the low flow channel, replacing existing concrete ecology blocks originally placed by WSDOT for flood protection that are ineffective in containing flood flows on that bank. Raising the right bank elevation will reduce the risk of flows from overtopping the bank and flooding the adjacent residential properties to the north when large floods occur in Madsen Creek. However, the work at this site does not prevent or reduce the risk of flooding from the ditch on the east side of 149th Avenue Southeast, due to the ditch design. The work in this area is also located in the Cedar River floodplain, and the work done at this site will not provide protection during the Cedar River 100-year flood, which will produce a higher peak water surface elevation than can occur in the Madsen Creek low flow channel when the Cedar River is not at a high flood stage. The existing riparian vegetation at this site is in generally poor condition on both banks of the stream. The project work at Site 4 will also include removal of existing invasive vegetation and new native vegetation plantings along both banks. Site 4 extends beyond Renton city limits into unincorporated King County. This suite of actions represents a relatively low-cost, low-impact approach to provide an immediate increase in flood protection from the Madsen Creek network for public roadways and numerous private properties. March 2021 7 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project REGULATORY CONTEXT CITY OF R ENTON C ODE The City regulates shorelines, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas and designates buffers for their protection according to its Shoreline Master Program guidelines (Section 4-3-090) and Critical Areas (Section 4-3-050) of Renton Municipal Code. Table 1 and the following sections describe the City’s environmental regulations as they relate to the four project work sites. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 8 Table 1. City of Renton Environmental Regulations Applicable to Sites 1 Through 4. Site ID Project Features Classification Standard Buffer Width (feet) Applicable Renton Municipal Code(RMC) 1, 2 High Flow Bypass Channel (City manages as a stormwater facility) Type F Waterb Type N Wateri 115b Critical Areas Wetland C Category II;g Depressional/slope,d PSS, PFOe 100h 3 100-year Floodplain N/A N/A Shoreline Madsen Creek Low- Flow Channel Type F Waterb 115b Wetland Fa Category III;c Riverine,d PEM, PSSe 75f 4 100-year Floodplain (portions) N/A N/A Shoreline Madsen Creek Low- Flow Channel Type F Waterb 115b Wetland Ea Category II;g Riverine,d PFOe 100h a Wetland extends outside project study area and was not delineated in its entirety. Wetland is situated within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River and is therefore subject to regulation according to the City’s shoreline master program guidelines (RMC 4-3-090d). b The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) water typing system uses definitions outlined in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 222-16-031). Type F waters are identified as potentially fish bearing and are afforded a 115-foot buffer in Renton (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). Renton define the bypass channel as a Type F water body. c City of Renton’s regulation of wetlands situated within shoreline jurisdiction is based on Ecology’s 2004 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-3-090d). Wetland F meets the criteria of a Category III on 2004 Wetland Rating Forms (Hruby 2004) and is rated as a Category II wetland according to the 2014 Wetland Rating System (Hruby 2014; Herrera 2018). d Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). e US Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013): palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), palustrine forested (PFO). f Wetland F’s buffer (75 feet) is based upon its 2004 wetland categorical rating and low habitat function as outlined in Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 43090.D.d). g Wetlands E and C are Category II wetlands based on 2014 Wetland Rating System of Western Washington (Hruby 2014). Wetland E is also a Category II based on the 2014 Wetland Rating System of Western Washington (Hruby 2004). h Wetlands E and C buffer widths (100 feet) are based upon their wetland category and habitat function as outlined in Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 43090.D.d). i The Washington State departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife categorize the high flow bypass as a Type N water. March 2021 9 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Shorelines and Floodplains The Cedar River, a Shoreline of the State [Type S (formerly a Class 1) water] and adjacent areas within the contiguous floodplain are regulated according to the City’s Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (SMP) (RMC 43090(B)(3). The preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map #53033c0984g (Panel 0984G of 1200) for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, dated September 15, 2017, indicates that Sites 2 and 3 are situated within a Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area of the Cedar River (FEMA 2017) (Figure 3). No base flood elevation has been determined for this Zone A floodplain area. Site 4 is situated within Zone AE with a base flood elevation determination of 102.0 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]). The Madsen Creek sedimentation basin and the upper portion of the high flow bypass channel at Site 1 are not situated within a mapped 100-year floodplain and therefore are not subject to regulation according to the City’s SMP. The lower portion of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 is mapped within the 100-year floodplain, but this area has not been designated for shoreline regulation by the City. Regardless, if any fill is placed below the 100-year flood level in this area it would be subject to the City’s floodplain mitigation requirements. The proposed berm above the right bank of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 is entirely above the mapped 100-year flood elevation. The mapped floodplain associated with the Madsen Creek low flow channel at Sites 3 and 4 is subject to regulation according to the City’s shoreline jurisdictional guidelines, which include mitigation for floodplain impacts. The City’s shoreline designation for project Sites 3 and 4 is Urban Conservancy. This designation aims to protect, conserve, restore, and manage open space areas, floodplain, and other sensitive lands located in urban or developed areas while allowing for compatible uses. The City authorizes allowable shoreline activities according to the provisions of a Shoreline Exemption or a Substantial Development Permit. Allowable activities in delineated floodplain areas, including placement of fill that can displace flood storage volume, are regulated by the City according to RMC Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas). Placement of fill in the 100-year floodplain requires compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-to-one volume ratio (RMC 4-3- 050.G). The compensatory flood storage must be configured in a location that is hydraulically connected to the 100-year floodplain and in a manner that cannot strand fish as flood waters recede. Projects conducting work within critical areas and/or their buffers may be authorized by the City administrator according to the requirements of a critical areas permit and/or a letter of exemption. Implementation of flood hazard reduction improvements is considered exempt from critical areas permitting, where habitat enhancement and restoration at a one-to-one ratio is provided. Further information regarding the City’s regulation of the Madsen Creek low flow and high flow bypass channels in relation to its Critical Areas Ordinance is provided in the following sections. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 10 Streams Streams that are not classified as Type S waters are regulated according to RMC Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas). Stream buffers are assigned based on water type. Public flood hazard areas reduction measures are allowed within Renton’s regulated stream buffers where enhancement and restoration are provided at a 1:1 ratio (RMC 4-3-050.C.3). Several salmonid species have been documented in the Madsen Creek low-flow channel including summer/fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), winter steelhead (O. mykiss), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and resident coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii) (WDFW 2020a). Project activities are anticipated to have no effect on these species. Supporting documentation is provided in Appendix F. Due to this documented fish presence, the Madsen Creek low-flow channel is regulated by the City as a Type F (fish bearing) water and a Habitat Conservation Area (RMC 4-3-050.G.6); (RMC 4-3-050.G.2). The City’s standard riparian buffer width to protect this resource is 115-foot buffer. Salmonid use of the high flow bypass channel has not been documented (WDNR 2020; WDFW 2020a; WDFW 2020b). The City oversees this channel as a stormwater facility in relation to its activities to maintain sediment basin overflow conveyance capacity; however, this channel falls under critical areas regulation. The City has mapped the high flow bypass channel as a Type F water with a protective buffer width, as measured horizontally from the OHWM, of 115 feet (RMC 4-3-050.G.2). It should be noted that the high flow bypass channel outside of City of Renton jurisdiction (downstream of SR 169) is not considered a Type F water and is maintained by King County. The WDNR and the WDFW do not consider any portion of the high flow bypass as Type F or fish bearing; it is classified as Type N by these State agencies. City maintenance of its stormwater facility shall only be performed during the dry season when flows in the bypass channel are not active. Wetlands Riverine Wetlands E and F at Sites 4 and 3, respectively, are associated with the low flow channel of Madsen Creek. Wetlands E and F are situated within the 100-year floodplain and are therefore subject to regulation according to the City’s shoreline master program guidelines (RMC 4-3- 090d). The City’s regulation of wetlands, within shoreline jurisdiction, is based on Ecology’s 2004 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. In order to meet the City’s shoreline requirements, Herrera reassessed the 2014 Category II ratings for Wetlands E and F. The Environmental Assessment report produced in 2018 (included as Appendix G to this report) rates these wetlands according to the 2004 rating system. The 2004 data forms are included in Appendix D of Herrera (2018). The 2004 Category II rating for Wetland E is consistent with the wetland’s 2014 rating. Wetland F meets the criteria of a Category III wetland using the 2004 Rating System. Wetland E’s buffer width (100 feet), as outlined in Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090.D.d) is based upon its wetland rating (Category II) and low habitat function of 14 points scored on the 2004 rating form. The City’s 75-foot-wide designated buffer to protect Wetland F is based on its Category III rating and low habitat score of 13 points on the 2004 wetland rating forms. March 2021 11 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Other Critical Areas The project area is also mapped as a Zone 2 Wellhead Protection Area. However, construction of flood protection facilities is not a prohibited activity per RMC 4-3-050.G.8, and there is no required buffer (RMC 4-3-050.G.2). KING C OUNTY C ODE Shorelines and Floodplains Flood protection actions in King County are allowed, provided associated alterations comply with the County’s development standards, impact avoidance, and mitigation requirements. The King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applies to 200 feet landward from the OHWM of all “shorelines of statewide significance” and associated 100-year floodplains and wetlands (King County Code [KCC] 21A.25) (King County 2020). The Cedar River, the Madsen Creek low flow channel, and the unincorporated King County portion of Wetland E (Project Site 4) are each located within King County’s shoreline jurisdiction. Project Sites 1 through 3 are within the City of Renton’s jurisdiction and therefore are not subject to King County regulation. King County’s shoreline designation, as it applies to Wetland E, is Residential. The purpose of the Residential designation is to allow for residential and commercial uses, while allowing for non- residential uses that are consistent with shoreline protection. Shoreline modifications as a flood protection facility are, therefore, permitted (KCC 21A.25.160). Section 21A.24.240 of the King County Code and Section 4.4.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual require that a proposed development (including placement of fill) in the floodplain must provide compensatory flood storage if grading or other activity displaces any effective flood storage volume. The compensatory storage must provide equivalent volume, at equivalent elevations, to that being displaced. Compensatory storage must also be hydraulically connected to the source of flooding, be established in the same construction season as the displacement of flood storage volume occurs, and before the flood season begins in September. Streams According to King County’s Critical Areas Regulations (KCC 21A.24.355 and KCC 21A.25.358), the Madsen Creek low-flow channel is regulated as a Type F aquatic area with a 115-foot-wide protective buffer. King County requires a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to Type F aquatic area buffers per KCC 21A.24.380. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 12 Wetlands Wetlands situated within King County’s shoreline jurisdiction are regulated according to King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance KCC 21A.24.325. King County’s standard buffer width for protecting wetlands is based upon the wetland’s rating score, location, habitat function level, and intensity of adjacent land use (King County Code [KCC] 21A.24.325). The rating score defines Wetland E as a Category II wetland with a low habitat rating and high intensity adjacent land use, and a standard buffer width of 115 feet. Section 21A.24.325.C of the KCC has provisions to allow for buffer reductions and/or averaging, after avoidance and minimization of impacts have been addressed. March 2021 13 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project IMPACTS ASSESSMENT D ESIGN ALTERNATIVES The project design minimizes impacts on critical areas and buffers through several design and construction options. The impacts of construction on fish and water quality will be minimized through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), erosion control measures, and limiting in-water work. WSE studied several alternatives to reduce flooding in the project area (WSE 2019) by examining basin conditions, hydrologic modeling, and sediment transport and deposition. Several recurring maintenance needs were identified and will be implemented in a coordinated effort by the City, County, and WSDOT. Of the one-time improvement projects, eight options were discussed and are listed in terms of relative importance by WSE: ● Option 1: Raise the right bank flood control berm along the high flow bypass upstream of SR 169. ● Option 2: Continue to limit the amount of flow that enters the Madsen Creek low flow channel by either retaining the existing plates or installing a slide gate on the entrance to the Madsen Creek culvert at the outlet of the sediment basin. ● Option 3: Raise the right bank of the low flow channel between SR 169 and 149th Avenue Southeast to provide effective flood flow containment, replacing the existing ecology blocks that do not provide a continuous barrier to overbank flow. ● Option 4: Raise the existing ground and create a flood control berm on the left (south) bank of the Madsen Creek low flow channel in front of Wonderland Estates. ● Option 5: Raise the berm along the north side of the sediment basin and add a rock- lined emergency spillway that discharges to the high flow bypass. ● Option 6: Increase the culvert capacity at the downstream end of the stormwater ditch along 149th Avenue Southeast. Capacity can be gained by improving the existing culvert outlet system or by installing a second culvert outlet that drains into the Cedar River and not the high flow bypass. Further capacity can be gained with either of these sub-options by enlarging the ditch. ● Option 7: Raise the left and right banks at the SR 169 high flow bypass culvert entrance to provide freeboard during the 100-year flood, in the event the entrance to the culvert becomes partially blocked by debris. ● Option 8: Restore the Madsen Creek low flow channel through Ron Regis Park to original design conditions and reconnect it to the Cedar River. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 14 The project team analyzed these design options based on cost, construction footprint, project complexity, neighborhood cooperation, potential critical area impacts, and restoration opportunities. The options identified as having the lowest impact on property owners and critical areas are as follows: ● Option 1: Raise the flood control berm along the right bank of the high flow bypass upstream of SR 169 (Site 2 discussed in this report). ● Option 3: Construct a new flood control berm on the right bank of the low flow channel between SR 169 and 149th Avenue Southeast, replacing the existing ecology block wall (Site 4 discussed in this report). ● Option 4: Raise the existing ground and create a flood control berm on the left (south) bank of the Madsen Creek low flow channel in front of Wonderland Estates (Site 3 discussed in this report). ● Option 5: Raise the berm along the north side of the sediment basin, and add a rock- lined emergency spillway that discharges to the high flow bypass (Site 1 discussed in this report). These four improvement options minimize overall stream impacts, the work required below the OHWM, wetland disturbance, and buffer impacts. For project design purposes, the locations where these selected options will be constructed were renamed Site 1 (Option 5), Site 2 (Option 1), Site 3 (Option 4) and Site 4 (Option 3). The remaining options were not chosen for implementation at this time due to additional stream, wetland, and buffer impacts. Options 2 and 6 would require more in-water work by replacing slide gates and/or replacing a culvert. Option 7 could potentially have direct impacts to riparian wetlands. All of the options not chosen for implementation would have created additional impacts to critical area buffers. A SSESSED ALTERATIONS The inherent goals of the project are to reduce the risk of flooding of adjacent properties by modifying the existing flood-control berms or existing ground adjacent to Madsen Creek. These goals do not allow for the complete avoidance of impacts to regulated environmentally sensitive areas. Flood control improvements at Sites 1 through 4 require raising existing ground and creating new berms along the Madsen Creek low flow channel and high flow bypass channel in order to effectively contain flood waters. However, the project design limited and avoided impacts to the regulated environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible. The proposed project will result in alterations to the 100-year floodplain, the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel, and regulated stream and wetland buffers as detailed in Table 2. No direct wetland impacts are associated with the project. In-stream work is limited to removal of accumulated sediment, as a stormwater facility maintenance practice, at Site 2 to assure March 2021 15 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project sufficient freeboard above the peak 100-year flood level, and local widening and deepening of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 to increase flood storage capacity. Table 2. Alterations to Regulated Shoreline and Critical Areas and Mitigation for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. Site ID Type of Alteration Mitigation 100-year Floodplain In-Stream (below OHWM) Buffer (square feet) Area (square feet) Volume (cubic yards) Area (square feet) Volume (cubic yards) Ratio Type Area (square feet) 1 N/A 100 square feet Fill: 10 Proposed Spillway: 1,160a 1:1 Buffer Enhancement 1,160 2 Channel Maintenance: 3,485 Channel Maintenance: 54 (cut) Channel Maintenance: 4,276; 500 linear feet Cut: 110 Fill: 0 Net: -110 Channel Maintenance: 12,625 Berm Construction Right Bank: 4,225 Total: 16,850b,c 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 16,850 Berm Construction: 0 Channel Widening for Flood Storage: 71 (cut) Total: 3,485 Total: 125 (cut) 3 Berm: 1,120 Wall: 60 Total: 1,180 Fill: 33 Not Applicable Fill: 1,180 Temporary Access: 640 Total: 1,820 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 1,820 4 972 Fill: 38 Not Applicable Renton: Berm: 380 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 380 King County: Berm: 755 3:1 2,270d Temporary Access: 300e 0e Total: 1,435 TOTAL: 5,637 Net: -54 4,376 Net: -100 21,265 22,480 N/A – Not Applicable a Excludes overlay of gravel on existing maintenance access road, which is not assessed as a buffer impact. b Excludes minor overlay of gravel on existing maintenance access roadway along left (west) bank at completion of construction to fill ruts (up to 4,500 square feet). c Grass seed will be broadcast as an erosion control measure along the edges of the elevated roadway. d Includes restoration of the temporary access routes. e Temporary access areas are currently private lawn – grass to be restored in kind. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 16 Vegetation removal will be limited to those areas necessary for placement and compaction of soil for new berm construction, to access construction sites, and to remove all nonnative and invasive vegetation from the disturbed riparian areas within the project areas. Impacts to buffers are minimized for Sites 1 and 2, which already have pre-existing maintenance access routes. As stated previously, the proposed clearing and vegetation removal on the south side of the Madsen Creek low flow channel at Site 4 is solely for the purpose of enhancing riparian conditions via native riparian vegetation installations. The proposed construction of the flood control berms will result in permanent alterations to the site topography; however, the berms’ impacts to regulated shoreline and/or critical area buffers are considered temporary. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native vegetation to enhance water quality buffer functions and habitat. Raising existing ground and constructing new berms, only in areas identified as providing a high hydrologic benefit, also helps to minimize project impacts. Excavators will be used to clear site work areas and to construct the new earthen berms. Site 1 An armored overflow spillway will be constructed at Site 1 to convey high surface water flows from the existing sediment basin into the high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek (Plan Sheet C-2, Appendix A). This spillway will reduce the risk of flood waters overtopping the sediment basin, which could result in flooding at the adjacent Wonderland Estates residential community. The spillway, and surrounding soil and rock fill to taper the driving surface up to the spillway crest elevation from existing maintenance access driveway elevations, represents approximately 5,300 square feet in total area. The majority of it will be constructed over the existing maintenance access road footprint. Approximately 145 cubic yards of rock ballast (2-inch and smaller nominal size), Class A rock for erosion and scour protection (similar in size to riprap), smaller crushed rock for spillway bedding, and earth fill will be used to build the spillway and slightly raise the maintenance access driveways surrounding it on all sides. The spillway will be constructed with a crest elevation of 126 feet (NAVD88), approximately 2 feet above the existing access road grade, which is generally at elevation 124 feet (NAVD88) in the site area. Site 1 is not within a mapped 100-year floodplain. No in-water construction is required for Site 1 project work. No wetlands will be impacted; as a Category II depressional/slope PFO/PSS wetland, identified as Wetland C in Herrera’s 2018 report (Appendix G), is located approximately 50 feet to the southeast of the existing access roadway. The wetland’s buffer area overlaps with the protective buffer for Madsen Creek. The existing sediment basin maintenance access road will be used for equipment use and operation during the construction activities at Site 1. Therefore, no potential site disturbances associated with creating temporary equipment access are anticipated for the project work at Site 1. Most of the impacts proposed at the Site 1 location are within sediment basin vehicle and equipment access areas and will not require the removal of mature trees. The addition of a rock March 2021 17 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project lining to provide armoring of the new emergency spillway at Site 1 will extend to the bottom of the high flow bypass channel, resulting in minor fill (up to 10 cubic yards) within approximately 100 square feet below the OHWM. The new spillway and surrounding fill will extend 1,160 square feet beyond the existing maintenance access road footprint, resulting in the conversion of existing low-functioning herbaceous buffer vegetation that is associated with the high flow bypass channel to rock surfacing. Mitigation to compensate for the spillway’s buffer encroachment includes the removal of invasive vegetation and the proposed installation of native plants within 1,160 square feet of buffer area along the east bank of the high flow bypass channel downstream of Site 1. The specified trees and shrubs proposed for installation will improve habitat conditions by increasing the diversity of representative native species and vegetation strata within the buffer. Water quality functions within the buffer will also be increased. The proposed buffer mitigation ratio is 1:1, as required for compliance with the City’s Critical Areas regulations. Site 2 Work at Site 2 will remove sediment accumulation in the bottom of the high flow bypass channel, slightly widen the channel relative to its originally constructed dimensions, and raise the top of bank elevation on the right (east) side of the channel via construction of a berm. This site extends for a channel length of approximately 500 feet upstream of the Madsen Creek low flow channel culvert that is beneath the high flow bypass channel bed, where the sediment accumulation and low ground on the right bank collectively allow flood flows to overtop the channel. The overflow condition currently allows flood flows to spill into the privately owned New Life Church field east of the high flow bypass channel, where the water eventually routes into the low flow channel and exacerbates flooding along the low flow channel downstream. Minor raising of the maintenance access road on the west side of the high flow bypass channel is proposed to match the top of bank elevation of a new earthen berm on the east side. This will ensure further protection for Wonderland Estates, located to the west of the high flow bypass channel, during future floods. Sediment will be removed from approximately 500 linear feet of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel, and minor widening of the channel will occur along this same length of the channel to increase flood storage. The widening will result in a channel width of 16.25 feet at the OHWM level (Figure C-7, Appendix A) compared to the existing width of approximately 14 feet at the OHWM level. The volume of sediment and soil to be excavated from 4,276 square feet of the channel below the OHWM is an estimated 110 cubic yards. Channel excavation will only be conducted during the dry season when there are no active flows in the channel. This Best Management Practice (BMP) will eliminate the need to dewater construction areas, and will minimize impacts on water quality and prevent fish from accessing the work area during construction. The high flow bypass channel at Site 2 is currently dominated by non-native herbaceous vegetation that provides minimal habitat functions. No mitigation is required for the removal of grasses and weedy herbaceous plants that will occur as a result of the excavation within the March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 18 OHWM of the channel. The existing vegetation within the channel provides limited water quality benefit related to sediment settling during occasional or seasonal high flows. However, without the removal of sediments, the high flow bypass channel cannot effectively convey stormwater flows and reduce the risk of flooding. The project’s sediment removal action is considered a temporary impact since vegetation will regenerate naturally within the channel and sediment will continue to accumulate. Sediment removal is considered a maintenance activity by the City, as required to maintain its stormwater facility capacity. Removal of sediment from the channel bed is not anticipated to cause net loss of stream function. Cut and fill volumes within the 100-year floodplain and outside of the proposed OHWM represent 15 cubic yards (cut) and 0 cubic yards (fill), respectively. The approximate net cut within the floodplain is 125 cubic yards, of which 71 cubic yards represents an increase in flood storage capacity relative to the originally constructed channel dimensions, and 110 cubic yards of which is below the existing OHWM. A new compacted earthen berm with topsoil for planting will be installed along the channel’s east bank, for a length of approximately 400 linear feet. Site 2 requires 203 cubic yards of cut and about 170 cubic yards of fill outside of the 100-year floodplain. The Site 2 roadside work will not change the existing conditions of the adjacent buffer; therefore, mitigation is not required. Any areas adjacent to this work, where soils may become exposed during construction, will be restored with an erosion control grass seed mix. The preliminary design plans in Appendix A (sheet C-3) conservatively show erosion control seeding over the entire length of the channel and its side slopes in this site area, which is likely a greater area than will be disturbed by construction activity. The maintenance access road at Site 2 is not within the 100-year floodplain. The proposed flood control berm above the channel’s east bank will be approximately 10 to 12 feet wide on average where it ties into the existing ground surface. The finished elevation of the constructed berm, which includes a layer of topsoil for planting vegetation, will be at 105+/- feet (NAVD88), approximately 3 feet above the existing grade at its tallest point. Site 2 project work will alter approximately 16,850 square feet of existing regulated buffer area, which is primarily composed of nonnative herbaceous vegetation. The project work will require the removal of six of a total of seven existing multi-stemmed deciduous trees present at the site on the east side of the high flow bypass channel. The results of an arborist survey of trees potentially impacted by the project work at Site 2 are documented in a letter to Amanda Pierce, City of Renton Public Works Department, dated May 4, 2020 (Herrera 2020) (included as Appendix E of this report). The six trees proposed for removal include one native red alder (Alnus rubra), reported in poor health, two nonnative Norway maples (Acer platanoides) in good and fair condition, one common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) that is in excellent condition, one cherry (Prunus sp.) that is in poor to fair condition, and one Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) reported in good condition. A bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), reported to be in excellent condition near the southern end of the Site 2 work area, will be retained and protected from construction activities. With the exception of the Oregon ash, measured as 5.8 inches in caliper, March 2021 19 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project the trees at Site 2 meet the City of Renton’s following tree size definitions: greater than 8-inch caliper (equivalent to diameter at breast height [dbh]), individual measurements of stem diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level for alder and cottonwood, and greater than 6-inch caliper for other species. Trees to be removed at Site 2 will be replaced at a ratio greater than 2:1 within a native vegetation planting area adjacent to and south of the constructed berm. Invasive plants are to be removed and native shrubs and ground cover plants will be installed within 16,850 square feet of the Site 2 project area, adjacent to the high flow bypass channel. The proposed mitigation planting area is equal to the disturbed buffer area at a mitigating ratio of one-to-one, as required by the City for regulatory compliance. The new native vegetation plantings will provide increased buffer function when compared to existing conditions. Increasing the diversity of vegetation and native species within the buffer will improve the project area habitat. The tree and shrub plantings will also improve water quality, aesthetics, and bank stabilization. Construction access and equipment operation will be conducted from the existing maintenance access road. No additional buffer disturbances associated with temporary access or equipment staging are associated with the proposed Site 2 project work. Site 3 Site 3 work is within SR 169’s southern right-of-way and the landscaped frontage of Wonderland Estates. Site 3 work will construct a new berm along the left (south) bank of the Madsen Creek low flow channel on the Wonderland Estates property and a low floodwall made of concrete masonry units in the SR 169 right of way in front of (north of) the single-family residential property to the east, with the floodwall connecting to the berm for continuous flood containment. The wall and berm will extend at a relatively constant top elevation, east to west, from high ground near the culvert that conveys the Madsen Creek low channel beneath the high flow bypass channel at the east end to the Madsen Creek low flow channel culvert entrance in the SR 169 right-of-way at the west end. This combination berm and small concrete masonry unit wall will reduce the risk of creek overflows entering the low-lying Wonderland Estates residential development during the 100-year flood event. The wall and berm will extend approximately 210 linear feet in total along the left bank, representing 1,180 square feet in total footprint area. Excavation for Site 3 work will be minor, only requiring tying the base of the berm into native soil and smoothing the ground surface at the base of the concrete masonry unit wall. The proposed berm will consist of compacted low- permeability soil and a top layer of soil for planting vegetation. Estimated fill volumes within, and outside of, the 100-year floodplain represent 30.5 cubic yards and 21 cubic yards, respectively. The top elevation of the flood control berm will be 103 feet in elevation (NAVD88), approximately 1.5 feet higher than the existing grade (Plan Sheet C-8, Appendix A). The floodwall will be made of stacked concrete masonry units (each unit 8” x 8” x 16” in nominal dimensions), for a similar top elevation as the berm, and will displace approximately 2.5 cubic March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 20 yards of flood storage. The volume of the wall above the 100-year flood elevation will be approximately 1 cubic yard. The berm has been designed to avoid direct impacts to the wetland paralleling the opposite (right) bank of the creek. The small concrete wall will be built adjacent to vegetation (an arborvitae hedge) lining the southern (left) bank of the creek. The existing vegetation that will have to be cleared within the project area’s creek buffer on the Wonderland Estates property (owned by the King County Housing Authority) is composed primarily of nonnative weedy herbaceous species that provide low habitat functions. Native groundcover and shrub species proposed for installation on the flood control berm have been specified to provide enhanced buffer functions when compared to existing conditions. No new vegetation will be planted adjacent to the floodwall because there is no space to plant in that area. The project will require approximately 640 square feet of vegetation clearing on the Wonderland Estates property to create two temporary 12-foot-wide equipment access corridors that will extend from an existing paved parking area. The vegetation to be removed consists of a mix of native and nonnative landscaped shrubs. This existing vegetation provides low habitat functions and the proposed installation of native plants to restore these disturbed areas will enhance buffer conditions. Site 4 Site 4 work is located on the north side of SR 169 between the Cedar River Trail and the southwest corner of the private residence at 15214 149th Avenue Southeast. Site 4 work will raise the right (north) bank of the low flow channel to provide increased protection against the Madsen Creek 100-year flood flow in the low flow channel from overtopping that bank and flooding residential properties to the north. The new earthen berm will be approximately 115 feet long and will replace approximately 60 linear feet of existing ecology blocks that were installed by WSDOT in the 1990s (Plan-Sheet C-9, Appendix A). The berm construction will require approximately 38 cubic yards of net fill above existing grade, all of which will be within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River. The total area of fill represented by the project at this location is 1,135 square feet within the 100-year floodplain. The new Site 4 flood control berm top elevation will be 101.4 feet (NAVD88). The base of the new berm will be excavated into native soil below existing grade. This berm will be constructed of the same soil materials as described for the berms at Sites 2 and 3. The existing riparian vegetation at this site is in poor condition on both banks of the stream, particularly on the north bank. Invasive plants, such as Himalayan blackberry, are prevalent in the understory. Native trees and shrubs will be protected and retained on the south bank as part of the mitigation planting plan. Site 4 work is within a private residential property’s southwest corner (15214 149th Avenue Southeast) and borders the Cedar River Trail, SR 169, and 149th Avenue Southeast. These boundaries cause buffer encroachments; and along with the prevalence of nonnative vegetation, the habitat is low to moderately functioning at this site. March 2021 21 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Site 4 construction work will remove forest vegetation that is primarily composed of native Pacific and Sitka willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra, S. stichensis). red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), nonnative Himalayan blackberry and English Ivy (Hedera helix) vines and other invasive herbaceous plants, including reed canarygrass. Existing cottonwood and alder trees adjacent to the Cedar River Trail will be retained and protected from construction activities. No direct impacts to the Category II riverine PFO Wetland E that parallels the creek and SR 169 are proposed. Native plants are proposed for installation on and adjacent to the constructed flood-control berm. Residential lawn and nonnative Himalayan blackberry are present on the private residential property to the north of the channel where additional buffer mitigation plantings are proposed beyond the required berm revegetation. Site 4 extends beyond the city of Renton limits into unincorporated King County over an approximate area of 755 square feet. King County requires a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to Type F aquatic area buffers per (King County Code 21A.24.380). The proposed native vegetation planting area associated with the Site 4 buffer alterations within King County is 2,270 square feet. The total planting area for Site 4, including King County and City of Renton mitigation areas, is 2,650 square feet. Staging and access at Site 4 is proposed to occur on private property. Temporary equipment access routes will extend south into the work area from an existing unpaved driveway on the residential property. Nonnative vegetation growing in the area that will be disturbed during construction at the south edge of this property will be removed; site restoration will achieve the pre-project or an enhanced condition. Native vegetation will be planted where appropriate within all disturbed areas associated with the project. The restoration of these areas is included in the 3:1 mitigation planting area for King County alterations. An existing, dilapidated chain-link fence within the Site 4 work area will be removed and replaced, if necessary per property owner input. An existing wood bridge at the private driveway entrance over the ditch on the east side of 149th Avenue Southeast will be reinforced temporarily with a steel plate during construction. FLOODPLAIN M ITIGATION The memorandum in Appendix C (WSE and Herrera 2021) documents the extent of proposed fill in regulated floodplain areas and the proposed mitigation (compensatory flood storage) for that fill placement. Project-associated cut (71 cubic yards at Site 2) and fill (71 cubic yards at Sites 3 and 4) within the 100-year floodplain, not including the proposed excavation to restore the originally constructed high flow bypass channel geometry, represents complete compensation for existing flood storage displaced by new berm and floodwall installation below the 100-year flood water surface elevation (Table 2). The compensatory storage baseline for the high flow bypass channel is based on the estimated dimensions of the original 1976 channel construction (Appendix C). The proposed removal of accumulated sediment within the Madsen Creek high flow bypass March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 22 channel to restore the original channel dimensions is not counted towards the compensatory flood storage to be created as it is defined as channel maintenance. The bypass channel will be widened slightly to provide the compensatory flood storage, which will be hydraulically linked to areas inundated in a 100-year flood at Sites 3 and 4. The proposed design at Site 2 will provide a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard in the 100-year flood below the top of the core embankment soil in the berm. City staff currently maintain the Madsen Creek sediment basin through annual sediment accumulation monitoring and periodic cleanout activities, including periodic dredging. The City will also maintain function of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel, within City limits, in order to maintain the channel’s flood flow conveyance capacity. These maintenance activities will include annual sediment accumulation monitoring, vegetation maintenance, and debris removal. Maintenance will also include an assessment of high flow bypass channel conditions following any extreme storm events (25-year recurrence or greater). When sediment within the high flow bypass channel has accumulated and is approaching 6 inches of freeboard during the 100-year flood event, sediment removal will be planned for the following dry season. Figure 3 presents the mapped 100-year floodplains in the project area. Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen Creek Low Flow Cha n n e l King County Ron Regis Park New Life Church Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site Wonderland Estates Sediment Basin Wetland E (2018) Wetland F (2018)Renton SE RENT O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )MAPLE DRSE J O N E S R D 145TH AVE SE142NDP LSE146THPLSESE 1 5 7 T HPL154TH PL SESE 155TH P L 143 R D AVESE150THLNSE152ND AVE SESE 154T H S T SE 153R D P L 1 4 0 T H WAYSE149TH AVE SEOAK DRPINE DRSEJONESPL Site 4 Site 3 Site 2 Site 1 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\Report\Figure3_MappedFloodplain_letter.mxd Figure 3. Mapped 100-Year Floodplains in the Project Area. E Legend Approximate location of proposed project sites Jurisdiction boundary Parcel Inundation boundary Wetland area (HEC, 2018) 100-yr Floodplain March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 24 Best Management Practices The construction work at all four sites will include temporary erosion and sediment controls (TESC) per City requirements. The TESC will avoid and minimize potential impacts on Madsen Creek and wetlands associated with stormwater runoff. Several best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to minimize stream and buffer impacts on water quality, aboveground vegetation, tree roots, and soils. These BMPs are as follows: ● Disturbance limits will be defined at the beginning of construction to prevent unintended encroachment into critical areas prior to clearing and grading activities. These limits will be adhered to throughout construction. ● A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan will be implemented to prevent and minimize erosion and sediment transport into wetlands, streams, and buffers. Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be installed to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas (e.g., stabilized construction entrances, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering of soil stockpiles as needed). ● Heavy rain events that could cause stream flow to engage the high flow bypass channel are not expected during the summertime in-water work window. If a significant rainfall event is forecasted, work within the high flow bypass channel will cease, and the necessary BMP(s), such as rock check dams in the bypass channel, will be implemented to prevent erosion due to flows passing through the construction site. ● BMPs will be implemented to protect existing trees adjacent to clearing and grading areas, including placement of fencing around tree trunks and placement of mulch and protective mats where construction access is necessary within root zones. Pruning of limbs to facilitate equipment access and soil excavation within critical root zones will be supervised by a certified arborist. ● Implementation of a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures (SPCC) plan will prevent pollutants (e.g., fuel spills from construction equipment) from entering wetlands, streams, and buffers. All fueling and maintenance of construction equipment will occur in designated staging areas located outside of wetlands, streams, and buffers; and spill containment measures will be in place. No equipment will be operated below the OHWM of the Madsen Creek low flow channel. ● Temporary materials stockpiles consisting of erosive materials (such as soil for berm construction) will be placed outside the 100-year floodplain during the rainy season (October 1 through June 1). Such temporary stockpiles will be covered or contained with plastic sheeting, straw bales, or other BMPs to prevent sediment delivery to water bodies. Material placed in its final position within 12 hours of arrival on site will not be considered a temporary material storage pile. March 2021 25 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project ● Construction equipment access routes within buffers will avoid, minimize, and mitigate soil disturbance and compaction by clearing vegetation to ground level and applying erosion control seed mix as soon as access is no longer needed. M ITIGATION S UMMARY The City of Renton requires no net loss of functions of wetland and stream buffers. Avoidance and minimization of buffer impacts are recommended prior to compensation. If buffer disturbance cannot be avoided or minimized, then any temporary and permanent project impacts require compensation, restoration, creation of new buffers, and enhancement of existing buffers (RMC 4-3-050.H). Monitoring is required pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.3 for a period necessary to establish performance standards have been met, generally no less than 5 years. RMC 4-3-050.I has provisions for buffer reductions and/or averaging after avoidance and minimization of impacts has been exhausted. The project will not result in permanent reduction of functioning buffer area, and any temporary impacts associated with vegetation clearing or grading will be restored or enhanced at the City’s required (1:1) buffer mitigation ratio. Compensatory mitigation requires enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures, and impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures. Alterations to buffer areas within the project limits will be mitigated through a sequence of actions intended to maintain or improve existing ecological functions upon project completion. Disturbed project areas will be restored by removing invasive vegetation, removing nonnative vegetation, and planting native vegetation. Compensatory mitigation for project associated buffer alterations will be achieved in accordance with RMC 4-3-050.L and KCC 21A.24.340 and KCC 21A.24.380. Enhancement of riparian buffers, through invasive plant species removal and native revegetation, will increase existing buffer areas in the Madsen Creek corridor and will encourage use by a diversity of wildlife. All planting zones will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to document the success of the site against established performance standards. All temporarily disturbed wetland, stream, and buffer areas will be restored, and high-visibility fencing and TESC materials will be removed from the site once construction is completed. All disturbed vegetated areas and ground surfaces (e.g., stream banks and access areas) will be restored to similar or improved conditions through a combination of seeding, mulching, and planting. Monitoring Post-construction performance monitoring for the project site will be consistent with RMC 4-3-050.L.3 and KCC 21A.24.130 and conducted for a minimum of five growing seasons. Site visits will be performed quarterly for the first year, and annually for subsequent years, to ensure mitigation is meeting performance standards. Maintenance measures will be implemented as necessary during that 5-year period to ensure compliance with vegetation establishment performance criteria; see the Monitoring and Reporting section of this report. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 26 Immediate restoration will reduce temporary impacts on critical areas during construction. Immediate restoration will include: hand casting with an erosion control seed mix as soon as regrading, decompaction, and adding soil amendments is completed; placing biodegradable erosion control blanket to prevent erosion; and placing mulch to prevent establishment of invasive and nonnative vegetation until planting of native woody vegetation can commence in the fall. M ITIGATION S ITE P LAN This mitigation site plan includes appropriate measures for restoring grades, loosening compacted soils, amending soils, removing nonnative and invasive plant species, and revegetating buffers. The mitigation plan details restoration of all temporary impact areas, enhancement of buffer areas, and enhancement of the high flow bypass channel. Detailed mitigation site plans are provided in Appendix B; including planting zones, tree planting locations, plant schedules, and planting details. Revegetation work (planting and seeding) will occur during and shortly after construction; revegetation efforts will occur, as needed, to achieve the performance standards (Table 5 in the Performance Standards subsection). Plantings of native shrubs along the banks of the Madsen Creek low flow channel and trees upslope in the buffer will improve fish habitat by providing shade to the stream; this will lower water temperatures, increase dissolved oxygen levels, and provide refuge from predators. The proposed woody vegetation has deep roots that will help stabilize the stream banks and reduce erosion during high-velocity flood events. All disturbed areas, except those directly adjacent to the stream channel, will be seeded with a native seed mix to reduce erosion and increase herbaceous plant diversity. The buffer enhancement area will be cleared of nonnative vegetation and planted with native trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grasses. Enhancement is expected to increase functions of the buffer by providing a larger area for slowing and trapping water from the surrounding roads and residential areas. Habitat will be improved through removal of invasive vegetation and revegetation with native species; vegetation acts as a visual and auditory buffer from surrounding land uses that may disturb wildlife. New vegetation planting will mimic existing vegetation structure in the riparian corridor with a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. New plantings will provide complex habitat structures and create niches for reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, birds, and insects in areas that are currently degraded or will be impacted by the project. As a result of the project design and mitigation, the project is not expected to have a long-term adverse effect on function of the riparian corridor, including water quality, stormwater filtration, hydrology, thermal protection, and wildlife habitat. The project is expected to improve ecological functions over the long term. March 2021 27 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project R ESPONSIBLE PARTY The City, as the applicant for the proposed project, will be responsible for the implementation, monitoring, and success of the proposed mitigation. M ITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Removal of invasive, nonnative vegetation within the restoration and buffer enhancement area will take place soon after project construction starts. Removal of all invasive, nonnative plants will be verified prior to planting. Seeding and mulching of disturbed areas will take place during the autumn seeding window (September 1 through October 1) or spring seeding window (March 1 through June 1). Disturbed areas that cannot be seeded during spring and autumn will be mulched. Planting will occur during fall or spring depending on when construction is completed. M ITIGATION P LANTING A ND SEEDING Tables 3 and 4 list proposed plant species and quantities for each planting zone in the mitigation plan. Site 1 mitigation planting includes native vegetation to mitigate for the spillway’s encroachment into buffer areas. Site 2 mitigation planting includes enhancement measures to compensate for buffer impacts along the high flow bypass channel and replacement of trees removed for berm construction. Site 3 mitigation planting includes wetland and stream buffer restoration, and a small area of wetland enhancement. Site 4 mitigation planting consists of buffer restoration. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 28 Table 3. Plant List and Quantities for Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Areas. Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status Planting Zone Total Quantity Site 1 (1,160 square feet) Site 2a (16,850 square feet) Site 3 (1,820 square feet) Site 4 (2,650 square feet) Trees Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 3 4 1 8 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 1 4 5 Thuja plicata Western redcedar FAC 2 3 4 9 Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU 1 2 3 Shrubs Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry FACU 5 4 1 9 Cornus sericea var. stolonifera Red-osier dogwood FACW 15 56 5 19 94 Mahonia aquifolium Hollyleaved barberry FACU 12 5 17 Mahonia nervosa Cascade barberry FACU 26 101 19 147 Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark FACW 12 12 Ribes sanguineum Red flowering currant FACU 28 16 44 Rosa nutkana var. nutkana Nootka rose FAC 15 56 19 147 Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC 56 19 75 Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra Pacific willow FACW 9 3 12 Salix scouleriana Scouler willow FAC 9 2 11 Salix sitchensis Sitka willow FACW 5 2 7 Spiraea douglasii Douglas’ spiraea FAC 25 8 33 Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry FACU 15 28 16 59 Groundcover Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick FACU 30 30 Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass FACW 70 70 Fragaria chiloensis Beach strawberry FACU 119 119 Polystichum munitum Western swordfern FACU 67 67 Tellima grandiflora Bigflower tellima FACU 64 64 a Mitigation planting at Site 2 includes 60 square feet of area that cannot be mitigated at the east end of Site 3 where a small concrete masonry unit wall will be built March 2021 29 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Table 4. Erosion Control Seed Mix (57 PLS pounds per acre) and Quantities for Buffer Restoration Sites. Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status Planting Zone Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Pounds Pure Live Seed Bromus carinatus California brome NL No seeding 11 No seeding No seeding Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass FACW Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye FACU Festuca rubra var. rubra Red fescue FAC Triticum aestivum Regreen wheatgrass NL Grand Total 11 PLS = pure live seed; FAC =facultative; FACU = facultative upland; FACW = facultative wetland; NL = not listed After project completion and removal of invasive species is confirmed, soils will be decompacted through ripping, disking, or tilling to create appropriate topsoil conditions of at least 8 inches deep with recommended amendments added before seeding and planting. Plants suitable for each planting zone were identified based on light requirements, wetland indicator status, availability, anticipated success of establishment within the site, contribution to varied wildlife habitat, and ability to perform other functions (i.e., erosion control). Considerations made when selecting plants species were: native plants already existing on the site, varieties that are easy to maintain, and varieties that provide aggressive competition to nonnative plants. A sterile hybrid grass that will quickly establish within one season will be added to the seed mix for immediate erosion control of bare soil in the channel. No shrubs that propagate through rhizomes will be planted adjacent to any proposed structures. At Site 4, trees removed during construction will be placed within buffer areas as downed wood. Coarse downed wood benefits the buffer by creating structure, improving water retention, providing organic matter to the soil, and providing habitat for fungi and insects that are food sources for other animals. G OALS , O BJECTIVES, A ND PERFORMANCE S TANDARDS This mitigation plan is designed to improve wetland and riparian buffer functions along Madsen Creek; which include water quality improvements, stormwater filtration, hydrology functions, thermal protection, and wildlife habitat. It is also designed to provide increased flood storage that can be occupied by flood waters when the Cedar River and, or Madsen Creek, is at high flood stage. Removing invasive species, nonnative species, revegetating with native plants, and March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 30 placing habitat features will improve the wetland and buffer functions, as well as instream habitat. Creating compensatory flood storage in the high flow bypass channel, to offset flood storage lost due to berm construction, will provide flood storage benefits in a wide range of flood conditions; as the created flood storage will be at a lower elevation than the berm fill is placed. Following project construction, an as-built report and map will be prepared documenting restoration/mitigation site conditions; and mitigation areas will be monitored annually for five growing seasons. Goals The goal of the stream and buffer restoration sites is to restore temporarily impacted areas to conditions similar to or better than pre-project conditions. This will compensate for permanent buffer impacts, such that there is no loss of functions resulting from the project. This goal will be accomplished by removing invasive vegetation, nonnative vegetation, establishing dense native vegetation throughout the buffer, and placing downed wood in buffers. The goal of the compensatory flood storage is to provide equivalent or greater flood storage capacity than currently exists. Sediment accumulation in the high flow bypass reduces the floodplain storage over time, and also reduces freeboard above the 100-year flood level, requiring occasional maintenance to remove sediment accumulation. The project impacts to the floodplain include adding fill along the low flow channel via new berms at Sites 3 and 4 and excavating the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 to increase flood storage and conveyance capacity. Sediment and soil removal in the high flow bypass channel combined with adding a berm to its right bank will result in additional freeboard above the 100-year flood level (more than the minimum of 6 inches), prolonging the amount of time until sediment removal is once again needed in the channel to increase the freeboard to more than 6 inches. Objective The objective is to plant a variety of native tree, shrub, and groundcover species that will develop into a mature zone of native vegetation. Densely planted, native, woody vegetation will improve water quality, hydrology, and habitat functions of both the wetlands and buffers. Dense plantings on stream banks will help minimize bank erosion, filter stormwater, attenuate water velocities during heavy rainfall events, and trap sediments. Instream habitat will be improved through thermal protection offered by dense plantings. In buffer areas, the high number of plant species will offer food and shelter to a number of wildlife species, such as birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians, deer, and small mammals. March 2021 31 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Performance Standards Success of planting zones will be determined based on meeting performance standards for minimum plant survival, minimum cover of native woody and herbaceous vegetation, minimum plant diversity, and maximum allowed cover of invasive and nonnative plant species over five growing seasons (Table 5). Invasive, nonnative plant species include those on the current King County Noxious Weed List (King County 2020). Absolute cover is defined as the areal cover created by all native or all invasive plants for each stratum (shrub/tree; herbaceous/emergent) present in a given plot area or transect. Table 5. Sites (1 through 4) Performance Standards for the Madsen Creek Flood Reduction Improvement Project. Performance Standard Year 1 (2022) Year 2 (2023) Year 3 (2024) Year 4 (2025) Year 5 (2026) Plant Survival Rate (percent) 100 >80 N/A N/A N/A Native Shrub and Tree Cover (percent)a N/A N/A >40 >50 >70 Native Herbaceous Cover (percent) 90 90 80 70 60 Invasive, Nonnative Plant Cover (percent)b <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 N/A = not applicable a Percent cover excludes trees that were existing before the mitigation installation at Site 1. b Nonnative grasses except for reed canarygrass are not included in the 10 percent calculation. Year 1 ● 100 percent of the plantings (potted and staked) will have survived or will be replaced. ● Less than 10 percent absolute cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Greater than 90 percent absolute cover of native herbaceous vegetation will be present in areas that are seeded, planted with ground cover, or planted with wetland emergent vegetation. Year 2 ● Greater than 80 percent of the plantings (potted and staked) will have survived or will be replaced. ● Less than 10 percent absolute cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Greater than 90 percent absolute cover of native herbaceous vegetation will be present in areas that are seeded. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 32 Year 3 ● Greater than 40 percent absolute cover of native woody vegetation will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Less than 10 percent absolute cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Greater than 80 percent absolute cover of native herbaceous vegetation will be present in areas that are seeded, planted with ground cover, or planted with wetland emergent vegetation. Year 4 ● Greater than 50 percent absolute cover of native woody vegetation will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Less than 10 percent absolute cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Greater than 70 percent absolute cover of native herbaceous plants will be present in areas that are seeded. Year 5 ● Greater than 80 percent absolute cover of native woody vegetation will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Less than 10 percent absolute cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. ● Greater than 60 percent of absolute cover of native herbaceous plants will be present in areas that are seeded. Monitoring and Reporting The monitoring program complies with requirement set forth in RMC 4-3-050.L.3, KCC 21A.24.130, and best available science. Monitoring of the mitigation sites, including all planting zones, will take place after initial plantings for a minimum of five growing seasons. An as-built report will document baseline conditions after planting and placing of habitat features. The as-built report will include plant counts and downed debris documentation; it will establish photo points and establish plots or transects used to quantitatively document cover of native and invasive, nonnative species. The as-built report will also include documentation of any approved changes to the mitigation plan; changes will be documented in an as-built map. The as-built report will be submitted within 30 days after planting is complete on the site. Year 1 will March 2021 33 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project start the first growing season after planting is complete. The City will arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct the initial visit and prepare the as-built report and to conduct and document monitoring visits that will occur quarterly (spring/summer/fall/winter) in Year 1; and annually in (late summer/early fall) in Years 2 through 5 to evaluate compliance with the performance standards. Monitoring in Years 1 and 2 will include a site visit to document plant health, plant survival, and maintenance recommendations. Late summer/early fall monitoring conducted in Years 3 through 5 will include evaluation of plant health and mortality, photographic documentation at the established photo points, and quantitative documentation of cover of native and invasive, nonnative species. Evaluation of native plant cover will include both installed and volunteer species; established (pre-project) native species will not count towards the cover standards. Incidental observations of wildlife or evidence of wildlife presence (e.g., scat or tracks) will be recorded during each monitoring visit. Upon completion of each late spring site visit, the qualified biologist will prepare a technical memorandum documenting site maintenance needs. After the late summer/early fall site visit, the qualified biologist will prepare a monitoring report that documents the monitoring methods, results relative to the performance standards, photographic documentation, and any necessary contingency and maintenance measures. The report will include photos and approximate locations of invasive, nonnative plants that need to be removed or controlled. The report will be submitted to the City and King County before the end of each monitoring year. Maintenance and Contingencies During Year 1, the planting contractor will be responsible for achieving 100 percent plant survival and successful establishment of planted vegetation within the planting zones. In accordance with Year 1 plant establishment requirements, the contractor will provide necessary maintenance of planted vegetation on a monthly basis for a period of 365 days after acceptance of initial planting. Plant establishment maintenance will include, but is not limited to, supplemental irrigation during summer months; removal and control of invasive, nonnative vegetation; replenishing of wood chip mulch as necessary; and replacing plants that have died. Before plants are replaced, the contractor will consult with the project biologist assigned by the City to determine why certain species are not surviving and, if necessary, which native plant substitutions are appropriate. The City will arrange for annual maintenance of the planting zones during Years 2 through 5, with the goal of meeting all the applicable performance standards (Table 5). Routine activities include, but are not limited to, weed control, supplemental irrigation, mulching, reseeding, and plant replacement. If success criteria for percent coverage of woody plants and invasive, nonnative species have not been satisfied, maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to, plant replacement, plant substitution, adjustment of the planting layout to reflect specific or changing site conditions, weed control, and installation and adjustment of plant protection devices. March 2021 35 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project REFERENCES Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Ecology Publication 1606029. Washington State Department of Ecology. FEMA. 2017. US Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 53033C09846G. September 15. Herrera. 2018. Environmental Assessment Report: Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton. Prepared for City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering and Watershed Science & Engineering, Inc. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. September 14. Herrera. 2020. Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project, Arborist Survey of Trees Potentially Impacted Along Madsen Creek High Flow Bypass. Letter to Amanda Pierce, City of Renton, prepared by Ian David Crickmore, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. May 4. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Ecology Publication 0406025, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. August. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication 1406029). Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. King County. 2013. Elliott Bridge Reach Off-Channel Habitat and Floodplain Reconnection Plan Set. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Rural and Regional Services Section, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2017. Elliott Bridge Reach Off-Channel Habitat and Floodplain Reconnection Project Year 1 Monitoring and Maintenance (M&M) Report. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Ecological Restoration and Engineering Services Unit, Seattle, Washington. March 21. King County. 2018. Imagery. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 3 inches. Accessed July 3, 2018. King County 2018a. Topographic data. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. LiDAR bare-earth topobathymetric model. Accessed July 3, 2018. March 2021 Mitigation Plan—Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project 36 King County. 2020. King County Noxious Weed List. Accessed May 14, 2020. <https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/weeds/WeedLists/2020-King- County-Noxious-Weed-List.pdf>. King County. 2020a. Section 21A.24 Critical Areas and Section 21A.25 of King County Code. Adopted April 2, 2020. <https://www.kingcounty.gov/council/legislation/kc_code/24_30_Title_21A.aspx>. Pictometry International Corp. 2017. Imagery (King County 2017). King County GIS Center. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 3 inches. Produced 2017. Pictometry International Corp. Accessed July 3, 2018. <https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/arcgis/services>. Renton, City of. 2020. Shoreline Master Program (Section 4-3-090) and Critical Areas (Section 4-3-050) Regulations of Renton Municipal Code. Adopted December 9, 2019. <https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/Renton0403/Renton0403050.html #4-3-050>. USDA. 2015. Aerial photograph of King County. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 1 meter. Produced 2015. US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office. Accessed July 3, 2018. <http://gis.ess.washington.edu/data/raster/doqs_naip.html>. WSE. 2019. Final Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood & Sediment Assessment. Prepared for the City of Renton Public Works. Watershed Science & Engineering, Seattle, Washington. March 20. WSE and Herrera. 2021. Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project—Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for Design and Permitting of Flood Control Improvements and Evaluation of Floodplain Fill Mitigation. Memorandum to Amanda Pierce of City of Renton Public Works Prepared by Kaleb Madsen of Watershed Science and Engineering and Mark Ewbank of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 10. WDFW. 2020a. Priority Species and Habitat Database. Provided by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 14, 2020. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/>. WDFW. 2020b. SalmonScape mapping system. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 14, 2020. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. WDNR. 2020. Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS). Washington Department of Natural Resources. Accessed May 14, 2020. <https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and- services/forest-practices/forest-practices-application-review-system-fpars>. APPENDIX A Project Plans 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\G-1.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:42 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATECITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTMADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTRENTON, WAVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1"=1/4 MILEPROJECTLOCATIONOWNER:CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT1055 SOUTH GRADY WAYRENTON, WA 98057PHONE: (425) 430-7205CONTACT: AMANDA PIERCE, P.E.ENGINEER:HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS2200 SIXTH AVENUESUITE 1100SEATTLE, WA 98121PHONE: (206) 441-9080CONTACT: MARK EWBANK, P.E.SITELOCATIONSHEET INDEXSHEET DRAWING DESCRIPTION1 G0.01 COVER PAGE2 G0.02 LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS3G0.03 GENERAL NOTES4 C1.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND KEY TO PLAN SHEETS5C2.01 SITE 1 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN6C2.10 SITE 2 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN7 C2.20 SITE 3 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN8C2.30 SITE 4 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN9C3.01 SITE 1 - SITE PLAN10C3.10 SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 0+00 - 4+0011 C3.11 SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 4+00 - 7+2512 C3.20 SITE 3 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE13C3.30 SITE 4 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE14 C4.01 ALIGNMENT HORIZONTAL CONTROL15C4.10 SITE 1 AND 2 - SECTIONS16C4.11 SITE 3 AND 4 - SECTIONS17L1.01SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLAN18 L1.02SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLAN19 L1.03 SITE 3 - PLANTING PLAN20 L1.04SITE 4 - PLANTING PLAN21L1.10 PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLANTING DETAILS22 L1.11PLANTING DETAILSCOVER PAGEG0.011UTILITY CONTACTS:KING COUNTY WASTEWATERTREATMENT DIVISIONCONTACT:SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES:CONTACT: 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Legend_notes.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:44 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATELEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONSG0.022APPROX APPPROXIMATEAVG AVERAGEBLDG BUILDINGBVC BEGIN VERTICAL CURVECB CATCH BASINCFS CUBIC FEET PER SECONDCG CLEAR AND GRUBC/L, CL CENTERLINECONC CONCRETECONST CONSTRUCT, CONSTRUCTIONCP CONTROL POINTDEMO DEMOLITIONDIA DIAMETERDWG DRAWINGE EAST, EASTINGEA EACHEL ELEVATIONEVC END VERTICAL CURVEEX, EXIST EXISTINGFT FEET/FOOTHOR HORIZONTALHT HEIGHTIN INCH/INCHESL LENGTHLF LINEAL FOOT/FEETLT LEFTABBREVIATIONSMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUMNNORTH/NORTHINGNANOT APPLICABLENONUMBERNTSNOT TO SCALEOCON CENTEROHWORDINARY HIGH WATERPCPOINT OF CURVATUREPIPOINT OF INTERSECTIONPREPPREPARATIONPROPPROPOSEDPVIPOINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTIONQTYQUANTITYRDROADREFREFERENCEROWRIGHT-OF-WAYRTRIGHTSSOUTH, SLOPESPECSPECIFICATIONSTASTATIONSTDSTANDARDSWDMSURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (CITY OF RENTON)SWPPP STORMWATER POLLUTIONPREVENTION PLANTESCTEMPORARY EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROLTYPTYPICALVCLVERTICAL CURVE LENGTHWWEST, WATERWSDOT WASHINGTON STATEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONWSEWATER SURFACE ELEVATIONLEGEND - PROPOSED FEATURES:PROJECT LIMITSOHWORDINARY HIGH WATERWETLAND100Y100-YEAR FLOODPLAINEASEMENTRENTON CITY LIMITSCRITICAL AREAS BUFFERSILT FENCEAC-41C-1NOTE AND DETAIL/SECTION REFERENCING"-" INDICATES THAT THE DETAIL/SECTION IS SHOWN ON THE SAME SHEET"TYP" INDICATES THAT THE DETAIL/SECTION IS UNIFORMLY TYPICALTHROUGHOUT PROJECT EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED"VAR" SPECIFIES THAT DETAIL/SECTION WAS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS DRAWINGSSCALE:DETAIL1C-1NTSSCALE:SECTION/PROFILEAC-2NTSDETAIL REFERENCE NUMBERDRAWING ON WHICH DETAIL IS SHOWNDETAIL REFERENCE NUMBERDRAWING FROM WHICH DETAIL WAS TAKENSECTION REFERENCE LETTERDRAWING ON WHICH SECTION IS SHOWNSECTION/PROFILE REFERENCE LETTERDRAWING FROM WHICH SECTION/PROFILE WAS TAKENLEGEND - EXISTING FEATURES:SANITARY SEWERMAINTENANCE HOLESANITARY SEWERSSSSGRAVEL ROADWAYSURVEY - FOUND -REBAR AND CAPGUARD RAILTELECOM LINECCTELECOMMAINTENANCE HOLESOIL TEST HOLESTORM DRAINMAINTENANCE HOLEFENCEXEDGE OF PAVEMENT/ / // / // / /TREE - SURVEYEDTREE - APPROXIMATELOCATIONSURVEY - SET CONTROL -HUB AND TACKSTREAM GAUGECATCH BASIN - TYPE IIROWRIGHT OF WAYROADWAY CENTERLINECONCRETE CULVERTSIGNSURVEY - SET CONTROL -PK NAILSURVEY - FOUND -MONUMENT IN CASESFSFCLEAR AND GRUB LIMITSCGCGTREE PROTECTIONTREE REMOVALCLASS A ROCKCOMPOST SOCKIIIIIIIIIIIIHIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCEHVSFPERMEABLE BALLASTCONTOUR - MINORCONTOUR - MAJORCONTOUR - MAJORCONTOUR - MINOR100100PARCEL BOUNDARYSTABILIZED ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETCHAIN LINK FENCEXX GENERAL NOTESG0.03375% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Legend_notes.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:44 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEGENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE WASHINGTON STATEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD,BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, CITY OF RENTON CIVIL CONSTRUCTIONSTANDARDS, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS UNLESSSPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE BY THESE PLANS2. IN CASE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE REGULATORY STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS,THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT SHALL PREVAIL.3. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AT ALLTIMES.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMMENCE WORK UNTIL WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TOPROCEED HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY OWNER.5. A PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND A 24-HOUR NOTICE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TOSTARTING NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ARRANGETHE PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ALL CONCERNED PARTIES (OWNER ANDENGINEER).6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN, REPLACE OR RESTORE ALL VEGETATION INRIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND ACCESS TRACTS THAT IS DISTURBED DURINGCONSTRUCTION BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AT NO COST TOTHE OWNER.7. PROTECT EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, TRAIL, DRIVEWAYS, AND ROADSHOULDERS (PAVED OR GRAVEL) FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. DEMOLISHONLY THOSE FACILITIES INDICATED ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ATTHEIR COST ANY FACILITY TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONTRACTOR'SOPERATIONS.8. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVERCONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.9. VERTICAL DATUM SHALL BE NAVD 88 AND HORIZONTAL DATUM SHALL BE NAD 83 (WASTATE PLANE, NORTH), UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY. REFERENCEBENCHMARK, DATUM, AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE PLANS.SITE PREPARATION NOTES:1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL,AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN (SPCC PLAN) FOR ALL FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1-07.15(1) OFTHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE WSDOT REPORT TEMPLATEREFERENCED IN THAT SECTION.2. TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OFRENTON TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSBILE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITYLOCATIONS WHETHER OR NOT THESE UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITY. IF CONFLICTSWITH EXISTING UTILITIES ARISE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLNOTIFY THE ENGINEER.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL,INCLUDING PROTECTION OF ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR, GRUB, AND REMOVE ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FROMTHE SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES:1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROLDURING CONSTRUCTION ON OR ALONG TRAVELED CITY ROADS PER SECTION 1-10 OFTHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.2. TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OFCONSTRUCTION. INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW SHALL REQUIRE TRAFFICCONTROL.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS,SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDEDACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TOPROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK COVERED BYTHE CONTRACTOR.4. ALL BARRICADES, SIGNS AND FLAGGING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE MUTCD. SIGNS MUST BE LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE AND SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORK DAY IF NOT APPLICABLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION HOURS.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CITY'S APPROVALPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ERECT SIGNAGE ALONG STATE ROUTE 169 TO NOTIFY MOTORISTSABOUT TRUCKS ENTERING AND LEAVING THE HIGHWAY THROUGH THE EXISTINGMAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL.TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:SEE DWGS C2.01-C2.30 FOR TESC PLAN FOR EACH WORK SITE.1. BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OCCURS, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE HELD AMONG THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE CONTRACTOR.4. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS, SENSITIVE AREAS AND THEIR BUFFERS, AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AND TREERETENTION AS PRESCRIBED ON THE PLAN(S) SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED BY FENCING AND PROTECTED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITHAPPENDIX D OF THE CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (RENTON SWDM) PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING THECONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THECONTRACTOR'S ESC SUPERVISOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.5. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THEPROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTED WHEEL WASH SYSTEMS OR WASH PADS, MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PAVEDAREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN AND TRACK-OUT TO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT OCCUR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. IF SEDIMENT IS TRACKEDOFFSITE, PUBLIC ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY, OR MORE FREQUENTLY DURING WET WEATHER, AS NECESSARYTO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING WATERS OF THE STATE.7. ALL REQUIRED ESC BMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENTTRANSPORTATION OF SEDIMENT TO SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ALL ESC BMPS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ASATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION HASPASSED. ALL ESC BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED TO ENSURE POTENTIAL FORON-SITE EROSION DOES NOT EXIST. THE IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, ENHANCEMENT, AND REMOVAL OF ESC BMPS SHALL BETHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.8. ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR LIQUID PRODUCTS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO POLLUTE RUNOFF SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY.9. THE ESC BMPS DEPICTED ON DWGS C2.01-C2.30 ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. ASCONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE ESC BMPSWILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BETHE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY THE ACTIVITIES AND TOPROVIDE ADDITIONAL ESC BMPS, OVER AND ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEDED, TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATERQUALITY OF THE RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM.10. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS FOR ESC ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN, SIZE NOR LOCATION OF PIPES,RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS, OR STORMWATER FACILITIES.12. ANY AREAS OF EXPOSED SOILS, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED FOR TWO DAYS DURING THE WET SEASON(OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH APRIL 30TH) OR SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON (MAY 1ST THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH) SHALL BE IMMEDIATELYSTABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC COVER METHODS (E.G., SEEDING, MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING, ETC.) IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPENDIX D OFTHE RENTON SWDM.13. WET SEASON ESC REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST AND APRIL 30TH, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BYTHE CITY.14. ANY AREA NEEDING ADDITIONAL ESC MEASURES, NOT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS.15. THE ESC BMPS ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH OR WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING ASTORM EVENT. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE SHALL OCCUR MORE FREQUENTLY AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.16. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, CATCH BASIN INSERTS PER THE CITY STANDARD PLAN 216.30 SHALL BE PROVIDED FORALL STORM DRAIN INLETS DOWNSLOPE AND WITHIN 500 FEET OF A DISTURBED OR CONSTRUCTION AREA, UNLESS THE RUNOFF THAT ENTERS THEINLET WILL BE CONVEYED TO A SEDIMENT POND OR TRAP. ALL CATCH BASIN INSERTS SHALL BE PERIODICALLY INSPECTED AND REPLACED ASNECESSARY TO ENSURE FULLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION.17. AT NO TIME SHALL SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION EXCEED 2/3 OF THE CAPACITY OF THE CATCH BASIN SUMP. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINESSHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM.19. AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN(S) CONTAINING EXISTING STORMWATER FACILITIES OR ON-SITE BMPS (AMENDED SOILS, BIORETENTION,PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, ETC.) SHALL BE CLEARLY FENCED AND PROTECTED USING ESC BMPS TO AVOID SEDIMENTATION AND COMPACTION DURINGCONSTRUCTION.20. PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1ST), ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES SHALL BESODDED OR SEEDED IN PREPARATION FOR THE WINTER RAINS. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THEBEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON. AN EXHIBIT OF THOSE AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND THOSE AREAS TO REMAIN UNCOVERED SHALL BESUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW.21. PRIOR TO FINAL CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE, THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER FROM LEAVING THEPROJECT SITE, ALL ESC BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED, AND STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, FACILITIES, AND ON-SITE BMPS SHALL BE RESTOREDTO THEIR FULLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE VEGETATED OR OTHERWISE PERMANENTLYSTABILIZED. AT A MINIMUM, DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHED TO ENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT COVER WILL DEVELOPSHORTLY AFTER FINAL APPROVAL. MULCH WITHOUT SEEDING IS ADEQUATE FOR AREAS TO BE LANDSCAPED BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST. 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW O H W OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /PARCEL NO.2323059021PARCEL NO.2323059118PARCEL NO.2323059020PARCEL NO.2323059070PARCEL NO.2314301000PARCEL NO.2323059028SHEETS C2.01, C3.01SHEETS C2.20,C3.20, L1.03SHEETS C2.30,C3.30, L1.04SHEETS C2.10, C3.10, L1.01SHEETS C2.10, C3.11, L1.0275% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\3 C-1.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:50 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEEXISTING CONDITIONS AND KEY TOPLAN SHEETSC1.014SEDIMENT BASINMADSEN CREEKWETLAND, TYPWONDERLAND ESTATESHIGH FLOW BYPASSLOW FLOW CHANNELSR-169HIGH FLOW BYPASSCRITICAL AREASBUFFER BOUNDARY, TYPCULVERTSGRAVEL ACCESS ROAD600601201"=60'RON REGIS PARK149TH AVE SESITE 1SITE 2SITE 3SITE 4MADSEN CREEKKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONCITY OF RENTONKING COUNTYPROJECT LIMITS, TYPEXISTING EASEMENTPARCEL BOUNDARYSURVEY NOTES:1. DATA USED FOR THIS SURVEY WAS GATHERED BY PGS.2. WETLAND AND OHW DELINEATION BY HERRERA ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTANTS (2018) AND SURVEYED BY PGS (2018).THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY IS NAVD88HELD WSDOT MONUMENT GPS17169-351ELEVATION = 63.49THE BASIS OF BEARING WASHINGTON STATE PLANE NORTH ZONE 83/2011. WEST LINE OF THE SW 14OF SECTION 23-23-5 AS SHOWN (N2° 06' 50"E) VERIFIED TIES TO WSDOT MONUMENTS DESIGNATIONGP17169-353 (ID NO. 8460) AND WSDOT MONUMENT DESIGNATION GP17169-351 (ID NO. 8458)VERTICAL DATUMBASIS OF BEARINGBUFFER MITIGATIONPLANTING AREA OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W O HW OHWOHW O H W OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWIIIIIISITE 1 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLANC2.01575% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:51 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESEDIMENT BASINEX HIGH FLOW BYPASSMADSEN CREEKMADSEN CREEKLOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETE BOXCULVERT (11.8' x 3.0')EX HIGH FLOW BYPASS WEIR (~118 FT)10010201"=10'WONDERLAND ESTATESEXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADEXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADSILT FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.15-02, TYP5:1PROJECT LIMITS, TYPGENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FORABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.7:1PROTECT FENCE IN PLACECOMPOST SOCK PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.40-02 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:51 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 2 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLANC2.10620020401"=20'MADSEN CREEKHIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNELMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWWONDERLAND ESTATESNOTES:1. TREES SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATION.EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADBIGLEAF MAPLE 24" DBHLOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETE BOX CULVERTFOR LOW FLOW CHANNELSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE PER CITY OF RENTONSWDM SECTION D.2.1.4.1SILT FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.15-02, TYPDISTURBANCE / CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITS, TYPTREE REMOVAL, TYP2:12:1 MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE2:12:1 2:1GENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.EASEMENT LIMITS, TYPCOMPOST SOCK PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.40-02EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, TYPREMOVE EXISTING FENCE WITHINPROJECT LIMITS, APPROX 380 LFTREE PROTECTION, TYPRED ALDER 23" DBHNORWAY MAPLE 27" DBHCOMMON HAWTHORN 16" DBHNORWAY MAPLE 14" DBHOREGON ASH 6" DBHCHERRY SP 11" DBH 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /// / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /XXXIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:51 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 3 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLANC2.20710010201"=10'PRUNE BRANCHES ON NORTH SIDE TOHEIGHT OF 24 INCHES ABOVE GROUND LEVELAND OTHERWISE PROTECT EX TREES/HEDGEWONDERLAND ESTATESPAVED PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAEX CULVERTMADSEN CREEKREMOVE EX VEGETATION IN12 FOOT ACCESS CORRIDORREMOVE EX VEGETATION IN12 FOOT ACCESS CORRIDORCURB AT EDGE OF PAVEMENTNOTES:1. PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS.2. PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWN.EXISTING TELEPHONE POLE (EXISTINGGUY WIRE TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS)REMOVE 16 LF OF EX CHAIN LINK FENCEAND POST(S) AND REPLACE IN KIND UPONCOMPLETION OF BERM CONSTRUCTIONSEE NOTE 2SR 169WETLANDDISTURBANCE / CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITS2:12:1GENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.COMPOST SOCK PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.40-02 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/11/2021 12:47 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 4 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLANC2.308REMOVE ECOLOGY BLOCKWALL (APPROX 60 LF)10010201"=10'REMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING FENCE AS NECESSARYREINFORCE EXISTING WOOD BRIDGE WITHSTEEL PLATE DURING CONSTRUCTIONMAD S E N C R E E K EX CONCRETE CULVERTEX DRIVEWAYKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONHIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE PERWSDOT STANDARD PLAN I-30.17-01NOTES:1. PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS.2. PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWNWITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.3. IN AREA CLEARED FOR BERM CONSTRUCTION ON NORTH SIDE OFCREEK CHANNEL, SALVAGE DOWNED TREES (NONE ARE LARGERTHAN XX-INCH DIA TRUNK) FOR PLACEMENT ON THE GROUND NEARTHE BERM AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.SEE NOTE 2PROTECT EXISTING FENCE AND GATESTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PERCITY OF RENTON SWDM SECTION D.2.1.4.1 ONSOUTH EDGE EXISTING UNPAVED DRIVEWAY149TH AVE SETEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ANDDISTURBANCE / CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITSSR 169CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERWETLAND, TYPEXISTING LAWN AREA TO BE CLEAREDFOR NATIVE MITIGATION PLANTINGS2:12:1GENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.EXISTING EASEMENT FROM WSDOTSTREAM MODIFICATION PROJECT OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OH O H W O HW OHWOHW O H W OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW10 FT MIN,SEE NOTE 310 FT MIN,SEE NOTE 3SITE 1 - SITE PLANC3.01975% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:55 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESEDIMENT BASINMADSEN CREEK LOWFLOW CHANNELMADSEN CREEKHIGH FLOW BYPASSEX CONCRETE BOXCULVERT (11.8' x 3.0')EX HIGH FLOW BYPASS WEIR (~118 FT)10010201"=10'WONDERLAND ESTATESINSTALL RISER TO MATCH PROPOSED GRADEPER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD DETAIL 400.1EX RIM = 124.37 FTPROP RIM = 126.00 FTEXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADGRAVEL ACCESS ROAD ON BERM, SEE SECTION C/C4.10EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADNOTES:1. SEE ARMORED SPILLWAY SECTION, SHEET C4.10, FORSUBSURFACE TREATMENTS.2. KEY NEW SPILLWAY RIPRAP INTO EXISTING RIPRAP IN BOTTOM OFDOWNSTREAM CHANNEL.3. GRADING FOR BERM EMBANKMENT AND ACCESS ROAD TO TIE INTOEXISTING GRADES AT ENDS OF OF PROJECT WHERE NOTED.HOWEVER, EXISTING ACCESS ROAD DOES NOT MEET CURRENTWIDTH STANDARDS IN ALL LOCATIONS.GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD ONBERM, SEE SECTION C/C4.10GENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.SPILLWAY WITH SPILLWAYROCK MIX, SEE SECTION A/C4.10CUT: 160 CYFILL: 350 CY TOTAL3/4 IN to 1-1/2 IN COARSE AGGREGATE FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 100 CYBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 30 CYCRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 80 CYCRUSHED SURFACING BOTTOM COURSE 80 CYCLASS A ROCK FOR EROSION AND SCOUR PROTECTION 60 CySEE NOTE 3SEE NOTE 3SEE NOTE 3TIE INTO EXISTING GRADES ON GRAVEL ROADAC4.10BC 4 . 1 0 PROJECT LIMITS, 6,300 SFCC4.1048' ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104108961001041080+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00EG 107.45FGEG 106.38FGEG 103.96FGEG 104.05FGSTA: 1+80.00EG: 103.95FG: 103.80STA: 2+31.05EG: 103.11FG: 102.51STA: 2+90.00EG: 102.65FG: 101.37STA: 3+50.00EG: 102.02FG: 101.20STA: 4+00.00EG: 101.84FG: 101.06-2.52%-2.52%75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:56 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 0+00 - 4+00C3.101020020401"=20'MADSEN CREEKHIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNELMATCHLINE - SEE DWG C3.11WONDERLAND ESTATESNOTES:1. STOCKPILE SUITABLE DREDGED MATERIAL FOR REUSE IN BERM.2. SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL.3. TREES SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATION.4. CONNECT NEW FENCE AT NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS TO EXISTINGFENCE USING A NEW PULL POST.EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROADCHANNEL DREDGING AND WIDENING (500 LF)HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - UPPER HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL: STA 0+00 - 4+001-1"=20'1"=10'EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GROUNDGENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.PROJECT LIMITS, 27,300 SFCUT: 325 CYFILL: 240 CY TOTALBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 120 CYCRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 20 CYBERM PLANTING SOIL 100 CYINSTALL NEW FENCE ALIGNED WITHEASEMENT BOUNDARY, CHAIN LINK TYPE 3PER WSDOT STD PLAN L-20.10-03, SEE NOTE 4 ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104108961001041084+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+25STA: 4+60.00EG: 101.25FG: 100.89STA: 5+10.00EG: 100.79FG: 100.75STA: 5+70.00EG: 100.46FG: 100.58STA: 6+20.00EG: 99.94FG: 100.44EG 98.34FGEGFG-0.28%-0.28%SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 4+00 - 7+25C3.111175% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:57 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATE20020401"=20'MATCHLINE - SEE DWG C3.10LOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETE BOX CULVERTFOR LOW FLOW CHANNELEX CONCRETE BOXCULVERT UNDER SR 169ELEVATE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROLBERM (430 LF), BERM EMBANKMENT FILLPER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSNOTES:1. STOCKPILE SUITABLE DREDGED MATERIAL FOR REUSE IN BERM.2. SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL.3. CONNECT NEW FENCE AT NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS TO EXISTINGFENCE USING A NEW PULL POST.PROJECT LIMITS, 27,300 SFCHANNEL DREDGING AND WIDENING (500 LF)HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - UPPER HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL: STA 4+00 - 7+251-1"=20'1"=10'EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GROUNDLOW FLOW CHANNEL CULVERTSR 169GENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.CHANNEL AND BERMDC4.10INSTALL NEW FENCE ALIGNED WITHEASEMENT BOUNDARY, CHAIN LINK TYPE 3PER WSDOT STD PLAN L-20.10-03, SEE NOTE 3CUT: 325 CYFILL: 240 CY TOTALBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 120 CYCRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 20 CYBERM PLANTING SOIL 100 CY 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /// / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /XXX0+001+001+25L23L27C1ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104961001040+00 0+50 1+00 1+25EG 103.15FGSTA: 0+50.00EG:FG: 103.00STA: 1+00.00EG:FG: 103.00EG 101.65FG75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:57 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 3 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILEC3.201210010201"=10'NEW LEFT BANK BERM(215 LF)WONDERLAND ESTATESPAVED PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAEX CULVERTMADSEN CREEKBC4.11INSTALL RISER TO MATCH PROPOSED GRADEPER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD DETAIL 400.1CURB AT EDGE OF PAVEMENTNOTES:1. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN ACCESSCORRIDORS AND BERM FOOTPRINT AREA.2. PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS.3. SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL.4. PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWNWITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.EXISTING TELEPHONE POLE (EXISTINGGUY WIRE TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS)SEE NOTE 4SR 169HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - LEFT BANK BERM1-1"=10'1"=5'WETLANDPROJECT LIMITSPROPOSED GROUND, TOP EL = 103'EXISTING GROUNDVISUAL BUFFER BETWEENLiDAR AND SURVEYTOPOGRAPHY, TYPQUANTITIESCLEARING AND GRUBBING 1,120 SFOVEREXCAVATION FOR BERM SUBGRADE PREP 10 CYBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 25 CYBERM PLANTING SOIL 35 CYAC4.11ALIGN NORTHERN END OF BERMTO PROTECT TALL SHRUBSCONCRETE MASONRY UNIT WALLWITH MORTARED SEAMSEXISTING ARBORVITAE HEDGETIE INTO HIGH GROUND BYCREEK CULVERT OUTLETTIE INTO BERM 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y0+001+001+19L28L29L30L31PARCEL NO. 232305907015214 149TH AVE SEZONED AS URBAN RESERVE (UR)PARCEL NO. 2323059028ZONED AS RESOURCE CONSERVATION (RC)ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104961001040+00 0+50 1+00 1+19EG 100.45FGSTA: 0+50.00EG: 101.12FG: 101.40STA: 1+00.00EG: 100.48FG: 101.40EG 101.35FG75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:58 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 4 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILEC3.301310010201"=10'NEW RIGHT BANK BERM(115 LF)REINFORCE EXISTING WOOD BRIDGE WITHSTEEL PLATE DURING CONSTRUCTIONMAD S E N C R E E K CC4.11EX CONCRETE CULVERTEX DRIVEWAYKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONNOTES:1. SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL.2. PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWNWITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.SEE NOTE 2149TH AVE SEPROJECT LIMITS / TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LIMITSR 169PROPOSED GROUND, TOP EL = 101.4'EXISTING GROUNDHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:PROFILE - RIGHT BANK BERM1-1"=10'1"=5'115' CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERGENERAL NOTES:1. SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.QUANTITIESCLEARING AND GRUBBING 1,050 SFREMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS 1 LSOVEREXCAVATION FOR BERM SUBGRADE PREP 5 CYBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 31 CYBERM PLANTING SOIL 20 CYSITE AREA IN RENTON = 1,490 SFSITE AREA IN KING COUNTY = 2,270 SFEXISTING EASEMENT, TYP ALGN - SITE 2 - ALIGNMENT DATA#L1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10START STA.0+00.000+14.420+59.501+48.112+31.053+52.694+43.415+73.716+18.476+66.24START COORDINATESN: 171,929.80 - E: 1,316,802.23N: 171,944.02 - E: 1,316,804.61N: 171,987.92 - E: 1,316,814.89N: 172,074.55 - E: 1,316,833.51N: 172,155.57 - E: 1,316,851.24N: 172,274.20 - E: 1,316,878.11N: 172,362.75 - E: 1,316,897.87N: 172,490.02 - E: 1,316,925.80N: 172,533.82 - E: 1,316,934.98N: 172,579.84 - E: 1,316,947.82LENGTH14.42'45.08'88.61'82.93'121.64'90.72'130.30'44.76'47.78'58.58'DIRECTIONN09°28'53"EN13°11'01"EN12°07'47"EN12°20'39"EN12°45'44"EN12°34'37"EN12°22'42"EN11°50'37"EN15°34'54"EN11°22'55"EELEV BERM OFFSET TOP OF BERM FG ROAD OFFSET ROAD FG107.45107.31105.76104.00102.51101.19100.94100.57100.45100.3116.18 RT15.55 RT14.29 RT14.25 RT14.79 RT107.25106.01105.50105.01104.8216.54 LT15.83 LT19.86 LT105.49105.22104.93ALGN - SITE 3 - ALIGNMENT DATA#L23C1L27START STA.0+00.000+18.841+20.00START COORDINATESN: 172,693.03 - E: 1,316,708.67N: 172,674.58 - E: 1,316,704.87N: 172,646.74 - E: 1,316,800.00DELTA (Δ)87° 32' 46"RADIUS4.00'TANGENT3.83'LENGTH18.84'6.11'5.00'DIRECTIONS11°38'33"WS75°54'13"EALGN - SITE 4 - ALIGNMENT DATA#L28L29L30L31START STA.0+00.000+21.030+75.191+13.02START COORDINATESN: 172,895.60 - E: 1,316,645.31N: 172,880.89 - E: 1,316,660.34N: 172,839.91 - E: 1,316,695.75N: 172,832.09 - E: 1,316,732.76LENGTH21.03'54.16'37.83'6.20'DIRECTIONS45°37'56"ES40°49'21"ES78°04'24"ES08°38'06"EELEV103.15103.00101.64ELEV100.45101.37101.37101.37ALIGNMENT HORIZONTAL CONTROLC4.011475% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:58 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATENOTE: NO DATA MEANS EQUATES TO EXISTING CONDITIONS. 2.0'5.0'7171216 IN18 INVARIES PER PLAN10' MINVARIES PER PLAN10' MIN18"18"EASEMENTROAD 8.6'7.78'4.00'6" FREEBOARDVARIESVARIES PER PLAN10' MIN75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:01 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 1 AND 2 - SECTIONSC4.1015HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - TYPICAL ARMORED SPILLWAY AT SITE 1AC3.01NTSNTSEXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDEXISTING CONCRETE BOX CULVERTNOTES:1. SPILLWAY ROCK MIX TO CONSIST OF 18 IN MIN DEPTH CLASS A ROCK FOR EROSION AND SCOURPROTECTION PER SECTION 9-13.4 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. EACH LIFT BACKFILLEDWITH PERMEABLE BALLAST PER SECTION 9-03.9(2) IF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TO FILLVOIDS AND CREATE A SOLID DRIVEABLE SURFACE. EACH LIFT COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXDENSITY PER METHOD C OF SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.2. TOP ELEV OF PROPOSED ROAD AND BERM VARIES.3. PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET BETWEEN BERM EMBANKMENTSOIL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)b OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS,COMPACTED PER SECTION 2-03.3(14)COF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, TYP6 IN DEPTH BEDDING ROCK WITH 34 IN TO112 IN COARSE AGGREGATE FOR PORTLANDCEMENT CONCRETE PER SECTION 9-03.1(4)OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FOR SOILSTABILIZATION PER SECTION 9-33 OFTHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSSPILLWAY ROCK MIXSEE NOTE 1HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:DETAIL - TYPICAL CHANNEL AT SITE 2DC3.10NTSNTSBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSEXISTING GROUNDFINISHEDGRADEREMOVE SEDIMENTAND VEGETATIONKEY BASE OF BERM INTOSUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHTABOVE EXISTING GROUND100-YR WL ELEVBERM PLANTING SOILOHWSEE NOTE 3HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - TYPICAL ARMORED SPILLWAY AT SITE 1BC3.01NTSNTSEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSED GROUND, ELEVATION 124.0EXISTING CONCRETE BOX CULVERTEXISTINGCONCRETEWEIREX IE=116.9EX IE=117.8EXISTING SEDIMENT BASINHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD ON BERMCC3.01NTSNTSSPILLWAY CRESTELEVATION 124.0EXISTINGGROUND6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING BASECOURSE PER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OFTHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSEPER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONSTO EX HIGH FLOWBYPASS CHANNELWHERE REQUIRED TO MEET SUBGRADE,PLACE COMPACTED BERM EMBANKMENTSOIL, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING BASECOURSE PER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OFTHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, TYP6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSEPER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OF THESTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, TYPBERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS,COMPACTED PER SECTION 2-03.3(14)COF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSPROPOSEDGROUND1976 CHANNEL DESIGN211.51 ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104961001040+000+25WETLANDELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104961001040+000+404.0'WETLANDWETLANDELEVATION IN FEETSTATION96100104961001040+000+404.0'21WETLAND75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:02 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATESITE 3 AND 4 - SECTIONSC4.1116HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - TYPICAL CMU WALL AT SITE 3BC3.20NTSNTSCONCRETE MASONRY UNITBLOCK WALL WITH MORTAREDSEAMS, SEE NOTESNOTES:1. PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETBETWEEN BERM FILL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)BOF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.EXISTINGGROUNDSURFACE100-YR WLELEV 101.70FLOOD CONTROL BERMTOP ELEV = 101.4 FTREMOVE ECO-BLOCK WALLEXISTING GROUND SURFACEKEY BASE OF BERM INTO SUBSURFACE50% OF HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GROUNDMADSENCREEK 100-YRWL ELEV 100.35BERM PLANTING SOILBERM EMBANKMENT FILL PER SECTION9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSHORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - TYPICAL BERM AT SITE 4CC3.30NTSNTSSEE NOTE 1FLOOD CONTROL BERMTOP ELEV = 103 FTEXISTINGGROUNDSURFACEKEY BASE OF BERM INTOSUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHTABOVE EXISTING GROUND100-YR WLELEV 101.70BERM PLANTING SOILBERM EMBANKMENT FILLPER SECTION 9-03.16 OFTHE SPECIAL PROVISIONSSEE NOTE 1HORIZ. SCALE:VERT. SCALE:SECTION - TYPICAL BERM AT SITE 3AC3.20NTSNTSCONCRETE MASONRY UNIT (CMU) WALL NOTES:1. CREATE SMOOTH, FLAT GROUND SURFACEALONG WALL ALIGNMENT WITH MINIMALEXCAVATION TO PROTECT TREE ROOTS.2. PLACE 8"x8"x16" CMU BLOCKS IN 2 VERTICALROWS, INSTALLING REBAR ANCHORING ASWALL LENGTH IS COMPLETED PER SPECIALPROVISIONS.PRUNED ARBORVITAE HEDGE211.51211.51 APPENDIX B Mitigation Planting Plan SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLANL1.0117 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:10 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATER. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTER10010201"=10'MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNELLEGEND:THPLALRUALNUS RUBRATHUJA PLICATASITE 1 NATIVE SHRUB ZONEPSMEPSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESIITSHETSUGA HETEROPHYLLAEROSION CONTROL SEED MIXEXISTING TREESNOTES:1. PLACE 4-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH MULCH RINGAROUND EACH TREE. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCHDEPTH, MULCH RING AROUND EACH SHRUB2. ENGINEER SHALL FLAG ALL TREES FOR REMOVAL.A CERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST INSPECT TREESREQUIRING REMOVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL,CLEARING, OR GRADING ACTIVITIES.SITE 2 NATIVE SHRUB ZONE SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLANL1.0218 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:11 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATER. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTER10010201"=10'MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNELLEGEND:THPLALRUALNUS RUBRATHUJA PLICATANATIVE SHRUB ZONEPSMEPSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESIITSHETSUGA HETEROPHYLLAEROSION CONTROL SEED MIXEXISTING TREESNOTES:1. PLACE 4-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH MULCH RINGAROUND EACH TREE. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCHDEPTH, MULCH RING AROUND EACH SHRUB2. ENGINEER SHALL FLAG ALL TREES FOR REMOVAL.A CERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST INSPECT TREESREQUIRING REMOVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL,CLEARING, OR GRADING ACTIVITIES. Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y1Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /XXXSITE 3 - PLANTING PLANL1.0319 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:11 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATER. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTER10010201"=10'SR 169MADSEN CREEKLEGEND:NATIVE SHRUB ZONEGROUNDCOVER ZONETEMPORARY ACCESS PATH, REPLACEDIN-KIND WITH NATIVE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBSBERM PLANTING -NATIVE SHRUBS ANDBARK MULCHNOTES:1. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH,MULCH RING AROUND EACHSHRUB.2. AVOID DISRUPTINGEXISTING ARBORVITAEHEDGE DURING CONSTRUCTION.EXISTING LAWN TO BE REPLACED IN-KIND 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100YALRUTHPLTHPLTHPLTHPLSITE 4 - PLANTING PLANL1.0420 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:12 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATER. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTER10010201"=10'MADSEN CREEKLEGEND:THPLALRUALNUS RUBRATHUJA PLICATANATIVE SHRUB ZONEGROUNDCOVER ZONEBERM PLANTING -EROSION CONTROL SEED MIXAND NATIVE SHRUBSNOTES:1. PLACE 4-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH MULCH RING AROUNDEACH TREE. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH, MULCHRING AROUND EACH SHRUB.2. ENGINEER SHALL FLAG ALL TREES FOR REMOVAL. ACERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST INSPECT TREESREQUIRING REMOVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL,CLEARING, OR GRADING ACTIVITIES.3. NO EQUIPMENT ACCESS, STORAGE, OR STOCKPILINGSHALL OCCUR WITHIN WETLANDS AND SENSITIVEAREAS.4. PRESERVE NATIVE WILLOW SHRUBS TO MAXIMUMEXTENT PRACTICAL.KING COUNTYCITY OF RENTON149TH AVE SESR 169CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER SCALE:DETAIL - TYPICAL SITE 2 PLANTING1-NTSSCALE:DETAIL - TYPICAL SITE 3 PLANTING3-NTS1. PLANT GROUNDCOVERS, SHRUBS, AND TREES AS SHOWN ON PLAN.GROUNDCOVERS AND SHRUBS SHALL BE IN CLUSTERS OF UNEVENNUMBERS (E.G. THREE, FIVE, SEVEN, ETC.)2. PLANTS SHALL BE ARRANGED SO THAT AS THEY MATURE, THEY GROW INTO MASSINGS AND FULLY COVER THE SOIL SURFACE.3. PROVIDE A 3 FOOT RADIUS MULCH-ONLY AREA AROUND EACH TREE AND A2 FOOT RADIUS MULCH-ONLY AREA AROUND EACH SHRUB.SCALE:DETAIL - PLANTING LAYOUT2-NTSPLANTING LAYOUT NOTES:TREE, TYPGROUNDCOVERSHRUB, TYPSCALE:DETAIL - TYPICAL SITE 4 PLANTING4-NTSPLANT SCHEDULE AND PLANTING DETAILSL1.1021 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Details.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:14 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATEBERM EMBANKMENT FILLBERM PLANTING SOILNATIVE SHRUBS PLANTED TOORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW)100-YR WLMADSEN CREEKHI-FLOW BYPASSNATIVE SHRUBS ONBERM AND ADJACENTTO THE BERMACCESS ROADEROSION CONTROL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIXEROSION CONTROL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIXPROPOSED GRADEEXISTING GRADE100-YR WLNATIVE FLOWERING SHRUBS TOREPLACE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBSWONDERLAND ESTATESMADSEN CREEKEXISTING ARBORVITAE SHRUB TO REMAINNATIVE GROUNDCOVERBETWEEN BERM AND CREEK12" DEEP BERMPLANTING SOILBERM EMBANKMENT FILL100-YR WLMADSEN CREEKBERM EMBANKMENT FILL12" DEEP AVG BERMPLANTING SOILMADSEN CREEK100-YR WLMADSEN CREEKNATIVE SHRUBS ANDGROUNDCOVERON BERMNATIVE PLANTINGS ALONGWETLAND EDGER. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERWETLANDOHWWETLAND BACKFILLED AMENDED SOILFOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF PLANTS, PLACE MULCHLAYER AROUND BASE OF PLANT. MULCH SHALL BE 3"THICK. ENSURE MULCH IS KEPT AWAY FROM PLANTTRUNKS AND STEMS TO PREVENT ROTTING9BUILD A SMALL SOIL BERM RING AT PLANTDRIP LINE TO INCREASE WATER RETENTION8WHILE BACKFILLING, FIRM SOIL AROUNDPLANT GENTLY WITH HANDS TO ELIMINATEAIR POCKETS. DO NOT INJURE ROOTSYSTEM WHILE BACKFILLING ANDCOMPACTING. ALL ROOTS SHALL BEBURIED BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE7ROOT-SHOOT INTERFACE SHALL BEAT SOIL SURFACE. DO NOT BURYTREE COLLAR WHERE TRUNKFLARE OCCURS IN ORDER TOAVOID ROTTING DUE TO BURIAL6PLACE PLANT ROOTS INTO PLANTING HOLE ON TOP OF SOILMOUND AND GENTLY SPREAD ROOTS OUT EVENLY WITH FINGERS,CAREFUL NOT TO CAUSE HARM OR DAMAGE TO ROOTS. NOBUNCHING, J-ROOTING, OR TANGLING OF ROOTS SHALL OCCUR5BUILD A SMALL SOIL MOUND IN CENTER OF PLANTING HOLE TOPROVIDE A STABLE BASE FOR PLANTING THE TREE OR SHRUB.COMPACT SOIL MOUND TO REDUCE SOIL SETTLING EFFECTS4ROUGHEN SIDES OF PLANTINGHOLE WITH SHOVEL OR SPADE3REMOVE ROOTS, ROCKS, ANDWOODY DEBRIS LARGER THAN 2INCHES FROM PLANTING HOLE.REMOVE ALL WEEDS ANDDEBRIS FROM PLANTING AREA2EXCAVATE PLANTING HOLE 2x THE ROOTWIDTH AND 1.5x ROOT DEPTH WITHENOUGH ROOM TO ALLOW ROOTS TO BESPREAD DOWNWARDS AND LATERALLYTHROUGHOUT THE SOIL PROFILE. EDGESOF THE PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE CUTPERPENDICULARLY TO THE SOIL SURFACE1SCALE:DETAIL - CONTAINER TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING3-NTSFINISHED GROUNDPLANT AT SAME LEVEL ASGROWN IN CONTAINERPLANTING HOLE/EXCAVATION 2XGREATER THANROOTBALL ORCONTAINER WIDTH24" DIA SHRUB OR 36" DIA TREE BARKCHIP MULCH RING, 3" THICK LAYER,KEEP AWAY FROM TRUNK OF PLANTEXCAVATE SOIL FOR PLANTING TO DIMENSIONSSHOWN. FIRM SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL AND WATERTO SETTLE. DO NOT LEAVE AIR POCKETS. DO NOTDAMAGE ROOTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONSREMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING.DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS GENTLY LOOSENAND SPREAD ROOTS AT BOTTOM OF ROOTBALLSCALE:DETAIL - LIVE STAKE PLANTING4-NTS1. STAKES MUST BE 1/2" TO 1" DIAMETER AT BASE OF STAKE.2. STAKES WILL HAVE MINIMAL WARPING OR BENDS, BEING MOSTLYSTRAIGHT IN FORM, FOR EASE OF PLANTING.LIVE STAKE PLANTING NOTES:PLANT LIVE STAKE WITH MIN 2LATERAL BUDS ABOVE GRADEMINIMUM 2/3 OF LENGTH BELOW GROUNDPRE-DIG HOLE BEFORE INSERTINGLIVE STAKE, TAMP SOIL TOREMOVE AIR POCKETSBASE DIAMETERSCALE:DETAIL - BALL AND BURLAP (B&B) PLANTING/STAKING1-NTS12" MIN1/2(5' MIN)2" MAX1/2TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE"(3) 2x2 STAKES. PLACE INTRIANGULAR SPACING AROUND TREE.TREE ROOTBALL. SET ROOT CROWNAT 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.COARSE COMPOST: 2" DEPTH,4' DIA. ALLOW 2" CLEARANCEFROM TRUNKFINISHED GROUNDBACKFILL WITH SOIL REMOVED FROM HOLESCARIFY SUBGRADEWIDTH OF PLANTING PIT IS 3TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL.REMOVE BINDINGS BEFORE BACKFILLING.12" MIN1/2(5' MIN)2" MAX1/2TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE"(3) 2x2 STAKES. PLACE INTRIANGULAR SPACING AROUND TREE.TREE ROOTBALL. SET ROOT CROWNAT 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.COARSE COMPOST: 2" DEPTH,4' DIA. ALLOW 2" CLEARANCEFROM TRUNKFINISHED GROUNDBACKFILL WITH SOIL REMOVED FROM HOLESCARIFY SUBGRADEWIDTH OF PLANTING PIT IS 3TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL.REMOVE BINDINGS BEFORE BACKFILLING.SCALE:DETAIL - BARE ROOT TREE OR SHRUB PLANTING2-NTSPLANTING DETAILSL1.1122 75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Details.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:14 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPM ME 07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBY APP'D DATER. GLEASONJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTERJ. WAGGONERK. FORESTER APPENDIX C Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for Design and Permitting of Flood Control Improvements and Evaluation of Floodplain Fill Mitigation WATERSHED SCIENCE & ENGINEERING · 506 2nd Ave, Suite 2700, Seattle, WA 98104 · 206-521-3000 Memorandum To: Amanda Pierce, City of Renton From: Kaleb Madsen, Watershed Science & Engineering Mark Ewbank, P.E., Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Date: March 10, 2021 Re: Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project—Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for Design and Permitting of Flood Control Improvements and Evaluation of Floodplain Fill Mitigation INTRODUCTION Watershed Science & Engineering and their subconsultant Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) was retained by the City of Renton to investigate causes of flooding and propose design solutions to reduce flooding along the lower Madsen Creek network. An existing conditions report was developed in 2019 identifying the sources of flooding and provided several potential solutions to mitigate 100-year flooding. The City chose multiple solutions at four sites for design and construction. The improvements include constructing berms and a small floodwall along the low flow channel, constructing a berm along the high flow bypass channel, and the removal of sediment accumulation in the high flow bypass channel to improve flood conveyance capacity. The proposed improvements are within regulated critical areas and will require mitigation and permitting. Hydraulic modeling was done to support the design and permitting of the modifications to the Madsen Creek network. The modeling and existing conditions also determined the design approach for providing compensatory flood storage to offset displaced flood storage, due to placement of berm fill in regulated floodplain areas. PROPOSED DESIGN PLANS AND INFORMATION NEEDED FOR PERMITTING The project proposes several berms and a small floodwall adjacent to existing stream channels to contain flood flows in three areas (Sites 2, 3, and 4 in the project design plans). WSE utilized the existing hydraulic model to determine the necessary design for flood control improvements to contain the Madsen Creek 100-year peak flood flow. The model and proposed improvements are not designed to protect against extreme flooding within the Cedar River. The flood containment berms and wall are within the Cedar River floodplain and require mitigation. The berm and floodwall at Site 3, as well as a berm at Site 4, will displace existing flood storage in a regulated floodplain. The proposed flood containment facilities at Sites 2 and 3 are entirely located within city limits. The proposed berm at Site 4 will be partially in King County jurisdiction. Therefore, the displaced flood storage and required mitigation at Site 4 needs to address King County code requirements in addition to City requirements. The City plans to provide compensatory flood storage (as required by City and County codes) for all of the berm fill and floodwall impacts in mapped floodplain areas via widening a portion of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel (which extends from the Madsen Creek sediment basin at the upstream end to the Cedar River at the downstream end). The City also plans to redefine the originally Page | 2 constructed (in 1976) high flow bypass channel bed in conjunction with improvements at Site 2, providing necessary capacity for flood protection. The design plans need to satisfy City engineering standards for freeboard in the 100-year flood event within the Madsen Creek network, while also serving as a basis for defining impacts to regulated critical areas for permitting purposes and mitigating those impacts. The rationale for the proposed design plans is presented below, followed by a discussion of project impacts and mitigation in regulated floodplain areas. This memo also documents analysis of the area inundated by the peak 2-year flood flow through the high flow bypass channel in existing conditions as a surrogate for the ordinary high water mark along that channel, which is essential information needed for permitting of impacts to wetland and stream buffers. SEDIMENT REMOVAL NEEDED TO RESTORE ORIGINAL HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL GEOMETRY The high flow bypass channel was constructed in 1976 to convey high flows in Madsen Creek directly to the Cedar River. Figure 1 shows the high flow bypass channel elevation profile with the bottom surface elevation as surveyed in 2018 and the original (1976) channel bottom elevation profile based upon best available data. The 1976 design consists of a channel profile and one typical cross-section applicable to the length of the bypass channel upstream of State Route (SR) 169. In the absence of “as-built” detail, the City necessarily assumes that this information reflects what was built in 1976. The original design profile shows the channel tied into the top of the low flow channel (LFC) concrete box culvert (at elevation 96.4), graded upstream at a slope of 0.28 percent for 395 feet, then at a slope of 2.52 percent from there upstream to the sediment basin outlet. The LFC culvert was rebuilt by WSDOT in the early 1990s and is shown in as-built drawings prepared by WSDOT as being 0.1 foot higher (elevation 96.5) than the original top-of-box elevation but in the same location. The WSDOT as-built drawings also match well between the original and new location of the high flow bypass culvert under SR 169, as well as in comparison to recent survey data for the height of the concrete wall on the upstream end of the low flow channel culvert. Given that the 1976 bypass channel design tied directly into the top of the LFC box culvert, and the top of the rebuilt LFC culvert was 0.1 foot higher, this comparison assumed that the original design profile of the high flow bypass channel should be assumed to be 0.1 foot below the top of the existing LFC box culvert (which is definitively surveyed) and then extended upstream per the original design profile slopes and typical channel cross-section. A topographic surface model was constructed using these parameters to define the extents of sediment removal in the bypass channel to restore the 1976 channel design geometry. This volume of sediment removal is estimated to be 200 cubic yards (54 cubic yards below 100-year floodplain and 146 cubic yards above), and is considered to be maintenance of the channel to restore it to historical conditions for the purposes of the City’s Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife specific to the high flow bypass system. Figure 2 shows a typical cross-section in the midst of Site 2 with the originally constructed (and as proposed to be restored) channel geometry. It is assumed that the finished grade of the original channel bed and banks was at the top of a 1-foot-thick layer of riprap shown in the original design cross-section. ADDITIONAL BYPASS CHANNEL WIDENING FOR COMPENSATORY FLOOD STORAGE The mapped floodplain area that overlaps with Sites 2 and 3 does not have a defined 100-year flood peak water surface elevation (it is a “Zone A” flood hazard area on the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map Page | 3 [FEMA 2017]). It is assumed that the water surface elevation in those areas during the 100-year flood would be controlled by backwater from the Cedar River floodplain to the north of State Route (SR) 169 (Renton-Maple Valley Road), and thus the mapped 100-year flood elevation (also called the base flood elevation [BFE]) on the north side of the highway (102.5 feet [NAVD88]) is a reasonable basis for determining the peak 100-year flood level at Sites 2 and 3. Mitigation for displaced flood storage associated with berm and floodwall construction at Site 3, and berm construction at Site 4, requires an additional 64 cubic yards of flood storage below elevation 102.5 feet and contiguous with the existing Cedar River floodplain straddling SR 169. The high flow bypass channel is within the same flow conveyance network as Sites 3 and 4, while also being directly connected with the existing Cedar River backwater floodplain area upstream of SR 169. Adjusting the high flow bypass channel geometry beyond channel maintenance allows for the creation of additional flood storage capacity to effectively mitigate for displaced flood storage caused by the project. Deepening of the channel beyond the 1976 channel bed and banks would result in major changes to the hydraulics of the channel, adjacent structures, and the City’s existing easement for channel maintenance. Thus, the City’s design team chose to widen the bypass channel to create the necessary flood storage, reduce impacts, and retain the channel integrity. The high flow bypass channel will be widened 2.25 feet to the east – while retaining the 1976 channel bed surface elevation profile and re-creating the 1976 side slopes of the channel on both sides. A total of 125 cubic yards of excavation will occur below elevation 102.5 feet, of which 71 cubic yards is added flood storage and the remaining 54 cubic yards are maintenance to restore the historic channel capacity. The 71 cubic yards of added flood storage will be used to compensate for 71 cubic yards of displaced flood storage at Sites 3 and 4 as documented later in this memorandum. SITE 2 BERM DESIGN FOR 100-YEAR FLOOD CONTAINMENT The proposed berm along the east side of the widened high flow bypass channel at Site 2 will be raised to contain the 100-year peak flood flow with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard per the City’s design standards. The 6 inches of freeboard is based on the modeled 100-year Madsen Creek flood flows and not the 100-year flood inundation depicted on Cedar River FEMA flood insurance rate maps, as the Madsen Creek flood elevations are higher. The berm is designed to have a low-permeability core of compacted soil with topsoil for riparian plantings surrounding the core. The top elevation of the berm core is set to be equivalent to 6 inches above the simulated 100-year peak water surface elevation profile through the length of Site 2, with the proposed channel geometry modifications accounted for. This will assure that floodwaters cannot erode the portion of the berm that provides flood containment. The topsoil on the berm will promote lush vegetation growth, which is needed to offset project impacts to wetland and stream buffers. SIMULATED 2-YEAR FLOOD INUNDATION IN THE HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL Permitting of the proposed improvements also requires defining the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream channels in relation to stream buffer impacts. Herrera delineated the OHWM of the Madsen Creek low flow channel at Sites 3 and 4 as part of field work to document existing environmental critical areas in 2018. The OHWM was not delineated in the high flow bypass channel since there is no “ordinary” flow within channel that create visual indicators of the OWHM on the channel banks. However, permitting of the work proposed at Site 2 requires analysis of stream buffer impacts and the OHWM in a stream Page | 4 channel is the City’s standard basis for assessing such impacts. The hydraulic model was also used as a basis for defining the OHWM at Site 2, using the simulated 2-year flood inundation area as a surrogate for the OHWM. The 2-year flood elevation throughout the bypass channel was used as an acceptable determination of the OHWM based upon the Department of Ecology’s Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (2016). Figure 3 presents existing conditions model results for the 2-year flood event as a surrogate for the OHWM, used for calculating stream buffer impacts. HYDRAULIC MODELING SUMMARY FOR DESIGN OF SITES 2 AND 3 The Madsen Creek hydraulic model is a 2-dimensional, unsteady flow, HEC-RAS model. It was constructed using LiDAR and survey topography. Hydrology was developed using precipitation records, a stream gage record, and a numerical hydrologic simulation. The original hydraulic model was based on the existing conditions survey, but it was modified to simulate various design improvements throughout the system. The model was used to determine the height and length of the proposed flood containment berm on the east side of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 and the dimensions of a floodwall and flood containment berm on the south side of the low flow channel at Site 3. The flood improvements at Sites 2 and 3 are designed to contain 100-year flood flows with sufficient freeboard to satisfy City of Renton design requirements for flood containment performance. FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE 2 A proposed design surface, representing the high flow bypass channel after sediment removal, and adjacent berm installation at Site 2, was input into the hydraulic model to evaluate performance. Iterative adjustments in the design were tested with the model to yield the optimum design configuration. The final design surface was then modeled for the 100-year recurrence flood event peak flow to yield a water surface elevation profile for use in confirming the top elevation of the low permeability berm core fill needed for sufficient freeboard. The model also confirmed that berming the east side of the bypass channel will reduce the probability that 100-year flood flows will overtop the existing maintenance access driveway on the west side of the channel. As stated previously, a peak 100-year flood elevation of 102.5 feet (NAVD88) was used to calculate the volume of fill in the regulated floodplain at Site 2. The berm fill to be placed above existing ground at Site 2 is all above elevation 102.5 feet, and therefore berm construction at this site will not displace any existing flood storage. FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE 3 The design for Site 3 includes a small berm on the Wonderland Estates property adjacent to the Madsen Creek low flow channel, and a small floodwall extending to the east across City-owned land in front of (north of) a single-family residential property with the same top elevation as the berm. The berm will tie into high ground at the west end where the low flow channel enters a culvert under SR 169. The west end of the floodwall will tie into the east end of the berm. The east end of the floodwall will tie into high ground near the outlet end of the culvert that conveys the Madsen Creek low flow channel beneath the high flow bypass channel. Page | 5 Figure 4 shows a cross-section of the Madsen Creek low flow channel and the proposed berm on the left bank side of the channel at Site 3. Calculating the volume of flood storage displaced by the floodwall and the berm fill below the 100-year flood elevation used the same backwater base flood elevation of 102.5 feet (NAVD88) as at Site 2. This is because the high flow bypass and low flow channels are currently hydraulically linked in the 100-year flood backwater pool that forms upstream of SR 169. The volume of proposed berm fill above existing ground level (which ranges in elevation from 101 to 102 feet) and below elevation 102.5 feet will be 30.5 cubic yards at Site 3. The volume of flood storage displaced by a small concrete masonry unit floodwall equates to 8 inches wide in plan view and 90 feet in total length. This type of thin concrete wall will displace approximately 2.5 cubic yards of existing flood storage below elevation 102.5 feet. Thus, the total floodplain fill at Site 3 is estimated to be 33 cubic yards. Mitigation for that displaced flood storage will occur via widening beyond the as-built high flow bypass channel geometry at Site 2 as described above. FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE 4 Figure 5 shows a cross-section of the Madsen Creek low flow channel and the proposed berm on the right bank side of the channel at Site 4. The 100-year flood elevation used to calculate fill proposed in the floodplain at this site is 102.0 feet (NAVD88), taken from FEMA (2017). The berm at Site 4 is not meant to provide flood protection for the private residence north of the Madsen Creek low flow channel when the Cedar River is in a 100-year flood condition, as that residence and others to the north of it are within the river’s floodplain. The top of the berm is designed at an elevation that would be completely submerged in a 100-year flood event in the river. The berm is meant to reduce the risk of flooding during a 100-year event or less within Madsen Creek. The net volume of berm fill placement, minus the removed volume of existing concrete blocks and soil below elevation 102.0 feet, is estimated to be approximately 38 cubic yards. The average existing ground elevation where the berm will be placed ranges from 99 to 101 feet. Mitigation for that displaced flood storage will occur via widening the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 as described above. SUMMARY OF FLOOD STORAGE DISPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION Table 1 lists the amount of displaced flood storage at each of Sites 2, 3, and 4, and the volume of created flood storage at Site 2 within the high flow bypass channel. Table 1. Flood Storage Displacement and Mitigation. Displaced Flood Storage Flood Storage Created Site 2: 0 cubic yards Site 2: 71 cubic yards Site 3: 33 cubic yards Site 3: none Site 4: 38 cubic yards Site 4: none Total: 71 cubic yards Total: 71 cubic yards FLOOD HAZARD CERTIFICATION The portion of the project that is within King County jurisdiction requires a flood hazard certification, specifically for berm construction within the mapped floodplain at Site 4. King County requires a flood hazard certification be prepared by a licensed professional engineer as a condition of floodplain permit approval. Attachment A to this memorandum contains the flood hazard certification form, based upon Page | 6 the information presented in the body of this memorandum and the floodplain shown on Figure 3 in the Mitigation Plan report to which this memorandum is appended. Page | 7 REFERENCES Anderson, P.S.; S. Meyer; P. Olson; and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Ecology. Publication 1606029. Washington State Department of Ecology. FEMA. 2017. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 53033C0984G. US Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. September 15. WSDOT. 1993. SR 169 196th Ave. S.E. / Jones Road to Maplewood as-built design plans. Washington State Department of Transportation. WSE. 2019. Final Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood & Sediment Assessment. Prepared for the City of Renton Public Works. Watershed Science & Engineering, Seattle, Washington. March 20. Page | 9 ATTACHMENT A– FLOOD HAZARD CERTIFICATION Page | 10 Project Name: ______________________________________________________________ Parcel Number(s): ______________________ DPER Permit Number:__________________ This form is current as of August 29, 2013. Section A.1 (to be completed by applicant or applicant’s engineer) Site Location Within Floodplain The proposed development site lies at least partially within the King County regulatory floodplain based on review and determination from any of the following sources: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Panel #____________________ Panel date:____________ Special Study as required by section 4.4.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual Other: (please note source)________________________________________________________________ Zero-Rise Analysis Based on section 21A.24.250 of the King County Code, and section 4.4.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the proposed development cannot create a measurable change to the water surface elevation or energy grade line for the 100- year flood event (base flood elevation). This is to be determined and certified by a registered professional engineer using standard methods and practices accepted by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) and will be referred to as a “zero-rise analysis”. Based on a review of the potential impacts of this project, a “zero-rise analysis”: Is required. Completion of Section B of this form by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a condition of the issuance of this permit. Is not required for the following reasons: Elevating or improvement to an existing structure without increasing the foundation footprint of the structure. Post and pier foundation system with no significant impedance to flow. Coastal “A”, “VE”, “AE” zone. Shallow flooding area (AO/AH zone) not adjacent to a riverine system. (Explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Ineffective flow area. (Explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Proposed project lies within a hydraulic shadow. (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Other (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ King County Flood Hazard Certification The goal of Section A.1 is to identify the type and location of the flood hazards on the project parcel and identify study requirements. If the proposed project does not meet the exemptions listed under Zero-Rise Analysis, Compensatory Storage Analysis, or Base Flood Depth and Base Flood Velocity Analysis, then you may need to do the specific analysis. If there are flooding issues on the project parcel, but they are not mapped, then you may need to do the specific analysis. Find FEMA Map information at http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/maps.aspx or go directly to FEMA’s site https://msc.fema.gov Madsen Creek Flooding Improvements Project 2323059070 X 0984G 9/15/2017 X Compensatory Storage Analysis: Based on section 21A.24.240 of the King County Code, the proposed development cannot reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain, and must provide compensatory storage if grading or other activity displaces any effective flood storage volume. This is to be determined and certified by a registered professional engineer using standard methods and practices accepted by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) and will be referred to as a “compensatory storage analysis”. Based on a review of the potential impacts of this project, a “compensatory storage analysis”: Is required. Completion of Section B of this form by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a condition of the issuance of this permit. Is not required for the following reasons: Elevating or improvement to an existing structure without increasing the foundation footprint of the structure. Post and pier foundation system with no significant reduction in flood storage. Grading or fill placed within the foundation of an existing residential structure to bri ng the interior foundation grade to the same level as the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Other (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Base Flood Depth and Base Flood Velocity Analysis Based on section 21A.24.240 of the King County Code, development proposals and alterations are not allowed if the base flood depth exceeds three feet and the base flood velocity exceeds three feet per second. This is to be determined and certified by a registered professional engineer using standard methods and practices accepted by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) and will be referred to as a “base flood depth and base flood velocity analysis ”. Based on a review of the potential impacts of this project, a “base flood depth and base flood velocity analysis”: Is required. Completion of Section B of this form by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a condition of the issuance of this permit. Is not required for the following reasons: The structure is an agricultural structure and will not be used for human habitation . Elevating or improvement an existing structure without increasing the foundation footprint of the structure. Other (explain) __________________________________________________________________________________ Submitted by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ Applicant or Applicant’s Engineer Section A.2 (to be completed by the DPER Drainage Engineer when applicable) DPER Drainage Engineer Certification (For sites in unmapped flood hazard areas) The development proposal site is not within the unmapped flood hazard area based on inspection of the site, and therefore further flood hazard review is not required. The development proposal does not involve any site disturbance, clearing, or grading, and therefore only requires a permit or approval under K.C.C. chapter 16.04 or 17.04. Further flood hazard review is not required. Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ DPER Drainage Engineer X X X This is a flood hazard mitigation project that will improve flooding conditions for nearby land Mark Ewbank, PE 11/12/2020 Section B (to be completed by the applicant’s engineer) I have considered the hazards represented on Panel __________________ of the Flood Insurance Study for King County, dated _________________, _______, and the supporting documentation for DPER Permit Number_______________. I have also searched for and considered all other available information including: Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (P-FIRMs); Preliminary Flood Insurance Studies; Draft flood boundary work maps and associated technical reports; Critical areas reports prepared in accordance with FEMA standards set forth at 44 C.F.R. Part 65 and consistent with the King County Surface Water Design Manual provisions for floodplain analysis set forth at section 4.4.2; Letter of Map Amendments (LOMAs); Letter of Map Revisions (LOMRs); Channel migration zone maps and studies; Historical flood hazard information; and Site topography and ground elevations. All sources are clearly identified in the attached report. In addition, I have created new data where existing sources are not sufficient to assure compliance, and the attached report clearly documents my methods and assumptions. I certify that the attached technical data supports the fact that this submitted design will meet requirements for protection of floodplain storage and floodplain conveyance, as well as base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements, as set forth in King County Code, Title 21A. Compliance is achieved as described below. Code Requirement Analytical Methodology (check one or more) Engineering Certification Required? No impact to 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations and floodway widths (no encroachments or obstruction of floodwaters). No reduction in floodplain conveyance both onsite and on adjacent properties, during 100-year flood event (“zero-rise” floodplain). Hand calculations showing that flood conveyance (K=1.49/n AR2/3) will equal or exceed existing values at every location. Yes HEC-RAS analysis showing that neither the water surface nor the energy grade will rise by even 0.01 feet at any location when proposed conditions are compared to existing conditions. Yes Other. See attached information.Yes Compensatory floodplain storage provided (no net fill). Volumetric calculations to show that compensatory storage provides equivalent volume at equivalent elevations to that being displaced, and is hydraulically connected to the source of flooding. For this purpose, equivalent elevations means having similar relationship to ordinary high water and to the best available ten-year, fifty-year and one-hundred-year water surface profiles; Yes Other. See attached information.Yes Base flood depth does not exceed 3 feet or base flood velocity does not exceed 3 feet per second. Base flood depth and base flood velocity mapping and data show less than 3 feet depth or less than a velocity of 3 feet per second at the project location. Yes Other. See attached information.Yes Attached are all support data and calculations. _____________________________________________ Signature _____________________________________________ Date _____________________________________________ Name and Title _____________________________________________ Company _____________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________ City, State, Zip Professional Engineer’s stamp, if methodology requires certification. The goal of Section B is to identify and present which analytical methodologies were used to demonstrate compliance with the King County Code. This section shall be completed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington when an analysis is required per Section A. 0984G X November 12, 2020 Mark Ewbank, Principal Engineer Herrera Environmental Consultants 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98121-1820 May 16 1995 Section C (to be completed by the DNRP, RFMS engineer) Based on a review of the subject development proposal, the River and Floodplain Management Section of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks determines the following: No flood hazard analysis is required. A flood hazard analysis is required and the development proposal meets the zero rise, compensatory storage, and base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements of King County Code 21A.24.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.4.2. This determination does not include a review of the other flood hazard areas standards in King County Code 21A.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260, 21A.24.270, and 21A.24.272. A flood hazard analysis is required and the development proposal meets the zero rise, compensatory storage, and base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements of King County Code 21A.24.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.4.2; however this approval is with additional comments or conditions (DNRP, RFMS shall provide comments in an e-mail or another written format to DPER). A flood hazard analysis is required and the development proposal does not meet the zero rise, compensatory storage, and base flood depth and base flood velocity requirements of King County Code 21A.24.24.240, 21A.24.250, 21A.24.260 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.4.2. Reason(s) not approved: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ DNRP, RFMS Engineer Page | 11 FIGURES Page | 12 STATION1160+500+77ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108112961001041081120+000+501+001+502+002+50ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108112961001041081122+503+003+504+004+505+00ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104108112961001041081125+005+506+006+507+007+25O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 1.High Flow Bypass ChannelBottom Elevation Profile UnderExisting and ProposedConditions.EXISTING CHANNEL BOTTOMPROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOMSEDIMENT REMOVAL100-YEAR FLOOD (MODELED, EXISTING CONDITIONS)100-YEAR FLOOD (MODELED, PROPOSED CONDITIONS) ELEVATION IN FEET96100104108 112961001041081120+000+400+70EASEMENTROAD 8.6'EXISTINGPROPOSED1976 CHANNEL DESIGNCUT BELOW BFEBFE (102.5 FT)100-YR FLOOD (MODEL)COMPACTED FILLTOPSOILO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 2.Proposed High Flow BypassDesign Cross-section at Site 2LEGENDEXISTING GROUND SURFACEPROPOSED GROUND SURFACE1976 CHANNEL DESIGN TYP SECTION100-YR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION 0 80 16040Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\GISWorking\HydraulicModelingReprt\Fig3-2-yearHFB.mxd Figure 3. Existing Conditions 2-Year Modeling Results for the Upper High Flow Bypass.E King County (2019) Legend 2-Year Water Surface Elevation High : 110 Low : 100 Cut Grade Fill Grade ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+40O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 4.Proposed Design Cross Sectionat Site 3.LEGENDEXISTING GROUND SURFACEMAPPED 100-YEAR FLOOD BACKWATERPROPOSED BERM ELEVATION IN FEET STATION96100104961001040+000+40O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Exhibits\HydraulicReport\Figures.dwgFigure 5.Proposed Design Cross Sectionat Site 4.LEGENDEXISTING GROUND SURFACEMAPPED 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION, 102.0 FTPROPOSED BERM APPENDIX D 2004 Wetland Rating Forms Wetland E 7/12/18 Rated by Yes No Date: 2015 Oct. SEC: 23 TWNSHP: 23 RNGE: 05E Figure C2 560 SQFT Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV 20 18 14 52 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland III Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) II Wetland Class Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Wetland name or number: Date of site visit: Map of wetland unit: Estimated size: Does not Apply Estuarine Bog Mature Forest Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Riverine Slope Lake-fringe WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Madsen Creek Project - Wetland E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Wetland Type FlatsOld Growth Forest Anna Hoenig Trained by Ecology? Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score <30 Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for functions SUMMARY OF RATING Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Interdunal Check if multiple HGM classes are present Freshwater Tidal None of the above Coastal Lagoon Comments: Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? YES NO SP1. SP2. SP3. SP4. To complete the next part of the data sheet, you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated . The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered (T/E) plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any state listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1. NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) 2. NO - go to 3 YES - the wetland class is Flats 3. NO - go to 4 YES - the wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. NO - go to 5 YES - the wetland class is Slope Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? 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 rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. xx). If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe 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 feet in diameter and less than 1 foot deep). 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, indentify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply and go to Question 8. 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. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e., except during floods)? At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 m)? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ). The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5. NO - go to 6 YES - the wetland class is Riverine 6. NO - go to 7 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 7. NO - go to 8 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 8. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Slope + Depressional Lake-fringe Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide.) Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Slope + Riverine Riverine 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 once every two years. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water? The wetland seems to be maintained by higher ground water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary HGM Classes Within a Delineated Wetland Boundary Class to Use in Rating If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. R 1.Points R 1.1 Points = 8 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 0 Figure __ R 1.2 Points = 8 Points = 6 Points = 6 Points = 3 Points = 0 Figure __ R 2. Multiplier 2 Other: If depressions >1/2 of area of unit, draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover <1/2 area of wetland Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland Depresssions cover >1/2 area of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 feet of wetland Add score to table on p. 1 Multiply the score from R 1. by R 2. The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediments, toxic compounds, or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above Ungrazed, herbaceous plants >1/3 area of the unit Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous <1/3 area of unit Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) No depressions are present R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Trees or shrubs >2/3 area of the unit Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p. 52) WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs >1/3 area of the unit Ungrazed, herbaceous plants >2/3 area of the unit Grazing in the wetland or within 150 feet Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Provide photo or drawing Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources but any single source would qualify as an opportunity. NO - multiplier is 1YES - multiplier is 2 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types 10 2 8 20TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. R 3.Points R 3.1 Points = 9 Points = 6 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Figure __ R 3.2 Points = 7 Points = 4 Points = 0 Figure __ 9 R 4. Other:Multiplier 2 Forest or shrub for >1/10 area OR herbaceous plants >1/3 area HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream erosion. 2 Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p. 54) Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: If the ratio is more than 20 18 If the ratio is between 10 - 20 Add score to table on p. 1 YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is <1 Multiply the score from R 3. by R 4.TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Vegetation does not meet above criteria If the ratio is 1 - <5 Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply: Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p.57) 7 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands If the ratio is 5 - <10 Aerial photo or map shoing polygons of different vegetation types Aerial photo or map showing average widths There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants >2/3 area Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub". Choose points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes). Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.Points H 1.1 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.2 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.3 >19 species Points = 2 5-19 species Points = 1 <5 species Points = 0 3 1 Total for page 1 1 Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 sq. ft. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75) Saturated only Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). If the unit has a forested class, check if: Map of hydroperiods Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present 4 structures or more 3 structures 1 type present Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? 2 types presentOccasionally flooded or inundated Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) 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. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points If you counted: 2 structures 1 structure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin). Size threshold for class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants List species below if you want to: Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.4 Points [riparian braided channels] H 1.5 2 2 7 Standing snags (diameter at the bottom >4 inches) in the wetland. Moderate = 2 points Note: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. Comments: At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed presistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ). None = 0 points Low = 1 point Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver/muskrat for denning (>30° slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned brown/gray ). NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet long). Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 feet (10 m). High = 3 points Special Habitat Features (see p. 77) Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1) or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.Points H 2.1 Points = 5 Points = 4 Points = 4 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Points = 1 Figure __ H 2.2 H 2.2.1 H 2.2.2 H 2.2.3 1 Aerial photo showing buffers 0 within 5 miles (8 km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >50% of circumference. 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >25% circumference. Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? Buffers (see p. 80) Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) NO = go to H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland) at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and paved roads are considered breaks in the corridor.) NO = 0 pointsYES = 1 point Total for page Heavy grazing in buffer. Vegetated buffers are <2 m wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland). If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >50% circumference. No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80 feet) of wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. No paved areas or buildings within 50 m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use ). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland: within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size? 1 NO = go to H 2.2.3YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.3 Points 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has: Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. No habitats = 0 points 3 Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152 ). Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions Near or Adjacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Oregon white Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is 25% (full descrptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 ). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each 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 ). Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, number 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. Caves: 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. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report pp. 167- 169 and glossary in Appendix A). Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (1 acre). Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. 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. 1 priority habitat = 1 point Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Points = 5 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 0 14Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H1 and H2, and record the result on p. 1 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 7 3 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development). There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 1.0 SC 1.1 SC 1.2 The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has <10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover >10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? NO = Go to SC 1.2 Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Category Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three conditions? YES - Go to SC 1.1 YES = Category I NO = Category II Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. NO - not an estuarine wetland Estuarine Wetlands (see p. 86) Vegetated, and YES = Category I The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands. Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 2.0 Category SC 2.1 NO SC 2.2 SC 3.0 1. 2. 3. 4. NO - go to Q. 2YES - go to Q. 3 YES - go to Q. 3 Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are <16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic oils.) Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES - contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 YES = Category I Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? NO - not a Heritage wetland Bogs ( see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetations in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state Threatened or Endangered plant species? Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30% coverage of total shrub/herbaceous cover )? NO - not a bog for purpose of rating YES - is a bog for purpose of rating NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. NO - go to Q. 4 YES = Category I NO - not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 4.0 Category SC 5.0 SC 5.1 NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions? Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? 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 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NO - not a forested wetland w/ special characteristics Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland in a coastal lagoon? NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. 200-year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). YES = go to SC 5.1 The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at leat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 square feet). YES = Category I YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 6.0 Category SC 6.1 SC 6.2 Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1. Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105 In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas: Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) NA YES = Category II NO - go to SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 1115 and SR 109. Is wetland 1 acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger? If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Wetland F 6/26/18 Rated by Yes No Date: 2015 Oct. SEC: 23 TWNSHP: 23 RNGE: 05E Figure 322 SQFT Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV 16 18 11 45 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland III Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) III Wetland Class Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Comments: Score for Hydrologic Functions Interdunal Check if multiple HGM classes are present Freshwater Tidal None of the above Coastal Lagoon Anna Hoenig Trained by Ecology? Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score <30 Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for functions SUMMARY OF RATING Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Water Quality Functions WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Madsen Creek Project - Wetland F Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Wetland Type Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Riverine Slope Lake-fringe FlatsOld Growth Forest Does not Apply Estuarine Bog Mature Forest Wetland name or number: Date of site visit: Map of wetland unit: Estimated size: Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? YES NO SP1. SP2. SP3. SP4. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered (T/E) plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any state listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet, you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated . The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1. NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) 2. NO - go to 3 YES - the wetland class is Flats 3. NO - go to 4 YES - the wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. NO - go to 5 YES - the wetland class is Slope At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 m)? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ). The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. 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, indentify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply and go to Question 8. 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. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e., except during floods)? YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe 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 feet in diameter and less than 1 foot deep). Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? 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 rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. xx). If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5. NO - go to 6 YES - the wetland class is Riverine 6. NO - go to 7 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 7. NO - go to 8 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 8. If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Depressional + Lake-fringeDepressional Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary HGM Classes Within a Delineated Wetland Boundary Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine 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 once every two years. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water? The wetland seems to be maintained by higher ground water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. Lake-fringe Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide.) Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Slope + Depressional Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. R 1.Points R 1.1 Points = 8 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 0 Figure __ R 1.2 Points = 8 Points = 6 Points = 6 Points = 3 Points = 0 Figure __ R 2. Multiplier 2 Other: 16TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types 8 2 6 YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 Trees or shrubs >1/3 area of the unit Ungrazed, herbaceous plants >2/3 area of the unit Grazing in the wetland or within 150 feet Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Provide photo or drawing Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources but any single source would qualify as an opportunity. No depressions are present R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Trees or shrubs >2/3 area of the unit Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p. 52) WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Ungrazed, herbaceous plants >1/3 area of the unit Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous <1/3 area of unit Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediments, toxic compounds, or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 feet of wetland Add score to table on p. 1 Multiply the score from R 1. by R 2. Depressions present but cover <1/2 area of wetland Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland Depresssions cover >1/2 area of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging If depressions >1/2 of area of unit, draw polygons on aerial photo or map Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. R 3.Points R 3.1 Points = 9 Points = 6 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Figure __ R 3.2 Points = 7 Points = 4 Points = 0 Figure __ 9 R 4. Other:Multiplier 2Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike. Aerial photo or map showing average widths There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants >2/3 area Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub". Choose points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes). 7 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands If the ratio is 5 - <10 Aerial photo or map shoing polygons of different vegetation types Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p.57) If the ratio is 1 - <5 Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply: There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Vegetation does not meet above criteria Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is <1 Multiply the score from R 3. by R 4.TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Add score to table on p. 1 YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 18 If the ratio is between 10 - 20 If the ratio is more than 20 Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p. 54) Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Forest or shrub for >1/10 area OR herbaceous plants >1/3 area HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream erosion. 2 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.Points H 1.1 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.2 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.3 >19 species Points = 2 5-19 species Points = 1 <5 species Points = 0 3 List species below if you want to: Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points If you counted: 2 structures 1 structure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin). Size threshold for class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants 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. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? 2 types presentOccasionally flooded or inundated Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Map of hydroperiods Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present 4 structures or more 3 structures 1 type present Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 sq. ft. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75) Saturated only Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). If the unit has a forested class, check if: Total for page 1 1 1 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.4 Points [riparian braided channels] H 1.5 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1) or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 feet (10 m). High = 3 points Special Habitat Features (see p. 77) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Note: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. Comments: At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed presistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ). None = 0 points Low = 1 point Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver/muskrat for denning (>30° slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned brown/gray ). NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom >4 inches) in the wetland. Moderate = 2 points 4 0 1 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.Points H 2.1 Points = 5 Points = 4 Points = 4 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Points = 1 Figure __ H 2.2 H 2.2.1 H 2.2.2 H 2.2.3 1 1 NO = go to H 2.2.3YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? Is the wetland: within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size? YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3 ) Heavy grazing in buffer. Vegetated buffers are <2 m wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland). If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >50% circumference. No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80 feet) of wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. No paved areas or buildings within 50 m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use ). Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) NO = go to H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland) at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and paved roads are considered breaks in the corridor.) NO = 0 pointsYES = 1 point Total for page 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >50% of circumference. 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >25% circumference. Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? Buffers (see p. 80) within 5 miles (8 km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR 0 Aerial photo showing buffers Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.3 Points 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 2 priority habitats = 3 points Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report pp. 167- 169 and glossary in Appendix A). Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (1 acre). Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. 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. 1 priority habitat = 1 point Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each 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 ). Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, number 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. Caves: 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. Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions Near or Adjacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152 ). Oregon white Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is 25% (full descrptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 ). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft. Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 If wetland has: Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. No habitats = 0 points 3 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Points = 5 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 0 11 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. 3 7 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development). Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H1 and H2, and record the result on p. 1 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 1.0 SC 1.1 SC 1.2 Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, YES = Category I Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. NO - not an estuarine wetland Estuarine Wetlands (see p. 86) Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands. YES = Category I NO = Category II Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three conditions? YES - Go to SC 1.1 Category The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has <10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover >10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? NO = Go to SC 1.2 Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 2.0 Category SC 2.1 NO SC 2.2 SC 3.0 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30% coverage of total shrub/herbaceous cover )? NO - not a bog for purpose of rating YES - is a bog for purpose of rating NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. NO - go to Q. 4 YES = Category I NO - not a bog for purpose of rating NO - not a Heritage wetland Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic oils.) Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES - contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 YES = Category I Bogs ( see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetations in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state Threatened or Endangered plant species? Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are <16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? NO - go to Q. 2YES - go to Q. 3 YES - go to Q. 3 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 4.0 Category SC 5.0 SC 5.1 YES = Category I NO = Category II At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 square feet). YES = Category I Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland in a coastal lagoon? NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. 200-year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). YES = go to SC 5.1 The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at leat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ). NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions? Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? 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 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NO - not a forested wetland w/ special characteristics Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 6.0 Category SC 6.1 SC 6.2 If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. NA YES = Category II NO - go to SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 1115 and SR 109. Is wetland 1 acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger? If you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1. Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105 In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas: Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) YES - go to SC 6.1 NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. APPENDIX E Arborist Survey of Trees Potentially Impacted Along Madsen Creek High Flow Bypass Channel 2200 Sixth Avenue | Suite 1100 | Seattle, Washington | 98121 | p 206 441 9080 | f 206 441 9108 SEATTLE, WA | PORTLAND, OR | MISSOULA, MT | OLYMPIA, WA | BELLINGHAM, WA pjj apxe_18-06779-001_madsencreektreesurvey_20200504_rev1.docx May 4, 2020 Amanda Pierce City of Renton Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way, Fifth Floor Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Arborist Survey of Trees Potentially Impacted Along Madsen Creek High Flow Bypass Dear Amanda Pierce: On April 23, 2020, I visited the project site to perform an assessment of trees that may be impacted by project construction at what is being called flood containment berm “Site 2” in the project design plans along the east side of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel. Trees species were identified, and each tree was measured for caliper (diameter at a height of 4.5 feet above ground) and dripline radius. Trees were also visually assessed for health, vigor, and significant signs of structural defects, disease or decline. Risk assessments are outside of the scope of this investigation. Trees were not tagged in the field. The summarized findings of this assessment are included in the table below and in the body of this letter report. ● Seven (7) trees were identified within or adjacent to the project limits at Site 2 ● Six (6) trees have greater than 8-inch caliper for alder and cottonwood species and greater than 6-inch caliper for other species. One tree (Tree 5) has a 5.8-inch caliper. ● Six (6) of the 7 trees are between the high flow bypass channel and a fence that borders the adjacent field. ● Tree 2 is on the east side of the fence. Tree 2 is in decline and is likely not structurally sound. ● Trees numbered 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 will need to be removed for project construction. Tree 1 is close to the southern end of proposed excavation within the excess flow channel and should have tree protection measures installed prior to construction. Tree 6 is close to the proposed berm construction work but may be preserved dependent on final design, if mechanical injury and compaction to the inner critical root zone can be avoided. Amanda Pierce May 4, 2020 Page 1 Table 1. Tree Observations. Tree ID Species DBH (inches) Adjusted DBH (inches) Dripline Radius feet) Health Comments Proposed Action 1 Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) 10.5, 16.3, 14.8 24.4 25 Excellent Multi-stem tree with all three stems originating within the first 2.5 feet of the trunk (typical of species). Tree has excellent vigor with a high live crown ratio of 80 to 90 percent. Crown is symmetrical, dense, and has few dead branches or defects. Retain 2 Red alder (Alnus Rubra) 11.5, 16.2, 12.4 23.4 18 Poor Multi-stem tree with all three leaders originating at about 18 inches from base. Tree is in a moderate state of decline including die back of large limbs and epicormic spouting. The central leader has a cavity with column of decay and evidence of carpenter ants (insect frass). Mechanical injury (6 inches plus) to leaders, large un-callused flush cut (12 inches plus) near base. Remove due to development and viability 3 Norway maple (Acer platanoides) 12.3, 13.8, 13.7, 11.11, 8.0 26.8 19 Good Multi-stem tree with high angle attachments and included bark; all five leaders originating within 1 to 2 feet of the base. Tree has good vigor with high live-crown ratio (80 to 90 percent). One of the five leaders is partially girdled by sapsucker injury and is less vigorous than the rest of the tree. One leader has an 8-inch cavity that is now mostly callused over. Has exposed roots in adjacent channel. Remove due to development 4 Common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) 4.7, 3.8, 6.6, 3.7, 9.9, 4.6, 6.3 15.9 10 Excellent Multi-stem tree (typical of species) with high angle attachments and included bark; all seven leaders originating with 3 feet of the base. Tree is growing vigorously with a dense crown and very high live crown ratio (95 percent). One leader has an approximately 2-foot longitudinal wound due to limb tear out. Has exposed roots in adjacent channel. Remove due to development 5 Norway maple (Acer platanoides) 8.1, 7.8, 7.2, 4.2. 14 15 Fair Multi-stem tree with high angle attachments and included bark; all four leaders originating within 1 foot of the base. Tree is in a delayed state of leafing out compared to Tree 2. Mechanical injury to leaders, root flare, and roots. Remove due to development Amanda Pierce May 4, 2020 Page 2 Table 1 (continued). Tree Observations. Tree ID Species DBH (inches) Adjusted DBH (inches) Dripline Radius feet) Health Comments Proposed Action 6 Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) 5.8 5.8 8 Good Tree is in early stages of leafing out at the time of inspection but appears healthy. Trunk has two, 15 to 20-degree bends in it within the first 6 feet from base, but no signs of decay or damage are evident. Retain (dependent on final design if impact to inner critical root zone can be avoided) 7 Cherry sp. (Prunus sp.) 8.0, 7.3 10.8 10.5 Poor-Fair Co-dominant stemmed tree with swelling at union, high angle attachment, and included bark. Bark is also sluffing near co-dominant union and is expressing gummosis. Remove due to development and viability Amanda Pierce May 4, 2020 Page 1 Definitions 1. Tree ID: Trees are identified by number in this report and their locations are shown on the attached site plan. 2. Species: Common name (Genus species). 3. Caliper (equivalent to diameter at breast height, or DBH): individual measurements of stem diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level. 4. Adjusted DBH: Calculated for multi-stem trees, where Adjusted DBH equals the square root of the sum of each individual stem DBH squared, i.e., Adjusted DBH = √(DBH1² + DBH2² + DBH3²). 5. Dripline Radius: The horizontal distance from the trunk to the furthest edge of the canopy, averaged across two axes. 6. Health: An assessment of overall vigor and vitality of the tree. Rated as Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent based on assessment of crown density, leaf color and size, active callusing (wound wood), shoot growth rate, extent of crown dieback, cambium layer health, and tree age. o Poor: Tree has significant structural or health issues, is unable to close wounds, and is in rapid decline. o Fair: Tree has below average vitality and ability to respond to pests or injury for an individual of its species and age. o Good: Tree has minimal defects and is growing vigorously for its species and age. If wounds are present, they are being effectively closed and compartmentalized. o Excellent: Tree is an ideal specimen with no obvious flaws. 7. Proposed Action: o Retain: Tree can be retained. A tree protection plan is appropriate to ensure health of the tree during construction. o Remove due to viability: Tree is in decline or may be expected to fail in part or in whole. o Remove due to development: Tree will need to be removed to complete construction or will be unavoidably severely and adversely affected by construction activities. Amanda Pierce May 4, 2020 Page 2 Certification I, Ian David Crickmore, Certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. That the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and that they are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. 3. That I have no present or perspective interest in the property or plants that is the subject of this report, and that I had no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. That my compensation is not contingent upon a predetermined value or direction and that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent event. 5. That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, and conforms to current ANSI A300 Best Management Practices and Industry Standards. 6. The report is based on the information known to me at the time of my assessment. If more information is disclosed, I may have further opinions. 7. The report is based on my analysis time of the assessment, and covers that time frame only, any additional limitations are addressed in the body of the report and/or in the attachments. 8. That all the statements of fact in the report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. A field examination of the site was made for this report (date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources in a timely fashion. Therefore, all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist can neither guarantee or be held responsible for the accuracy of information provided by any outside sources. 2. Any and all information provided in this report covers only the trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection. This inspection was limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, or excavation. There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that Amanda Pierce May 4, 2020 Page 3 any deficiencies or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in the future or that failure of a tree may not occur at any time for unforeseen reasons. 3. The drawing submitted with this report is intended as a visual aid only; it is not exactly to scale. 4. The certified arborist/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend court for any reason considering this report unless subsequent contractual agreements are made. 5. Any alterations made to this report automatically invalidates this report. 6. Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by anyone other than the person for whom it was created, without prior express written permission and oral consent of the certified/consulting arborist. 7. The report and values/opinions expressed represent the opinion of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are in no way contingent upon reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon finding to be reported. Sincerely, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Ian David Crickmore Certified Arborist #WE 8333A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Enclosure: Figure 1 Tree Survey Map nm nm nm nm nmnm nm Tree 2 Tree 3 Tree 4 Tree 5 Tree 6 Tree 7 Tree 1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 100 20050 Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\GISWorking\TreeSurveyReportFigure_20200501.mxd Figure 1. Tree Survey Map. E Citation Legend nm Trees Cut Grade Fill Grade APPENDIX F FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment for Endangered Species Act Compliance 2200 Sixth Avenue | Suite 1100 | Seattle, Washington | 98121 | p 206 441 9080 | f 206 441 9108 SEATTLE, WA | PORTLAND, OR | MISSOULA, MT | OLYMPIA, WA | BELLINGHAM, WA mdf apxf_18-06779-000_madsennoeffectletter_20210310.docx March 10, 2021 Amanda Pierce, P.E. City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering 1055 Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Madsen Creek Flood Improvement Project – FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment for Endangered Species Act Compliance Dear Amanda: The City’s authorization of the Surface Water Utility Engineering Division’s proposed Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project requires compliance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) provisions for the protection of federally listed fish and wildlife species and associated designated critical habitats according to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This letter has been prepared on behalf of the City based on FEMA’s Region 10 regional (Puget Sound basin) guidance for submittal of floodplain habitat assessment and mitigation documentation (FEMA 2013). This assessment documents that the project will have no effect on ESA-listed protected species or associated designated critical habitat. The City’s proposed flood improvement measures are likely to benefit all fish in the Madsen Creek system, listed and non- listed species, by decreasing overbank flooding on developed lands and improving the water quality within the project area tributary drainages to the Cedar River. P ROJECT AREA D ESCRIPTION The Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project area, which includes four work sites, labeled as 1 through 4, is located within the Renton city limits and unincorporated King County, in the SW and SE 1/4s of Sections 22 and 23, respectively, in Township 23 North, Range 05 East of the Willamette Meridian (see Figure 1). The Madsen Creek drainage basin, tributary to the Cedar River, is situated within the Lower Cedar River Watershed and Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8: Cedar-Sammamish. The Hydraulic Unit Code (HUC) for Cedar River- Madsen Creek watershed is 17110012 (USGS 2020). LakeYoung ¬«169 LakeWashington LakeSammamish Cedar River Madsen Creek DuwamishRiver §¨¦5 ¬«167 §¨¦90 §¨¦405 ¬«18 Auburn Bellevue Burien Covington Issaquah Kent Mercer Island Maple Valley Newcastle Renton Seattle Sammamish SeaTac Tukwila Pictometry, King County King County, Aerial (2017) 0 2 41Miles Legend Study area County boundary City limits Stream(King County) Roads PACIFIC OCEANOREGON WASHINGTON Area ofmap detail K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\Report\Figure1_vicinity_map_letter.mxd E Figure 1.Vicinity Map for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 3 Sites 1 and 2 are located within a City maintenance easement on the New Life Church@Renton property (King County Tax Parcel #2323059021) at 15711 152nd Avenue Southeast. These two sites are, respectively, associated with an existing in-stream sediment basin and the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel that were constructed in the late 1970s and 1980s by King County for stormwater management and flood control. Adjacent areas to the east of Sites 1 and 2 on the church property include an athletic field and the Madsen Creek low flow channel. This low flow channel conveys streamflows year-round, whereas the high flow bypass channel conveys flow only in large storm events that exceed the capacity of a small diameter culvert equipped with a weir that routes flow out of the sediment basin into the low flow channel. A larger concrete box culvert connects the sediment basin to the high flow bypass channel, with an invert elevation slightly higher than the low flow outlet culvert. The Madsen Creek low flow channel is buffered between the church’s buildings and parking areas to the east and the athletic field to the west by a corridor of mixed trees and shrubs approximately 100 feet wide (Figure 1). The Wonderland Estates residential community, owned and operated by the King County Housing Authority, is west of Sites 1 and 2 and to the south of Site 3. Site 3 also extends onto City-owned right-of-way (for State Route [SR] 169) north of a single-family residential property to the east of Wonderland Estates. Project work at Site 3 will include construction of a combination berm (on Wonderland Estates property) and floodwall (on City right-of-way) to contain flood flows in the low flow channel adjacent to the left (south) bank of the channel. This wall and berm will extend for a total length of 210 feet from high ground near the culvert that conveys the Madsen Creek low flow channel beneath the high flow bypass channel westward across the Wonderland Estates property (Tax Parcel #2323059020) to connect with high ground on the west side of the entrance to the creek culvert under SR 169, in the SR 169 right-of-way which is owned by the City. Project work at Site 4 includes berm construction adjacent to the right (north) bank of the Madsen Creek low flow channel, on the north side of the Cedar River Trail and east of 149th Avenue Southeast. The trail is located within an easement on BNSF Railway land that parallels the north side of the SR 169 right-of-way. A portion of the Site 4 work will occur on a single-family residential property (Tax Parcel #2323059070) located at 15214 149th Avenue Southeast in unincorporated King County. Ron Regis Park is located to the northwest of 149th Avenue Southeast and the project area. The Madsen Creek low flow and high flow bypass channels each route streamflow to the Cedar River. Along the length of the low flow channel downstream of the sediment basin there are three culverts: one where the low flow channel passes beneath the high flow bypass channel, one beneath SR 169, and one beneath 149th Avenue Southeast. The high flow bypass channel has one culvert along its length, beneath SR 169 (Figure 1). There are riparian wetlands associated with the low flow channel in several locations upstream of 149th Avenue Southeast, and large wetland areas north of Ron Regis Park in which the low flow channel becomes dispersed and unrecognizable. The proposed project involves creating a designated spillway for the sediment basin at Site 1 to prevent and minimize flooding of the Wonderland Estates development if the basin outflows exceed the capacity of the culvert connected to the high flow bypass channel. Proposed berms at Sites 2, 3, and 4 and the floodwall at Site 3 will reduce the Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 4 risk of flood flow spilling out of the stream channel and inundating adjacent residential areas and roadways. Sediment removal and minor widening within the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 will increase flood water storage capacity. In combination with the new right bank berm at Site 2, all of the flow that enters the high flow bypass channel up to the 100-year recurrence event will reliably be routed to the Cedar River, which was the original intention of this bypass channel. The preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (Firm) Panel 0984G for King County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas, dated September 15, 2017, indicates that Site 3 along the Madsen Creek low flow channel and a portion of Site 2 along the high flow bypass channel are situated within a Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area associated with the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River. No base flood (i.e., 100-year flood) elevation has been determined in Zone A areas, by definition. Site 4 is situated within Zone AE of the 100-year Cedar River floodplain. The base flood elevation in this area is 102 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) (FEMA 2017). Hydraulic modeling was completed by Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) to validate the flood containment ability of the proposed project improvements (WSE 2019). The proposed floodwall and berm at Site 3 and the proposed berm at Site 4 will displace existing flood storage, requiring compensatory flood storage per City of Renton and King County requirements. The proposed widening of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2, beyond the channel’s originally constructed dimensions, is for purposes of providing compensatory flood storage to offset the displaced flood storage at Sites 3 and 4. E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND H ABITAT Wetlands, Streams, and Fish Flood control measures implemented by King County in the 1970s and 1980s within the Madsen Creek drainage basin included realignment of the Madsen Creek channel (to create the low flow channel),construction of the sediment basin at Site 1, and construction of the high flow bypass channel (Site 2) on the western portion of the New Life Church property. In 2018, Herrera scientists documented the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Madsen Creek low flow channel and delineated nine wetlands, labeled as Wetlands A through I, within the vicinity of the project sites (Herrera 2018, Figure 2). The boundary of the OHWM within the high flow bypass channel was not delineated in the field because there is no “ordinary” flow condition in that channel. The channel intermittently conveys flows in relation to large flood events, and the frequency and depth of those flows varies considerably year to year. Therefore, the OHWM in the high flow bypass channel upstream of SR 169 was defined based on the simulated area (i.e., depth) of inundation in the 2-year flood event in accordance with the Washington State OHWM guidelines (WSE & Herrera 2021). Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen Creek Low Flow Cha n n e l King County Ron Regis Park New Life Church Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site Wonderland Estates Sediment Basin Wetland E (2018) Wetland F (2018)Renton SE RENT O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )MAPLE DRSE J O N E S R D 145TH AVE SE142NDP LSE146THPLSESE 1 5 7 T HPL154TH PL SESE 155TH P L 143 R D AVESE150THLNSE152ND AVE SESE 154T H S T SE 153R D P L 1 4 0 T H WAYSE149TH AVE SEOAK DRPINE DRSEJONESPL Site 4 Site 3 Site 2 Site 1 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\Report\Figure3_MappedFloodplain_letter.mxd Figure 2. Mapped 100-Year Floodplains in the Project Area. E Legend Approximate location of proposed project sites Jurisdiction boundary Parcel Inundation boundary Wetland area (HEC, 2018) 100-yr Floodplain Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 6 Identified wetlands adjacent to project Sites 3 and 4 include Wetland F, a Category II riverine Palustrine Emergent/Scrub-Shrub (PEM/PSS) wetland, and Wetland E, a Category II riverine Palustrine Forested (PFO) wetland, respectively. Both of these wetlands are associated with the Madsen Creek low flow channel. Neither of these two wetlands is considered to be a “Wetland of High Conservation Value” because they do not intersect with a rare plant species or a rare high quality wetland or riparian vegetation community as documented in the Washington Natural Heritage Program database (WDNR 2020a). The City’s and King County’s regulatory buffer widths to protect the wetlands at Sites 3 and 4 are 75 feet and 100 feet, respectively. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps indicate that several wetlands on the southern end of the New Life Church property that are associated with the forested Madsen Creek low flow channel riparian corridor are part of a biodiversity area—defined as a habitat area relatively important to various native fish and wildlife species (WDFW 2020a; Herrera 2018). The biodiversity corridor extends off site to the west and south of the adjacent Wonderland Estates development. In addition to the wetlands and streams assessment work completed in the project area in 2018, Herrera also completed a review of existing environmental agency resource data and mapping to assess the environmental setting and associated habitats. The Madsen Creek low flow channel is a perennial tributary to the Cedar River, and is mapped by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as a Type F (fish bearing) water (WDNR 2020b). The City’s and County’s designated buffer to protect Type F streams is 115 feet. The high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek is mapped by WDNR as a Type N (non-fish bearing) water (WDNR 2020b). The City manages this channel as a stormwater facility in relation to its purpose to route flood flows directly to the river. This channel requires periodic maintenance to maintain the intended flood flow conveyance capacity. Flows within the high flow bypass channel are intermittent, occurring only during larger storm events in the drainage basin (WDFW 2020a). The channel is mapped by the City as a Type F water for the purposes of protecting it according to the City’s Critical Areas regulations. A designated buffer of 115 feet is applied to it (RMC 43050.G.2). The high flow bypass channel north of SR 169 in King County jurisdiction is considered a Type F water. The WDNR and WDFW do not consider any portion of the high flow bypass channel upstream of SR 169 as a Type F or fish bearing water. NOAA Fisheries (the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protect the fish species listed in Table 1 under the ESA, in the Cedar River and Madsen. These species are potentially present in the Cedar River/Madsen Creek drainage basin (NMFS 2020; USFWS 2020). These ESA listings are documented in attachments to this letter. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 7 Table 1. ESA Listed Species and Designated Habitat – Cedar River/Madsen Creek Drainage Basin. Salmond Fish Species Distribution and Locations Federal Statusb Federal Jurisdictional Agency Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Cedar River Threatened (Coastal/Puget Sound DPS) Critical Habitat: Designated USFWS Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Cedar River, Madsen Creek Threatened (Puget Sound ESU) Critical Habitat: Designated NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) Winter Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Cedar River, Madsen Creek Threatened (Puget Sound DPS) Critical Habitat: Designated a Fish distribution is based on SalmonScape (WDFW 2020b) and PHS mapping (WDFW 2020a). b US Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species list (USFWS 2020) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2020). c Species of Concern (NMFS 2020, WDFW 2020b). DPS = Distinct Population Segment. ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are documented as being present in the Cedar River. The Cedar River is documented as providing spawning habitat for threatened Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss) (threatened). Spawning habitat for non-ESA listed sockeye salmon (kokanee) (O. nerka), resident coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), and coho salmon (O. kisutch), a Washington State species of concern, is also documented in the Cedar River (WDFW 2020b). Spawning habitat for sockeye and coho and rearing habitat for winter steelhead in Madsen Creek is documented by WDFW (WDFW 2020a, 2020b). Spawning habitat for sockeye is not mapped in the segment of the low flow channel on the New Life Church property east of the high flow bypass channel and sediment basin. WDFW does not document bull trout in association with Madsen Creek. Due to this documentation, the City regulates the low flow channel of Madsen Creek as a Type F (fish bearing) water and a Habitat Conservation Area (RMC 4-3-050.G.2 and G6). However, the ability of anadromous species to swim upstream from the Cedar River into the project area is questionable given the lack of a defined Madsen Creek (low flow) channel north of Ron Regis Park (Herrera 2018). No documented natural fish barriers or impassable culverts are mapped as excluding fish from accessing Madsen Creek (WDFW 2020c); therefore, for the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that fish use occurs within the Madsen Creek low flow channel. Salmonid use of the high flow bypass channel has not been documented (WDNR 2020b; WDFW 2020a, 2020b). The official species and habitat list prepared by USFWS on April 3, 2020, for the project area indicates that no designated critical habitat for bull trout is associated with the high flow bypass channel (USFWS 2020). Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 8 Wildlife ESA-listed wildlife species identified by USFWS in King County include marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus (threatened), streaked horned lark (Eremophilia alpestris strigata) (threatened) and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzum americanus) (threatened) (USFWS 2020). Designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet and streaked horned lark is not present within the project area or in the project vicinity within the City of Renton limits. Proposed designated critical habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo is associated with its breeding habitat, which is not documented in the project area or in the general vicinity. The USFWS report indicates that there are no designated critical habitats for ESA-listed species under their jurisdiction within the project area. Additional wildlife species known to be present in King County that are proposed for ESA listing, as endangered and threatened species, include gray wolf (Canis lupis) and North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), respectively. These species are not associated with the developed municipal areas in King County and are more likely to be found in the rural and wilderness areas in the eastern part of the county associated with the Cascade mountains. Suitable habitat for any of the USFWS protected wildlife species is not present within the project area or in the project vicinity. Since these species and their associated habitats are not present within the project area, they are not applicable to the project’s ESA review. Thus, no further discussion is provided regarding these wildlife species in this letter. P ROJECT ACTIONS The proposed project will result in alterations to the 100-year floodplain, the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel, and City of Renton and King County regulated stream and wetland buffers. The duration of work at each site is estimated to be approximately 1 to 2 weeks, not including site planting to follow. The City plans to complete the construction work at each of Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in summer 2021, with planting at Sites 2, 3, and 4 to follow a few months later in the fall. Equipment to be used for the site construction will consist of excavators and trucks for importing and exporting project materials, and potentially a small dozer for some of the earthwork. No direct wetland impacts are associated with the project. Fill proposed for spillway construction at Site 1 and berm and wall construction at Sites 2, 3, and 4 will occur adjacent to the tops of the stream banks, above the OHWM. The only fill to be placed below the OWHM is in an area of no more than 100 square feet at the far upstream end of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel (at Site 1) where the new sediment basin spillway will extend down to the channel bottom. The proposed construction at all four sites will result in permanent alterations to the site topography; however, the impacts to City and County regulated shoreline and/or critical area buffers are considered temporary with the exception of the footprint area of the new Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 9 floodwall at Site 3, which will be built at the base of an arborvitae hedge close to the low flow channel bank. Concrete masonry unit blocks that have a nominal width of 8 inches are proposed to create this low floodwall. Other than the footprint area of the floodwall, all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native vegetation to enhance water quality buffer functions and habitat. The mitigation planting area at Site 2 accounts for the altered buffer at the east end of Site 3 where the floodwall will be built. Raising existing ground and constructing new berms, only in areas identified as providing a high hydrologic benefit, also helps to minimize project impacts. In-stream work will be limited to approximately 500 linear feet of sediment removal to restore the original channel dimensions, as well as local widening of the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 beyond those original channel dimensions for increased flood storage, and minor fill placement (approximately 10 cubic yards, over an area of no more than 100 square feet) in the upstream end of the high flow bypass channel at Site 1 where the armored sediment basin spillway will tie into the existing channel. The project will completely compensate for displaced flood storage at Sites 3 and 4 via widening of the high flow bypass channel within and connected to the 100-year floodplain at Site 2 (not including restoration of the original high flow bypass channel dimensions), and will thus reliably maintain flood storage capacity in areas hydraulically linked to the floodplains of both Madsen Creek and the Cedar River. Details regarding the proposed actions at each of the four project sites are provided in the following sections and are summarized in Table 2. Vegetation removal will be limited to those areas necessary for placement and compaction of soil for new berm and wall construction, to access construction work areas, and to remove all nonnative and invasive vegetation from the disturbed riparian areas within the project sites. No clearing of the forested riparian buffer along the Madsen Creek low flow channel on the New Life Church property will occur in association with the project. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 10 Table 2. Alterations to Regulated Shoreline and Critical Areas and Mitigation for the Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project. Site ID Type of Alteration Mitigation 100-Year Floodplain In-Stream (below OHWM) Buffer (square feet) Area (square feet) Volume (cubic yards) Area (square feet) Volume (cubic yards) Ratio Type Area (square feet) 1 N/A 100 square feet Fill: 10 Proposed Spillway: 1,160a 1:1 Buffer Enhancement 1,160 2 Channel Maintenance: 3,485 Channel Maintenance: 54 (cut) Channel Maintenance: 4,276; 500 linear feet Cut: 110 Fill: 0 Net: -110 Channel Maintenance: 12,625 Berm Construction Right Bank: 4,225 Total: 16,850b,c 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 16,850 Berm Construction: 0 Channel Widening for Flood Storage: 71 (cut) Total: 3,485 Total: 125 (cut) 3 Berm: 1,120 Wall: 60 Total: 1,180 Fill: 33 Not Applicable Fill: 1,180 Temporary Access: 640 Total: 1,820 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 1,820 4 972 Fill: 38 Not Applicable Renton: Berm: 380 1:1 Buffer Restoration/ Enhancement 380 King County: Berm: 755 3:1 2,270d Temporary Access: 300e 0e Total: 1,435 TOTAL: 5,637 Net: -54 4,376 Net: -100 21,265 22,480 N/A – Not Applicable a Excludes overlay of gravel on existing maintenance access road, which is not assessed as a buffer impact. b Excludes minor overlay of gravel on existing maintenance access roadway along left (west) bank at completion of construction to fill ruts (up to 4,500 square feet). c Grass seed will be broadcast as an erosion control measure along the edges of the elevated roadway. d Includes restoration of the temporary access routes. e Temporary access areas are currently private lawn – grass to be restored in kind. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 11 Site 1 In order to avoid overtopping of the existing stormwater sediment basin at Site 1 in an extreme flood event, which could result in flooding at the adjacent Wonderland Estates residential community, an armored overflow spillway will be constructed to convey high surface water flows from the sediment basin into the high flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek (Plan Sheet C-2, in Appendix A of the Mitigation Plan). The spillway, and surrounding soil and rock fill to taper the driving surface up to the spillway crest elevation from existing maintenance access driveway elevations, represents approximately 5,300 square feet in total area. The majority of it will be constructed over the existing maintenance access road footprint. Approximately 145 cubic yards of rock ballast (2-inch and smaller nominal size), Class A rock for erosion and scour protection (similar in size to riprap), smaller crushed rock for spillway bedding, and earth fill will be used to build the spillway and slightly raise the maintenance access driveways surrounding it on all sides. The spillway will be constructed with a crest elevation of 126 feet (NAVD88), approximately 2 feet above the existing access road grade, which is generally at elevation 124 feet (NAVD88) in the site area. Site 1 is not within the 100-year floodplain. While the proposed construction at this site includes minor work below the OHWM of the channel, no water is expected to be present in the work area at the time of construction in the dry season. No wetlands will be impacted because a Category II depressional/slope PFO/PSS wetland, identified as Wetland C in Herrera’s 2018 report, is located approximately 50 feet to the southeast of the existing access roadway. The wetland’s buffer area overlaps with the protective buffer for Madsen Creek. The existing sediment basin maintenance access road will be used for equipment use and operation during the construction activities at Site 1. Therefore, no potential site disturbances associated with creating temporary equipment access are anticipated for the project work at Site 1. Most of the impacts proposed at the Site 1 location are within sediment basin vehicle and equipment access areas and will not require the removal of mature trees. The addition of a rock lining to provide armoring of the new emergency spillway at Site 1 will extend to the bottom of the high flow bypass channel, resulting in minor fill (up to 10 cubic yards) within approximately 100 square feet (maximum) below the OHWM. The new spillway will extend 1,160 square feet beyond the existing maintenance access road footprint, resulting in the conversion of existing low-functioning herbaceous buffer vegetation that is associated with the high flow bypass channel to rock surfacing. Mitigation to compensate for the spillway’s buffer encroachment includes the removal of invasive vegetation and the proposed installation of native plants within 1,160 square feet of buffer area along the east bank of the high flow bypass channel downstream of Site 1. The specified trees and shrubs proposed for installation will improve habitat conditions by increasing the diversity of representative native species and vegetation strata within the buffer. Water quality functions within the buffer Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 12 will also be increased. The proposed buffer mitigation ratio is 1:1, as required for compliance with the City’s Critical Areas regulations. Site 2 Work at Site 2 will remove sediment accumulation in the bottom of the high flow bypass channel to restore the originally constructed channel dimensions, widen the channel to the east to increase flood storage, and raise the top of bank elevation on the right bank (east) side of the channel to contain the 100-year flood flow. This site extends for a channel length of approximately 550 feet upstream of SR 169, where the sediment accumulation and low ground on the right bank collectively allow flood flows to overtop the channel. The overflow condition currently allows flood flows to spill into the privately owned New Life Church field east of the high flow bypass channel, where the water eventually routes into the low flow channel and exacerbates flooding along the low flow channel downstream. Minor raising of the top of bank elevation on the west side of the high flow bypass channel is proposed to match the top of bank elevation of a new earthen berm on the east side. This will ensure further protection for Wonderland Estates, located to the west of the high flow bypass channel, during future floods. Approximately 500 linear feet of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel, at Site 2, will be dredged (excavated) to remove accumulated sediments to restore the originally constructed channel dimensions. The channel will be widened by 2.25 feet in conjunction with sediment removal to provide flood storage capacity offsetting displaced flood storage associated with berm and floodwall construction at Sites 3 and 4. The widening will result in a channel width of 16.25 feet at the OHWM level (Figure C-7, Appendix A) compared to the existing width of approximately 14 feet at the OHWM level. The volume of sediment to be excavated, from 4,276 square feet of the channel below the OHWM, is an estimated 110 cubic yards. Channel excavation will only be conducted during the dry season when there are no active flows in the channel. This Best Management Practice (BMP) will eliminate the need to dewater construction areas, and will minimize impacts on water quality and prevent fish from accessing the work area during construction. The ground surface in the high flow bypass channel at Site 2 is currently dominated by nonnative herbaceous vegetation that provides minimal habitat functions. No mitigation is required for the removal of grasses and weedy herbaceous plants that will occur as a result of the excavation within the OHWM of the channel. The existing vegetation within the channel provides limited water quality benefit related to sediment settling during occasional or seasonal high flows. However, without the removal of sediments, the high flow bypass channel cannot effectively convey stormwater flows and reduce the risk of flooding. The project construction is considered a temporary impact since vegetation will regenerate naturally within the channel and sediment will continue to accumulate. Sediment removal is considered a maintenance activity by the City, as required to maintain its stormwater facility capacity. Removal of sediment from the channel bed is not anticipated to cause net loss of stream function. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 13 Cut and fill volumes within the 100-year floodplain and outside of the proposed OHWM represent 15 cubic yards (cut) and 0 cubic yards (fill), respectively. The approximate net cut within the floodplain at this site beyond the originally constructed channel geometry will be 71 cubic yards, thereby increasing flood storage capacity within the channel and offsetting a total of 71 cubic yards of flood storage displaced by the proposed berm and floodwall at Site 3 and berm at Site 4. A compacted earthen berm with topsoil for planting will be installed along the channel’s east bank, for a length of approximately 400 linear feet. Site 2 requires 203 cubic yards of cut and about 170 cubic yards of fill outside of the 100-year floodplain. Any disturbed areas adjacent to this work, where soils may become exposed during construction, will be restored with an erosion control grass seed mix. The preliminary design plans in Appendix A (sheet C-3) conservatively show placement of biodegradable erosion control blanket and erosion control seeding over the entire length of the channel and its side slopes in this site area, which is likely greater than will be disturbed by construction activity. The maintenance access road at Site 2 is not within the 100-year floodplain, and will not be widened by the project. The proposed flood control berm will be approximately 10 to 12 feet wide on average where it ties into the ground surface. The finished top elevation of the constructed berm, which includes a layer of topsoil for planting vegetation, will be at 105+/- feet (NAVD88) along its length, approximately 3 feet above the existing grade at its tallest point. Site 2 project work will alter approximately 16,850 square feet of existing regulated buffer area, which is primarily composed of nonnative herbaceous vegetation. The project work will require the removal of six of a total of seven existing multi-stemmed deciduous trees present at the site on the east side of the high flow bypass channel. The results of an arborist survey of trees potentially impacted by the project work at Site 2 are documented in a letter to Amanda Pierce, City of Renton Public Works Department, dated May 4, 2020 (Herrera 2020) (included as Appendix E in the Mitigation Plan). The six trees proposed for removal include one native red alder (Alnus rubra), reported in poor health, two nonnative Norway maples (Acer platanoides) in good and fair condition, one common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) that is in excellent condition, one cherry (Prunus sp.) that is in poor to fair condition, and one Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) reported in good condition. A bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), reported to be in excellent condition near the southern end of the Site 2 work area, will be retained and protected from construction activities. With the exception of the Oregon ash, measured as 5.8 inches in caliper, the trees at Site 2 meet the City of Renton’s following tree size definitions: greater than 8-inch caliper (equivalent to diameter at breast height [dbh]), individual measurements of stem diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level for alder and cottonwood, and greater than 6-inch caliper for other species. Trees to be removed at Site 2 will be replaced at a ratio greater than 2:1 within a native vegetation planting area adjacent to and south of the constructed berm. Invasive plants are to be removed and native shrubs and ground cover plants will be installed within 16,475 square Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 14 feet of the Site 2 project area adjacent to the high flow bypass channel. The proposed mitigation planting area is equal to the disturbed buffer area at a mitigating ratio of one-to-one, as required by the City for regulatory compliance. The new native vegetation plantings will provide increased buffer function when compared to existing conditions. Increasing the diversity of vegetation and native species within the buffer will improve the project area habitat. The tree and shrub plantings will also improve water quality, aesthetics, and bank stabilization. Construction access and equipment operation will be conducted from the existing maintenance access road. No additional buffer disturbances associated with temporary access or equipment staging are associated with the proposed Site 2 project work. Site 3 Site 3 work is within SR 169’s southern right-of-way and fronts Wonderland Estates. Site 3 work will construct a new berm along the left (south) bank of the Madsen Creek low flow channel on the Wonderland Estates property and a new floodwall between the stream bank and an arborvitae edge on the north side of a single-family residential property, connecting into the berm at the common property line for continuous flood containment. The berm and wall will extend at a relatively constant top elevation, east to west, from high ground near the culvert that conveys the Madsen Creek low flow channel beneath the high flow bypass channel to the west side of the Madsen Creek low flow channel culvert entrance in the SR 169 right-of-way. This wall and berm will collectively reduce the risk of creek overflows entering the low-lying Wonderland Estates development during the 100-year flood event in the low flow channel. The berm will extend approximately 120 linear feet along the left bank, representing 1,120 square feet in total footprint area. The thin wall made of concrete masonry units (or similar material) will extend for a length of about 90 feet, representing up to 60 square feet of total footprint area. Excavation for Site 3 work will be minor to “key” the base of the berm into native soil and to create a smooth ground surface at the base of the floodwall. The proposed berm will consist of compacted low-permeability soil and a top layer of soil for planting vegetation. Estimated fill volumes for the combination floodwall and berm within and outside of the 100-year floodplain represent 33 cubic yards, and 22 cubic yards, respectively. The finished top elevation of the flood control wall and berm will be 103 feet (NAVD88), approximately 1.5 feet higher than the existing ground surface (Plan Sheet C-8, in Appendix A of the Mitigation Plan). The berm has been designed to avoid direct impacts to the wetland paralleling the opposite (right) bank of the creek. The small concrete wall will be built between the base of an arborvitae hedge and the southern (left) bank of the creek, requiring pruning of arborvitae branches to a height of approximately 2 feet above the ground surface. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 15 The existing vegetation that will have to be cleared within the project area’s creek buffer on the Wonderland Estates property (owned by the King County Housing Authority) is composed primarily of nonnative weedy herbaceous species that provide low habitat functions. Native groundcover and shrub species proposed for installation on the flood control berm have been specified to provide enhanced buffer functions when compared to existing conditions. No new vegetation will be planted adjacent to the floodwall within City right-of-way for SR 169 because there is no space in which to plant. The project will require approximately 640 square feet of vegetation clearing on the north side of the Wonderland Estates paved parking area to create two temporary 12-foot-wide equipment access corridors that will extend into the berm construction work area. The vegetation to be removed consists of a mix of native and nonnative landscaped shrubs. This existing vegetation provides low habitat functions and the proposed installation of native plants to restore these disturbed areas will enhance buffer conditions. Site 4 Site 4 work is located on the north side of SR 169 between the Cedar River Trail and the southwest corner of the private residence at 15214 149th Avenue Southeast. Site 4 work will raise the right (north) bank of the low flow channel to reduce the risk of the 100-year flood flow in Madsen Creek overtopping that bank and flooding residential properties to the north at times when the Cedar River is also not at a high flood stage. The 100-year flood level in the Cedar River floodplain will inundate this entire site area. The new earthen berm will be approximately 115 feet long and will replace approximately 60 linear feet of existing ecology blocks and soil surrounding those concrete blocks (see Plan Sheet C-9, in Appendix A of the Mitigation Plan). The berm construction will require approximately 38 cubic yards of net fill placement above existing grade, all of it within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River. The total area of fill represented by the project at this location is 1,135 square feet within the 100-year floodplain. The new Site 4 flood control berm top elevation will be 101.4 feet (NAVD88). The base of the new berm will be excavated into native soil below existing grade. This berm will be constructed of the same soil materials as described for the berms at Sites 2 and 3. The existing riparian vegetation at this site is in poor condition on both banks of the stream, particularly on the north bank. Invasive plants, such as Himalayan blackberry, are prevalent in the understory. Native trees and shrubs will be protected and retained on the south bank as part of the mitigation planting plan. Site 4 work is within a private residence’s southwest corner (15214 149th Avenue Southeast) and borders the Cedar River Trail, SR 169, and 149th Avenue Southeast. These boundaries cause buffer encroachments; and along with the prevalence of nonnative vegetation, the habitat is low to moderately functioning at this site. Site 4 construction work will remove forest vegetation that is primarily composed of native Pacific and Sitka willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra, S. stichensis). red-osier dogwood, Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 16 salmonberry, spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), nonnative Himalayan blackberry and English Ivy (Hedera helix) vines and other invasive herbaceous plants, including reed canarygrass. Existing cottonwood and alder trees adjacent to the Cedar River Trail will be retained and protected from construction activities. No direct impacts to the Category II riverine PFO Wetland E that parallels the creek and SR 169 are proposed. Native plants are proposed for installation on and adjacent to the constructed flood-control berm. Residential lawn and nonnative Himalayan blackberry are present on the private residential property to the north of the channel where additional buffer mitigation plantings are proposed beyond the required berm revegetation. Site 4 extends beyond the city of Renton limits into unincorporated King County over an approximate area of 755 square feet. King County requires a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to Type F aquatic area buffers per (King County Code 21A.24.380). The proposed native vegetation planting area associated with the Site 4 buffer alterations within King County is 2,270 square feet. The total planting area for Site 4, including King County and City of Renton mitigation areas, is 2,650 square feet. Staging and access at Site 4 is proposed to occur on private property. Temporary equipment access routes will extend south into the work area from an existing unpaved driveway on the residential property. Nonnative vegetation growing in the area that will be disturbed during construction at the south edge of this property will be removed; site restoration will achieve the pre-project or an enhanced condition. Native vegetation will be planted where appropriate within all disturbed areas associated with the project. The restoration of these areas is included in the 3:1 mitigation planting area for King County alterations. An existing, dilapidated chain-link fence within the Site 4 work area will be removed and replaced if necessary per property owner input. An existing wood bridge over a ditch on the east side of 149th Avenue Southeast at the entrance to the access driveway will be reinforced temporarily with a steel plate during construction. IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION M EASURES The City’s selection of flood control measures to implement has been based on avoiding and/or minimizing environmental impacts, as feasible. Alternative project design options and associated environmental impacts are detailed in the Final Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood & Sediment Assessment report (WSE 2019). The project will avoid impacts to fish and sensitive habitats by limiting in-stream work to only occur in the high flow bypass channel at Sites 1 and 2 when seasonal flows are not present. Best management practices (BMPs) as recommended in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (and in the City of Renton’s Surface Water Design Manual, which is adapted from the King County manual) will be implemented to avoid potential impacts associated with erosional stormwater runoff during project construction. Representative BMPs include, but may not be limited to, the following: Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 17 ● Erosion and offsite sediment transport will be minimized through the development and implementation of a temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan. ● Excavation within the high flow bypass channel will occur during no flow conditions. ● Disturbance limits will be defined at the beginning of construction to prevent unintended encroachment into critical areas prior to clearing and grading activities. These limits will be adhered to throughout construction. ● A TESC plan will be implemented to prevent and minimize erosion and sediment transport into wetlands, streams, and buffers. Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be installed to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas (e.g., stabilized construction entrances, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering of soil stockpiles as needed). ● Heavy rain events that could cause stream flow to engage the high flow bypass channel are not expected during the summertime in-water work window. If a significant rainfall event is forecasted, work within the high flow bypass channel will cease; and the necessary BMP(s), such as rock check dams in the bypass channel, will be implemented to prevent erosion due to flows passing through the construction site. ● BMPs will be implemented to protect existing trees adjacent to clearing and grading areas, including placement of fencing around tree trunks and placement of mulch and protective mats where construction access is necessary within root zones. Pruning of limbs to facilitate equipment access and soil excavation within critical root zones will be supervised by a certified arborist. ● Implementation of a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures (SPCC) plan will prevent pollutants (e.g., fuel spills from construction equipment) from entering wetlands, streams, and buffers. All fueling and maintenance of construction equipment will occur in designated staging areas located outside of wetlands, streams, and buffers; and spill containment measures will be in place. No equipment will be operated below the OHWM of the Madsen Creek low flow channel. ● Temporary materials stockpiles consisting of erosive materials (such as soil for berm construction) will be placed outside the 100-year floodplain during the rainy season (October 1 through June 1). Such temporary stockpiles will be covered or contained with plastic sheeting, straw bales, or other BMPs to prevent sediment delivery to water bodies. Material placed in its final position within 12 hours of arrival on site will not be considered a temporary material storage pile. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 18 ● Construction equipment access routes within buffers will avoid, minimize, and mitigate soil disturbance and compaction by clearing vegetation to ground level and applying erosion control seed mix as soon as access is no longer needed. ● Any waste material, debris, or spoils will be disposed of at an approved and permitted upland commercial site or approved waste site. ● After construction, all TESC measures will be removed; and all disturbed ground surfaces will be revegetated with native plants and mulched to prevent erosion and sedimentation. ● Exposed soil will be sprayed with water during dry periods, if needed, to reduce dust. ● Native plants will be used to restore the areas of the site disturbed during construction. Native plants will also be added to the existing vegetated areas to enhance the existing plant community. Invasive vegetation will be removed in these areas. ACTION A REA The project action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not only the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402.02). The project action area includes the project footprint and all surrounding areas where project activities could potentially affect the environment. The extent of the action area encompasses direct and indirect effects, as well as any effects of interrelated or interdependent actions. No interdependent or interrelated actions were identified for the project. In-air construction generated noise from equipment operation is not anticipated to extend beyond several hundred feet from the project area before attenuating to ambient or background noise levels. The level of background noise at the project sites, adjacent to recreational and residential land uses and traffic along SR 169, is higher than average for residential communities without a main arterial roadway (WSDOT 2020). Equipment operation will be limited to occur during daylight hours within a typical 5-day work week (Monday through Friday). No pile drivers or jack hammers, which can significantly disturb both aquatic and terrestrial species, will be utilized. No underwater noise will be generated in association with the project. The aquatic extent of the project’s action area is defined by the in-water footprint of project associated excavation in the high flow bypass channel and Washington State’s allowance for a temporary mixing zone of sediments related to in-water construction that exceeds its water quality standard for turbidity (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-A-200). In water bodies with flows at the time of construction that are less than and or up to 10 cubic feet per second (cfs), the allowed mixing zone is measured at a distance of 100 feet from the activity causing the disturbance. For flows above 10 cfs and up to 100 cfs, and for flows above 100 cfs, Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 19 the respective allowed temporary mixing zones extend 200 feet and 300 feet downstream from the activity causing the turbidity exceedance. This temporary area of mixing is subject to the constraints of WAC 173-201A-400 (4) and (6) and can occur only after the activity is authorized by all other necessary local and state permits and approvals, and after the implementation of appropriate best management practices to avoid or minimize disturbance of in-place sediments and exceedances of the turbidity criteria. Although sediment removal in the high flow bypass channel will occur under no flow conditions, an estimated temporary mixing zone of 100 feet, as measured downstream from the project area at the SR 169 culvert, is based on the potential for any unstabilized sediments within the channel to be transported downstream at the time of the first seasonal high flow following completion of construction of that site. Flows of less than 10 cfs are documented within the Madsen Creek low and high flow bypass channels and are not likely to change significantly based on the project actions (WSE 2019). The project is not anticipated to result in any changes to Cedar River conditions. E FFECTS A NALYSI S AND D ETERMINATION The project is determined to have no effect on threatened Chinook salmon or steelhead and no effect on associated designated critical habitat for these species. No in-water work is proposed within the Madsen Creek low flow channel; and work within the high flow bypass channel, where salmonid use is not documented, will occur when seasonal flows are not present. The project will avoid direct impacts to fish; and no alterations to existing channel sediments, including spawning substrates, within the Madsen Creek low flow channel is proposed. No new fish barriers will be introduced by the project. Proposed berm installation work along the banks of the Madsen Creek low flow channel will occur during the WDFW-approved in-water work “window” of time. Best management practices, as described in the Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures section of this letter, will be implemented to avoid indirect impacts associated with erosional stormwater runoff. All areas where vegetation is disturbed will be restored in-kind or replanted with native vegetation upon construction completion. The project will have no effect on marbled murrelet, streaked horned lark, or yellow billed cuckoo. The project will have no effect on designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet and streaked horned lark as it is not applicable to the project action area. The project will not adversely affect or modify proposed critical habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo, which is limited to documented breeding areas that do not occur within the project’s action area. M AGNUSO N -S TEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND M ANAGEMENT ACT The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that NMFS must identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for Pacific salmon (PFMC 2016a), Pacific groundfish (PFMC 2016b), and coastal pelagic Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 20 fisheries (PFMC 2016c). EFH for Pacific groundfish and coastal pelagic species does not occur in the project action area. Pacific salmon EFH includes all freshwater, estuarine, nearshore, and tidal submerged marine waters and substrates within Washington State territorial waters that are necessary for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Adverse effect is defined as any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific, or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. No in-water work is proposed within the Madsen Creek low flow channel that provides EFH for spawning coho salmon. BMPs implemented during berm construction adjacent to the stream channel at Sites 3 and 4 will avoid and/or minimize potential impacts associated with erosional stormwater runoff. Because any project-associated turbidity effects during construction activities are expected to be short in duration and disturbed buffer vegetation will be restored and enhanced with planting of native riparian species for long-term habitat benefits, the project is determined to have no adverse effect on Pacific salmon EFH. The project is likely to improve EFH habitat within the Madsen Creek drainage basin in the long term through management of flood flows and enhanced buffer vegetation. CONCLUSIONS This letter report has been prepared to meet FEMA’s Region 10 (Puget Sound Basin) Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation review guidance for the implementation of threatened and endangered species protection under the National Flood Insurance Program. The project will not result in a significant decrease in the population of any ESA-listed species, nor will it result in the adverse modification or long-term reduction of designated critical habitat for listed species. The implementation of best management practices will minimize potential temporary impacts associated with construction activities. The Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project is likely to benefit species and habitat in the long term due to reduced flooding within the basin and enhancements resulting from native vegetation installations within regulated riparian buffer areas. Sincerely, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Tina Mirabile, PWS Senior Ecologist Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 21 R EFERENCES FEMA. 2013. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation – Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound Basin. FEMA Region 10. Federal Emergency Management Agency. August. <https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383598118060- e34756afe271d52a0498b3a00105c87b/Puget_Sound_R10_Habitat_Assess_guide.pdf>. FEMA. 2017. US Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 53033C09846G. September 15. Herrera. 2018. Environmental Assessment Report: Madsen Creek Improvement Project. Prepared for City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering and Watershed Science & Engineering, Inc. by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. September 14. NMFS. 2020. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region Species Maps and Data. National Marine Fisheries Services. Accessed April 4. <http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/Species_Maps_Data.html>. PFMC. 2016a. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan: for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California as Revised Through Amendment 19. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. March. PFMC. 2016b. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan: for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. August. PFMC. 2016c. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan as Amended through Amendment 15. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. February. USFWS. 2020. Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) Trust Resources Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service. April 3. <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. WSE. 2019. Final Lower Madsen Creek Existing Conditions Flood & Sediment Assessment. Prepared for City of Renton Public Works. Watershed Science & Engineering, Seattle, Washington. March 20. WSE & Herrera. 2021. Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project – Summary of Hydraulic Modeling for Design and Permitting of Flood Control Improvements and Evaluation of Floodplain Fill Mitigation. Memorandum to Amanda Pierce of City of Renton Public Works. Prepared by Kaleb Madsen of Watershed Science and Engineering and Mark Ewbank of Herrera Environmental Consultants. March 10. Amanda Pierce, P.E. March 10, 2021 Page 22 WDFW. 2020a. Priority Habitats and Species Database. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed April 2020. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/>. WDFW. 2020b. SalmonScape mapping system. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed April 2020. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. WDFW. 2020c. Washington State Fish Passage Barriers Website. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed on April 4, 2020. <https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/fishpassage/index.html>. WDNR. 2020a. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Wetlands of High Conservation Value Data Viewer. Washington Department of Natural Resources. <https://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cf9e5b22f584ad7a4e2aebc63c47bda>. WDNR. 2020b. Forest Practices Application Review System. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Accessed April 2020. <https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/forest-practices/forest-practices-application-review-system-fpars>. <https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx#>. WSDOT. 2020. Noise Assessment Guidance for Biological Assessments. Washington State Department of Transportation. Accessed April 4, 2020. <https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/fish-wildlife/policies-and-procedures/esa- ba/noise>. ATTACHMENT A Species List: Washington Fish and Wildlife Office April 03, 2020 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405 http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2020-SLI-0845 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 Project Name: Madsen Creek Flood Reduction Improvement Project Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/ mapping/phs/ or at our office website: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 04/03/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 2 ▪ A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species and information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan: (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information can be found on the MMPA website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Related website: National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/ species_lists.html Attachment(s): Official Species List 04/03/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 04/03/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 2 Project Summary Consultation Code:01EWFW00-2020-SLI-0845 Event Code:01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 Project Name:Madsen Creek Flood Reduction Improvement Project Project Type:** OTHER ** Project Description:Implement flood reduction improvement measures, including dredging of the high flow bypass channel from City's sediment basin and create flood berms along Madsen Creek within the Renton-Maple Valley Road Right of Way in Renton, Washington. Total project area represents 0.35 acres at four locations, three locations are within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River in SW1/4 of Section 23 of Township 23, Range 05 East, W.M. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/47.46334058127668N122.14205751266664W Counties:King, WA 04/03/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 3 1. Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME STATUS Gray Wolf Canis lupus Population: Western Distinct Population Segment No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Proposed Endangered North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Proposed Threatened 1 04/03/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01675 4 Birds NAME STATUS Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Threatened Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7268 Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Fishes NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 Threatened Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. ATTACHMENT B Status of ESA Listings and Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ! ^ C o lum biaColumbiaSna k e Pocatello Spokane Wenatchee Walla WallaYakima Boise Bend Medford Eugene Salem Astoria Olympia Bellingham Redding Sacramento San Francisco Santa Cruz Fresno Santa Barbara San Diego Los Angeles Seattle Portland Salmon CoosBay Eureka DeschutesWillametteRog u e Umpqu a K l a m athTrinity Ee l Rus si a n S a c r a mentoSan J o a quin Salin as SantaAnaSa l m on Snake United StatesUnited S t a t e sCanadaCanada U n i t e d S t a t e sUnited S t a t e s M e x i c oMexico 0 200Miles O R E G O N W A S H I N G T O N I D A H O C A L I F O R N I A Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designationsfor West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Updated July 2016 Recovery DomainPuget S oundInterior Columbia Oregon Coast Nor th-Central California Coast Central Valley Nor th-Central California Coast and Central Valley Overlap So. OR / No. CA Coast and Nor th-Central CA Coast Overlap Southern OR / Northern CA Coast Willamette / Lower Columbia and Interior Columbia OverlapWillamette / Lower Columbia South-Central / Southern CA Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit / Distinct Population Segment ESA Status Date of ESA Listing Date of CH Designation Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Puget Sound Steelhead T 5/11/2007 2/24/2016 Middle Columbia River Steelhead T 3/25/19991/5/2006 9/2/2005 Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 12/28/1993 Snake River Spring / Summer-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 10/25/1999 Snake River Sockeye Salmon E 11/20/1991 12/28/1993 Snake River Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon E 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Columbia River Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Columbia River Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon T 6/28/2005 2/24/2016 Lower Columbia River Steelhead T 3/19/19981/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Steelhead T 3/25/19991/5/2006 9/2/2005 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon T 2/11/2008 2/11/2008 Southern OR / Northern CA Coasts Coho Salmon T 5/6/1997 5/5/1999 California Coastal Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Central California Coast Coho Salmon E 10/31/1996 (T) 6/28/2005 (E)4/2/2012 (RE)5/5/1999 Central California Coast Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Northern California Steelhead T 6/7/20001/5/2006 9/2/2005 California Central Valley Steelhead T 3/19/19981/5/2006 9/2/2005 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon E 11/5/1990 (T) 1/4/1994 (E)6/16/1993 South-Central California Coast Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Southern California Steelhead E 8/18/19975/1/2002 (RE)1/5/2006 9/2/2005 ESA = Endangered Species Act, CH = Critical Habitat, RE = Range ExtensionE = Endangered, T = Threatened, Willamette / Lower Columbia Recovery Domain Interior Columbia Recovery Domain Puget Sound Recovery Domain Oregon Coast Recovery Domain North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain Central Valley Recovery Domain South-Central / Southern California Coast Recovery Domain Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Recovery Domain Critical Habitat Rules Cited • 2/24/2016 (81 FR 9252) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Puget Sound Steelhead and Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52630) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 12 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in WA, OR, and ID • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52488) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 7 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in CA • 10/25/1999 (64 FR 57399) Revised Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon • 5/5/1999 (64 FR 24049) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Central CA Coast and Southern OR/Northern CA Coast Coho Salmon • 12/28/1993 (58 FR 68543) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye Salmon • 6/16/1993 (58 FR 33212) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing Rules Cited • 4/2/2012 (77 FR 19552) Final Range Extension for Endangered Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final ESA Listing for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 5/11/2007 (72 FR 26722) Final ESA Listing for Puget Sound Steelhead • 1/5/2006 (71 FR 5248) Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead • 6/28/2005 (70 FR 37160) Final ESA Listing for 16 ESU's of West Coast Salmon • 5/1/2002 (67 FR 21586) Range Extension for Endangered Steelhead in Southern California • 6/7/2000 (65 FR 36074) Final ESA Listing for Northern California Steelhead • 9/16/1999 (64 FR 50394) Final ESA Listing for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs in California • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14508) Final ESA Listing for Hood River Canal Summer-run and Columbia River Chum Salmon • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14517) Final ESA Listing for Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14528) Final ESA Listing for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon • 3/24/1999 (64 FR 14308) Final ESA Listing for 4 ESU's of Chinook Salmon • 3/19/1998 (63 FR 13347) Final ESA Listing for Lower Columbia River and Central Valley Steelhead • 8/18/1997 (62 FR 43937) Final ESA Listing for 5 ESU's of Steelhead • 5/6/1997 (62 FR 24588) Final ESA Listing for Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Coho Salmon • 10/31/1996 (61 FR 56138) Final ESA Listing for Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 1/4/1994 (59 FR 222) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon • 4/22/1992 (57 FR 14653) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Spring/summer-run and Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon • 11/20/1991 (56 FR 58619) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Sockeye Salmon • 11/5/1990 (55 FR 46515) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon APPENDIX G Environmental Assessment Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF RENTON Prepared for City of Renton Surface Water Utility Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF RENTON Prepared for City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Contact: Joe Farah, PE 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: 425-430-7293 and Watershed Science & Engineering Inc. Contact: Jeff Johnson, PE 506 Second Avenue, Suite 2700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: 206-521-3000 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Contact: Shelby Petro, PWS 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080 September 14, 2018 i pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ v Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Setting ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Methods and Materials ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Review of Available Information....................................................................................................................... 7 Wetland Delineation and Reconnaissance ................................................................................................... 7 Wetland Classification, Rating, and Functional Assessment .................................................................. 8 Wetland Classification .............................................................................................................................. 8 Wetland Rating ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Wetland Functional Assessment .......................................................................................................... 9 Precipitation Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 9 Stream Delineation .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Stream Classification ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Stream Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 14 Physical Stream Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 14 Fish Passage ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Floodplain Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 15 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................................. 15 Upland Habitat Characterization ........................................................................................................ 15 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Analysis of Available Information .................................................................................................................. 17 Previously Mapped Wetlands and Streams ................................................................................... 17 Documented Fish and Wildlife Habitat Use ................................................................................... 19 Precipitation Data .................................................................................................................................... 20 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 Wetland Delineation and Reconnaissance Results .................................................................................. 22 Wetland Delineations ............................................................................................................................. 22 Wetland Reconnaissance ...................................................................................................................... 24 ii pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx Evaluation of Wetland Functions ................................................................................................................... 54 Wetland A ................................................................................................................................................... 54 Wetlands B and C ..................................................................................................................................... 56 Wetlands D, E, and F ............................................................................................................................... 56 Wetlands G, H, and I ............................................................................................................................... 57 Stream Delineation and Reconnaissance Results .................................................................................... 58 Stream Habitat Assessment Results .............................................................................................................. 60 Physical Stream Habitat Conditions .................................................................................................. 60 Fish Passage ............................................................................................................................................... 62 Floodplain Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 63 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................................. 64 Upland Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Use ............................................................................... 65 Regulatory Implications .............................................................................................................................................. 67 Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401 ........................................................................................................ 67 Washington State Laws ...................................................................................................................................... 68 City of Renton Code ............................................................................................................................................ 68 King County Code ................................................................................................................................................ 70 References........................................................................................................................................................................ 71 APPENDICES Appendix A Wetland Delineation Methods Appendix B Stream Habitat Assessment Methods Appendix C Wetland Rating Forms and Figures Appendix D Wetland Delineation Data Forms Appendix E Stream Habitat Assessment Results Appendix F Photographic Log iii pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx TABLES Table ES-1. Wetlands Delineated in Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ................... vi Table ES-2. Stream Classifications and Buffer Widths in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................. vii Table 1. Stream Reaches in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. .................... 12 Table 2. Fish Species Mapped in or near the Study Area for the Madsen Creek Improvement Project. ........................................................................................................................ 19 Table 3. Precipitation Characteristics Inferred in the Study Area Preceding Field Investigations. ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 4. Wetlands Delineated in Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. .................. 23 Table 5. Summary for Wetland A. .................................................................................................................. 43 Table 6. Summary for Wetland B. .................................................................................................................. 45 Table 7. Summary for Wetland C. .................................................................................................................. 47 Table 8. Summary for Wetland D. .................................................................................................................. 48 Table 9. Summary for Wetland E. .................................................................................................................. 49 Table 10. Summary for Wetland F.................................................................................................................... 50 Table 11. Summary for Wetland G. .................................................................................................................. 51 Table 12. Summary for Wetland H................................................................................................................... 52 Table 13. Summary for Wetland I..................................................................................................................... 53 Table 14. Individual Wetland Function Scores for Wetlands in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ................................................................................................ 55 Table 15. Summary of Madsen Creek Characteristics in the Study Area. ......................................... 59 Table 16. Stream Classifications and Buffer Widths in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................. 69 FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map for the Madsen Creek Improvement Project. ................................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Map for the Madsen Creek Improvement Project. .......................................................... 3 Figure 3. Stream Reaches and Stream Habitat Survey Site Locations in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project. ........................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Previously Mapped Wetlands, Streams, and Habitats in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 5. Mapped Soils in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ......................... 21 iv pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx Figure 6. Key to Wetland, Stream, and Buffer Figures 6-1 to 6-8 in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 6-1. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 6-2. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 6-3. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 6-4. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 6-5. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 6-6. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 6-7. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 6-8. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 7. Vegetative Communities in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. ......................................................................................................................................................... 66 v pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the methods and results of a wetland and stream delineation and stream habitat assessment for the Madsen Creek Improvement Project in accordance with current federal, state, and local regulations and guidance. Madsen Creek is a perennial, fish-bearing stream that is a tributary of the Cedar River. To address flooding and sedimentation issues resulting from development in the Madsen Creek drainage basin, King County completed several modifications to the Madsen Creek channel in the 1970s and 1980s including channel realignment, construction of a sediment basin, construction of a high-flow channel, and other stream channel modifications. Despite these historical modifications, flooding still occurs both north and south of State Route 169 and on the east side of 149th Avenue Southeast and adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the Madsen Creek Channel constructed in Ron Regis Park can no longer convey its design flow due to sedimentation within the channel. The City of Renton (City) has received a King County Flood Control District Flood Reduction Grant to identify and evaluate existing conditions at the downstream end of the Madsen Creek drainage basin; survey the drainage basin; develop and evaluate alternatives for flood improvements; and prepare preliminary designs of the preferred alternative. The study area is located within the city of Renton and within unincorporated King County. Wetland scientists from Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) conducted a wetland assessment in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010), which is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In June and July 2018, Herrera delineated nine wetlands in the study area (Table ES-1). Wetland A is a large, complex depressional and riverine wetland associated with the Cedar River and Madsen Creek. Wetlands B and C are depressional wetlands, and Wetlands D, E, F G, H, and I are riverine wetlands associated with Madsen Creek. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of streams within the study area was delineated using the definition in City of Renton Code and according to methods in the publication Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). Herrera scientists flagged the OHWM of the Madsen Creek low-flow channel within the delineation study area (Table ES-2) in June and July of 2018. vi pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx Table ES-1. Wetlands Delineated in Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Wetland Name Size of Wetland (square feet/acre) USFWS Classificationb Hydrogeomorphic Classificationc Ecology Rating Category (2004/2014) City of Renton Standard Buffer Width (feet)d King County Standard Buffer Width (feet)e Wetland A –a PEM, PSS, PFO Depressional, Riverine II | II 225 200 Wetland B –a PSS, PFO Depressional NA | II 100 NA Wetland C –a PSS, PFO Depressional, Slope NA | II 100 NA Wetland D 2,785/0.64 PSS, PFO Riverine NA | I 150 NA Wetland E 562/0.01 PFO Riverine II | II 150 100 Wetland F 322/0.01 PEM, PSS Riverine NA | II 150 NA Wetland G 53/0.0 PFO Riverine NA | II 150 NA Wetland H 145/0.0 PFO Riverine NA | II 150 NA Wetland I –a PSS Riverine NA | II 100 NA a Wetland extends outside delineation study area and was not delineated in its entirety. b US Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013): palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), palustrine forested (PFO). c Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). d Wetland A’s buffer width, as determined by Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090.D.d), is based upon wetland category and habitat function. All other wetland buffer widths are determined by Renton’s critical area regulations and are based upon land uses, wetland rating and habitat score (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). e King County standard buffers widths are based upon wetland rating score, location, habitat function level, and intensity of adjacent land use (KCC 21A.24.325). NA = not applicable vii pjj 18-06779-000_envrnmntlassmntrpt_madsencrk.docx Table ES-2. Stream Classifications and Buffer Widths in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Name WDNR Water Typea City of Renton Water Typeb King County Water Typec City of Renton Buffer Width (feet)d King County Buffer Width (feet)e Madsen Creek (low-flow channel) F F F 115 115 Madsen Creek (high-flow bypass channel) F F F 115 115 a The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) water typing system uses definitions outlined in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 222-16-031). b The City of Renton types streams in accordance with RMC 4-3-050-G.7.a. c King County stream types are classified in accordance with KCC 21A.24.355. d Buffer widths classified for streams in Renton (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). e Buffer widths classified for streams within a UGA in unincorporated King County (KCC 21A.24.358). Herrera scientists conducted a qualitative stream habitat assessment within the study area in July 2018, from approximately 100 feet upstream of the sediment basin in Madsen Creek to the confluence with the Cedar River. Representative portions of each reach were assessed for physical stream habitat, floodplain, and riparian conditions. Potential fish passage constraints were assessed. In general, salmonid spawning and rearing habitat were lacking throughout the study area. Much of the channel substrate does not support spawning; physical stream habitat complexity was generally poor; functional large woody debris was lacking; banks were unstable; and floodplain connectivity was limited due to berms and other anthropogenic features associated with the adjacent development. Riparian vegetation, while dense and providing good cover, was dominated by invasive species in many reaches and is associated with poor fish cover and altered stream ecology. Although some portions of Madsen Creek had suitable salmonid spawning and rearing habitat, those locations were generally fragmented and separated from other suitable habitat areas by long culverts and sections of poor habitat. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Renton (City) seeks to improve upon existing flooding conditions in the lower reaches of Madsen Creek where it flows through residential areas and a City park. The City has received a King County Flood Control District Flood Reduction Grant to investigate existing conditions, identify and develop alternatives, and design preliminary flood reduction improvements. The wetland, stream delineation, and stream habitat assessments described in this report were performed to support the Madsen Creek Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as the project). This report describes the conditions of wetlands and streams in the study area, wetland and stream ratings and required buffer widths per applicable regulations, and stream habitat conditions. P ROJECT S ETTING The project is located in the city of Renton and unincorporated King County, in Sections 22 and 23, Township 23 and Range 05E of the Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). The Madsen Creek drainage basin is within the Lower Cedar River Watershed and Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8: Cedar-Sammamish. The 43-acre study area encompassed for the assessments described in this report is located at the base of the hillslope within the Cedar River Valley, and includes both the low flow and high- flow bypass channels of Madsen Creek from just upstream of the instream sediment basin to the confluence with the Cedar River and includes the area within 200 feet of the stream channels (Figure 2). The topography of the study area is generally flat due to its landscape position within the Cedar River Valley. For the wetland and stream delineations, the study area is further divided into delineation and reconnaissance study areas, as the more detailed delineation work was focused within the areas most likely to be impacted by potential future project work. The delineation portion of the study area includes the two Madsen Creek channels and areas within 200 feet of the channel within Renton city limits: Ron Regis Park, the State Route (SR) 169 right of way, and the west and south half of the New Life Church property. The reconnaissance portion of the study area includes King County-owned parcels east of Ron Regis Park and west of 149th Avenue Southeast, King County-owned parcels east of 149th Avenue Southeast, and the right of way of 149th Avenue Southeast. Privately owned parcels within the northern half of the study area were not accessible and were observed from the right of way or from King County-owned parcels. LakeYoung ¬«169 LakeWashington LakeSammamish Cedar River Madsen Creek DuwamishRiver §¨¦5 ¬«167 §¨¦90 §¨¦405 ¬«18 Auburn Bellevue Burien Covington Issaquah Kent Mercer Island Maple Valley Newcastle Renton Seattle Sammamish SeaTac Tukwila Pictometry, King County King County, Aerial (2017) 0 2 41Miles Legend Study area County boundary City limits Stream(King County) Roads PACIFIC OCEANOREGON WASHINGTON Area ofmap detail K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\vicinity_map_letter.mxd E Figure 1.Vicinity Map for the Madsen CreekImprovement Project. Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen Creek Low Flow Cha n n e l King County Ron Regis Park New LifeChurch Elliott Bridge ReachMitigation Site WonderlandEstates SedimentBasin Renton SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )MAPLE DR145TH AVE SESE JO N E S R D SE 1 5 7 T HPLSE 155TH PL154TH PL SE150THLNSE1 4 0 T H WA Y S E 152ND AVE SESE 154TH ST SE 153RD PL 149TH AVE SEOAK DRPINE DRSEJONESPL Pictometry, King County 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\Fig2_SiteMap_letter.mxd Figure 2.Site Map for the Madsen CreekImprovement Project. E Legend Delineation study area Reconnaissance study area Jurisdiction boundary Roads Parcel Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site Stream September 2018 4 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton The study area includes both developed and undeveloped areas. Developed areas consist of recreational fields, paved roads and driveways, and residential housing. Undeveloped areas are located north of Ron Regis Park near the Cedar River and areas south of the New Life Church’s recreation field. Two habitat restoration sites along Madsen Creek are located within the study area: 1) King County recently constructed the Elliott Bridge Reach Off-Channel Habitat and Floodplain Reconnection Project mitigation site (King County 2013a, 2017) at the north end of 149th Avenue Southeast amid the Madsen Creek confluence with the Cedar River (Figure 2), and 2)a small restoration site on the New Life Church property is located between the church recreation field and Madsen Creek near SR 169. O BJECTIVES The objectives of the wetland and stream assessments were to: •Delineate (flag) all wetlands and streams in the delineation study area. •Identify wetlands and confirm previously delineated wetlands (Herrera 2013) within the reconnaissance study area. •Classify vegetation classes within delineated wetlands using the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013). •Classify all delineated wetlands using the hydrogeomorphic classification system recognized in Washington State (Brinson 1993). •Classify all delineated wetlands and assess their functions using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014), which is the classification system required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050.G.9.c), and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington–Revised (Hruby 2004), which is the classification system required by King County Code for those wetlands located within King County jurisdiction (KCC 21A.24.318). •Determine wetland categories and classes; stream type; and applicable wetland and stream buffer widths required by RMC 4-3-050.G and KCC 21A.24.325 and KCC 21A.24.358. •Characterize upland vegetative habitats. •Classify all streams within the study area according to the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practices Water Typing as described in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-031. •Characterize existing stream habitat conditions. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 5 •Identify existing and potential future use of the available aquatic habitat by key salmonid species, where possible. •Identify local, state and federal regulations and guidance applicable to potential flood improvement project impacts on wetlands, streams, and their buffers. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 7 METHODS AND MATERIALS Evaluating the presence, extent, and type of wetlands and streams requires a review of available information about the site (e.g., surveys, studies), followed by onsite delineation of wetlands and streams. The following sections describe the research methods and field protocols for the wetland and stream evaluations completed for the project. More information about the methodology used in the wetland and stream delineation is available in Appendix A. R EVIEW OF AVAILABLE I NFORMATION Available literature was reviewed to determine the historical and current presence of wetlands and streams within and near the study area. Sources of information included: •Aerial photographs of the study area (USDA 2015; Pictometry International Corp. 2017) •Topographic map of the study area (King County 2018c) •National Wetlands Inventory map for the study area (USFWS 2018a) •King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool (King County 2018b) •City of Renton maps (Renton 2018a and 2018b) •Hydrographic data (stream locations) for King County (King County 2013b) •Washington State Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data (WDFW 2018a) •SalmonScape mapping system (WDFW 2018b) •Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS) (WDNR 2018) •Climate data (NRCS 2018a) •Soil survey maps and descriptions for the study area (NRCS 2018b, 2018c, 2018d) W ETLAND DELINEATION AND RECONNAISSANCE On June 13, 15, 19, and 26, and July 12 and 13, 2018, wetland scientists from Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) conducted wetland delineations in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western September 2018 8 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010, which is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual [Environmental Laboratory 1987]). The methods in those manuals use a three-parameter approach for identifying and delineating wetlands and rely on the presence of field indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology (Appendix A). The wetland delineation work for the project was performed according to procedures specified under the routine wetland determination method (Environmental Laboratory 1987). To identify potential wetlands, Herrera scientists evaluated field conditions by traversing the study area and noting apparent wetlands, streams, and other aquatic features. For portions of the study area where permission to access properties was not provided, Herrera staff evaluated field conditions by observing them from adjacent, accessible properties. Within the delineation portion of the study area, a test plot was established for each area that appeared to have potential wetland characteristics. For each test plot, data on dominant plant species, soil conditions, and evidence of hydrologic conditions were recorded on wetland determination data forms (Appendix C). Plants, soils, and hydrologic conditions were also analyzed and documented in adjacent uplands to each test plot. Based on collected data, a determination of wetland or upland was made for each area examined. Within the reconnaissance portion of the study area, wetland conditions were evaluated using the three- parameter approach, but data was not recorded at test plots, nor were wetland boundaries flagged. Following confirmation of wetland conditions within the delineation portion of the study area, Herrera staff delineated wetland boundaries by placing sequentially numbered, pink-and-black- striped flagging along the wetland perimeters. Test plot locations were marked with orange flagging. Wetland boundary flag locations were then surveyed by Pacific Geomatic Services (PGS). During the field visits to complete the wetland delineations, Herrera scientists also noted observations of wildlife species and signs of their presence. W ETLAND C LASSIFICATION, RATING, AND F UNCTIONAL A SSESSMENT Wetland Classification Wetlands observed within the study area were classified according to the USFWS classification system (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013), which evaluates attributes including vegetation class, hydrologic regime, salinity, and substrate. The wetlands were also classified using a hydrogeomorphic system, which evaluates attributes such as the position of the wetland within the surrounding landscape, the source and location of water just before it enters the wetland, and the pattern of water movement in the wetland (Brinson 1993). September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 9 Wetland Rating Herrera rated the wetlands using the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014) for wetlands within the city of Renton (RMC 4-3-050.G.9.c) and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington–Revised (Hruby 2004) for wetlands within unincorporated King County (KCC 21A.24.318), both hereafter referred to as the 2014 or 2004 Ecology rating system. The Ecology rating systems categorize wetlands according to specific attributes such as rarity; sensitivity to disturbance; hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions; and special characteristics (e.g., mature forested wetland or bog). The total score for all functions determines the wetland rating. The rating system consists of four categories, with Category I wetlands exhibiting outstanding functions and/or special characteristics and Category IV wetlands exhibiting minimal attributes and functions. The rating categories are used to identify permitted uses in the wetland and its buffer, to determine the width of buffers needed to protect the wetland from impacts related to adjacent development, and to identify the mitigation ratios required to compensate for potential impacts on wetlands. Wetland Functional Assessment Wetland functions are those physical and chemical processes that occur within a wetland, such as water storage, nutrient cycling, and maintenance of diverse plant communities and habitat that benefit wildlife. Wetland functions are grouped into three broad categories: water quality, hydrologic, and habitat (Hruby 2004, 2014). •Water quality functions include the potential for removing sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and toxic organic compounds in the water passing through the wetland. •Hydrologic functions include reducing the velocity of stormwater, recharging and discharging groundwater, and providing flood storage. •Habitat functions include providing food, water, and shelter for fish, shellfish, birds, amphibians, and mammals. Wetlands also serve as breeding grounds and nurseries for numerous species. Precipitation Evaluation Precipitation characteristics in the weeks and months preceding wetland delineation work are important to understand with respect to potential for drier or wetter than normal wetland conditions on the site. The methodology used for the antecedent precipitation evaluation is described in Appendix A. Precipitation data were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service WETS database (NRCS 2018a). The historical average measurements were based on data collected in Washington (WETS Station Seattle Tacoma Intl AP, Latitude 47.4444 degrees, Longitude 122.3138 degrees) for the period of record 1981 to 2010. The Seattle Tacoma Intl AP station is approximately 7 miles west of the study area. September 2018 10 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton S TREAM D ELINEATION On June 13, 15, 19, and 26, 2018, Herrera staff delineated the ordinary high water marks (OHWMs) of streams within the study area using the definition provided by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-11-150) and methods in the publication Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). According to Renton’s definition, the OHWM of streams is “the mark found by examining the bed and banks of a stream, lake, pond, or tidal water and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland …” To delineate the OHWMs along the Madsen Creek low-flow channels, the bed and adjacent banks of the stream channels were examined for indications of regular high water events. Factors considered when assessing changes in vegetation included: •Scour (removal of vegetation and exposure of gravel, sand, or other soil substrate) •Drainage patterns •Elevation of floodplain benches •Changes in sediment texture across the floodplain •Sediment layering •Sediment or vegetation deposition •Changes in vegetation communities across the floodplain Herrera scientists hung blue flags on the site to indicate the horizontal location of the OHWMs along the stream channels. The locations of the OHWM flags were then surveyed by PGS. The OHWMs of the Madsen Creek high and low-flow channel sections within the reconnaissance study area were not flagged. The high-flow channel was defined by the channel centerline surveyed by PGS in June and July 2018. The low-flow channel depth is relatively uniform throughout Reach C (see the discussion of reach definitions below), and therefore the OHWM of the low-flow channel in that area south of SR 169 was visually estimated using LiDAR topography (King County 2018c). S TREAM C LASSIFICATION Streams within the study area were classified per Renton’s stream typing system (RMC 4-3-050-G.7.a), King County’s water typing system (KCC 21A.24.355), and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) water typing system (WAC 222-16-031). The Renton stream rating system consists of four types: S, F, Np, or Ns. Type S waters are those that are September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 11 inventoried as “Shorelines of the State” under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58. Type F waters are those that are known to be used by fish, have the physical characteristics to potentially be used by fish, and have perennial or seasonal flows. Type Np waters do not contain fish or fish habitat and have perennial flows but include intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. Type Ns waters do not contain fish or fish habitat, have intermittent flows, and must be physically connected by an above ground channel system to Type S, F, or Np waters. The King County aquatic area (stream) typing system is based primarily on fish, wildlife, and human use, and consists of four types: S, F, N, and O. Type S aquatic areas are those surface waters that are inventoried as “Shorelines of the State” under King County’s Shoreline Management Master Program (KCC Title 25), pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 90.58. Aquatic areas may include segments of streams where the mean annual flow is greater than 20 cubic feet per second, marine shorelines, and lakes that are greater than 20 acres in size. Type F aquatic areas are those that contain fish or fish habitat. King County defines fish habitat as “habitat that is used by anadromous or resident salmonids at any life stage at any time of year, including potential habitat likely to be used by anadromous or resident salmonids” (KCC 21A.06.578). Type F aquatic areas also include waters diverted for use by a federal, state or tribal fish hatchery (KCC 21A.24.355). Type N aquatic areas include all segments that are not Type S or F waters and that are physically connected to Type S or F aquatic areas by an aboveground channel system, stream, or wetland. Type O aquatic areas are not Type S, F, or N aquatic areas and are not physically connected to Type S, F, or N aquatic areas by an aboveground channel system, pipe or culvert, stream, or wetlands. Streams within the study area were also classified using the WDNR water typing system based on WAC 222-16-031. That system is based primarily on fish, wildlife, and human uses, and consists of four stream types: S, F, Np, and Ns. Type S streams are those surface waters that are inventoried as “Shorelines of the State” pursuant to RCW Chapter 90.58.030. Type F streams and waterbodies are those known to be used by fish or that meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. Type F streams may be perennial or seasonal. Physical criteria for fish use include stream segments having a defined channel of 2 feet or greater within the bankfull width in western Washington and having a gradient of 16 percent or less. Type Np streams have flow year-round and may have spatially intermittent dry reaches downstream of perennial flow. Type Np streams do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream and have been proven not to contain fish. Type Ns streams do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the year and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream. Stream channels within the study area were divided into nine reaches to provide detailed resolution of existing characteristics and flooding potential. The reach extents are based on changes in geomorphic conditions or locations of significant physical features such as road crossings (e.g., SR 169). The reaches are listed in Table 1 and shown on Figure 3. September 2018 12 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Table 1. Stream Reaches in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Reach Description A Madsen Creek upstream of sediment basin B Primary sediment basin C Madsen Creek natural (low flow) channel from primary sediment basin to culvert under high-flow bypass channel D Madsen Creek low-flow channel from culvert under high-flow bypass channel to 149th Avenue Southeast E Madsen Creek low-flow channel from 149th Avenue Southeast through Ron Regis Park F Madsen Creek open water wetland downstream of Ron Regis Park to Cedar River G High-flow bypass channel upstream of SR 169 H High-flow bypass channel downstream of SR 169 I Ditch along east side of 149th Avenue Southeast Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen CreekLow Flow Cha n n e l King County Reach F Reach E Reach I Reach H Reach C Reach A Reach B Reach G Reach D Ron Regis Park New LifeChurch Elliott Bridge ReachMitigation Site WonderlandEstates Renton SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )MAPLE DR145TH AVE SESE JO N E S R D 154TH PL SESE 155TH PL 140TH W A Y S E 1 4 2 N D P L S E150THLNSE152ND AVE SESE 154TH ST SE 153RD PL 149TH AVE SEOAK DRSE JO N E S P L PINE DRA1 B1 C1 C2 C3C4 D1 D2 E1 E2 E3 F1F2 F3 G1 H1 H2 I1 Pictometry, King County 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\Fig3_ChannelReaches_letter.mxd Figure 3.Stream Reaches and Stream HabitatSurvey Site Locations in the MadsenCreek Improvement Project Study Area. E Legend King County, Aerial (2017) A Madsen Creek upstream of sediment basin C Madsen Creek natural channel from primary sediment basin to culvert under high flow bypass channelD Madsen Creek channel from culvert under high flow bypass to 149th Avenue SEE Madsen Creek channel from 149th Avenue SE through Ron Regis ParkF Madsen Creek open water wetland downstream of Ron Regis Park to Cedar RiverG High flow bypass channel upstream from SR-169H High flow bypass channel downstream from SR-169I Ditch along east side of 149th Avenue SE Jurisdiction boundaryStudy area B Primary sediment basin. A1 Habitat survey location Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site September 2018 14 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton S TREAM HABITAT A SSESSMENT Stream habitat assessment field surveys were completed on July 17 and 18, 2018, by Herrera scientists. Herrera used a qualitative survey approach following specific proven protocols for describing the physical stream habitat conditions within representative sub-reaches of Madsen Creek and the high-flow bypass channel. These research methods and field survey protocols, which have been used successfully in other stream habitat assessments in the Puget Sound lowland region and for other developing watersheds in western Washington, are described in the following sections. More information about the methodology used in the stream habitat assessment is provided in Appendix B. Physical Stream Habitat The following physical stream habitat parameters were assessed for each stream reach. •Channel type (adapted from Montgomery and Buffington 1997) •Bankfull channel dimensions (WDNR 2004) •Channel gradient •Substrate material (Ecology 2006) •Physical habitat complexity (McBride 2001; Ecology 2006) •Functional large woody debris (LWD) status (adapted from Ralph et al. 1994; Beechie and Sibley 1997; and Fox and Bolton 2007) •Riffle gravel embeddedness (Comings et al. 2000) •Riffle gravel cementation (Comings et al. 2000) •Bank conditions (EPA 1999; Henshaw and Booth 2000) Fish Passage Stream culverts and open channel reaches were examined in the field for potential fish passage barriers. The field survey included assessment of culvert size, length, and whether the culvert outlet is perched above the channel bed, and assessment of features that may hinder or completely block upstream fish passage under certain hydrologic conditions. Although a thorough fish passage barrier analysis was not completed for this study, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) guidance (WDFW 2009; Barnard et al. 2013) was referenced during the field assessment. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 15 Floodplain Conditions Floodplain connectivity refers to how regularly stream flows access adjacent floodplain areas. Floodplain connectivity is important for providing refuge habitat for rearing and migrating fish during high flows and is a key focus of habitat restoration efforts in the Cedar River and many of its tributaries in the project vicinity. Floodplain conditions were assessed using field evidence of vegetation conditions and topographic and vegetative indicators of occasional inundation, such as sediment deposited over organic debris, low topographic benches, and the type of vegetation growing near the stream channel. For this qualitative stream survey, floodplain connectivity was characterized using three general categories: low, medium, and high (adapted from May et al. 1997). Low floodplain connectivity signifies that streamflows rarely exceed the horizontal and vertical limits of the active/bankfull channel. Medium floodplain connectivity signifies evidence that streamflows occasionally exceed the limits of the active/bankfull channel. High floodplain connectivity signifies evidence that streamflows frequently exceed the limits of the active/bankfull channel and inundate significant portions of the adjacent floodplain or overbank areas. Riparian Habitat Conditions The following riparian habitat condition parameters were assessed for each representative stream reach. •Vegetation condition (adapted from WFPB [1997] and OWEB [1999]) •Riparian width (WFPB 1997; OWEB 1999) Upland Habitat Characterization Upland habitat characteristics were noted by Herrera staff during the wetland and stream delineation field work. Upland vegetation communities were characterized according to the dominant vegetation (e.g., riparian forested, scrub-shrub upland, herbaceous upland) and according to any special features, such as location of a restoration site. Wildlife presence, or evidence of species presence, were noted as well, but comprehensive surveying, sampling or documentation was not undertaken to define wildlife use of the study area. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 17 RESULTS This section describes the results of the wetland and stream delineations. It includes findings from review of information obtained from various references, and analysis of wetland and stream conditions in the study area as observed during field investigations. A NALYSIS OF AVAILABLE I NFORMATION The available existing information compiled for the wetland and stream delineation is summarized in the following subsections. Previously Mapped Wetlands and Streams The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows one palustrine forested and palustrine scrub- shrub wetland within the Madsen Creek channel in Ron Regis Park (USFWS 2018a; Figure 4). WDFW PHS data (WDFW 2018a) and King County iMap (2018) data do not indicate any wetlands within the study area. Renton (2018) indicates there are three wetlands between the sediment basin and the church buildings in the southernmost section of the study area as well as a large wetland in Ron Regis Park. In previous work in support of the Elliott Bridge Reach restoration project (King County 2013a, 2017), Herrera (2013) delineated three wetlands within the current study area: a depressional, emergent wetland located within the high-flow bypass channel of Madsen Creek; a depressional scrub-shrub wetland east of the high-flow bypass channel; and a depressional scrub-shrub wetland located along 149th Avenue Southeast (Figure 4). Where the naming of wetlands overlap with the 2013 Herrera report, the report year is added to the name for clarity, e.g., Wetland A (2018) for wetlands delineated for this study and Wetland A (2013) for wetlands identified in the 2013 Herrera report. Madsen Creek flows north through the study area. Downstream of the sediment basin, Madsen Creek diverges into a low-flow channel with perennial waters and a high-flow bypass channel. Both Madsen Creek channels discharge into the Cedar River (King County 2018). FPARS and SalmonScape map the low-flow channel as a Type F fish-bearing water and the high-flow bypass channel as a Type N non-fish bearing water (WDNR 2018; WDFW 2018b). Renton (2018) classifies both the high and low-flow channels of Madsen Creek as Type F streams. There are five stream culverts within the study area, but none are currently classified as fish passage barriers (WDFW 2018c), although the WDFW assessments of those culverts are outdated. See the ‘Fish Passage’ methods and results section below for further discussion. ### # # Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen Creek King County WonderlandEstates Ron Regis Park New LifeChurch Renton SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )154TH PL SEPictometry, King County, City of Renton, King County, WDFW 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\Fig4_PrevMappedWLandStr_letter.mxd Figure 4.Previously Mapped Wetlands, Streams,and Habitats in the Madsen CreekImprovement Project Study Area. E Legend Wetland Type (NWI) Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine #Culvert (WDFW) Study area Wetlands (City of Renton) Wetland area (HEC, 2013) Stream (King County) Jurisdiction boundary Roads Parcel Biodiversity area and corridor (WDFW) Stream (WDFW) September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 19 Documented Fish and Wildlife Habitat Use Several salmonid species occur in the Madsen Creek low-flow channel (WDFW 2018a; WDFW 2018b; Table 2) but salmonid use of the high-flow bypass channel has not been documented (WDNR 2018; WDFW 2018a; WDFW 2018b). According to PHS data (WDFW 2018a), two biodiversity areas and corridors (defined as an area of habitat relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife) are located in the project vicinity: one is within the southern portion of the study area, and the second is adjacent to the study area on the north side of the Cedar River (Figure 4). According to the eBird website, 48 species of birds have been observed in Ron Regis Park (eBird 2012). Table 2. Fish Species Mapped in or near the Study Area for the Madsen Creek Improvement Project. Salmonid Fish Species Distribution and Locationa Federal Statusb State Statusc King County Species of Local Importance?d Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Cedar River Threatened (Coastal/Puget Sound DPS) State Candidate Yes Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Documented Presence, Madsen Creek, Cedar River Threatened (Puget Sound ESU) State Candidate Yes Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Documented Presence, Madsen Creek, Cedar River __ __ Yes Winter Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Documented Presence, Madsen Creek, Cedar River Threatened (Puget Sound DPS) __ Yes Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Documented Presence, Madsen Creek, Cedar River __ __ Yes Kokanee Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Documented Presence, Cedar River __ __ Yes Resident Coastal Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) Documented Presence, Madsen Creek, Cedar River __ __ Yes a Fish distribution is based on SalmonScape (WDFW 2018b) and PHS mapping (WDFW 2018a) b US Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species list (USFWS 2018b) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2018). c Washington State Species of Concern Lists (WDFW 2018d). d Species protected in the King County Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 21A.24.382). DPS = Distinct Population Segment ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit September 2018 20 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Precipitation Data During the 2-week period preceding the first day of delineation fieldwork (June 1–14, 2018), rainfall was relatively low with 0.43 inch of total rainfall recorded at the SeaTac airport rain gage (NRCS 2018a). Precipitation was evaluated for two 3-month periods (from March 1 to May 31, 2018, and from April 1 to June 30, 2018) prior wetland delineations. Precipitation recorded at the SeaTac airport rain gage in the months of March through June 2018 was as follows relative to historical records in these months: the recorded total depths in March, May, and June were dry, and the recorded total depth in April was wet. In aggregate, the precipitation conditions in the 3 months prior to June and the 3 months prior to July fall within a normal range (Table 3) due to the abnormally wet month of April. Table 3. Precipitation Characteristics Inferred in the Study Area Preceding Field Investigations. Prior Month WETS Rainfall Percentile (inches) 2018 Measured Rainfall (inches) 2018 Condition (Dry, Wet, or Normal) 2018 Characteristics for Three-Month Periods 30th 70th March 2.93 4.28 2.44 Dry March–May: Normal April–June: Normal April 1.81 3.24 5.69 Wet May 1.27 2.32 0.12 Dry June 0.98 1.88 0.63 Dry Source: WETS Station: SEATTLE TACOMA INTL AP, WA, 1981–2010; NRCS 2018a. Soils Three soil series are mapped within the study area: Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep; Newberg silt loam; and Puyallup fine sandy loam (NRCS 2018d) (Figure 5). Each of these soil types is described below. The soil in most of the study area is composed of Newberg silt loam, while a smaller portion near the Cedar River is mapped as Puyallup fine sandy loam. The Alderwood and Kitsap soils are on the slopes of the southern valley wall at the southern end of the study area. Alderwood and Kitsap Soils, Very Steep The Alderwood soil series is a deep, well-drained soil that occurs on glacially modified hills and ridges with slopes of 8 to 15 percent (NRCS 2018b). Alderwood soils occupy areas of historical glacial moraines and till plains, and are derived from glacial basal till with some volcanic ash. Alderwood soil is considered to be hydric (NRCS 2018c). The Kitsap soil series is a very deep, moderately well drained soil formed in lacustrine sediments, found on terraces and escarpments with slopes of 0 to 70 percent (NRCS 2018b). Kitsap soil is considered to be hydric (NRCS 2018c). King County King County WonderlandEstates Renton Rh Py AkF AkF Ur Py Ng AgC W W Pc Rh AkFAkF AkF Ma Pictometry, King County 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\mapped_soils_letter.mxd Figure 5.Mapped Soils in the Madsen CreekImprovement Project Study Area. E Legend Study area Jurisdiction boundary Soil type AgC - Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8% to 15% slopes AkF - Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep Ma - Mixed alluvial land Ng - Newberg silt loam Pc - Pilchuck loamy fine sand Py - Puyallup fine sandy loam Rh - Riverwash Ur - Urban land W - Water September 2018 22 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Newberg Silt Loam Newberg soils are deep and somewhat excessively drained, formed from loam, sandy alluvium, sedimentary, and basic igneous rocks (NRCS 2018b). Newberg soils occur in floodplains. Newberg soil is considered to be hydric (NRCS 2018c). Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam Puyallup fine sandy loam is a well-drained soil formed from recent alluvium. Puyallup soils occur on floodplains and low terraces (NRCS 2018b). Puyallup silt loam is considered to be hydric (NRCS 2018c). W ETLAND DELINEATION AND RECONNAISSANCE R ESULTS Weather conditions during the wetland delineation and reconnaissance fieldwork consisted of daytime high temperatures ranging from 70 to 87 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with light rain on the first day and sunny conditions during the rest of the fieldwork. All wetland delineation fieldwork occurred within the growing season (as defined in Appendix A). Wetland Delineations Herrera scientists delineated nine wetlands in the study area: Wetland A (2018), Wetland B, Wetland C (2018), Wetland D (2018), Wetland E, Wetland F, Wetland G, Wetland H, and Wetland I (Table 4; Figure 6, Figures 6-1 through 6-8). Wetland A (2018) and Wetland I extend outside the delineation study area and were only partially delineated (see Figures 6-1 and 6-8). Only wetland boundaries adjacent to Madsen Creek for Wetland B and Wetland C (2018) were delineated (Figure 6-8), as only the encumbering boundaries for these wetlands were required for this analysis of existing conditions. Wetland A (2018) is a large, complex depressional/riverine wetland located between recreational fields in Ron Regis Park and the Cedar River. The Cedar River and Madsen Creek contribute to the hydrology of the northern and eastern portions of this wetland via overbank flooding, and wetland hydrology is also supported by precipitation and a high groundwater table. Parts of the Elliott Bridge Reach mitigation site (King County 2013a, 2017) are likely within the boundary of Wetland A (2018). Wetland conditions in this area are influenced by beaver activity within the mitigation site, which has created permanent ponding where Madsen Creek enters the mitigation site (Figure 6-1). Wetland B is a depressional wetland and Wetland C (2018) is a slope/depressional wetland; they are located near the church buildings (Figures 6-7 and 6-8) within the southern portion of the study area. One other wetland (hereafter referred to as unnamed wetland), which was not delineated for this study because other nearby wetlands are closer to Madsen Creek, is located at the base of the hillslope and just east of Wetland B. Berms separate the unnamed wetland and Wetlands B and C (2018), and an additional berm separates Wetland B and Wetland C (2018) from the stream channel. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 23 Table 4. Wetlands Delineated in Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Wetland Name Size of Wetland (square feet/acre) USFWS Classificationb Hydrogeomorphic Classificationc Ecology Rating Category (2004/2014) City of Renton Standard Buffer Width (feet)d King County Standard Buffer Width (feet)e Wetland A –a PEM, PSS, PFO Depressional, Riverine II | II 225 200 Wetland B –a PSS, PFO Depressional NA | II 100 NA Wetland C –a PSS, PFO Depressional, Slope NA | II 100 NA Wetland D 2,785/0.64 PSS, PFO Riverine NA | I 150 NA Wetland E 562/0.01 PFO Riverine II | II 150 100 Wetland F 322/0.01 PEM, PSS Riverine NA | II 150 NA Wetland G 53/0.0 PFO Riverine NA | II 150 NA Wetland H 145/0.0 PFO Riverine NA | II 150 NA Wetland I –a PSS Riverine NA | II 100 NA a Wetland extends outside delineation study area and was not delineated in its entirety. b US Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013): palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), palustrine forested (PFO). c Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). d Wetland A’s buffer width, as determined by Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090.D.d), is based upon wetland category and habitat function. All other wetland buffer widths are determined by Renton’s critical area regulations and are based upon land uses, wetland rating and habitat score (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). e King County standard buffers widths are based upon wetland rating score, location, habitat function level, and intensity of adjacent land use (KCC 21A.24.325). NA = not applicable September 2018 24 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton There is a small culvert, approximately 6 inches in diameter, on the northern side of Wetland C (2018) that drains into the unnamed wetland. The unnamed wetland has a constructed outlet, through which water appears to flow overland into Wetland B during high water events. Wetland B drains into Madsen Creek via a small, narrow channel, approximately 1 foot in width. No surface water connection to or from Wetland C (2018) was observed. Hydrology within Wetland B is supported by a high groundwater table and precipitation. Wetland C (2018) and the unnamed wetland are likely supported by a high groundwater table, precipitation and hillslope seeps. Wetlands D (2018), E, F, G, H, and I are riverine wetlands subject to overbank flooding from Madsen Creek (Figures 6-2, 6-4, 6-5, 6-7, and 6-8). These wetlands each contain multiple units that occur on both the left and right banks of the stream. Non-delineated Wetland I units continue downstream on both sides of the stream in the reconnaissance portion of the study area. Wetland Reconnaissance Herrera scientists confirmed conditions of previously delineated wetlands, Wetland A (2013), Wetland C (2013), and Wetland D (2013), in the reconnaissance portion of the study area. Detailed descriptions of these wetlands can be found in Herrera (2013). Within the Madsen Creek low-flow channel south of SR 169, several more riverine wetlands were identified; similar to the other Madsen Creek riverine wetlands listed above, these narrow, scrub-shrub dominated wetlands are influenced by overbank flooding. Common vegetation within these wetlands includes red alder (Alnus rubra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and willow species (Salix spp.). These riverine, scrub-shrub or forested wetlands are similar to Wetlands G and H and would likely rate as Category II wetlands, which require a 100-foot buffer in the city of Renton (see the “City of Renton Code” section below). No wetlands were identified within the high-flow bypass channel south of SR 169. Wetland buffer widths are shown on Figures 6-1 through 6-8 to display potential regulatory constraints. Where wetland and stream buffers overlap, only the widest (outermost) buffer is shown. Detailed descriptions, including representative photographs of each wetland, are provided in Tables 5 through 13. Wetland delineation data forms (Appendix C) and Ecology wetland rating forms and figures (Appendix D) are provided for each wetland. Renton King County King County Madsen Creek1 2 8 3 4 6 5 7Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelCed a r R i v e r Pictometry, King County Figure 6.Key to Wetland, Stream, and Buffer Figures 6-1 to 6-8 in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. King County, Aerial (2017) 0 220 440110Feet Legend Study area Sheet reference Jurisdictional boundary Stream (King County) Delineated and estimated stream K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\Fig6_OverviewWLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E "" Renton King CountyWetland A (2018)Cat. II, 225 feet (Renton)200 feet (KC) Wetland A (2013)Cat. IV, 50 feet (KC) Elliott Bridge ReachMitigation Site Madsen CreekHigh Flow BypassType F, (115 ft)DELINEATION STUDY AREARECONNAISSANCE STUDY AREAWetland D (2013)Cat. IV, 50 feet (KC) Approximate location of beaver dam Ron Regis Park 200ft 115ft225ft 149THAVESESEJONESPL Ce d a r R i v e r TP-A-WET TP-A-UPL Figure 6-1.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 100 20050Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site Delineated wetland boundary Estimated wetland boundary Wetland area Wetland area (HEC, 2013) Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Stream (King County) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Centerline (Surveyed) Test pit ""Approximate location of beaver dam K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 2 4 5 7 6 3 1 Wetland D (2013)Cat. IV, 50 feet (KC) King County Renton Wetland A (2018)Cat. II, 225 feet (Renton)200 feet (KC) Wetland D Cat. I, 150 feet (Renton) Wetland E Cat. II, 150 feet (Renton)100 feet (KC)DELINEATION STUDY AREARECONNAISSANCE STUDY AREAWetland F Cat. II, 150 feet (Renton) Madsen CreekType F, 115-feet Ron Regis Park 225ft 115ftMAPLE DRPINE DRSE 153RD PL SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )149TH AVE SETP-D-UPL TP-D-WET TP-E-UPL TP-E-WET TP-F-WET TP-F-UPL Figure 6-2.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 70 14035Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Site Delineated wetland boundary Estimated wetland boundary Wetland area Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Test pit K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 1 4 5 7 6 32 Madsen CreekHigh Flow BypassType F, 115-feet Renton King County Wetland C (2013)Cat. IV, 50 feet (KC) DELINEATION S T U D Y A R E A RECONNAISS A N C E S T U D Y A R E A Wetland A (2013)Cat. IV, 50 feet (KC) 115ft 50ft SERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRD(SR-169)150THLNSEFigure 6-3.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 60 12030Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Delineated wetland boundary Wetland area Wetland area (HEC, 2013) Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Centerline (Surveyed) K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 2 1 4 5 7 6 3 Wetland ECat. II, 150 feet (Renton)100 feet (KC) Wetland DCat. I, 150 feet (Renton) Wetland FCat. II, 150 feet (Renton) Wetland GCat. II, 150 feet (Renton) DELINEATION S T U D Y A R E A RECONNAISS A N C E S T U D Y A R E A Renton King County115ft115ft 150ftPINE DR MAPLE DROAKDR149TH AVE SESERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRD ( SR-169) TP-E-UPL TP-E-WET TP-F-WETTP-F-UPL TP-G-WETTP-G-UPL Figure 6-4.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 50 10025Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Delineated wetland boundary Estimated wetland boundary Wetland area Critical area buffer (Delineated) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Centerline (Surveyed) OHWM (estimated) Test pit K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 2 1 5 7 6 34 Renton King County Madsen CreekHigh Flow BypassType F, 115-feet Madsen CreekType F, 115-feet Wetland HCat. II, 150 feet (Renton) Wetland GCat. II, 150 feet (Renton) DELINEATION S T U D Y A R E A RECONNAISSA N C E S T U D Y A R E A RECONNAISSA N C E S T U D Y A R E A DELINEATION S T U D Y A R E A 150f t 150TH LN SESE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 ) TP-H-UPL TP-G-WETTP-G-UPL TP-H-WET Figure 6-5.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 50 10025Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Delineated wetland boundary Wetland area Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Centerline (Surveyed) OHWM (estimated) Test pit K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 2 1 4 7 6 3 5 Madsen CreekHigh Flow BypassType F, 115-feet Madsen CreekType F, 115-feet Renton RECONNAISSANCE STUDY AREANew Life Church 115ftBIRCH DRFigure 6-6.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 50 10025Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Centerline (Surveyed) OHWM (estimated) K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 2 1 4 5 7 3 6 ((Wetland I unitscontinue downstream Renton DELINEATION STUDY A R E ARECONNAISSANCE STU D Y A R E ARECONNAISSANCE STUDY AREARECONNAISSANCE STUDY AREAWetlands observedalong stream Madsen CreekType F, 115-feet Madsen CreekHigh Flow BypassType F, 115-feet Wetland ICat. II, 100 feet (Renton) Wetland BCat. II, 100 feet (Renton) New Life Church115f t 100ftBIRCH DR TP-B-UPL TP-B-WET TP-I-UPL TP-I-WET Figure 6-7.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 50 10025Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Delineated wetland boundary Estimated wetland boundary Wetland area Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Estimated wetland location Centerline (Surveyed) OHWM (estimated)((Culvert Test pit K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 8 2 1 4 5 6 3 7 ((Wetland BCat. II, 100 feet (Renton) Wetland ICat. II, 100 feet (Renton) Wetland CCat. II, 100 feet (Renton) Madsen CreekType F, 115-feet Madsen CreekHigh Flow BypassType F, 115-feet Renton DELINEATION STUDY A R E ARECONNAISSANCE STU D Y A R E A Wetland I unitscontinue downstream Unnamed wetlandlocation, Cat. II,100 feet (Renton) Sediment Basin New Life Church115f t 100ftTP-C-UPL TP-C-WET TP-B-UPL TP-B-WET TP-I-UPL TP-I-WET Figure 6-8.Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. 0 60 12030Feet King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Study area Jurisdictional boundary Delineated wetland boundary Estimated wetland boundary Wetland area Critical area buffer (Delineated) Critical area buffer (Estimated) Estimated wetland location Centerline (Surveyed) OHWM (estimated)((Culvert Test pit K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\FigX_WLandStrBuffers_11x17.mxd E 2 1 4 5 7 6 3 8 September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 43 Table 5. Summary for Wetland A. Wetland Name Wetland A Location South of Cedar River; north and west of Ron Regis Park Local Jurisdiction City of Renton, King County WRIA 8 (Cedar- Sammamish) Wetland Rating Category II (2004) Category II (2014) Buffer Width 225 feet (Renton shoreline jurisdiction) 200 feet (King County) Cowardin Classification Palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub- shrub, palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Depressional, Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-A-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-A-UPL Wetland Size Size not determined. Wetland extends beyond study area. Dominant Vegetation Dominant vegetation in palustrine emergent areas includes reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Scrub-shrub communities are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) but also include Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). The palustrine scrub-shrub communities include Pacific willow, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), reed canarygrass, American speedwell (Veronica americana), and ornamental jewelweed (Impatiens glandulifera). Palustrine forested areas consist of red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and Pacific willow with an understory of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. In the Elliott Bridge mitigation site and surrounding area, scrub-shrub and forested communities include willow species (Salix spp), Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, red alder, western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and reed canarygrass. September 2018 44 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Table 5 (continued). Summary for Wetland A. Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-A-WET) were examined to a 20-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 5 inches of soil were a 10YR 3/2 loam with 2 percent distinct 10YR 4/6 redoximorphic concentrations (RMC) in the matrix. From 5 to 20 inches, the soil was a 10YR 4/1 loamy sand with 5 percent prominent 7.5YR 3/4 RMC and 15 percent distinct 10YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for a depleted below dark surface (A11) and sandy redox (S5). Upland soils (soil pit TP-A-UPL) were examined to a 15-inch depth before reaching a restrictive layer and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-A-WET, soils were not saturated, nor was a water table present. Therefore, secondary indicators (two minimum required) were used to confirm wetland hydrology: saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9), geomorphic position (D2), and FAC-neutral test (D5). Hydrologic inputs to this wetland include a shallow groundwater table, precipitation, and Madsen Creek flows. A beaver dam is causing permanent flooding in the Elliott Bridge mitigation site, increasing hydrology for this wetland. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating King County Code classifies wetlands according to the 2004 Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004). Renton uses the 2014 rating system (Hruby 2014). According to both systems, Wetland A is rated as a Category II wetland. Buffer Condition The buffer of Wetland A includes relatively undisturbed areas, residential areas, and ballfields in Ron Regis Park. The Cedar River and undeveloped forested areas border the wetland to the north and west. Actively used ball fields illuminated with bright lighting at night in Ron Regis Park are south of the wetland. A residential property is located on the southeastern boundary. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 45 Table 6. Summary for Wetland B. Wetland Name Wetland B Location On New Life Church property, west of the church buildings, south of Madsen Creek, and east of Wetland C. Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category II Renton Buffer Width 100 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine scrub- shrub, Palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Depressional Wetland Data Forms Appendix C, TP-B-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-B-UPL Wetland Size Size not determined. Wetland B extends beyond study area. Dominant Vegetation Wetland B is composed of forested and scrub-shrub communities. The Wetland B canopy layer is dominated by red alder and Pacific willow, with salmonberry, lady fern (Athyrium cyclosorum), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), American speedwell, tall mannagrass (Glyceria elata), ornamental jewelweed, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) in the understory. Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-B-WET) were examined to a 20-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 12 inches of soil were a 5Y 5/1 loamy sand with 20 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/4 RMC in the matrix. From 12 to 20 inches, the soil was a 5Y 5/1 sandy loam with 20 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for a depleted matrix (F3). Upland soils (soil pit TP-B-UPL) were examined to an 18-inch depth and did not meet the criteria for any hydric soil indicators. Hydrology At TP-B-WET, soils were saturated to the surface and a water table was present to 1 inch below ground surface. Hydrologic inputs to this wetland include a shallow groundwater table, precipitation, and some overflow during high water events from the unnamed wetland to the east. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland B is rated as a Category II wetland (Hruby 2014). September 2018 46 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Table 6 (continued). Summary for Wetland B. Buffer Condition Buffer areas immediately surrounding the wetland include relatively undisturbed forested upland and wetland areas and Madsen Creek. A PHS biodiversity habitat and corridor is mapped south of the wetland. A playground is approximately 90 feet east of the wetland, and a utility road is approximately 130 feet to the west. The buffer north of the wetland includes native and nonnative vegetation including black cottonwood, salmonberry, bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder, Himalayan blackberry, and Japanese knotweed. South of the wetland, the mixed deciduous/coniferous forest includes bigleaf maple, red alder, western red cedar, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 47 Table 7. Summary for Wetland C. Wetland Name Wetland C Location On New Life Church property, west of the church buildings, south of Madsen Creek, and west of Wetland B. Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category II Renton Buffer Width 100 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine scrub- shrub, Palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Depressional, Slope Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-C-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-C-UPL Wetland Size Size not determined. Wetland C extends beyond study area. Dominant Vegetation Wetland C is composed of forested and scrub-shrub communities. Dominant plants include red alder and Pacific willow in the canopy with salmonberry, devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), lady fern, skunk cabbage, American speedwell, small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), tall mannagrass, ornamental jewelweed, creeping buttercup, and giant horsetail in the understory. Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-C-WET) were examined to a 14-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 10 inches of soil were 10YR 2/1 sandy clay loam. From 10 to 14 inches, the soil was a 5Y 4/1 sandy loam with 15 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for depleted below dark surface (A11). Upland soils (soil pit TP-C-UPL) were examined to a 10-inch depth before reaching a restrictive layer and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-C-WET, soils were saturated to the surface and surface water was observed directly adjacent to the soil pit. Hydrologic inputs to this wetland include a shallow groundwater table and precipitation. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland C is rated as a Category II wetland (Hruby 2014). Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland includes relatively undisturbed forested upland, other wetlands, and Madsen Creek. A PHS biodiversity habitat and corridor is mapped south of the wetland. A playground is approximately 230 feet east of the wetland, and a utility road is approximately 50 feet to the west. The buffer north of the wetland includes native and nonnative vegetation including black cottonwood, salmonberry, bigleaf maple, red alder, Himalayan blackberry, and Japanese knotweed. South of the wetland, the mixed deciduous/coniferous forest includes bigleaf maple, red alder, western red cedar, Douglas fir, osoberry, beaked hazelnut, and sword fern. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. September 2018 48 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Table 8. Summary for Wetland D. Wetland Name Wetland D Location Located between the bridges at 149th Avenue Southeast and Ron Regis Park driveway. Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category I Renton Buffer Width 150 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine scrub- shrub, Palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-D-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-D-UPL Wetland Size 2,785 square feet/0.64 acre Dominant Vegetation Wetland D is composed of forested and scrub-shrub communities. Dominant vegetation includes Pacific and Sitka willow, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, American speedwell, and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-D-WET) were examined to a 20-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 5 inches of soil was 10YR 3/1 silty clay loam with 10 percent prominent 7.5YR 5/8 RMC in the matrix. From 5 to 11 inches below the surface, the soil was 5Y 4/1 silty clay loam with 10 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/6 and 10 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/4 RMC in the matrix. From 11 to 20 inches below the surface, the soil was N3/silty loam with 10 percent 10YR 5/6 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for depleted matrix (F3) and redox dark surface (F6). Upland soils (soil pit TP-D-UPL) were examined to an 18-inch depth and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-D-WET, soils were saturated at 6 inches below the surface, and a water table was measured at 11 inches depth. The main hydrologic input to this wetland is Madsen Creek flow. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland D is rated as a Category I wetland (Hruby 2014). Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland consists of an approximately 4- to 10-foot-wide riparian, deciduous forest. Beyond the forested area, mowed lawn grasses, paved trails and a road, and residential properties comprise the buffer. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 49 Table 9. Summary for Wetland E. Wetland Name Wetland E Location Wetland E is located east of the 149th Avenue Southeast culvert along Madsen Creek. Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating Category II (2004 and 2014) Buffer Width 150 feet (Renton) 100 feet (King County) Cowardin Classification Palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-E-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-E-UPL Wetland Size 562 square feet/0.01 acre Dominant Vegetation The palustrine forested community is dominated by Pacific willow, black cottonwood, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and red alder in the canopy with red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry, spiraea hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), Sitka willow, rose sp., bittersweet nightshade, giant horsetail and reed canarygrass in the understory. Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-E-WET) were examined to an 18-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 1 inch of soil was a 7.5YR 3/1 clay loam with 3 percent distinct 7.5YR 5/4 RMC in the matrix. From 1 to 18 inches below the surface, the soil was 10YR 3/1 loam with 25 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6). Upland soils (soil pit TP-E-UPL) were examined to a 16-inch depth and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-E-WET, soils were saturated at 10 inches below the surface. The main hydrologic input to this wetland is overbank flooding from Madsen Creek. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating King County Code classifies wetlands according to the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004), and Renton uses the 2014 Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014). According to both systems, Wetland E is rated as a Category II wetland. Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland consists of an approximately 3- to 5-foot-wide riparian, deciduous forest. Beyond the forested area, mowed lawn grasses, paved trails and roads, and residential properties comprise the buffer. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 50 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Table 10. Summary for Wetland F. Wetland Name Wetland F Location Wetland F is located south of SR 169 and east of 150th Avenue Southeast along Madsen Creek Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category II Renton Buffer Width 150 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine emergent, Palustrine scrub- shrub Hydrogeomorphic Classification Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-F-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-F-UPL Wetland Size 322 square feet/0.01 acre Dominant Vegetation Wetland F is composed of palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent communities. Dominant vegetation includes red alder, Sitka willow and Pacific willow saplings, reed canarygrass, American speedwell, small-fruited bulrush, and soft rush (Juncus effusus). Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-F-WET) were examined to a 19-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 3 inches of soil were a 10YR 3/1 loamy sand with 5 percent prominent 7.5YR 5/8 RMC in the matrix. From 3 to 9 inches below the surface, the soil was 10YR 3/1 loamy sand with 20 percent prominent 5YR 5/8 RMC in the matrix. From 9 to 12 inches below the surface, the soil was 10YR 2/1 loam sandy with 5 percent prominent 5YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. From 12 to 19 inches below the surface, the soil was 10YR 3/1 loam sandy with 15 percent prominent 5YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for sandy redox (S5). Upland soils (soil pit TP-F-UPL) were examined to a 16-inch depth and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-F-WET, soils were saturated at 7 inches below the surface, and a water table was present at 15 inches depth. The main hydrologic input to this wetland is overbank flooding from Madsen Creek. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland F is rated as a Category II wetland (Hruby 2014). Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland consists of a gravel maintenance driveway north of the wetland and shrub vegetation, consisting of red-osier dogwood, and arborvitae. Roads and driveways surround the wetland on all sides. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 51 Table 11. Summary for Wetland G. Wetland Name Wetland G Location Located on New Life Church property south of SR 169, west of Wetland H along Madsen Creek Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category II Renton Buffer Width 150 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-G-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-G-UPL Wetland Size 53 square feet Dominant Vegetation The palustrine forested community is dominated by Pacific willow and Oregon ash in the canopy with red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, rose sp., small-fruited bulrush, reed canarygrass, giant horsetail, and colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris) in the understory. Soils Wetland soils (soil pit TP-G-WET) were examined to a 20-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. The top 10 inches of soil was a 10YR 3/2 clay loam. From 10 to 20 inches below the surface, the soil was 2.5YR 2.5/1 clay loam with 15 percent prominent 5YR 5/8 RMC in the matrix. Hydrogen sulfide odor (A4) was detected at the soil pit. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6) and hydrogen sulfide (A4). Upland soils (TP-G-UPL) were examined to a 20-inch depth and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-G-WET, soils were saturated at 12 inches below the surface. Wetland hydrology indicator hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) was also observed. Hydrologic input includes overbank flooding from Madsen Creek. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland G is rated as a Category II wetland (Hruby 2014). Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland consists of mixed coniferous- deciduous forest, including a buffer restoration site located between the stream and the church play fields (approximately 100 feet south of stream). SR 169 is to the north beyond the forested area. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 52 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Table 12. Summary for Wetland H. Wetland Name Wetland H Location Located on New Life Church property south of SR 169, east of Wetland G along Madsen Creek c Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category II Renton Buffer Width 150 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine forested Hydrogeomorphic Classification Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-H-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-H-UPL Wetland Size 145 square feet Dominant Vegetation The forested community is dominated by Pacific willow and Oregon ash in the canopy with red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, giant horsetail, and colonial bentgrass in the understory. Soils Soils were examined to a 20-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. At TP-H-WET, the top 2 inches of soil was a 10YR 3/2 loamy sand. From 2 to 15 inches below the surface, the soil was 2.5YR 3/1 loamy sand with 25 percent prominent 7.5YR 4/6 RMC in the matrix. From 15 to 20 inches below the surface, the mixed matrix was 10YR 4/1 sand with 3 percent prominent 10YR 5/8 RMC in the matrix; the second matrix color was a 10YR 2/1 sand. Hydrogen sulfide (A4) odor was detected at the soil pit. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6) and hydrogen sulfide (A4). Upland soils (TP-H-UPL) were examined to a 20-inch depth and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-H-WET, soils were saturated at 4 inches below the surface, and a water table was observed at 6 inches depth. Hydrogen sulfide (indicator C1) was detected at the soil pit. Hydrologic input includes overbank flooding from Madsen Creek. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland H is rated as a Category II wetland (Hruby 2014). Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland consists of mixed coniferous- deciduous forest, including a buffer restoration site located between the stream and the church playfields (approximately 100 feet south of stream). SR 169 is to the north beyond the forested area. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 53 Table 13. Summary for Wetland I. Wetland Name Wetland I Location On New Life Church property, west of the church buildings, along Madsen Creek, and north of Wetland B. Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) Wetland Rating (2014) Category II Renton Buffer Width 100 feet Cowardin Classification Palustrine scrub- shrub Hydrogeomorphic Classification Riverine Wetland Data Form Appendix C, TP-I-WET Upland Data Form Appendix C, TP-I-UPL Wetland Size Total size of Wetland I was not determined. Not all wetland units within Wetland I were delineated. Dominant Vegetation Dominant vegetation in the scrub-shrub community includes salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii), creeping buttercup, giant horsetail and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Soils Soils were examined to a 20-inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. At TP-I-WET, the top 9 inches of soil was a 7.5YR 3/2 clay loam with 15 percent prominent 2.5YR 4/8 RMC in the matrix and pore linings and 15 percent 10YR 6/3 depletions in the matrix. From 9 to 20 inches below the surface, the soil was 5Y 4/1 loamy sand with 20 percent prominent 7.5YR 5/8 RMC in the matrix. This profile meets the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6), depleted matrix (F3), and depleted below dark surface (A11). Upland soils (TP-D-UPL) were examined to a depth of 20 inches and did not exhibit any hydric characteristics. Hydrology At TP-D-WET, soils were saturated at 15 inches below the surface, and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots (C3) support evidence of wetland hydrology. Hydrologic inputs to this wetland include overbank flooding from Madsen Creek and precipitation. Rationale for Delineation All three wetland parameters are met. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland I is rated as a Category II wetland (Hruby 2014). Buffer Condition The buffer area immediately surrounding the wetland consists of mixed coniferous- deciduous forest. The church play fields are located north of the wetland, the church is to the east, and a residential neighborhood is to the west. A PHS biodiversity habitat and corridor is located to the south. Note: Wetland boundaries and wetland area are indicated in yellow. Stream location and flow direction are indicated in blue. September 2018 54 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton E VALUATION OF W ETLAND FUNCTIONS Wetland functions for each wetland within the study area were evaluated according to data in the 2014 Ecology rating form (Hruby 2014). This system generates a qualitative functional rating (high, moderate, or low) for each of the functions (water quality, hydrology, and habitat) provided by wetlands. A summary of the function scores, the total wetland score, and the associated rating (category) for each wetland is provided in Table 14. Wetland A The functions of Wetland A were evaluated using the depressional HGM classification, as it contains both depressional and riverine HGM classes. The wetland occurs in a topographic depression in which water ponds or is saturated to the surface during parts of the year and receives overbank flood waters from the Cedar River and Madsen Creek. Wetland A has a moderate potential at the site level to improve water quality (i.e., remove toxins), as the abundance of persistent vegetation and seasonal ponding supports the removal of nutrients, particularly nitrogen. The surrounding landscape has moderate potential to support water quality functions at the site as adjacent land uses generate pollutants that enter the wetland, such as paved roads, ballfields, and dogs. The water quality functions provided by Wetland A have a high value to society because the wetland is located within a basin (Madsen Creek and Cedar River) with a Section 303(d) impaired water (Ecology 2018b) and because of the potential to capture some of the high sediment loading carried in Madsen Creek, which is the impetus for this study. The wetland has low potential to reduce flooding and stream degradation at the site level, as temporarily trapped water can readily drain to the Cedar River and it is supplied by a large contributing basin that includes the Cedar River basin and the Madsen Creek drainage basin. The surrounding landscape has moderate potential to support hydrologic functions because much of the land around the wetland is impacted by intensive land uses, such as dense residential areas, and the ballfields that are immediately adjacent to the wetland. Wetland A has a high value to society because it captures surface water that may otherwise contribute to flooding down-gradient of the wetland. The wetland has a high potential for habitat at the site level. It has emergent, scrub-shrub and forested classes with multiple strata and four hydroperiods (permanent, seasonal, occasional flooding and saturation), which lends to a higher interspersion of habitats, and additionally has a high richness of plant species with multiple special habitat features (e.g., large, downed woody debris and snags). The wetland has low potential for habitat on a landscape level as much of the surrounding landscape has high intensity land uses, including residential properties and ball fields. The habitat provided by the site has a high value to society because there are three priority habitats within 100 meters of the wetland (WDFW 2008), it provides habitat for threatened or endangered species, and is mapped as a location for WDFW priority species, such as steelhead and coho salmon. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 55 Table 14. Individual Wetland Function Scores for Wetlands in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Wetland Name Water Quality Functions Ratinga Functions Hydrologic Ratinga Habitat Functions Ratinga Total Scoreb Washington State Department of Ecology Rating Categoryc Site Potential Landscape Potential Value Site Potential Landscape Potential Value Site Potential Landscape Potential Value A M M H L M H H L H 20 II B M M H M M H M M H 21 II C M M H M M H M M H 21 II D M H H M H H M M H 23 I E M H H M H H L M H 22 II F M H H L M H L M H 20 II G L H H L H H L M H 20 II H M H H M H H L M H 22 II I M H H M H H L M H 22 II a Qualitative ratings of H (high), M (moderate), and L (low) are based on the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) rating system (Hruby 2014). b Total score is derived by adding all qualitative ratings together. Low ratings are worth 1 point, Moderate ratings are worth 2 points, and High ratings are worth 3 points. c Wetland category is based on the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014). September 2018 56 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Wetlands B and C The functions of Wetlands B and C were evaluated using the depressional HGM classification. Wetland B occurs in a topographic depression in which water ponds or is saturated to the surface during parts of the year. Wetland C occurs within a topographic depression and is located on a slope in which water emanates from seeps. These wetlands were grouped for this analysis as they are both depressional wetlands and because of their similarity in landscape position relative to developed and undeveloped areas. Wetlands B and C have moderate potential at the site level to improve water quality (i.e., remove toxins), as the abundance of persistent vegetation and seasonal ponding supports the removal of nutrients, particularly nitrogen. Furthermore, Wetland C has a highly restricted outlet that supports an even longer retention time of water than Wetland B, which has an intermittently flowing outlet to Madsen Creek. The surrounding landscape has moderate potential to support water quality functions in Wetlands B and C, because adjacent land consists of both undeveloped forested upland and impervious surfaces on the church property that can generate pollutants. The water quality functions provided by Wetland B and Wetland C have a high value to society because the wetlands are located within a drainage basin with a Section 303(d) impaired water (Ecology 2018b) and because of the potential to capture some of the high sediment loading carried in Madsen Creek, which is the impetus for this study. Wetlands B and C have moderate potential to reduce flooding and stream degradation at the site level, as trapped water supplied by a small sized contributing basin drains to Madsen Creek during high water events. The surrounding landscape has moderate potential to support hydrologic functions because of the presence of impervious surfaces on the church property that can generate excess runoff. The wetlands have a high value to society because they capture surface water that may otherwise contribute to flooding down-gradient of them. Wetlands B and C have a moderate potential for habitat at the site level. They have scrub-shrub and forested communities with multiple strata that contain a moderate diversity of plant species with few invasive plants. Some large downed woody debris within the wetlands provides habitat for animal species. The wetlands have moderate potential for habitat on a landscape level due to a large amount of moderate to high quality habitat that is fragmented. Habitat provided by the site has a high value to society, because there are three priority habitats within 100 meters of the wetlands (WDFW 2008). Wetlands D, E, and F The functions of Wetlands D, E, and F were evaluated based on their riverine HGM class. The wetlands occur along Madsen Creek and receive water from overbank flooding. These wetlands were grouped for this analysis due to their similarity in landscape position relative to developed areas. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 57 The presence of some depressions and trees/shrubs in the wetlands provide moderate potential at the site level to improve water quality by filtering and trapping sediments and associated pollutants. The surrounding landscape has a high potential to support water quality functions at the wetland sites, because they are in an urban growth area (UGA) and adjacent land uses (e.g., roads) generate pollutants that enter the wetlands. The wetlands have a high value to society because they drain into Madsen Creek, a tributary of the Cedar River, which is a Section 303(d) impaired water (Ecology 2018b) and because of the potential to capture some of the high sediment loading carried in Madsen Creek, which is the impetus for this study. The wetlands have a low (Wetland F) to moderate (Wetlands D and E) potential to reduce flooding and erosion at the site level, as they provide little storage capacity of flood waters, but have a high cover of plants that can decrease flow velocities during floods. The surrounding landscape, which is located in a UGA, has moderate (Wetland F) to high (Wetlands D and E) potential to support hydrologic functions at the wetland sites. This is because the creek is connected to its floodplain, allowing for retention of overbank flood waters (i.e., the stream channel is not downcut in Wetlands D and E); the streamflow is not controlled by a dam(s), which allows the wetlands to perform flood water attenuation functions, and a UGA is located upgradient. The wetlands have a high value to society because they capture water that otherwise would contribute to downgradient flooding, which is known to damage human and natural resources. The wetlands have a low (Wetlands E and F) to moderate (Wetland D) potential to provide habitat, because they each have one to two vegetation classes and hydroperiods, which lend to a low to moderate interspersion of habitats. The wetlands have a moderate to high richness of plant species, and Wetlands D and E have multiple special habitat features (e.g., large, downed woody debris and overhanging vegetation). The wetlands have a moderate potential for habitat on a landscape level, due to a large percentage of moderate to high quality habitat that is fragmented. Habitat provided by the sites is highly valuable to society as reflected by laws, regulations or policies, because they provide habitat for threatened or endangered species, and they are within an area mapped as a location for WDFW priority species, such as steelhead and coho salmon. Wetlands G, H, and I The functions of Wetlands G, H, and I were evaluated based on their riverine HGM class. These wetlands occur along Madsen Creek and primarily receive water from overbank flooding. These wetlands were grouped for this analysis due to their similarity in landscape position relative to developed and undeveloped areas. The presence of trees/shrubs in Wetlands H and I provide moderate potential to improve water quality by filtering and trapping sediments and associated pollutants; Wetland G has no potential at the site level to improve water quality as is does not contain dense vegetation or depressions. The surrounding landscape has a high potential to support water quality functions at the sites, because their contributing basins are located in a UGA and adjacent land uses (e.g., September 2018 58 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton roads) generate pollutants that enter the wetlands. The wetlands have a high value to society because they are located on Madsen Creek, a tributary of the Cedar River, which is a Section 303(d) impaired water (Ecology 2018b) and because of the potential to capture some of the high sediment loading carried in Madsen Creek, which is the impetus for this study. These wetlands have a low to moderate potential to reduce flooding and erosion at the site level, as they provide little storage capacity of flood waters (Wetlands G, H, and I), but have a high cover of plants that can slow down flow velocities during floods (Wetlands H and I). The surrounding landscape, which is in a UGA, has high potential to support hydrologic functions at the sites, because the stream is connected to its floodplain, allowing for retention of overbank flood waters (i.e., the stream channel is not downcut), and the streamflow is not controlled upstream by a dam(s), which allows the wetlands to perform flood water attenuation functions. The wetlands have a high value to society because they capture water that otherwise would contribute to flooding downgradient, which is known to damage human and natural resources. These wetlands have a low potential to provide habitat, because they each have relatively low plant structure and one to two hydroperiods, which lend to a low to moderate interspersion of habitats. The wetlands have a moderate richness of plant species and have multiple special habitat features (e.g., large, downed woody debris, overhanging vegetation, and low invasive plant cover). The wetlands have a moderate potential for habitat on a landscape level, due to a large amount of moderate to high quality habitat that is fragmented. The habitat provided by the sites has a high value to society because there are three priority habitats within 100 meters of the wetlands (WDFW 2008), they provide habitat for threatened or endangered species, and they are within an area mapped as a location for WDFW priority species, such as steelhead and coho salmon. S TREAM D ELINEATION AND R ECONNAISSANCE RESULTS Stream characteristics, including a representative photograph within the delineation study area, are summarized in Table 15. A wetland (Herrera 2013) is located within the high-flow bypass channel (Reach H) (Figure 4). The delineated and estimated OHWM of the low-flow channel, surveyed centerline for the high-flow bypass channel, and buffer widths are shown on Figures 6-1 through 6-8. As the wetland and stream buffers overlap, only the most encumbering buffer (or the outermost buffer) is shown as the critical area buffer on these figures. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 59 Table 15. Summary of Madsen Creek Characteristics in the Study Area. Stream Name Madsen Creek: high-flow bypass and low-flow channels Location Madsen Creek drainage basin; Lower Cedar River drainage basin Local Jurisdiction City of Renton, unincorporated King County DNR Stream Type High-flow bypass channel: F Low-flow channel: F Local Stream Rating Renton: F (both channels) King County: F (both channels) Local Jurisdiction Buffer Width Renton: 115 feet King County: 115 feet Documented Fish Use The Madsen Creek low-flow channel has documented presence of fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, winter steelhead, resident cutthroat trout, and sockeye salmon, and no salmonids have been documented in the high-flow bypass channel (WDFW 2018a, 2018b). Connectivity The headwater of Madsen Creek is Lake Desire, located upslope and southeast of the study area (Figure 1). Two tributaries that appear to originate amid residential development drain into Madsen Creek approximately 3,500 feet south of the study area. Madsen Creek discharges into the Cedar River. Riparian/Buffer Condition The riparian buffer of both channels is of low to moderate condition within the study area. Nonnative invasive vegetation such as Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, bittersweet nightshade, and ornamental jewelweed are growing adjacent to the stream. These invasive plants outcompete native vegetation and provide little bank stabilization compared to native riparian plants. The riparian forested and scrub-shrub communities are dominated by red alder, red-osier dogwood, Oregon ash, salmonberry, and willow species, in addition to the nonnative species mentioned above. Riparian buffers are narrow within most of the study area, as the stream and buffer are restricted by development and roads. September 2018 60 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton S TREAM HABITAT A SSESSMENT R ESULTS Madsen Creek is a heavily modified system resulting from intensive land development in much of its drainage basin. The high-flow bypass channel was constructed in the historical stream channel location in the study area, starting downstream of the sediment basin. There are culverts along the high-flow channel beneath SR 169 and at the outlet to the river (two 4-foot- diameter culverts) that were not designed to provide fish passage. The low-flow channel is bordered by church playfields, residential properties, and roadways upstream of SR 169, and by roadways, residential property, and park playfields downstream of SR 169 before converging with Wetland A and joining the Cedar River. The following section summarizes the overall physical channel, floodplain, and riparian habitat conditions based on review of available information and field surveys at selected locations along the length of Madsen Creek. A summary of the results of the qualitative assessment are presented in Appendix E, Table E-1. Representative photographs of each reach are provided in Appendix F. Physical Stream Habitat Conditions The observed physical stream habitat conditions in the study area do not meet the habitat conditions suitable for consistently supporting salmonid spawning and rearing. Substrate in the low flow stream channel largely consists of sand and fines; stream complexity is generally poor; functional LWD in the channel is lacking; banks are unstable; and floodplain connectivity is limited. While dense vegetation is in the riparian corridor provides good cover, invasive species are prevalent and hinder effective fish habitat cover and furthermore contribute to altered stream ecology. While the overall habitat for fish is poor, some portions of the Madsen Creek low-flow channel within the study area may be suitable for salmonid spawning and rearing but these are fragmented and separated from other suitable habitat by long culverts and sections of poor habitat. The habitat conditions as defined by various metrics are described below. Channel Type Stream reaches and habitat survey site locations are depicted in Figure 3. The low-flow channel of Madsen Creek transitions from steeper reaches upstream to flatter reaches downstream, beginning with a constructed step-pool channel type (Reach A) upstream of the sediment basin and transitioning to dune/ripple and pool/riffle channel types (Reaches B and C) downstream. These are alluvial channel types, typically driven by stream processes. Through the culverts and under SR 169, the low-flow channel becomes a glide (Reach D) before transitioning to a dune- ripple channel type (Reach E) and finally to a wetland near the confluence with the Cedar River (Reach F, see description for Wetland A). Within the high-flow bypass channel (Reaches G and H), the channel type is excavated/constructed. These reaches are inundated with water only during high flows and cannot sustain suitable salmonid spawning and rearing habitat (such as appropriate substrate and riparian condition). September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 61 Bankfull Dimensions and Channel Gradient In general, Madsen Creek is narrow, confined, and has a low gradient in the study area. Except for the sediment basin (Reach B) and lower reaches of Wetland A (Reach F), the bankfull width is less than 15 feet. The bankfull depth is 2.5 feet or less throughout the length of the low-flow channel. The channel gradient is highest in the step-pool habitat (4 to 8 percent) upstream of the sediment basin (Reach A) but is otherwise low (1 to 2 percent in Reaches B, C.1, C.2, D.1, E.2, G.2, and H; and less than 1 percent in Reaches C.3, C.4, D.2, E.1, F, and I). Substrate Material, Embeddedness and Cementation Channel substrates throughout the study area are dominated by sands and fines, with gravel and cobble present only in the uppermost reaches (A.1, C.1, C.2, and C.3). Riffle substrate becomes increasingly embedded moving from upstream (0 to 25 percent in A.1 through C.1; 25 to 50 percent in C.2; 50 to 75 percent in C.3) to downstream (75 to 100 percent in C.4 through I.1). Cementation is rated as “Good” to “Fair” in the upper reaches (A.1, C.1, C.2, C.3) where gravels are present and mostly loose, and “Poor” in the lower reaches (the high-flow bypass channel, and the ditch [C.4 through I.1]) where the substrate is dominated by sands and fines. The substrate type, cementation, and embeddedness hinder salmonid spawning and rearing. Suitable substrate material is found in the farthest upstream reaches (A.1 through C.2) and downstream reaches (E.1 through F.3). Physical Habitat Complexity Consistent with LWD presence or absence (see description of functional LWD below), habitat complexity in reaches with LWD rate as “Good” (A.1, C.4, F.1, F.2, F.3) to “Fair” (C.1, C.2, E.2, E.3) according to the stream complexity metric; and habitat complexity in reaches that do not have functional LWD rate as “Poor” (B.1, C.3, D.1, D.2, E.1, G.1 through I.1). The “Good” to “Fair” stream complexity ratings are characterized by good riparian buffers (>50 feet vegetated), with some presence and recruitment of LWD, unarmored and unconfined channel bed and banks, some access to bedload gravels, and hydrologic connectivity to floodplains and wetlands. These conditions support variable channel units (riffles, pools) and diverse microtopography (bars, floodplain benches), which provide a variety of habitats under varying flow conditions and are important for supporting spawning and/or rearing habitat for fish. The type of and amount of fish cover and human influence vary significantly between reaches. Fish cover in the upstream reaches (Reaches A, B, and C) consists mainly of overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, and small (less than 4-inch-diameter woody organic debris). Human influences in these reaches includes trash, culverts, paved roads close to the stream, and clearings for residential development and park uses. Reach D has a significant amount of human influence with the adjacent paved road, paved trail, culverts, trash, and a clearing for residential development. Fish cover in Reach D is dominated by overhanging vegetation and undercut banks. The fish cover in Reaches E and F includes undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, aquatic macrophytes, roots of live trees, and small woody organic debris. Human influence September 2018 62 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton decreases downstream of Reach D; but the paved road, park ballfields, nearby residences, and fences near the stream hinder habitat in Reach E. The high-flow bypass reaches (Reaches G, H, and I) lack fish cover and have very little overhanging vegetation. The high-flow bypass reaches are influenced by many anthropogenic factors that degrade habitat, including culverts, recreational fields, residential areas, fences, and paved roads. The channel sinuosity varies slightly between reaches. The majority of the stream length in the study area (Reaches A, B, C, and E) has low/minor sinuosity (1.0 to 1.2); the farthest downstream reach of the low-flow channel in Wetland A (Reach F) has higher sinuosity (1.2 to 1.5); and Reach D and the high-flow bypass channel reaches (Reaches G, H, and I) are straight (no sinuosity) (1.0). Functional LWD Functional LWD, defined as woody material greater than 4 inches in diameter and 6 feet in length, is lacking throughout much of the study area, with LWD present only in some reaches (Reaches C, E, and F) of Madsen Creek. In several reaches there is neither enough LWD present in the channel (Reaches A, B, D, G, H, and I) nor enough LWD recruitment potential (Reaches C, D, E, F, G, H, and I) from the adjacent riparian area to qualify them as “properly functioning” habitat. Therefore, reaches are classified as “at risk” (survey locations A.1, C.1, C.4, F.1, F.2, F.3) or “not properly functioning” (survey locations B.1, C.2, C.3, D.1 through E.3, G.1 through I.1) based on LWD presence. The lack of LWD limits channel resiliency to watershed or localized changes, reduces the physical stream complexity, and limits the amount of cover and refuge for rearing salmonids. Bank Conditions Bank conditions vary among reaches. Armored banks observed in Reaches A, H, and I have less than 5 percent erosion and do not exhibit active erosion. Slightly unstable banks were observed in Reach B and at survey sites C.1, F.1, and G, with less than 30 percent erosion and with active erosion apparent on at least one bank. Moderately unstable banks, as observed at survey sites C.2, C.3, C.4, D.1, E.2, E.3, F.2, and F.3, have between 30 to 60 percent erosion with active erosion observed along both banks. Completely unstable banks, observed at survey sites D.2 and E.1, show signs of bank failure and erosion along 60 and 100 percent of the bank, respectively, with active erosion observed along both banks. Fish Passage Potential manmade fish passage barriers were examined in the field, including: four culverts in the low-flow channel, three culverts in the high-flow bypass channel, and a potential fish passage barrier upstream of the sediment basin. According to WDFW’s Fish Passage Application (2018c), the sediment basin was last assessed for fish passage in 2003, and the culverts downstream of it were last assessed in 2005 (WDFW 2018c). Therefore, the conditions of these September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 63 structures and their effects on fish passage may have changed since they were last assessed in detail. In addition, the past assessments would not have been based on WDFW’s updated guidance for the design of stream crossing structures in support of fish passage (Barnard et al. 2013). Culverts conveying the low-flow channel of Madsen Creek include a 24-inch-diameter, 20-foot- long culvert between Reaches B and C; an 8-foot-wide, 2-foot-high, 30-foot-long box culvert between Reaches C and D; an 8-foot-wide, 3-foot-high, 120-foot-long box culvert in the middle of Reach D; and a 24-inch-diameter 60-foot-long culvert between Reaches D and E. Eddies and backwater areas were observed at the upstream end of culvert crossing SR 169 (between D.1 and D.2) and the upstream end of the culvert below 149th Avenue Southeast (between D.2 and E.1) at the time of the stream habitat assessment, which occurred during base flow conditions. While the box culverts appear to allow upstream fish passage, the length of the culverts and hydraulic conditions during high-flow periods may render some or all of them impassable. Although salmonids were observed upstream of culverts in the lower portions of Reach C, it was not confirmed if these were anadromous salmonids. The culverts conveying the high-flow bypass channel between Reaches B and G and between Reaches G and H are both 3 feet high and 8 feet wide and are 75 feet and 130 feet long, respectively. A third culvert located between the downstream end of Reach H and the Cedar River was not accessible and therefore could not be assessed. A large weir located in the upstream end of the culvert between Reaches B and G would prevent fish from entering the culvert. Although the culverts along the high-flow bypass may be passable, the inherent flow characteristics of this channel (conveying high flows only) probably inhibit passage. If fish are unable to pass through the culverts at the high-flow bypass outlet to the river, they do not have the opportunity to attempt to pass through culverts farther upstream. Within Reach A, fish use is presumed according to WAC 222-16-031, as the 4 to 8 percent gradient of Reach A would not restrict the movement of fish. Pool areas between log weirs may offer some refuge during high flow conditions, but there is minimal fish cover that would otherwise provide refuge, such as LWD or boulders. Despite a relatively low gradient in Reach A, fish passage may be impeded during high flow conditions by the large height difference of the step-pools that may exceed salmonid jump height capabilities; however, Reach A was not observed during high flow events, and thus corresponding water surface elevation drops were not measured. Reach A was noted as an area of possible high flow velocities and potentially high water surface drops that could affect fish passage under various flow conditions. Floodplain Conditions The degree of floodplain connectivity varied widely between sites surveyed in the field (Appendix E, Table E-1) and was correlated with the amount of available wetland habitat and the channel gradient. Floodplain connectivity is rated “low” in the upstream reaches where the channel gradient is high (A.1), in the sediment basin (B.1), in the channelized areas (D.1 and D.2), in the high-flow bypass channel (G.1, G.2, H.1, H.2), and in the ditch (I.1). The floodplain September 2018 64 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton connectivity rating is “medium” in the forested channel areas (C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, E.1, E.2, E.3), and high in Reach F within the Elliott Bridge mitigation site (F.1, F.2, F.3). Riparian Habitat Conditions Riparian habitat conditions vary widely among the sites and reaches evaluated in this assessment. The results for each survey site are described below and presented in Appendix E, Table E-1. Vegetation Condition Stream channel vegetative cover, which provides an indication of shading and temperature abatement, ranged from 100 percent in intact forested areas to less than 10 percent in areas where vegetation had been cleared on roadsides and near a road right-of-way (Appendix E, Table E-1). Adjacent to Reach A is a large mixed forest canopy that is dominated by mature trees (80 to 200 years old; >21 inches diameter at breast height) (WDFW 2008), including conifers (such as western red cedar and Douglas fir) and mature deciduous trees (such as black cottonwood, red alder, and big-leaf maple). Deciduous riparian stands are present throughout the middle reaches (Reaches B, C, and E). These are dominated by red alder, black cottonwood, Pacific and Sitka willow, and Oregon ash with an understory of red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, snowberry, and vine maple. Riparian vegetation along the high-flow bypass channel (Reaches G and H) and within Reach D and Reach F along the low-flow channel is regularly maintained to prevent dense and tall growth, and therefore the riparian habitat in these reaches is low functioning. Vegetation is considered low functioning for habitat purposes when it does not provide fish cover via overhanging the channel, does not contribute organic debris or forage material to the channel, and/or does not have a well-developed canopy to provide shade for water temperature control. The ditch along 149th Avenue Southeast (Reach I), which is also maintained through mowing and is low functioning, consists of young forested or scrub/shrub riparian habitat along residential clearings (see Herrera [2013] for a description of the ditched wetland). The results of the vegetation condition assessment are provided in Appendix E, Table E-1. Riparian habitat conditions are influenced by the high intensity development directly adjacent to the stream channels and within the upper Madsen Creek watershed. Development activities in the watershed have allowed for the introduction of nonnative species that are adapted to frequent disturbance and can outcompete native vegetation. Invasive species were found along the stream channel in all reaches and sites assessed. Common invasive species observed include reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Japanese knotweed, bittersweet nightshade, tansy ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris), and ornamental jewelweed. The presence of nonnative, invasive vegetation often results in loss of biodiversity, changes in ecosystem function, and shifts in the trajectories of plant succession. Furthermore, invasive plant September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 65 species often provide poor conditions for fish habitat and movement. Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed form dense stands on stream banks in the study area; these species lack deep roots that provide bank stability and furthermore do not contribute to woody debris recruitment. Bittersweet nightshade, which was observed growing within the low flow stream channel, can create dense mats of vegetation that may hinder or block fish passage and create false gravel beds. Riparian Width Riparian buffers in the study area range from 0 feet (adjacent to and passing beneath SR 169) to over 600 feet (Appendix E, Table E-1). Areas with wide, intact buffers coincide with the upstream end of the study area where there is minimal development in close proximity to the creek (Reach A) and the downstream end in Wetland A near the Elliott Bridge Reach mitigation site (Reach F). Upland Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Use Despite the highly developed landscape, the biodiversity area and corridor (WDFW 2018a) south of the study area and the Cedar River corridor to the north provide some connection to upland habitats within the study area. A variety of habitats are located within the study area, such as wetlands with emergent, scrub-shrub and forested vegetation classes, upland shrub and forested areas, herbaceous grass communities, and forested riparian corridors along Madsen Creek and the Cedar River (Figure 7). The varied landscape provides habitat for birds, frogs, deer, small mammals adapted to urban areas, and fish. Species directly observed or evidence of species observed in wetland and upland areas during the field survey work include Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), a woodpecker species, black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Western wood-peewee (Contopus sordidulus), Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and garter snakes (Thamnophis sp.). Salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) were observed in several reaches during the stream habitat assessment, both downstream and upstream of the SR 169 crossing. Cedar River Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelKing County Madsen Creek King County Wetland A(2013) Wetland C(2013) Wetland D(2013) WonderlandEstates Ron RegisPark NewLifeChurch Elliott Bridge ReachMitigation Site Renton Wetland H(2018) Wetland G(2018) Wetland C(2018) Wetland B(2018) Wetland D(2018) Wetland A(2018) Wetland E(2018) Wetland F(2018) Wetland I(2018) SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )142ND PL SE145TH AVE SE146THPLSESE JO N E S R D SE 1 5 7 T HPLSE 155TH PL154TH PL SE150THLNSE1 4 0 T H WA Y S E 152ND AVE SESE 154TH ST SE 153RD PL 149TH AVE SEOAK DRPINE DRSE JONES PLPictometry, King County 0 400 800200Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\Fig7_UplandVegComm_letter.mxd Figure 7.Vegetative Communities in the MadsenCreek Improvement Project Study Area. E Legend Study area Jurisdiction boundary Wetland boundary Estimated wetland boundary Wetland area (HEC, 2018) Wetland area (HEC, 2013) Upland vegetative community Riparian forest Forested upland Herbaceous upland Restoration site Scrub-shrub upland King County, Aerial (2017) September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 67 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Regulations associated with wetlands and streams imposed by the federal government, Washington State, the City of Renton, and King County will apply to any future flood reduction project activities in the study area. Federal laws regulating wetlands and streams include Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (United States Code, Title 33, Chapter 1344 [33 USC 1344]). Washington State laws and programs designed to control the loss of wetland acreage include the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (administered in Washington by Ecology, as mandated by the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act); and the state Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110). Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 and King County Code 21A.24 specify wetland and stream categories, required buffer widths, development standards, and mitigation requirements for critical areas within its jurisdiction. The implications of these federal, state and local government regulations on potential future project actions are described below. C LEAN WATER ACT S ECTIONS 404 AND 401 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the placement or removal of soil or other fill, grading, or alteration (hydrologic or vegetative) in waters of the United States, including wetlands and streams (33 USC 1344). The Seattle District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the permitting program in Renton and throughout King County under the act. Section 404 permits include nationwide (general) permits for projects involving small areas of fill, grading, or alteration, and individual permits for projects that require larger areas of wetland disturbance. USACE does not regulate wetland buffers. The time and resources required to obtain a Section 404 permit are important considerations for any project subject to Section 404 permitting, which is likely to be the case for any flood improvement action taken in the Madsen Creek system. Permit applications require substantial effort (though the wetland and stream delineation work documented in this report constitutes part of that effort), and it can take more than a year to obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE Seattle District upon determination that an application is complete. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that proposed dredge (removal) and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and certified to ensure that such activities meet state water quality standards. Section 401 certification is administered in Washington by Ecology for all Section 404 permits. Certification is granted without the need for a separate permit from Ecology for projects that qualify for a Section 404 nationwide permit, meet specific Section 401 certification conditions of the nationwide permit, and meet Ecology’s 401 General Conditions. If those conditions are not met, Ecology requires an Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit. Obtaining a Section 401 certification from Ecology generally does not September 2018 68 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton require much more time than is needed for the 404 permit from USACE (the reviews are linked), and usually does not require extensive documentation of potential water quality impacts and mitigation measures. The Section 401 certification review process is more of an administrative step as compared to the Section 404 permit review process. WASHINGTON STATE L AWS Washington laws and programs designed to control the loss of wetland acreage include SEPA and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (a federal law that is implemented in the state by Ecology, as noted above and as mandated by the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act). The WDFW administers the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) program under the state Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110), which was specifically designed to protect fish life. An HPA is required for projects that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or fresh waters of the state. Depending on the magnitude of a proposed flood reduction action(s), satisfying SEPA could require a relatively low level of effort to prepare a SEPA environmental checklist or a substantial effort if the action rises to a level of potential environmental impacts that triggers preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). If a checklist suffices, the SEPA process can typically be taken care of in 4 months or fewer, if no appeal is filed. If an EIS is needed, the SEPA process can take up to a few years to complete. The types of actions that may be taken in the future to reduce flooding along Madsen Creek can probably avoid the need for an EIS. In addition to satisfying SEPA requirements, any action taken to reduce flooding in lower Madsen Creek that alters the creek channel in any way below the ordinary high water level, or otherwise affects flow conveyance in the creek, will require obtaining a HPA. It is common for projects in streams to have to incorporate “habitat friendly” features (such as LWD) as a condition(s) of the HPA. Compared to the time required to obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE, HPAs can be acquired much more quickly, as long as the project is designed in ways that satisfy prevailing HPA conditions. A SEPA determination is required for a complete HPA application. C ITY OF RENTON CODE The City of Renton requires buffers from wetland boundaries and the OHWM of streams (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). Renton assigns wetland buffer widths based upon land uses, wetland rating and habitat score. Stream buffers are assigned based on water type. Wetlands A, B, C, E, F, G, H, and I are Category II wetlands with moderate habitat function scores, and Wetland D is a Category I wetland with a moderate habitat score. Wetlands A, D, E, F, G, and H are located in areas of “other land uses,” which are not low impact land uses. Wetlands B, C, and I are located in areas of low impact land uses. Wetlands B, C, and I require a 100-foot buffer width, while Wetlands D, E, F, G, and I require a 150-foot buffer width. Wetland A buffers are discussed below under the shoreline code. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 69 The Madsen Creek low-flow channel is considered fish bearing. The high-flow bypass channel is regulated under Renton code as a Type F stream, because it may potentially be used by fish during high water events due to its connection to the Cedar River. A 115-foot buffer width applies to both channel types. Within the reconnaissance study area, the approximate boundary of the stream buffer of the high-flow bypass channel was derived based on the surveyed centerline of the channel and LiDAR imagery, as opposed to delineating the OHWM along its banks in the field. Stream buffer widths were applied to the LiDAR-estimated OWHM (Figures 6-1 through 6-8). The Cedar River is regulated by the City (and County) as a Shoreline of the State (Type S water). Areas adjacent to the river are therefore within shoreline jurisdiction and are regulated by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (RMC 4-3-090). The Cedar River shoreline within the study area is designated as Urban Conservancy, which aims to protect, conserve, restore, and manage open space areas, floodplain, and other sensitive lands that are located in urban or developed areas while allowing for compatible uses (Renton 2015). Wetlands within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under RMC 4-3-090.D.d. Wetland buffers are determined based upon wetland category using the 2004 Ecology rating system (RMC 4-3-090.D.d.ii) and habitat score as described earlier in this report. The entirety of Wetland A falls within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction. As a Category II wetland with a high habitat score (31 points), Wetland A requires a 225-foot buffer width under the SMP. Streams within shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under Renton’s Critical Area Regulations (RMC 4-3-050) except for provisions under RMC 4-3-0903D.c.ii, which do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction (RMC 4-3-090.D.c.i). Therefore, the stream buffer width of 115 feet for Madsen Creek also applies within the shoreline jurisdiction (Table 16). Table 16. Stream Classifications and Buffer Widths in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Name WDNR Water Typea City of Renton Water Typeb King County Water Typec City of Renton Buffer Width (feet)d King County Buffer Width (feet)e Madsen Creek (low-flow channel) F F F 115 115 Madsen Creek (high-flow bypass channel) F F F 115 115 a The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) water typing system uses definitions outlined in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 222-16-031). b The City of Renton types streams in accordance with RMC 4-3-050-G.7.a. c King County stream types are classified in accordance with KCC 21A.24.355. d Buffer widths classified for streams in Renton (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). e Buffer widths classified for streams within a UGA in unincorporated King County (KCC 21A.24.358). September 2018 70 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton A proposed flood reduction action(s) in lower Madsen Creek would almost certainly involve impacts that trigger City and/or County stream and buffer protection requirements. These requirements would trigger a need to incorporate “habitat friendly” project elements that prevent degradation of the stream and/or buffer habitat, similar to what is needed to obtain a HPA as described above. KING C OUNTY CODE King County requires both wetland and aquatic area (stream) buffers to protect ecological functions and values. Determination of wetland buffers depends on factors such as its location within or outside the UGA, habitat function level, and intensity of adjacent land use impact (KCC 21A.24.325). Stream buffers as measured from the ordinary high water mark of the channel are assigned based on location within or outside the UGA and stream type (KCC 21A.24.358). Wetland A and Wetland E are located within unincorporated King County jurisdiction. As both wetlands are located in a UGA, the standard buffer width applies. As documented in this report, Wetlands A and E have 200-foot and 100-foot regulatory buffers, respectively. The low-flow channel and high-flow channel of Madsen Creek are both classified as Type F waters per County code, which have a standard buffer width of 115 feet. Shoreline jurisdiction in King County is regulated within the study area as Conservancy Shoreline and Residential Shoreline under King County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (KCC 21A.25). The purpose of the conservancy environmental designation is to conserve areas that are a high priority for restoration and also provide recreational opportunities. The residential environmental designation accommodates commercial and residential uses. Critical areas located within shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the King County’s critical area ordinance (KCC 21A.24). The regulatory implications of implementing a flood reduction project that impacts a wetland or the high-flow bypass channel or associated buffer(s) in King County jurisdiction include the need to incorporate features that prevent degradation of aquatic and/or upland habitat characteristics, similar to what would be required for a project in the City’s jurisdiction. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 71 REFERENCES Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Ecology Publication 16-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology. Barnard, R.J., J. Johnson, P. Brooks, K.M. Bates, B. Heiner, J.P. Klavas, D.C. Ponder, P.D. Smith, and P.D. Powers. 2013. Water Crossings Design Guidelines, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/culverts.htm>. Beechie, T.J. and T.H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:217–229. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. August. Comings, K., H. Wachter, T. Garrido, and D. Booth. 2000. 1998–1999 Facilities and Resources Monitoring Report for Blakely and Redmond Ridge Urban Planned Developments. Prepared for King County, Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington, by the Center for Urban Water Resources Management, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. eBird. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Accessed August 28, 2018. <http://www.ebird.org>. Ecology. 2006. Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery: Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-03-203. December 2006. Ecology. 2016. 303(d) listed waters dataset layer. Washington State Department of Ecology. Created August 15, 2016. Accessed July 3, 2018. <https://services.arcgis.com/6lCKYNJLvwTXqrmp/ArcGIS/rest/services/WQA_303d_current/Featu reServer/1>. Ecology. 2018b. Water Quality Assessment for Washington, 303(d) Map Tool. Accessed August 19, 2018 from agency website: <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html>. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. January. September 2018 72 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report TR-08-13. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Vicksburg, Mississippi. EPA. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers. US Environmental Protection Agency, 841-B-99-002. 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Fox, M. and S. Bolton. 2007. A Regional and Geomorphic Reference for Quantities and Volumes of Instream Wood in Unmanaged Forested Basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:342–359. Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM-245. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, For Collins, Colorado. Henshaw, P. and D. Booth. 2000. Natural restabilization of stream channels in urban watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(6):1219–1236. Herrera. 2013. Wetland Delineation and Upland Characterization, Elliott Bridge Reach of the Cedar River. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington. October 3. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication 14-06-029). Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Ecology Publication 04-06-025, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. August. King County. 2013a. Elliott Bridge Reach Off-Channel Habitat and Floodplain Reconnection Plan Set. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Rural and Regional Services Section, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2013b. Hydrographic data. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Lands Resources Division. Created September 5, 2013. Accessed July 3, 2018. <http://www.5.kingcounty.gov/sdc/Metadata.aspx?Layer=wtrcrs>. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 73 King County. 2017. Elliott Bridge Reach Off-Channel Habitat and Floodplain Reconnection Project: Year 1 Monitoring and Maintenance (M&M) Report. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Ecological Restoration and Engineering Services Unit, Seattle, Washington. March 21. King County. 2018a. Imagery (King County 2018). King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 3 inches. Accessed July 3, 2018. King County. 2018b. King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool. Updated December 5, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2018. <https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/imap.aspx>. King County 2018c. Topographic data. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. LiDAR bare-earth topobathymetric model. Accessed July 3, 2018. May, C., R. Horner, J. Karr, B. Mar, and E. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4):483–494. McBride, M. 2001. Spatial effects of urbanization on physical conditions in Puget Sound lowland streams. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. GSA Bulletin 109(5):596–611. NMFS. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. <http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/GEOENVIRONMENTAL/docs/Biology/NMFS_Matrix.pdf>. NMFS. 2018. Endangered and Threatened Fish (Marine and Anadromous). National Marine Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed August 19, 2018. <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#fish>. NRCS. 2017. Soil survey geographic database for King County area, Washington. September 7, 2017. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed July 3, 2018. <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. NRCS. 2018a. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed August 3, 2018. <https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/efotg_locator.aspx>. NRCS. 2018b. Official Soil Series Descriptions. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed August 14, 2018 <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587>. September 2018 74 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton NRCS. 2018c. Hydric Soils. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed August 14, 2018. <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/>. NRCS. 2018d. Web Soil Survey. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed August 14, 2018. <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm>. OWEB. 1999. Component V Riparian/Wetlands Assessment. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon. Pictometry International Corp. 2017. Imagery (King County 2017). King County GIS Center. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 3 inches. Produced 2017. Pictometry International Corp. Accessed July 3, 2018. <https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/arcgis/services>. Ralph, S.C., G.C. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J. Naiman. 1994. Stream channel morphology and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:37–51. Renton. 2015. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted June 22, 2015. <http://rentondowntown.com/wp-content/uploads/Renton-Comprehensive-Plan.pdf> Renton. 2018a. City of Renton Maps. Updated August 8, 2016. Accessed August 19, 2018. <http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps> Renton. 2018b. Critical areas data. City of Renton. Wetlands dataset layer. Accessed July 3, 2018. < https://rp.rentonwa.gov/arcgis/rest/services> USDA. 2015. Aerial photograph of King County. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 1 meter. Produced 2015. US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office. Accessed July 3, 2018. <http://gis.ess.washington.edu/data/raster/doqs_naip.html>. USFWS. 2018a. Raster scan data of National Wetlands Inventory wetlands maps. Digital data created in 2017. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed August 19, 2018. <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html>. USFWS. 2018b. Endangered Species. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed February 20, 2018. <https://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html>. WDFW. 2008. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. WDFW. 2009. Fish Passage and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton 75 WDFW. 2018a. Priority Species and Habitat Database. Provided by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed February 13, 2018. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/>. WDFW. 2018b. SalmonScape mapping system. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed August 3, 2018. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. WDFW. 2018c. Washington State Fish Passage Map Application. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed August 10, 2018. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/habitat/fish_passage/data_maps.html>. WDFW. 2018d. Washington State Species of Concern Lists. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed August 10, 2018. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/lists/search.php?searchby=StateStatus&search= SC&orderby=AnimalType>. WDNR. 2018. Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS). Washington Department of Natural Resources. Accessed August 10, 2018. < https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and- services/forest-practices/forest-practices-application-review-system-fpars> WFPB. 1997. Board Manual: Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis. Under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 4.0. Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, Washington. November. APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Methods September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton A-1 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS The wetland delineation for the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Phase 1was performed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010), which is consistent with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). These methods use a three-parameter approach for identifying and delineating wetlands: the presence of field indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. This wetland delineation was performed according to procedures specified for the routine wetland determination method (Environmental Laboratory 1987). H YDROPHYTIC VEGETATION Hydrophytic vegetation is characterized by the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and persist in anaerobic soil conditions resulting from periodic or long-term saturation (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Vegetation must meet at least one of the four indicators (described below) that are used to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in wetlands. Problematic and atypical situations for hydrophytic vegetation are also described in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineation manual and supplement (Environmental Laboratory 1987, 2010). Plant Species Identification Plant species were identified using Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1987) and A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon (Cooke 1997). The indicator status of each plant species is based on the National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar 2016) for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Dominant Species Determination Dominant species are those that contribute more than other species to the character of a plant community. To determine dominance, a vegetation sampling area is determined by the field biologist to accurately characterize the plant community that occurs in the area to be evaluated. These are commonly circular sampling areas, centered on the location of the test plot (where soil and hydrologic data is also collected). The radius of the circle is determined in the field, based on site conditions. In large wetlands, a typical sampling radius would be 2 to 5 meters for tree and sapling/shrub species, and 1 meter for herbaceous species. In a small or narrow wetland (or upland), the radius might be reduced to accurately sample wetland or upland areas, September 2018 A-2 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton thereby avoiding an overlap into an adjacent community having different vegetation, soils, or hydrologic conditions (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Within the vegetation sampling area, a complete list of plant species that occur in the sampling area is compiled and the species divided into four strata: tree, shrub (including saplings, see criteria below), herb, and woody vines. A plant is included in the tree stratum if it is a woody plant 3 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater; in the shrub stratum if it is a woody plant less than 3 inches dbh (including tree saplings under 3 inches dbh); in the herb stratum if it is an herbaceous (non-woody) plant; and in the woody vine stratum if it is a woody vine of any height (Environmental Laboratory 2010). To be included in the sampling, 50 percent or more of the plant base must be within the radius of the sampling area. For trees specifically, more than 50 percent of the trunk (diameter) must be within the sampling radius to be included. A rapid test, dominance test (e.g., the 50/20 rule), or prevalence index are commonly used to determine which species are considered dominant and to assess whether the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation are met at each test plot (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Additional hydrophytic vegetation indicators are discussed in the following section. To conduct a rapid test (Indicator 1 on the wetland determination data form), the dominant species are evaluated visually and if all are FACW or OBL, the vegetation data passes the rapid test. To conduct a dominance test (Indicator 2 on the wetland determination data form), the absolute areal coverage of the plant species within a stratum are totaled, starting with the most abundant species and including other species in descending order of coverage, until the cumulative coverage exceeds 50 percent of the total coverage for the stratum. The plant species that constitute this first 50 percent of areal coverage are considered the dominant species in the stratum. In addition, any other any single plant species that constitutes at least 20 percent of the total percent cover in the stratum is also considered a dominant species (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The indicator status category for each plant (shown in Table A-1) is also listed on the wetland determination form. If more than 50 percent of the dominant species across all strata are rated OBL, FACW, or FAC, the hydrophytic vegetation dominance test (Indicator 2) is met. The prevalence index (Indicator 3 on the wetland determination data form) is a weighted- average wetland indicator status of all plant species in the sampling plot, where weighting is by abundance (Environmental Laboratory 2010). This method is used where indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present, but the vegetation initially fails the rapid and dominance tests (Indicators 1 and 2). To determine the prevalence index, the absolute cover of each species in each stratum is determined. All species (across all strata) are organized into wetland indicator status groups (i.e., OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or UPL) and their cover values are summed within the groups. The formula for the prevalence index is applied. If the prevalence index (which ranges from 1.0 to 5.0) equals 3.0 or less, this hydrophytic vegetation indicator is met. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton A-3 Table A-1. Plant Indicator Status Categories. Indicator Status Indicator Symbol Definition Obligate wetland plants OBL Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions but also occur rarely (estimated probability <1%) in upland areas Facultative wetland plants FACW Plants that usually occur (estimated probability >67%) in wetlands under natural conditions but also occur (estimated probability 1% to 33%) in upland areas Facultative plants FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and upland areas Facultative upland plants FACU Plants that sometimes occur (estimated probability 1% to 33%) in wetlands but occur more often (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in upland areas Obligate upland plants UPL Plants that rarely occur (estimated probability <1%) in wetlands under natural conditions DRYUPLFACUFACFACWOBLWET→←−−−− Source: Environmental Laboratory (1987). Additional Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators The presence of morphological adaptations to wetland conditions in plants that lack a published hydrophytic vegetation indicator status or with an indicator status of FACU or drier is also a hydrophytic vegetation indicator (Indicator 4). Evidence of physiological, morphological, or reproductive adaptations indicating growth in hydrophytic conditions can include, but are not limited to, buttressed roots, adventitious roots, multi-stemmed trunks, or tussocks. To determine whether Indicator 4 is met, the morphological features must be observed on more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species (or species without a published indicator status) living in an area where hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present. On the wetland determination data form, the indicator status of the species with morphological adaptations would be changed to FAC (with supporting notes), and the dominance test (Indicator 2) and/or prevalence index (Indicator 3) would then be recalculated. Wetland non-vascular plants, referred to as bryophytes and consisting of mosses, liverworts, and hornworts, may also meet the hydric vegetation criteria, under Indicator 5 (Environmental Laboratory 2010). These plants must be present in areas containing hydric soils and wetland hydrology. The percent cover of wetland specialist bryophytes is determined in 10-inch-by- 10-inch square plots placed at the base of hummocks, if present. The summed cover of wetland specialist bryophytes must be more than 50 percent of the total bryophyte cover in the vegetation sampling area. The problematic hydrophytic vegetation indicator section in the USACE regional supplement further explains how to interpret situations in which hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present but hydrophytic vegetation Indicators 1 through 5 are lacking (Environmental September 2018 A-4 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Laboratory 2010). Procedures for looking at settings such as areas with active vegetation management (e.g., farms), areas dominated by aggressive invasive species, active floodplains, and low terraces are described, as well as explanations for specific situations, such as seasonal shifts in plant communities, extended drought conditions, and riparian areas. H YDRIC SOILS A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or inundated long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory 1987, 2010). The evaluation of existing soil maps (developed by the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] and other sources) is used to understand hydric soil distribution and to identify the likely locations of hydric soils (by verifying their inclusion on the hydric soils list). Comparison of these mapped soils to conditions found on site help verify the presence of hydric soils. For onsite soils characterization, hydric soils data were obtained generally by digging test pits at least 20 inches deep and 4 inches wide. Hydric soil conditions were evaluated using indicators outlined in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS 2017) and adopted by the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Hydric soil indicators applicable to the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast region include, but are not limited to, the presence of organic soils (i.e., histosols or histic epipedons); sulfidic material (i.e., hydrogen sulfide); depleted, gleyed, or reduced soil matrices; and/or the presence of iron or manganese concretions (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Soil color characterization (i.e., hue, value, and chroma) is a critical tool in determining depleted, gleyed, and reduced soil conditions. Soil color was evaluated by comparing soil colors at test plots to standardized color samples in Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color 2000). W ETLAND HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology is indicated by site conditions that demonstrate the periodic inundation or saturation to the soil surface for a sufficient duration during the total growing season. A sufficient duration during the growing season is defined as 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or presence of a water table at 12 inches or less from the soil surface (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The growing season is the period of consecutive frost-free days, or the longest period during which the soil temperature stays above biological zero (41°F), when measured at 12 inches below the soil surface. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton A-5 Two indicators of biological activity can be used to determine whether the growing season has begun and is ongoing (Environmental Laboratory 2010): • Occurrence of aboveground growth and development of at least two non-evergreen vascular plant species growing within the wetland. Examples of this growth include the emergence or elongation of leaves on woody plants and the emergence or opening of flowers. • Soil temperature, which can be measured once during a single site visit, should be at least 41°F or higher at a depth of 12 inches. For this assessment, onsite hydrologic indicators were examined at the test plots. Primary hydrologic indicators used in this delineation included the presence of surface water, standing water in the test pit at a depth of 12 inches or less, saturation in the root zone at a depth of 12 inches or less, hydrogen sulfide odor, and oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living root. If at least one primary hydrologic indicator is not present, two secondary hydrologic indicators are required to confirm wetland hydrology. Secondary hydrologic indicators included saturation visible on aerial imagery, geomorphic position, and FAC-neutral vegetation test. A NTECEDENT PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS Analyzing climatic conditions and local weather patterns are important in assessing vegetation, soil conditions, and hydrology for wetland delineations (Environmental Laboratory 1987, 2010). Information on precipitation that precedes a site visit is valuable in helping determine whether conditions observed at a site are reflective of normal rainfall. The NRCS (1997) provides methodology for the analysis of normal environmental conditions using antecedent rainfall measurements. For this method, “normal precipitation” is defined as ranges of normal precipitation or values falling within defined thresholds, in this case, the 30th and 70th percentile thresholds (Sprecher and Warne 2000). These ranges for a particular site are provided by WETS tables, which can be accessed through the NRCS National Water and Climate Center (NRCS 2018) and are calculated using long-term data (30 years) recorded at National Weather Service meteorological stations. USDA WETS tables display monthly average rainfall data (50th percentile) in addition to the upper and lower limits at which there is a 30 percent chance that rainfall will be more or less than the average (30th and 70 percentiles) (NRCS 2017). USDA WETS tables use climatological probabilities and are calculated on the basis of the most recent three decades of data, as factors such as climate change and different recording technologies may alter probabilities (Sprecher and Warne 2000). Currently, the 30-year range from 1981 to 2010 is used. This method makes the assumptions that rainfall is evenly distributed within a month, that antecedent precipitation can be properly evaluated for a 3-month period (i.e., assumes that evapotranspiration is the same in each season), that antecedent precipitation affects different systems similarly, and that snowmelt has the same contribution to hydrology as rainfall (Sprecher and Warne 2000). September 2018 A-6 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton To determine whether recent precipitation is reflective of normal precipitation, a representative weather station near the site is selected; as other conditions may affect precipitation (e.g., elevation, aspect, and proximity to mountains), the nearest station may not be the most representative of the site (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The procedure for determining normal precipitation uses measured rainfall data from the 3 months prior to the month of the site visit. For example, if the site visit occurs in September, precipitation data from June, July, and August would be analyzed. The recorded rainfall of each month is first compared to the long term range of normal precipitation (30th and 70th percentiles) and is determined to have a “normal” condition if it falls within this range; if the recorded data is higher or lower than the range, then it is determined to have a “wet” or “dry” condition, respectively. The condition is then given a value, “1” for “dry,” “2” for “normal,” and “3” for “wet,” and this value is multiplied by the weighted monthly value, where the most recent month (one month prior) is weighted heavier (3) than 3 months prior (1). The sum of this product is then used to determine whether the entire 3-month period is “drier than normal” (6–9), “normal” (10–14) or “wetter than normal” (15–18). While this method is useful for comparing a short-term time period to normal, this method is limited in that it discounts analysis of daily precipitation patterns within a given month (Sprecher and Warne 2000, Sumner et al. 2009). September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton A-7 REFERENCES Cooke, S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society and Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, Washington. June. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. January. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report TR-08-13. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1987. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 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. US Army Corps of Engineers. Accessed June 27, 2016. <http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/>. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. NRCS. 1997. Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination. Chapter 19, Engineering field handbook. D.E. Woodward, ed. USDA-NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas. NRCS. 2017. Field Indicators of Hydric Soil in the United States, Version 8.1. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz, eds. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. NRCS. 2018. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed January 25, 2018. <https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/efotg_locator.aspx>. Sprecher, S., and A. Warne. 2000. Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology. Technical Report TR-WRAP-00-01. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Operations Division Regulatory Branch, Vicksburg, Mississippi. April. Sumner, J.P., M.J. Vepraskas, and R.K. Kolka. 2009. Methods to Evaluate Normal Rainfall for Short-term Wetland Hydrology Assessment. Wetlands 29(3):1049–1062. APPENDIX B Stream Habitat Assessment Methods September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton B-1 STREAM HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODS The stream habitat assessment provides a qualitative assessment of physical channel elements. This field survey focused on the physical stream habitat, floodplain conditions, riparian habitat conditions, and human influences. Upland habitat types and wildlife observations were also noted. The stream habitat assessment was completed for representative sample locations selected for each reach of Madsen Creek and the high-flow bypass channel (See Table 1 and Figure 3 in the report). Observations were made from walking the stream channel within each sample location. Physical Stream Habitat Herrera selected specific proven protocols for describing the geomorphic and habitat conditions of a representative subsample of Madsen Creek stream reaches. The protocols have been used successfully in other rapid channel assessments in the Puget Sound lowland region, and for other developing watersheds in Western Washington and Oregon. Channel Type Stream types were classified based primarily on the Montgomery and Buffington (1997) process- based classification system. Channel types include cascade, step pool, plane bed, pool/riffle, dune/ripple, bedrock, and colluvial. Additional channel types were added to describe channel types typically found in urban areas like Madsen Creek that do not fit into the Montgomery and Buffington’s (1997) classification system or other typical stream classification systems (e.g., Rosgen 1996). These additional channel types (defined below) include: excavated/constructed, glide – cohesive rectangular, impounded, wetland, and other. Forced channel types, such as riffle/pool or step pool created by the placement of large woody debris (LWD) in the channel were classified as that basic channel type, and description of the significant morphological influence of the LWD or another forcing factor were noted. • Excavated/constructed. A channel reach that has been mechanically altered or constructed. It has not been formed by natural processes of erosion and deposition. This channel type may or may not be engineered, and bed/bank material may consist of natural material (fines, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder) or imported material (riprap, blasted bedrock, gabion baskets, concrete). Excavated or constructed channel typically consist of highly simplified planform (straight, with clear angle changes) and cross- sectional geometry (rectangular or trapezoidal). Constructed channels are not necessarily stable. • Glide – cohesive rectangular. This channel type is defined as having a stable, single- thread, low gradient, low-sinuosity (<1.2) channel with vertical, fine-grained cohesive banks and a low width-depth ratio. September 2018 B-2 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton • Impounded. A stream reach that is influenced by manmade dams where the backwater effect of the dam obscures a defined channel or effects geomorphic processes significantly enough to impact channel process and form. • Wetland. A wetland reach (either natural or constructed) is a stream reach with undefined or poorly defined channel. This channel type is common in headwater reaches. Wetland channel types are not fluvial or alluvial and are dominated by wetlands and/or vegetation instead of fluvial process. (This definition of wetland does not correspond to the definition by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory 1987, 2010), which is used for wetland delineations and not stream channel classifications). • Other. A channel or stream reach that cannot be classified based on the above choices. An example of this type might include naturally impounded areas formed by beaver activity. Bankfull Channel Width and Bankfull Channel Depth Bankfull channel width (BFW) and bankfull depth (BFD) were measured at intervals through a geomorphic reach and approximately average values were recorded. Bankfull width is defined as the distance perpendicular to the channel between bankfull stage indicators of the right and left banks (for a single thread channel). Bankfull depth is defined as the vertical distance from the channel thalweg (deepest point on a cross section) to the bankfull stage (Harrelson et al. 1994). BFW and BFD were measured at different locations along the stream profile depending on the stream’s channel type. Bankfull depth was measured at riffles in the riffle/pool or plane bed channels, and at runs or glides on step pool, cascade, dune/ripple, rectangular glide, or bedrock channels. Excavated/constructed channels do not have a true, natural bankfull width and depth that relates to the hydrology and geology of the system. In cases where excavated/constructed channels were encountered, they were treated as plane bed channels and bankfull channel dimensions were recorded at uniform riffles. Before channel width and depth was measured, the bankfull stage was determined. For the purposes of this qualitative stream survey, we assumed that the bankfull stage defines the active channel and does not include portions of the overbank and floodplain. The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) stage may or may not be equivalent to the bankfull stage (Anderson et al. 2016). Bankfull width and depth measurements in the field were completed using combinations of typical indicators described in several commonly cited references (Harrelson et al. 1994; Rosgen 1996). Typical bankfull indicators include: • Clear, natural scour lines on the bank. • The lowest extent of persistent woody vegetation. • The presence of a floodplain at the elevation of incipient flooding. • Changes in vegetation communities. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton B-3 • The top of the zone of washed roots. • Break in slope of the bank. • The lowest extent of lichen or moss on bedrock or bank boulders. • Bank undercuts. • Change in particle size of bank material (e.g., the boundary between cobble and fines). • Elevation of the highest deposition features, such as point bars. In instances where actively incising or widening channels did not exhibit clear bankfull indicators, the field staff measured the depth to the top of the bank, as indicated in a break in slope from bank to floodplain surface. Channel Gradient Channel gradient was estimated as the local water surface slope using a clinometer over each of the assessed reaches. Substrate Material Substrate material is an important metric for determining the suitability of a habitat for salmonid spawning and rearing. For example, reaches with a primary substrate of gravel are more likely to be suitable for spawning in riffles and pool tail-outs (Groot and Margolis 1991). Primary and secondary stream bed substrate were classified for all geomorphic reaches. Visual estimates were made based on relative surface area covered by different size classes of sediment. Primary substrate refers to the most common size class; secondary substrate refers to the second most common size class. Primary and secondary stream bed substrate were categorized using the protocol shown in Table B-1. Table B-1. Substrate Material Categories. Category Size Class Size Class Comparison Fines <62 µm, estimated Non-gritty Sand 63 µm to 2 mm Gritty to ladybug Gravel 2 mm to 1.25 inch Ladybug to tennis ball Cobble 1.25 inch to 10 inch Tennis ball to basketball Boulder >10 inch Basketball to car Bedrock Non-alluvial bedrock Larger than car Cohesive fines Non-alluvial erosion-resistant clays Hardened fines Source: Ecology 2006 µm = micrometer mm = millimeter September 2018 B-4 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Physical Habitat Complexity Physical habitat complexity is important for determining a habitats’ suitability for supporting fish habitat and includes fish cover and the amount of human influence. A metric of physical habitat complexity, based on the metric developed by McBride (2001), is a measure used to distinguished between a channel that is naturally diverse with riffles and pools and one that has become uniform and simplified through natural or anthropogenic influence. The metric uses classifications of excellent, good, fair, and poor to assess whether the physical channel conditions were consistent with the existing and designated beneficial uses, which include salmon spawning and rearing habitat. • “Excellent” channel reaches are diverse with complex structures. They show variety in channel units (pools, riffles, glides) and have side channel and/or debris jams. The channel has microtopography and variable channel geometry. • “Good” channel reaches are less diverse and complex structure. They have some variety in channel units, but less frequent side channels and/or debris jams. The reaches show some heterogeneity in microtopography and channel geometry. • “Fair” channel reaches show little diversity or complexity in structure. They show little variety in channel units and have very few side channels and/or debris jams. There is little heterogeneity in microtopography and channel geometry. • “Poor” channel reaches are simple in structure and show no variety in channel units. These reaches have no side channels or debris jams and very little variety in channel geometry. They have homogenous microtopography. Although the physical habitat complexity metric is qualitative and subjective, the same observer applied the rank to all reaches; therefore, the results should be consistent for use in this analysis. The type and amount of fish cover was estimated for each stream reach. Types of fish cover include filamentous algae, macrophytes (emergent, submergent or floating vegetation), woody debris (greater than 1 foot), brush/wood (less than 1 foot), live trees or roots, overhanging vegetation over the stream, undercut banks, boulders, artificial structures, and bryophytes. The human influence metric is based on the presence or absence of defined types of anthropogenic features observed along each stream reach. Types of human influence include buildings, clearing/lot, human foot path, landfill/trash, logging, mining, park/lawn, pasture, paved road/railroad, pipes (inlet/outlet), row crops, unpaved trail for motorized vehicles, and wall/dike/riprap. A stream’s sinuosity is its tendency to move laterally within a floodplain channel, often creating an S-shaped pattern over time. Channel sinuosity is another metric on physical habitat complexity. Sinuosity was estimated visually based on the following categories. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton B-5 •Straight (1.0) – this rating was reserved for excavated/constructed channels •Low (1.0 to 1.2) •Medium (1.2 to 1.5) •High (>1.5) Due to the tight confines and dense vegetation typically encountered on the surveyed reaches, it was impractical to take more specific measurements of sinuosity. Functional Large Woody Debris Functional LWD, defined as woody material greater than 4-inches in diameter and 6-feet in length, is an important component of fish habitat, creates habitat diversity and complexity. Large wood within the channel will collect and sort substrate, create pools and riffles, and provide cover for fish. Each representative reach was rated on the amount of functional LWD present in the channel. Reaches were described using protocol that combined components of existing LWD protocols from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 1996) matrix of Pathways and Indicators based on several LWD studies (Ralph et al. 1994; Beechie and Sibley 1997; Fox and Bolton 2007). Reaches were categorized based on the function LWD criteria in Table B-2. Table B-2. Functional LWD Criteria. Rating Criteria Properly Functioning BFW 0 to 20 feet: Approximately one piece every 8 to 10 feet of channel. BFW 20 to 100 feet: Approximately one piece every 5 to 6 feet of channel. To classify as LWD, pieces must exceed 4 inches in diameter and 6 feet in length. In addition, the reach must have an adequate source for LWD recruitment in the adjacent riparian area. At Risk Meets LWD quantity requirements for classification as Properly Functioning but lacks adequate sources of LWD recruitment in adjacent riparian areas to maintain the standard. Not Properly Functioning Does not meet LWD quantity requirements for classification as Properly Functioning or At Risk. Reach may or may not have an adequate source for LWD recruitment in the adjacent riparian areas. When sources for LWD recruitment were present, this information was recorded in the notes. Note. Adapted from National Marine Fisheries Service (1996) Matrix of Pathways and Indicators. BFW = Bankfull width LWD = large woody debris Riffle Gravel Embeddedness The embeddedness of gravel in riffles is an indicator of the fine sediment that is present in the creek bed. Fine sediment in urban creeks is often the result of upstream bank erosion or outfalls carrying fine sediments and dust from roads. The embeddedness of gravels in a riffle was September 2018 B-6 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton determined by estimating the percent of the perimeters of random cobbles and gravels (located along the longitudinal profile) surrounded by fine sediment. The overall embeddedness for each reach was then grouped into one of four categories: 0 to 25 percent, 25 to 50 percent, 50 to 75 percent, and greater than 75 percent (McBride 2001; Ecology 2006). Riffle Gravel Cementation An abundance of fine sediments can cause “cementation” of substrates, which can impede redd construction by salmonids. The degree of cementation of riffle gravels was measured by examining the hardening and compaction of the substrate. The methodology for describing riffle gravel cementation was adapted from Comings et al. (2000) and McBride (2001) (Table B-3). Table B-3. Riffle Gravel Cementation. Classification Description Poor Gravel and cobbles are cemented throughout riffle (concrete-like). Very difficult to penetrate riffle surface. A lot of fine material released downstream with heel pressure (rich plume). Fair Gravel and cobbles are compacted and tight (perhaps only loose at the downstream end of a riffle). Considerable effort needed to penetrate the riffle surface. Substantial fine material released with heel pressure. Good Gravel and cobbles are tight, but still loose at the downstream end of the riffle. Some effort needed to penetrate riffle surface. Some fine material released with heel pressure. Excellent Gravel and cobbles are loose throughout the riffle. Very easy to penetrate riffle surface with heel pressure. Very little fine material released with heel pressure. Source: Adapted from Comings et al., 2000; and McBride 2001. Bank Conditions Bank conditions were characterized by documenting observations of active bank erosion, estimating the percent eroded banks, and by using a bank stability classification metric. Active bank erosion was assessed using the following conditions: • None – little or no bank erosion documented on reach. • Left bank – bank erosion concentrated on the left bank. • Right bank – bank erosion concentrated on the right bank. • Both banks – active bank erosion documented on both banks. September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton B-7 Bank erosion was characterized using the bank stability protocol from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (US EPA 1999). The percent stream bank erosion was classified using the following categories (US EPA 1999): • Optimal – less than 5 percent eroded banks. • Suboptimal – 5 to 30 percent eroded banks. • Marginal – 30 to 60 percent eroded banks. • Poor – 60 to 100 percent eroded banks. Bank stability was characterized using a protocol developed by Henshaw and Booth (2000) and summarized by Scholz and Booth (2001) in which a stream reach is classified as stable, slightly unstable, moderately unstable, or completely unstable based on indicators such as bank vegetation, undercutting/erosion/scalloping, exposed tree roots, and downed trees. An additional category, forced stable, was included to describe banks that have been stabilized by unnatural processes such as armoring with riprap (Table B-4). Table B-4. Streambank Stability Classification Criteria. Category Class Description Stable 4 Perennial vegetation to waterline. No raw or undercut banks (some erosion on outside of meander bends OK). No recently exposed roots. No recent tree falls. Slightly Unstable 3 Perennial vegetation to waterline in most places. Some scalloping of banks. Minor erosion and/or bank undercutting. Recently exposed tree roots rare but present. Moderately Unstable 2 Perennial vegetation to waterline sparse (mainly scoured or stripped by lateral erosion). Bank held by hard points (trees, boulders) and eroded bank elsewhere. Extensive erosion and bank undercutting. Recently exposed tree roots and fine root hairs common. Completely Unstable 1 No perennial vegetation at waterline. Banks held only by hard points. Severe erosion of both banks. Recently exposed tree roots common. Tree falls and/or severely undercut trees common. Source: Henshaw and Booth 2001. September 2018 B-8 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Riparian Habitat Conditions Riparian habitat conditions were assessed by noting the vegetation type and condition and the riparian width, by describing the type of fish cover present, and by noting upland habitat conditions. Vegetation Condition The qualitative assessment of vegetation condition within the representative reaches includes an assessment of vegetation type, tree size, and stand density of the riparian corridor (Table B-5). Presence of invasive species was noted at each sampling station. Table B-5. Riparian Vegetation Condition. Vegetation Types Conifer Mostly conifer trees (>70% of the area) Deciduous Mostly deciduous trees (>70% of the area) Mixed Mixed conifer/deciduous trees Brush Shrub/brush species (>70% of the area), including blackberry vines Grass Grass/meadow (>70% of the area) None No riparian vegetation (>70% of the area) Tree Size Classes Regeneration <4-inch average diameter at breast height (DBH) Small 4- to 12-inch average DBH Large >12-inch average DBH Nonforest Applies to vegetation Brush, Grass, and None Stand Density Dense <1/3 ground exposed Sparse >1/3 ground exposed Nonforest Applies to vegetation Brush, Grass, and None Source: Adapted from WFPB 1997 and OWEB 1999. Riparian Width The width of the riparian corridor was estimated using a scale on aerial images, and the corresponding riparian width category was selected as Narrow (<25 feet wide), Medium (25 to 50 feet wide), and Wide (>50 feet wide). When wider than 50 feet, an approximate width is provided (WFPB 1997; OWEB 1999). September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton B-9 REFERENCES Beechie, T.J., and T.H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:217–229. Comings, K., H. Wachter, T. Garrido, and D. Booth. 2000. 1998–1999 Facilities and Resources Monitoring Report for Blakely and Redmond Ridge Urban Planned Developments. Prepared for King County, Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington, by the Center for Urban Water Resources Management, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Ecology. 2006. Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery: Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-03-203. December. Fox, M., and S. Bolton. 2007. A Regional and Geomorphic Reference for Quantities and Volumes of Instream Wood in Unmanaged Forested Basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:342–359. Groot, C., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM-245. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, For Collins, Colorado. Henshaw, P. and D. Booth. 2000. Natural restabilization of stream channels in urban watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(6):1219–1236. McBride, M. 2001. Spatial effects of urbanization on physical conditions in Puget Sound lowland streams. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. GSA Bulletin 109(5):596–611. OWEB. 1999. Component V Riparian/Wetlands Assessment. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon. Ralph, S.C., G.C. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J. Naiman. 1994. Stream channel morphology and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:37–51. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Spring, Colorado. September 2018 B-10 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton Sholz, J.G., and D.B. Booth. 2001. Monitoring small urban streams: Strategies and protocols for humid-region lowland systems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 71(2):143–164. US EPA. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers. US Environmental Protection Agency, 841-B-99-002. WFPB. 1997. Board Manual: Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis. Under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 4.0. Washington Forest Practices Board. Olympia, Washington. November. APPENDIX C Wetland Rating Forms and Figures Wetland name or number: Wetland A Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 6/19/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 2015 Oct. HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) L H 9 = H, H, HM L 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 XNone of the above Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 76720 H CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Depressional & Flats RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) HydrologicImproving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat M FUNCTION Madsen Creek - Wetland A Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear King County aerial (2017) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes C1 Hydroperiods C7 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )C7 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )C7 Map of the contributing basin C12 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Riverine Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) 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 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 C14 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ), The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 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. RiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake FringeDepressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake Fringe Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Yes = 1 No = 0D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Source Yes = 1 No = 0Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found )? D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ).D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 1 1 2 0 5 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS 1 1 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityD 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 1Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. 2 D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 4 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page points = 2 points = 1Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 points = 0There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 1 0D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why 2 2 3 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradationD 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 0 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletWetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch 0 D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 3 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). 3 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 2 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 4 H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 17 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:13 % undisturbed habitat + ( 4 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 15% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:29 % undisturbed habitat + ( 11 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 34.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed )At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ) 5 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 ) 1 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) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above ). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page ). Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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/ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? 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? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? 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, rocksThe lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ) Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 6/15/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 10/15, 3/15 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M M 9 = H, H, HM M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 7 = H, H, L 7 = H, M, M 6 = H, M, L 6 = M, M, M 5 = H, L, L 5 = M, M, L 4 = M, L, L 3 = L, L, L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland X Depressional & Flats RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) HydrologicImproving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat M FUNCTION Madsen Creek - Wetland B Anna Hoenig, Shelby Petro King County Aerial (2017) Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 77721 H CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes C6 Hydroperiods C6 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )C6 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )C6 Map of the contributing basin C13 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Riverine Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C17 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R 1.1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R 4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 L 2.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 D 2.2, D 5.2 D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 D 3.1, D 3.2 D 3.3 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ), The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake Fringe If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. RiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake FringeDepressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 11 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Yes = 1 No = 0D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Source Yes = 1 No = 0Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 1 0 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityD 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 2Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. 4 D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found )? D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ).D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 1 1 2 0 5 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 4 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page points = 2 points = 1Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 points = 0There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradationD 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 2 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletWetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch 5 D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? 1 0D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why 2 2 3 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 2 H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B 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 7 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:23 % undisturbed habitat + ( 9 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 27.5% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:37 % undisturbed habitat + ( 23 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 48.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 2 1 0 H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated . It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 2 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata ) Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed )At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ) 2 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above ). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page ). Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions .Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25)At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland B SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocksThe lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ) Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 6/15/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 10/15, 3/15 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M M 9 = H, H, HM M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 7 = H, H, L 7 = H, M, M 6 = H, M, L 6 = M, M, M 5 = H, L, L 5 = M, M, L 4 = M, L, L 3 = L, L, L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland X Depressional & Flats RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) HydrologicImproving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat M FUNCTION Madsen Creek - Wetland C Anna Hoenig, Shelby Petro King County aerial 2017 Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 77721 H CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes C6 Hydroperiods C6 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )C6 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )C6 Map of the contributing basin C13 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Riverine Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C17 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R 1.1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R 4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 L 2.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 D 2.2, D 5.2 D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 D 3.1, D 3.2 D 3.3 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ), The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake Fringe If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. RiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake FringeDepressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 11 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Yes = 1 No = 0D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Source Yes = 1 No = 0Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for D 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 1 0 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityD 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 2Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. 4 D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found )? D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ).D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 1 0 2 0 5 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 4 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page points = 2 points = 1Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 points = 0There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradationD 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 2 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletWetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch 3 D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? 1 0D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why 2 2 3 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 2 H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C 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 7 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:23 % undisturbed habitat + ( 9 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 27.5% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:37 % undisturbed habitat + ( 23 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 48.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 2 1 0 H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated . It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 2 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata ) Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed )At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ) 2 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above ). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page ). Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions .Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25)At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number: Wetland C SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocksThe lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ) Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 6/26/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Oct-15 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 I (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS X 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 Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M M 9 = H, H, HH M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 King County Aerial, 2017 None of the above Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 88723 H Improving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Madsen Creek - Wetland D Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D 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 C2 Hydroperiods C8 Ponded depressions C8 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )C8 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants C2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure )C8 Map of the contributing basin C18 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of:Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 R 3.2, R 3.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 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 C15 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 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D 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. 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). HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 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 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 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. 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake FringeDepressional DepressionalRiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe 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. 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 ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0 Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 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 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityR 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 0 R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?1 R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? 0 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )2 0 6 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? 1 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?1 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).7 R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)2 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosionR 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 2 Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 2 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 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. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 2 H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Moderate = 2 pointsNone = 0 points Low = 1 point Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D 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 9 Rating of Site Potential If Score is: 15 - 18 = H 7 - 14 = M 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ). Calculate:16 % undisturbed habitat + ( 6 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 19% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:35 % undisturbed habitat + ( 18 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 44% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H 1 - 3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 1 1 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 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 ) 2 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 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) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D 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. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions .Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25)At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland D SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form 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? 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. Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 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, rocksThe 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 ) 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). 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). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 6/26/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Oct-15 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M L 9 = H, H, HH M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 King County Aerial 2017 None of the above Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 88622 H Improving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Madsen Creek - Wetland E Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E 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 C2 Hydroperiods C8 Ponded depressions C8 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )C8 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants C2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure )C8 Map of the contributing basin C18 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of:Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 R 3.2, R 3.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 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 C15 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 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E 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. 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). HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 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 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 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. 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake FringeDepressional DepressionalRiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe 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. 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 ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0 Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 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 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityR 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 0 R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?1 R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? 0 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )2 2 8 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? 1 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?1 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).7 R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)2 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosionR 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 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. 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. 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. Moderate = 2 pointsNone = 0 points Low = 1 point Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E 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 6 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:16 % undisturbed habitat + ( 6 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 19% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:35 % undisturbed habitat + ( 18 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 44% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 2 1 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 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 ) 2 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 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) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E 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. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions .Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25)At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland E SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form 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? 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. Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 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, rocksThe 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 ) 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). 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). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 6/26/2018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Oct-15 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) L L 9 = H, H, HM M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Madsen Creek - Wetland F Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 86620 H Improving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest King County Aerial 2017 None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F 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 C3 Hydroperiods C9 Ponded depressions C9 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )C9 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants C3 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure )C9 Map of the contributing basin C18 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of:Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 C16 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 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 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 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 R 3.2, R 3.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F 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. 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). 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. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington 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). 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: being ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe 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. 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 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake FringeDepressional DepressionalRiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0 Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 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 1 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?1 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )2 0 6 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityR 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 0 R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?1 R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? 0 0 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 0R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?2 R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)2 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosionR 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). 1 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).4 R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats None = 0 points Low = 1 point 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. 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. Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F 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:16 % undisturbed habitat + ( 8 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 20% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:37 % undisturbed habitat + ( 21 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 47.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 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 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 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) 2 1 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 ) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog 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) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland F SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 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, rocksThe 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 ) 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). 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). 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? 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 7/132018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Oct-15 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) L L 9 = H, H, HH M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Madsen Creek - Wetland G Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 77620 H Improving Water Quality LSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest King County Aerial 2017 None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G 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 C4 Hydroperiods C10 Ponded depressions C10 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) C10 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants C4 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) C10 Map of the contributing basin C18 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of:Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 C16 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 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 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 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 R 3.2, R 3.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G 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. 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). 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. HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington 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). 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: being ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe 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. 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 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake FringeDepressional DepressionalRiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0 Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 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 1 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?1 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )2 0 0 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityR 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 0 R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?1 R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? 0 0 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?2 R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)2 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosionR 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). 2 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).0 R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats None = 0 points Low = 1 point 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. 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. Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G 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 6 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:16 % undisturbed habitat + ( 8 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 20% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:37 % undisturbed habitat + ( 21 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 47.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 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 ) 2 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 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) 2 1 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 ) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog 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) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland G SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 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, rocksThe 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 ) 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). 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). 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? 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 7/132018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Oct-15 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 (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M L 9 = H, H, HH M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 King County Aerial 2017 None of the above Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 88622 H Improving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Madsen Creek - Wetland H Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H 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 C4 Hydroperiods C10 Ponded depressions C10 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) C10 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants C4 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) C10 Map of the contributing basin C18 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of:Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 R 3.2, R 3.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 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 C16 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 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H 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. 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). HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 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 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 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. 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake FringeDepressional DepressionalRiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe 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. 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 ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0 Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 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 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityR 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 0 R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?1 R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? 0 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )2 0 6 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? 1 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?1 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).4 R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)2 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosionR 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 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. 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. 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. Moderate = 2 pointsNone = 0 points Low = 1 point Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H 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 5 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:16 % undisturbed habitat + ( 8 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 20% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:37 % undisturbed habitat + ( 21 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 47.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 2 1 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 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 ) 1 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 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) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H 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. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions .Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25)At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland H SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form 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? 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. Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 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, rocksThe 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 ) 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). 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). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit: 7/132018 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Oct-15 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) M L 9 = H, H, HH M 8 = H, H, MHHTotal 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 King County Aerial 2017 None of the above Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 88622 H Improving Water Quality MSite PotentialLandscape Potential Habitat H FUNCTION CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Hydrologic Madsen Creek - Wetland I Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I 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 C5 Hydroperiods C11 Ponded depressions C11 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) C11 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants C5 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) C11 Map of the contributing basin C18 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) C19 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) C20 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of:Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 R 3.2, R 3.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 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 C17 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 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 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 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I 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. 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). HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 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 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 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. 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 otherclass of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in ratingRiverineDepressionalLake FringeDepressional DepressionalRiverineTreat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe 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. 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 ratedSlope + RiverineSlope + Depressional Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depressionDepressional + Lake FringeRiverine + Lake Fringe Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0 Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 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 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water qualityR 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 0 R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?1 R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? 0 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )2 0 8 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? 1 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?1 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).4 R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)2 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosionR 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?2 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4Emergent 3 structures: points = 2Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1Forested (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 = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 pointsH 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted: > 19 species points = 25 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points 1 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. 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. 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 0 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. Moderate = 2 pointsNone = 0 points Low = 1 point Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I 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 5 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:23 % undisturbed habitat + ( 9 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 27.5% If total accessible habitat is:> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 320 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:37 % undisturbed habitat + ( 23 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 48.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0H 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 = 0Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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 = 2It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1Site 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 2 1 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 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 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 ) 2 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 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) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I 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. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ 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. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I 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 WetlandsDoes the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?The dominant water regime is tidal,Vegetated, andWith a salinity greater than 0.5 pptYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetlandSC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2SC 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?Yes = Category I No = Not WHCVSC 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.pdfYes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCVSC 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 3.2SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bogSC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions .Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25)At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland I SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal LagoonsDoes 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 lagoonSC 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 103Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for ratingSC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2SC 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 6.3SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form 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? 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. Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 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, rocksThe 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 ) 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). 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). Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015 Wetland A 6/19/18 Rated by Yes No Date: 2015 Oct SEC: 22 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 05E Figure C1 19 acres Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III IV 16 6 31 53 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland III Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) II Wetland Class Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Coastal Lagoon None of the above Interdunal Comments: Mature Forest Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score <30 Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for functions Estuarine Bog Lake-fringe Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Water Quality Functions Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. SUMMARY OF RATING Category I = Score >=70 Wetland Type Score for Hydrologic Functions Freshwater Tidal Flats Does not Apply Riverine Old Growth Forest Slope Wetland name or number: Date of site visit: Map of wetland unit: Estimated size: Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Trained by Ecology? Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Madsen Creek - Wetland A Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? YES NO SP1. SP2. SP3. SP4. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet, you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated . The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any state listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1. NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) 2. NO - go to 3 YES - the wetland class is Flats 3. NO - go to 4 YES - the wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. NO - go to 5 YES - the wetland class is Slope The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, indentify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply and go to Question 8. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e., except during floods)? At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 m)? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. 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 feet in diameter and less than 1 foot deep). The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? 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 rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. xx). If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5. NO - go to 6 YES - the wetland class is Riverine 6. NO - go to 7 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 7. NO - go to 8 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 8. Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe 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 once every two years. Lake-fringe Slope + Riverine Riverine Class to Use in Rating 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 ground water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. 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 within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represent more than 90% of the total area. Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. HGM Classes Within a Delineated Wetland Boundary Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. D 1.Points D 1.1 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 1 Figure __ D 1.2 Points = 4 Points = 0 D 1.3 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ D 1.4 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 0 Figure __ D 2. Multiplier 2 Other: Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 feet of wetland. Multiply the score from D 1. by D 2. YES - multiplier is 2 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants: Grazing in the wetland or within 150 feet. Add the points in the boxes above Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland. A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging. Wetland is fed by ground water high in phosphorus or nitrogen. 16TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Add score to table on p. 1 NO - multiplier is 1 Area seasonally ponded is >1/4 total area of wetland. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p. 38) Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: 2 1Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing ). Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Total for D 1 Provide photo or drawing Area seasonally ponded is >1/2 total area of wetland. Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=1/10 of area. Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=95% of area. Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=1/2 of area. The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions): Area seasonally ponded is <1/4 total area of wetland. Map of hydroperiods Unit is a flat depression (Q. 7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permenent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. (If ditch is not permanently flowing, treat unit as "intermittently flowing.") NO 0 5 D Depressional and Flats Wetlands Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Unit has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 8 This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. YES Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. D 3.Points D 3.1 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 D 3.2 Points = 7 Points = 5 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 1 Points = 0 D 3.3 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 0 Points = 5 D 4. Multiplier Other:2 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems. Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed. The area of the basin is <10 times the area of the unit. Depth of storage during wet periods. Does wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p. 46) Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. 0 Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding between 2 feet to <3 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Marks of ponding are less than 0.5 feet. Entire unit is in the Flats class (basin=wetland) Marks are at least 0.5 feet to <2 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply: Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir, etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream degradation. D Depressional and Flats Wetlands 0 Add the points in the boxes above The area of the basin is >100 times the area of the unit. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland itself. The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Add score to table on p. 1 6 Does wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 3 Marks of ponding are 3 feet or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. Total for D 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing ). 3The wetland is a "headwater" wetland. Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. (If ditch is not permanently flowing, treat unit at "intermittently flowing.") Multiply the score from D 3. by D 4. YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.Points H 1.1 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.2 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.3 >19 species Points = 2 5-19 species Points = 1 <5 species Points = 0 9 3 1 type present Total for page List species below if you want to: Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 sq. ft. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated 2 types presentOccasionally flooded or inundated Saturated only Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Map of hydroperiods Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75) If you counted: Aquatic bed 3 types present Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: If the unit has a forested class, check if: Emergent plants Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes 4 2 HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. 4 structures or more 3 structures 4 or more types present 1 structure Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Map of Cowardin classes Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon 2 structures Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin). Size threshold for class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.4 Points [riparian braided channels] H 1.5 3 Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet long). High = 3 points Special Habitat Features (see p. 77) Moderate = 2 points Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1) or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments: Note: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed presistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ). None = 0 points Low = 1 point Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver/muskrat for denning (>30° slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned brown/gray ). NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes. Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Standing snags (diameter at the bottom >4 inches) in the wetland. Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 feet (10 m).5 17 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.Points H 2.1 Points = 5 Points = 4 Points = 4 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Points = 1 Figure __ H 2.2 H 2.2.1 H 2.2.2 H 2.2.3 5 3 NO = go to H 2.2.2 NO = go to H 2.2.3YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland) at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and paved roads are considered breaks in the corridor.) within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR Is the wetland: Heavy grazing in buffer. Vegetated buffers are <2 m wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland). Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) Aerial photo showing buffers within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use ). 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >50% of circumference. 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >25% circumference. If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >50% circumference. No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80 feet) of wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. No paved areas or buildings within 50 m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. within 5 miles (8 km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? Buffers (see p. 80) Total for page 2 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.3 Points 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 2 priority habitats = 3 points No habitats = 0 points Oregon white Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is 25% (full descrptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 ). 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 ). Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (1 acre). If wetland has: Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. 1 priority habitat = 1 point Near or Adjacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Caves: 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. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152 ). Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions 4 Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8/acre) >81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadance, 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. Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life hsitory requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report pp. 167- 169 and glossary in Appendix A). Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.4 Points Points = 5 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 0 31 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H1 and H2, and record the result on p. 1 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development). There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. Wetland Landscape (see p. 84) Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 5 14 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 1.0 SC 1.1 SC 1.2 Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. NO - not an estuarine wetland Estuarine Wetlands (see p. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and YES = Go to SC 1.1 YES = Category I Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has <10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover >10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. Category Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? NO = Go to SC 1.2 At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands. NO = Category II CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS YES = Category I Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 2.0 Category SC 2.1 NO SC 2.2 SC 3.0 1. 2. 3. 4. YES - is a bog for purpose of rating NO - not a Heritage wetland Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state Threatened or Endangered plant species? Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30% coverage of total shrub/herbaceous cover )? NO - not a bog for purpose of rating NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. NO - go to Q. 4 Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? NO - go to Q. 2 YES - go to Q. 3 NO - not a bog for purpose of rating YES - Category I Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are <16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic oils.) Bogs ( see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. YES = Category I YES - go to Q. 3 Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES - contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 4.0 Category SC 5.0 SC 5.1 YES = Category I NO - not a forested wetland w/ special characteristics Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? 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 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 square feet). YES = Category I Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). YES = go to SC 5.1 The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at leat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ). Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. 200-year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland 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. NO = Category II NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 6.0 Category SC 6.1 SC 6.2 NA YES = Category II NO - go to SC 6.2 Is the wetland unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. Is wetland 1 acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger? If you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1. Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 1115 and SR 109. If you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105 In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas: Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Wetland E 7/12/18 Rated by Yes No Date: 2015 Oct. SEC: 23 TWNSHP: 23 RNGE: 05E Figure C2 560 SQFT Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV 20 18 14 52 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland III Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) II Wetland Class Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Wetland name or number: Date of site visit: Map of wetland unit: Estimated size: Does not Apply Estuarine Bog Mature Forest Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Riverine Slope Lake-fringe WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Madsen Creek Project - Wetland E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Wetland Type FlatsOld Growth Forest Anna Hoenig Trained by Ecology? Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score <30 Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for functions SUMMARY OF RATING Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Interdunal Check if multiple HGM classes are present Freshwater Tidal None of the above Coastal Lagoon Comments: Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? YES NO SP1. SP2. SP3. SP4. To complete the next part of the data sheet, you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated . The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered (T/E) plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any state listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1. NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) 2. NO - go to 3 YES - the wetland class is Flats 3. NO - go to 4 YES - the wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. NO - go to 5 YES - the wetland class is Slope Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? 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 rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. xx). If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe 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 feet in diameter and less than 1 foot deep). 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, indentify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply and go to Question 8. 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. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e., except during floods)? At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 m)? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ). The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5. NO - go to 6 YES - the wetland class is Riverine 6. NO - go to 7 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 7. NO - go to 8 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 8. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Slope + Depressional Lake-fringe Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide.) Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Slope + Riverine Riverine 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 once every two years. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water? The wetland seems to be maintained by higher ground water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary HGM Classes Within a Delineated Wetland Boundary Class to Use in Rating If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. R 1.Points R 1.1 Points = 8 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 0 Figure __ R 1.2 Points = 8 Points = 6 Points = 6 Points = 3 Points = 0 Figure __ R 2. Multiplier 2 Other: If depressions >1/2 of area of unit, draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover <1/2 area of wetland Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland Depresssions cover >1/2 area of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 feet of wetland Add score to table on p. 1 Multiply the score from R 1. by R 2. The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediments, toxic compounds, or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above Ungrazed, herbaceous plants >1/3 area of the unit Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous <1/3 area of unit Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) No depressions are present R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Trees or shrubs >2/3 area of the unit Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p. 52) WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs >1/3 area of the unit Ungrazed, herbaceous plants >2/3 area of the unit Grazing in the wetland or within 150 feet Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Provide photo or drawing Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources but any single source would qualify as an opportunity. NO - multiplier is 1YES - multiplier is 2 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types 10 2 8 20TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. R 3.Points R 3.1 Points = 9 Points = 6 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Figure __ R 3.2 Points = 7 Points = 4 Points = 0 Figure __ 9 R 4. Other:Multiplier 2 Forest or shrub for >1/10 area OR herbaceous plants >1/3 area HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream erosion. 2 Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p. 54) Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: If the ratio is more than 20 18 If the ratio is between 10 - 20 Add score to table on p. 1 YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is <1 Multiply the score from R 3. by R 4.TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Vegetation does not meet above criteria If the ratio is 1 - <5 Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply: Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (see p.57) 7 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands If the ratio is 5 - <10 Aerial photo or map shoing polygons of different vegetation types Aerial photo or map showing average widths There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants >2/3 area Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub". Choose points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes). Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.Points H 1.1 Points = 4 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.2 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Figure __ H 1.3 >19 species Points = 2 5-19 species Points = 1 <5 species Points = 0 3 1 Total for page 1 1 Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 sq. ft. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75) Saturated only Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). If the unit has a forested class, check if: Map of hydroperiods Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present 4 structures or more 3 structures 1 type present Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? 2 types presentOccasionally flooded or inundated Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) 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. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points If you counted: 2 structures 1 structure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin). Size threshold for class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants List species below if you want to: Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.4 Points [riparian braided channels] H 1.5 2 2 7 Standing snags (diameter at the bottom >4 inches) in the wetland. Moderate = 2 points Note: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. Comments: At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed presistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ). None = 0 points Low = 1 point Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver/muskrat for denning (>30° slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned brown/gray ). NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet long). Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 feet (10 m). High = 3 points Special Habitat Features (see p. 77) Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1) or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.Points H 2.1 Points = 5 Points = 4 Points = 4 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 2 Points = 1 Points = 0 Points = 1 Figure __ H 2.2 H 2.2.1 H 2.2.2 H 2.2.3 1 Aerial photo showing buffers 0 within 5 miles (8 km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >50% of circumference. 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >25% circumference. Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? Buffers (see p. 80) Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) NO = go to H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland) at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and paved roads are considered breaks in the corridor.) NO = 0 pointsYES = 1 point Total for page Heavy grazing in buffer. Vegetated buffers are <2 m wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland). If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >50% circumference. No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80 feet) of wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. No paved areas or buildings within 50 m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use ). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland: within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size? 1 NO = go to H 2.2.3YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3 ) Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.3 Points 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has: Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. No habitats = 0 points 3 Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152 ). Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions Near or Adjacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Oregon white Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is 25% (full descrptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 ). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each 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 ). Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, number 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. Caves: 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. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report pp. 167- 169 and glossary in Appendix A). Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (1 acre). Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. 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. 1 priority habitat = 1 point Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Points = 5 Points = 5 Points = 3 Points = 3 Points = 2 Points = 0 14Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H1 and H2, and record the result on p. 1 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 7 3 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development). There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 1.0 SC 1.1 SC 1.2 The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has <10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover >10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? NO = Go to SC 1.2 Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Category Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three conditions? YES - Go to SC 1.1 YES = Category I NO = Category II Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. NO - not an estuarine wetland Estuarine Wetlands (see p. 86) Vegetated, and YES = Category I The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands. Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 2.0 Category SC 2.1 NO SC 2.2 SC 3.0 1. 2. 3. 4. NO - go to Q. 2YES - go to Q. 3 YES - go to Q. 3 Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are <16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic oils.) Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES - contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 YES = Category I Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? NO - not a Heritage wetland Bogs ( see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetations in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state Threatened or Endangered plant species? Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30% coverage of total shrub/herbaceous cover )? NO - not a bog for purpose of rating YES - is a bog for purpose of rating NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. NO - go to Q. 4 YES = Category I NO - not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 4.0 Category SC 5.0 SC 5.1 NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions? Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? 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 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NO - not a forested wetland w/ special characteristics Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland in a coastal lagoon? NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. 200-year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). YES = go to SC 5.1 The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at leat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 square feet). YES = Category I YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 6.0 Category SC 6.1 SC 6.2 Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1. Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105 In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas: Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) NA YES = Category II NO - go to SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 1115 and SR 109. Is wetland 1 acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger? If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. CedarRiverMadsen CreekWetland A SE RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY RD (SR-169)Pictometry, King County 0 250 500125Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC1_CowardinWLA_letter.mxd Figure C-1.Cowardin Class for Wetland A.ELegend Wetland boundary Road Parcel Stream / River Cowardin class Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub King County, Aerial (2017) Wetland D Wetland E Mad s e n C r e e k 149TH AVE SESE R E N T O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 ) Pictometry, King County K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC2_CowardinPlantCoverWLDE_letter.mxd Legend Wetland boundary Road Stream Parcel Type Trees and Shrub >1/3 area Trees and Shrub >2/3 area Cowardin class Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub King County, Aerial (2017) 0 50 10025Feet Figure C-2.Cowardin Class and Plant Cover of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous Plants for Wetlands D and E. E Wetland E has a palustrine forested community with trees and shrub >2/3 area. Wetland F Madsen Cree k OAK DRSERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRD(SR-169) Pictometry, King County K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC3_CowardinPlantCoverWLF_letter.mxd Legend Wetland boundary Road Stream Parcel Cowardin class Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Plant cover Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area King County, Aerial (2017) 0 20 4010Feet Figure C-3.Cowardin Class and Plant Cover of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous Plants for Wetland F. E Wetland H Wetland G M adsen Creek SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 )150TH LN SEK:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC4_CowardinPlantCoverWLGH_letter.mxd Legend Wetland boundary Road Stream Parcel Plant cover Trees and shrub >1/3 area Cowardin class Palustrine Forested King County, Aerial (2018) 0 30 6015Feet Figure C-4.Cowardin Class and Plant Cover of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous Plants for Wetlands G and H. E Note: Wetland G has little plant cover. Madsen CreekMadsen Creek High Flow ChannelWetland I Pictometry, King County K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC5_CowardinPlantCoverWLI_letter.mxd Legend Wetland boundary Road Stream 150-foot boundary Plant cover Trees and shrubs >2/3 area Cowardin class Palustrine Scrub-Shrub King County, Aerial (2017) 0 80 16040Feet Figure C-5.Cowardin Class and Plant Cover of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous Plants for Wetland I. E #* #* Wetland B Wetland C Madsen CreekMadsen Creek High Flow ChannelPictometry, King County K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC6_CowardinHydroperiodWLBC_letter.mxd Legend Wetland boundary Road Stream #*Outlet 150-foot boundary Hydroperiod Saturated only Seasonally flooded Cowardin class Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub-Shrub King County, Aerial (2017) 0 100 20050Feet Figure C-6.Cowardin Class, Hydroperiod, 150-Foot Boundary, and Location of Outlet for Wetlands B and C. E Wetland A 150ft Madsen CreekCedarRi verSERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRD(SR-169)SE 153RD PLSEJONESPL149TH AVE S E Pictometry, King County 0 250 500125Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC7_Hydroperiod_150ftBdryWLA_letter.mxd Figure C-7.Hydroperiod, 150-Foot Boundary, and Location of Outlet for Wetland A.EKing County, Aerial (2017) Note: Wetland A outlets to the Cedar River alongits boundary. Legend Wetland boundary Road Parcel 150-foot boundary Hydroperiod Permanently flooded Seasonally flooded Occasionally flooded Saturated only Madsen CreekWetland D Wetland E SE RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY RD (SR-169)149TH AVE S E Pictometry, King County 0 120 24060Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC8_Hydroperiod_150ftBdryWLDE_letter.mxd Figure C-8.Hydroperiod, 150-Foot Boundary, Ponded Depressions, and Wetland to Stream Width Ratio for Wetlands D and E.ELegend Wetland boundary Road Parcel Stream 150-foot boundary Hydroperiod Permanently flowing stream Saturated only King County, Aerial (2017) Note: Ponded depressions cover <1/2 area of Wetland E. No ponded depressions in Wetland D. Average width of wetland / average width of stream:Wetland D = 2Wetland E = 2 Wetland E Wetland F Madsen Creek High Flow ChannelMadsen CreekSE RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY RD (SR-169)Pictometry, King County 0 60 12030Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC9_Hydroperiod_150ftBdryWLF_letter.mxd Figure C-9.Hydroperiod, 150-Foot Boundary, Ponded Depressions, and Wetland to Stream Width Ratio for Wetland F.ELegend Wetland boundary Wetland area Road Parcel Stream 150-foot boundary Hydroperiod Saturated only King County, Aerial (2017) No ponded depressions in wetland F. Average width of wetland / average width of stream:Wetland F = 0.5 Wetland G Wetland HMadsen Creek High Flow ChannelMadse n C r e e k S E R E N T O N - M A P L E V A L L E Y R D ( S R - 1 6 9 ) Pictometry, King County 0 60 12030Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC10_Hydroperiod_150ftBdryWLGH_letter.mxd Figure C-10.Hydroperiod, 150-Foot Boundary, Ponded Depressions, and Wetland to Stream Width Ratio for Wetlands G and H. E Legend Wetland boundary Road Parcel Stream 150-foot boundary Hydroperiod Saturated only King County, Aerial (2017) No ponded depressions in Wetlands G or H. Average width of wetland / average width of stream:Wetland G = 1.3Wetland H = 1.5 Wetland I Wetland C Wetland B Madsen CreekMadsenCreekHighFlowChannelWetland I Pictometry, King County 0 80 16040Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC11_Hydroperiod_150ftBdryWLI_letter.mxd Figure C-11.Hydroperiod, 150-Foot Boundary, Ponded Depressions, and Wetland to Stream Width Ratio for Wetland I. E Legend Wetland boundary Wetland area Road Parcel 150-foot boundary Hydroperiod Permanently flowing stream Saturated only King County, Aerial (2017) No ponded depressions in Wetland I. Average width of wetland / average width of stream:Wetland I = 1.2 Wetland A Cedar River Snoqualmie River GreenRiver King County, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity 0 5 102.5 Miles K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC12_ContributingBasinWLA_letter.mxd Figure C-12.Map of Contributing Basin for Wetland A. E King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Wetland area Wetland A contributing basin Waterbody Contour (ft) Wetland C Wetland B Pictometry, King County, King County 0 100 20050Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC13_ContributingBasinWLBC_letter.mxd Figure C-13.Map of Contributing Basin for Wetlands Band C. E King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Wetland boundary Contributing basin Wetland B Wetland C Stream Contour (ft) Wetland area M a d s enCreek M a d s e n Creek Molasse s Cre e k C e d a r R i v er Wetland A Pictometry, King County 0 1,200 2,400600Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC14_Habitat1KM_WLA_letter.mxd Figure C-14.Habitat Within a 1-km Boundary of Wetland A. E Legend Wetland area Wetland boundary Stream 1-km boundary Habitat typesRelatively undisturbed habitatRelatively undisturbed and accessible habitatModerate/Low Intensity Land UseModerate/Low Intensity and accessible habitat King County, Aerial (2017) Wetland D Wetland E M o lassesCreek Madsen Creek CedarRiverPictometry, King County 0 1,200 2,400600Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC15_Habitat1KM_WLDE_letter.mxd Figure C-15.Habitat Within a 1-km Boundary of Wetlands D and E.ELegend Wetland boundary Stream 1-km boundary Habitat typesRelatively undisturbed habitatRelatively undisturbed and accessible habitatModerate/Low Intensity Land UseModerate/Low Intensity and accessible habitat King County, Aerial (2017) Wetland F Wetland H Wetland G M o l assesCreekM a d s e n C reekM adse n Cree k C e d a r River Pictometry, King County 0 1,000 2,000500Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC16_Habitat1KM_WLFGH_letter.mxd Figure C-16.Habitat Within a 1-km Boundary of Wetlands F, G, and H. E Legend Wetland boundary Stream 1-km boundary Habitat typesRelatively undisturbed habitatRelatively undisturbed and accessible habitatModerate/Low Intensity Land UseModerate/Low Intensity and accessible habitat King County, Aerial (2017) Wetland I Wetland C Wetland B C e d a r River Ma d s en C r e e k Pictometry, King County 0 1,000 2,000500Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC17_Habitat1KM_WLBCI_letter.mxd Figure C-17.Habitat Within a 1-km Boundary of Wetlands B, C, and I. E Legend Wetland boundary Stream 1-km boundary Habitat typesRelatively undisturbed habitatRelatively undisturbed and accessible habitatModerate/Low Intensity Land UseModerate/Low Intensity and accessible habitat King County, Aerial (2017) Wetland I Wetlands D and E Wetlands F, G, and H Cedar River King County, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC18_ContributingBasinWLDEFGHI_letter.mxd Figure C-18.Map of Contributing Basin for Wetlands D,E, F, G, H, and I. E King County, Aerial (2017) Legend Wetland boundary Waterbody Contour (ft) Contributing basin Wetlands B, C, and I Wetland A Wetlands F, G, and H Wetlands D and E MolassesC reek Ma d s e n C reekC eda r River Pictometry, King County 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC19_303dWaters_letter.mxd Figure C-19.303(d) Waters in the Vicinity of WetlandsA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. E Legend Wetland area Wetland boundary Stream 303(d) listed waters (Dept. of Ecology) King County, Aerial (2017) WRIA 8 0 1.5 30.75 Miles K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-000\Project\Report\RatingFigures\FigC20_TMDL_WRIA8_letter.mxd Figure C-20.TMDL for WRIA 8 Cedar Sammamish. E Source: WA Department of Ecology (2018) Legend Study area Approved In Development TMDLs APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Data Forms 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-A-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 5 5 15 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Yes No P. annua representative of lawn grasses that are presumed FAC 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0 0.0%110 330 25 1000 0 0 66.7%FAC 135 4303.7%FAC 3.1853.7%FAC 11.1%FACU 7.4%FACU 7.4%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 135 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N22Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig top of berm convex NAD 1983 H-122.145047.4682LRR A Newberg silt loam None Poa annua Ranunculus repens Plantago major Taraxacum officinale Cerastium fontanum Trifolium repens (Plot size: 3m (Plot size:2m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-A-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-15 10YR 3/4 100 Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-A-WET 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 0 0 0 0 15 5 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Yes No bare ground consists of dead material from reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry stalks 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%0 75.0%FAC 25.0%FACW 0.0%0 0 0.0%105 210 0.0%15 45 0 020 0 0 40.0%FACW 120 25560.0%FACW 2.1250.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N22Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig depression concave NAD 1983 H -122.1451 47.4684LRR A Puyallup fine sandy loam None Rubus armeniacus Salix sitchensis Phalaris arundinacea Impatiens glandulifera (Plot size: 3m (Plot size:2m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-A-WET soil damp but not saturated Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-5 5-20 5-20 10YR 10YR 3/2 4/1 98 80 10YR 7.5YR 10YR 4/6 3/4 4/6 2 5 15 C C C M M M Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-B-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 50 0 0 0 60 5 30 5 0 10 5 10 30 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 3100.0%FAC 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 75.0%50 60.0%FAC 5.0%FACU 30.0%FACU 0 0 5.0%FAC 2 4 0.0%156 468 50 200100 0 0 17.2%FAC 208 6728.6%FACU 3.23117.2%FACU 51.7%FAC 1.7%FACW 1.7%FAC 1.7%FACW 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 15-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig Berm none NAD 1983 H -122.1409 47.4629LRR A Newberg silt loam None Alnus rubra Rubus spectabilis Oemleria cerasiformis Rubus parviflorus Rubus armeniacus Urtica dioica Polystichum munitum Dicentra formosa Tolmiea menziesii Impatiens glandulifera Rumex crispus Phalaris arundinacea (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Located on artificial berm between wetland and stream. Does not meet any soil indicators. TP-B-UPL dry Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% gravel 1 0-4 4-14 14-18 10YR 7.5YR 10YR 3/2 3/2 4/2 100 98 93 7.5YR 7.5YR 3/4 3/4 2 7 C C M M Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-B-WET 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 20 0 0 0 5 5 5 7 0 30 50 10 10 5 70 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 6100.0%FACW 0.0% 70.0% 0.0% 85.7%20 22.7%FACW 22.7%FAC 22.7%FACU 75 75 31.8%FAC 85 170 0.0%62 186 5 2022 0 0 16.2%FAC 227 45127.0%FACW 1.9875.4%FAC 5.4%FAC 2.7%OBL 37.8%OBL 2.7%FACW 2.7%FACW 0.0% 0.0% 185 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover Wetland B. Surrounded by berms. Outlets to Madsen Creek. 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 15-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig depression concave NAD 1983 H -122.1409 47.4628LRR A Newberg silt loam None Salix lasiandra Salix lasiandra Alnus rubra Sambucus racemosa Rubus spectabilis Athyrium cyclosorum Glyceria elata Solanum dulcamara Ranunculus repens Veronica americana Oenanthe sarmentosa Phalaris arundinacea Impatiens glandulifera (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-B-WET 1 0 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-12 12-20 5Y 5Y 5/1 5/1 80 80 7.5YR 7.5YR 4/6 4/4 20 20 C C M M Sandy Loam Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-C-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 70 0 0 0 80 10 0 0 0 5 15 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 3100.0%FACU 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 75.0%70 88.9%FAC 11.1%FAC 0.0%0 0 0.0%5 10 0.0%112 336 70 28090 5 25 15.6%FACW 192 65146.9%FAC 3.39121.9%FAC 15.6%UPL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 15-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig Berm convex NAD 1983 H -122.1414 47.4628LRR A Newberg silt loam None Acer macrophyllum Rubus spectabilis Rubus armeniacus Phalaris arundinacea Tolmiea menziesii Ranunculus repens Convolvulus arvensis (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-C-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) fill 10 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% fill rocks 1 0-10 10YR 3/4 100 Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-C-WET 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 90 10 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 60 20 7 5 30 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 490.0%FAC 10.0%FACW 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%100 100.0%FAC 0.0% 0.0%105 105 0.0%40 80 0.0%132 396 0 030 0 0 40.8%OBL 277 58113.6%FACW 2.0974.8%FAC 3.4%FAC 20.4%OBL 10.2%OBL 6.8%FACW 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 147 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover Wetland C 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 15-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig depression concave NAD 1983 H -122.1414 47.4627LRR A Newberg silt loam None Alnus rubra Salix lasiandra Rubus spectabilis Lysichiton americanum Equisetum telmateia Tolmiea menziesii Athyrium cyclosorum Scirpus microcarpus Oenanthe sarmentosa Phalaris arundinacea (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-C-WET 1 0 0 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-10 10-14 10YR 5Y 2/1 4/1 100 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C M Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-D-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 50 90 50 0 40 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 226.3%FAC 47.4%UPL 526.3%FAC 0.0% 40.0%190 28.6%FACU 71.4%FACU 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0 0.0%100 300 140 560140 90 450 0.0%330 13100.0% 3.9700.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 26-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N22Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear depression concave NAD 1983 H -122.1431 47.4666LRR A Newberg silt loam None Alnus rubra Sorbus aucuparia Betula papyrifera Symphoricarpos albus Reynoutria X bohemica (Plot size: 3m (Plot size:2m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-D-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-18 10YR 3/2 100 Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-D-WET 1.0 0.6 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 20 0 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 30 5 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 3100.0%FACU 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 75.0%20 57.1%FAC 42.9%FAC 0.0%35 35 0.0%0 0 0.0%78 234 20 8070 0 0 69.8%OBL 133 34911.6%OBL 2.62411.6%FAC 2.3%FAC 4.7%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover Wetland D 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 26-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N22Anna Hoenig, Eliza Spear Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1432 47.4666LRR A Newberg silt loam None Acer platanoides Salix scoulerana Rubus armeniacus Lysichiton americanum Veronica americana Poa palustris Cardamine oligosperma Ranunculus repens (Plot size: 3m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-D-WET 11 6 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-5 5-11 5-11 11-20 10YR 5Y N 3/1 4/1 3/ 90 80 90 7/5YR 7.5YR 7.5YR 10YR 5/6 4/4 4/6 5/8 10 10 10 10 C C C C M M M M Silty loam Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-E-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 60 20 0 0 15 30 10 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 475.0%FAC 25.0%UPL 50.0% 0.0% 80.0%80 25.0%FAC 50.0%FAC 16.7%FACW 0 0 8.3%FACW 35 70 0.0%105 315 0 060 20 100 100.0%FACW 160 4850.0% 3.0310.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 12-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1423 47.4663LRR A Newberg silt loam None Populus balsamifera Prunus laurocerasus Rosa nutkana Rubus armeniacus Fraxinus latifolia Salix lasiandra Equisetum hyemale (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. landscaping cloth 1" depth TP-E-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% gravel, cobble 1 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-E-WET 5.0 2.9 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 60 15 0 0 15 15 30 15 0 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 Yes No 980.0%FACW 20.0%FACW 90.0% 0.0% 100.0%75 20.0%FAC 20.0%FACW 40.0%FACW 0 0 20.0%FACW 141 282 0.0%20 60 0 075 0 0 27.3%FACW 161 34227.3%FACW 2.12445.5%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover Concrete block in soil pit @ 15" depth; cobble at 18" depth; Ecology block 2 ft upslope of test pit 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 12-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1422 47.4663LRR A Newberg silt loam None Salix lasiandra Fraxinus latifolia Rubus armeniacus Salix sitchensis Salix lasiandra Cornus alba Equisetum telmateia Equisetum hyemale Poa palustris (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-E-WET 10 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) cobble 18" Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-1 1-18 7.5YR 10YR 3/1 3/1 97 75 7.5YR 7.5YR 4/6 5/4 3 25 C C M M Clay Loam Clay Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-F-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 0 0 15 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No Poa pratensis used to represent common lawn grasses, which are presumed to be FAC. 20.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 66.7%0 28.6%FAC 71.4%FACU 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0 0.0%70 210 45 18035 0 0 18.8%FACU 115 3906.3%FACU 3.39175.0%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 12-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig roadside slope none NAD 1983 H -122.1420 47.4658LRR A Newberg silt loam None Rubus armeniacus Symphoricarpos albus Hypericum perforatum Hypochaeris radicata Poa pratensis (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. dry TP-F-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-16 7.5YR 3/2 100 Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-F-WET 5.0 2.9 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 0 0 0 0 60 5 5 0 0 100 50 40 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%0 85.7%FAC 7.1%FACW 7.1%FACW 45 45 0.0%160 320 0.0%67 201 0 070 0 0 49.5%FACW 272 56624.8%FACW 2.08119.8%OBL 2.5%OBL 3.5%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 202 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 12-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1420 47.4658LRR A Newberg silt loam None Alnus rubra Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Phalaris arundinacea Juncus effusus Scirpus microcarpus Veronica americana Poa pratensis (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-F-WET 15 7 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-3 3-9 9-12 12-19 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 3/1 3/1 2/1 3/1 95 80 95 85 7.5YR 5YR 5YR 5YR 4/6 4/6 5/8 5/8 5 20 5 15 C C C C M M M M Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-G-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 65 0 0 0 60 40 10 0 0 5 65 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No Plots ends at stream 4100.0%FACW 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%65 54.5%FAC 36.4%FACW 9.1%FACU 0 0 0.0%110 220 0.0%130 390 20 80110 0 0 5.9%FACU 260 69076.5%FAC 2.6545.9%FACW 5.9%FACU 5.9%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1408 47.4655LRR A Newberg silt loam None Salix sitchensis Rubus armeniacus Cornus alba Symphoricarpos albus Hedera helix Poa palustris Equisetum telmateia Lapsana communis Ranunculus repens (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-G-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-20 10YR 2/2 100 silty loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-G-WET 50.0 26.6 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 50 50 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 100 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No plots end at stream edge 450.0%FACW 50.0%FACW 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%100 100.0%FAC 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0%100 200 0.0%126 378 0 025 0 0 99.0%FAC 226 5781.0%FAC 2.5580.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 101 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig slope none NAD 1983 H -122.1408 47.4655LRR A Newberg silt loam None Salix lasiandra Fraxinus latifolia Rubus armeniacus Poa palustris Plantago major (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-G-WET 12 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-10 10-20 10YR 2.5YR 3/2 2.5/1 100 85 5YR 5/8 15 C M Clay Loam Clay Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-H-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 80 0 0 0 10 30 15 5 0 20 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No plots end at stream edge 3100.0%FACW 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 75.0%80 16.7%FACU 50.0%FACW 25.0%FACU 0 0 8.3%FACU 115 230 0.0%25 75 32 12860 0 0 62.5%FAC 172 43315.6%FACW 2.5176.3%FACU 15.6%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1401 47.4654LRR A Newberg silt loam None Fraxinus latifolia Mahonia nervosa Cornus alba Symphoricarpos albus Mahonia aquifolium Poa palustris Equisetum telmateia Lapsana communis Ranunculus repens (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-H-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-20 10YR 3/2 100 silty loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-H-WET 3.0 1.7 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 50 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 Yes No plots end at stream edge 3100.0%FACW 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%50 100.0%FACW 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0%180 360 0.0%5 15 0 0100 0 0 85.7%FACW 185 37514.3%FAC 2.0270.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover build up of sediment on stream bank 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace concave NAD 1983 H -122.1401 47.4654LRR A Newberg silt loam None Salix lasiandra Cornus alba Equisetum telmateia Poa palustris (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-H-WET 6 4 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% mixed matrix mixed matrix 1 0-2 2-15 15-20 15-20 10YR 2.5YR 10YR 10YR 3/2 3/1 4/1 2/1 100 75 37 60 7.5YR 10YR 5/8 4/6 25 3 C C M M sand Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-I-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 60 25 0 0 25 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 670.6%FACU 29.4%FAC 80.0% 0.0% 75.0%85 71.4%FAC 14.3%FACU 14.3%FACU 0 0 0.0%5 10 0.0%75 225 76 30435 0 0 13.9%FAC 156 53913.9%FACW 3.45513.9%FAC 13.9%FACU 41.7%FAC 2.8%FACU 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Top of berm none NAD 1983 H -122.1412 47.4629LRR A Newberg silt loam None Acer macrophyllum Alnus rubra Rubus spectabilis Rubus laciniatus Oemleria cerasiformis Athyrium cyclosorum Equisetum telmateia Tolmiea menziesii Reynoutria japonica Urtica dioica Geranium robertianum (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-I-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% gravel, cobble gravel, cobble 1 0-4 4-20 7.5YR 10YR 2.5/2 3/2 100 100 Loamy Sand Sandy Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-I-WET 7.0 4.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 0 0 0 0 80 10 20 0 0 10 30 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Yes No 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%0 72.7%FAC 9.1%FAC 18.2%FAC 0 0 0.0%15 30 0.0%180 540 0 0110 0 0 11.8%FACW 195 57035.3%FAC 2.9235.9%FACW 47.1%FAC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 13-Jul-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Eliza Spear, Anna Hoenig Terrace none NAD 1983 H -122.1412 47.4629LRR A Newberg silt loam None Rubus spectabilis Rubus armeniacus Ribes bracteosum Equisetum telmateia Ranunculus repens Impatiens glandulifera Athyrium cyclosorum (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-I-WET 15 Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-9 9-20 7.5YR 5YR 3/2 4/1 70 80 2.5YR 10YR 7.5YR 5/8 6/3 4/8 15 15 20 C D C M, PL M M Loamy Sand Clay Loam Clay Loam 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is > 50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 1 1 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 1 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation TP-Z-UPL 0.0 0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 10 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes No 3100.0%FAC 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%10 100.0%FAC 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0%100 200 0.0%15 45 0 05 0 0 100.0%FACW 115 2450.0% 2.1300.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100 0.0% 0.0% 0 , or Hydrology Prevalence Index = B/A = 1. 2. 3. 4. (A/B) Project/Site: Wetland Hydrology Present? Applicant/Owner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Date: Lat.: Long.: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): T Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. 2. Remarks: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) (A) Are Vegetation (B) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NWI classification: Remarks: Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. R Absolute % Cover Are Vegetation Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic? Slope: (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) , Soil Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. % / , Soil Hydric Soil Present? Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Woody Vine Stratum (B) Herb Stratum = Total Cover Subregion (LRR): Indicator Status ° = Total Cover = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? US Army Corps of Engineers (If no, explain in Remarks.) Dominance Test worksheet: City/County: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index worksheet: State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: , or Hydrology Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover reed canarygrass field between Madsen Creek and church parking lot 0 0.0% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 15-Jun-18Madsen Creek Renton City of Renton WA 0523N23Shelby Petro, Anna Hoenig Swale concave LRR A Newberg silt loam None Populus balsamifera Rubus armeniacus Phalaris arundinacea (Plot size: 3 m (Plot size:2 m (Plot size:1 m (Plot size: 1 m ) ) ) ) VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. TP-Z-UPLSoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) 2 cm Muck (A10) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) 3 3 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-10 0-10 10-20 10-20 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 3/2 4/3 3/2 4/3 50 50 37 60 7.5YR 5/8 3 C M Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Sandy Loam Sandy Loam APPENDIX E Stream Habitat Assessment Results September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton E-1 Table E-1. Stream Habitat Conditions in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Site Channel Type Bankfull Dimensions Channel Gradient Substrate Type Substrate Condition Physical Habitat Complexity Functional LWD Bank Stability Floodplain Connectivity Vegetation Condition (Type, Tree Size, Stand Density) Riparian Buffer Width Fish Cover Human Influences BFW BFD Primary Secondary Embeddedness Cementation A.1 Step pool 15 feet 1.5 feet 4 to 8% Cobble Gravel N/A N/A Good At Risk Armored/ Revetment Low Mixed, Large, Dense Wide (600 feet) Boulders, overhanging vegetation Installed log weirs, pipe B.1 Impounded 60 feet >5 feet <1% Sand Sand N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Slightly Unstable Low Deciduous, Small, Sparse Wide (60 feet) Macrophyte Weir, culverts, flow control structure C.1 Pool/Riffle 5.7 feet 0.5 foot 1 to 2% Gravel Cobble 0 to 25% Good Fair At Risk Slightly Unstable Medium Mixed, Large, Dense Wide (90 feet) Brush, overhanging vegetation, undercut banks Trash C.2 Pool/Riffle 13.5 feet 0.5 foot 1 to 2% Gravel Sand 25 to 50% Fair Fair Not Properly Functioning Moderately Unstable Medium Mixed, Small, Dense Wide (70 feet) Brush, overhanging vegetation, undercut bank Clearing/park, paved road C.3 Pool/Riffle 8 feet 1.2 foot <1% Gravel Sand 50 to 75% Good Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Moderately Unstable Medium Mixed, Small, Dense Wide (70 feet) Brush, overhanging vegetation, LWD, live tree/root wad, undercut bank Bridge, clearing/park, paved road C.4 Dune/Ripple 6.5 feet 1 foot <1% Sand Sand N/A N/A Good At Risk Moderately Unstable Medium Mixed, Small, Dense Medium Brush, overhanging vegetation, LWD, live tree/root wad, undercut bank Bridge, clearing/park, paved road, culvert D.1 Glide 6 feet 2 feet 1 to 2% Sand Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Moderately Unstable Low Coniferous, Small, Sparse Narrow Macrophyte, overhanging vegetation, undercut bank, culvert Culverts, trash, paved road, clearing/house D.2 Glide 10 feet 2.5 feet <1% Sand Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Completely Unstable Low Deciduous, Small, Dense Narrow Undercut banks, roots/live trees, overhanging vegetation Paved road, paved trail, trash, clearing/house E.1 Glide 12 feet 2.5 feet <1% Sand Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Completely Unstable Medium Deciduous, Small, Dense Medium Undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, macrophyte, brush/wood Fence, paved road E.2 Dune/Ripple 10 feet 1.5 foot 1 to 2% Sand Fines N/A N/A Fair Not Properly Functioning Moderately Unstable Medium Mixed, Small, Dense Medium Undercut banks, brush/wood, overhanging vegetation, roots/live trees, macrophytes Trash, bridge, clearing/park, paved road E.3 Dune/Ripple 12 feet 1.5 foot <1% Sand Fines N/A N/A Fair Not Properly Functioning Moderately Unstable Medium Deciduous, Small, Dense Medium Undercut banks, macrophyte, overhanging vegetation, brush/wood, LWD Fence, clearing/park, clearing/house, trash September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton E-3 Table E-1 (continued). Stream Habitat Conditions in the Madsen Creek Improvement Project Study Area. Site Channel Type Bankfull Dimensions Channel Gradient Substrate Type Substrate Condition Physical Habitat Complexity Functional LWD Bank Stability Floodplain Connectivity Vegetation Condition (Type, Tree Size, Stand Density) Riparian Buffer Width Fish Cover Human Influences BFW BFD Primary Secondary Embeddedness Cementation F.1 Dune/Ripple 10 feet 1.5 foot <1% Fines Sand N/A N/A Good At Risk Slightly Unstable High Mixed, Large, Dense Wide (100 feet) Undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, live tree/root wad Fence, trash, clearing/park F.2 Wetland 200 feet 2 feet <1% Fines Sand N/A N/A Good At Risk Moderately Unstable High Mixed, Large, Dense Wide (375 feet) Overhanging vegetation, LWD, macrophyte F.3 Wetland 200 feet 2 feet <1% Fines Sand N/A N/A Good At Risk Moderately Unstable High Mixed, Large, Dense Wide (390 feet) Overhanging vegetation, LWD, brush, macrophyte Fence, clearing/house G.1 Excavated/ Constructed 6.5 feet 1.5 foot 4 to 8% Boulder Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Slightly Unstable Low Grass, Nonforest, Nonforest Narrow Overhanging vegetation Artificial ditch, trash, unpaved road, paved road, clearing/park, clearing/house G.2 Excavated/ Constructed 13 feet 2.5 feet 1 to 2% Fines Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Slightly Unstable Low Grass, Nonforest, Nonforest Narrow Overhanging vegetation Artificial ditch, trash, unpaved road, paved road, clearing/park, clearing/house H.1 Excavated/ Constructed NA NA 1 to 2% Sand Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Armored/ Revetment Low Grass, Nonforest, Nonforest Wide (150 feet) Macrophyte Culvert, paved road, trail, fence H.2 Excavated/ Constructed NA NA 1 to 2% Sand Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Armored/ Revetment Low Grass, Nonforest, Nonforest Wide (150 feet) Overhanging vegetation, culvert Culvert, paved road, trail, fence I.1 Excavated/ Constructed 5 feet 2 feet <1% Fines Fines N/A N/A Poor/Simple Not Properly Functioning Armored/ Revetment Low Mixed, Small, Sparse Narrow Bridge, macrophytes Artificial ditch, wall/dike/revetment, clearing/house, paved road N/A = not applicable; for example, there was no riffle present in sampled sub-reach for metric to be evaluated. APPENDIX F Photographic Log September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton: Photographic Log F-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT— MADSEN CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY OF RENTON: PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Photo Number Photo Description 1 Reach A: Step-pool habitat surrounded by a mixed coniferous-deciduous upland forest. 2 Reach B: Sediment basin. 3 Reach C: Pool-riffle habitat through forested area adjacent to New Life Church recreation fields. 4 Reach D: Ditched stream with little cover and no sinuosity adjacent to State Route 169. 5 Reach E: Pool-riffle habitat through forested area adjacent to Ron Regis park. 6 Reach F: Glide and wetland habitat through Wetland A. 7 Reach G: High-flow bypass channel adjacent to New Life Church recreation fields. 8 Reach H: High-flow bypass channel between State Route 169 and Cedar River. September 2018 F-2 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton: Photographic Log 1 2 3 September 2018 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton: Photographic Log F-3 4 5 September 2018 F-4 Environmental Assessment Report—Madsen Creek Improvement Project, City of Renton: Photographic Log 6 7 8 APPENDIX H : PROJECT PLANS PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\G-1.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:42 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1/4 MILE PROJECT LOCATION OWNER: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 PHONE: (425) 430-7205 CONTACT: AMANDA PIERCE, P.E. ENGINEER: HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2200 SIXTH AVENUE SUITE 1100 SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE: (206) 441-9080 CONTACT: MARK EWBANK, P.E. SITE LOCATION SHEET INDEX SHEET DRAWING DESCRIPTION 1 G0.01 COVER PAGE 2 G0.02 LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS 3 G0.03 GENERAL NOTES 4 C1.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND KEY TO PLAN SHEETS 5 C2.01 SITE 1 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN 6 C2.10 SITE 2 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN 7 C2.20 SITE 3 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN 8 C2.30 SITE 4 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN 9 C3.01 SITE 1 - SITE PLAN 10 C3.10 SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 0+00 - 4+00 11 C3.11 SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 4+00 - 7+25 12 C3.20 SITE 3 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE 13 C3.30 SITE 4 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE 14 C4.01 ALIGNMENT HORIZONTAL CONTROL 15 C4.10 SITE 1 AND 2 - SECTIONS 16 C4.11 SITE 3 AND 4 - SECTIONS 17 L1.01 SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLAN 18 L1.02 SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLAN 19 L1.03 SITE 3 - PLANTING PLAN 20 L1.04 SITE 4 - PLANTING PLAN 21 L1.10 PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLANTING DETAILS 22 L1.11 PLANTING DETAILS COVER PAGE G0.01 1 UTILITY CONTACTS: KING COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION CONTACT: SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES: CONTACT: PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Legend_notes.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:44 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS G0.02 2 APPROX APPPROXIMATE AVG AVERAGE BLDG BUILDING BVC BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE CB CATCH BASIN CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CG CLEAR AND GRUB C/L, CL CENTERLINE CONC CONCRETE CONST CONSTRUCT, CONSTRUCTION CP CONTROL POINT DEMO DEMOLITION DIA DIAMETER DWG DRAWING E EAST, EASTING EA EACH EL ELEVATION EVC END VERTICAL CURVE EX, EXIST EXISTING FT FEET/FOOT HOR HORIZONTAL HT HEIGHT IN INCH/INCHES L LENGTH LF LINEAL FOOT/FEET LT LEFT ABBREVIATIONS MAX MAXIMUM MIN MINIMUM N NORTH/NORTHING NA NOT APPLICABLE NO NUMBER NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER PC POINT OF CURVATURE PI POINT OF INTERSECTION PREP PREPARATION PROP PROPOSED PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION QTY QUANTITY RD ROAD REF REFERENCE ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY RT RIGHT S SOUTH, SLOPE SPEC SPECIFICATION STA STATION STD STANDARD SWDM SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (CITY OF RENTON) SWPPP STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN TESC TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL TYP TYPICAL VCL VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH W WEST, WATER WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WSE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LEGEND - PROPOSED FEATURES: PROJECT LIMITS OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER WETLAND 100Y 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN EASEMENT RENTON CITY LIMITS CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER SILT FENCE A C-4 1 C-1 NOTE AND DETAIL/SECTION REFERENCING "-" INDICATES THAT THE DETAIL/SECTION IS SHOWN ON THE SAME SHEET "TYP" INDICATES THAT THE DETAIL/SECTION IS UNIFORMLY TYPICAL THROUGHOUT PROJECT EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED "VAR" SPECIFIES THAT DETAIL/SECTION WAS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS DRAWINGS SCALE: DETAIL 1 C-1NTS SCALE: SECTION/PROFILE A C-2NTS DETAIL REFERENCE NUMBER DRAWING ON WHICH DETAIL IS SHOWN DETAIL REFERENCE NUMBER DRAWING FROM WHICH DETAIL WAS TAKEN SECTION REFERENCE LETTER DRAWING ON WHICH SECTION IS SHOWN SECTION/PROFILE REFERENCE LETTER DRAWING FROM WHICH SECTION/PROFILE WAS TAKEN LEGEND - EXISTING FEATURES: SANITARY SEWER MAINTENANCE HOLE SANITARY SEWERSSSS GRAVEL ROADWAY SURVEY - FOUND - REBAR AND CAP GUARD RAIL TELECOM LINECC TELECOM MAINTENANCE HOLE SOIL TEST HOLE STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE HOLE FENCEX EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ / // / // / / TREE - SURVEYED TREE - APPROXIMATE LOCATION SURVEY - SET CONTROL - HUB AND TACK STREAM GAUGE CATCH BASIN - TYPE II ROW RIGHT OF WAY ROADWAY CENTERLINE CONCRETE CULVERT SIGN SURVEY - SET CONTROL - PK NAIL SURVEY - FOUND - MONUMENT IN CASE SF SF CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITSCGCG TREE PROTECTION TREE REMOVAL CLASS A ROCK COMPOST SOCKIIIIIIIIIIII HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCEHVSF PERMEABLE BALLAST CONTOUR - MINOR CONTOUR - MAJOR CONTOUR - MAJOR CONTOUR - MINOR 100 100 PARCEL BOUNDARY STABILIZED ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CHAIN LINK FENCEXX GENERAL NOTES G0.03 3PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Legend_notes.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:44 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1.ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, CITY OF RENTON CIVIL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE BY THESE PLANS 2.IN CASE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE REGULATORY STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT SHALL PREVAIL. 3.A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AT ALL TIMES. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMMENCE WORK UNTIL WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY OWNER. 5.A PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND A 24-HOUR NOTICE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ARRANGE THE PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ALL CONCERNED PARTIES (OWNER AND ENGINEER). 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN, REPLACE OR RESTORE ALL VEGETATION IN RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND ACCESS TRACTS THAT IS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 7.PROTECT EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, TRAIL, DRIVEWAYS, AND ROAD SHOULDERS (PAVED OR GRAVEL) FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. DEMOLISH ONLY THOSE FACILITIES INDICATED ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE AT THEIR COST ANY FACILITY TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. 8.A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 9.VERTICAL DATUM SHALL BE NAVD 88 AND HORIZONTAL DATUM SHALL BE NAD 83 (WA STATE PLANE, NORTH), UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY. REFERENCE BENCHMARK, DATUM, AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE PLANS. SITE PREPARATION NOTES: 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN (SPCC PLAN) FOR ALL FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1-07.15(1) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE WSDOT REPORT TEMPLATE REFERENCED IN THAT SECTION. 2.TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSBILE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS WHETHER OR NOT THESE UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITY. IF CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING UTILITIES ARISE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, INCLUDING PROTECTION OF ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR, GRUB, AND REMOVE ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FROM THE SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES: 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION ON OR ALONG TRAVELED CITY ROADS PER SECTION 1-10 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2.TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW SHALL REQUIRE TRAFFIC CONTROL. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK COVERED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 4.ALL BARRICADES, SIGNS AND FLAGGING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MUTCD. SIGNS MUST BE LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE AND SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY IF NOT APPLICABLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION HOURS. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CITY'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL ERECT SIGNAGE ALONG STATE ROUTE 169 TO NOTIFY MOTORISTS ABOUT TRUCKS ENTERING AND LEAVING THE HIGHWAY THROUGH THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: SEE DWGS C2.01-C2.30 FOR TESC PLAN FOR EACH WORK SITE. 1.BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OCCURS, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE HELD AMONG THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE CONTRACTOR. 4.THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS, SENSITIVE AREAS AND THEIR BUFFERS, AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AND TREE RETENTION AS PRESCRIBED ON THE PLAN(S) SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED BY FENCING AND PROTECTED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (RENTON SWDM) PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S ESC SUPERVISOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 5.STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTED WHEEL WASH SYSTEMS OR WASH PADS, MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN AND TRACK-OUT TO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT OCCUR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. IF SEDIMENT IS TRACKED OFFSITE, PUBLIC ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY, OR MORE FREQUENTLY DURING WET WEATHER, AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING WATERS OF THE STATE. 7.ALL REQUIRED ESC BMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT TRANSPORTATION OF SEDIMENT TO SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ALL ESC BMPS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. ALL ESC BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED TO ENSURE POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION DOES NOT EXIST. THE IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, ENHANCEMENT, AND REMOVAL OF ESC BMPS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 8.ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR LIQUID PRODUCTS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO POLLUTE RUNOFF SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9.THE ESC BMPS DEPICTED ON DWGS C2.01-C2.30 ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE ESC BMPS WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY THE ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ESC BMPS, OVER AND ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEDED, TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 10.APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS FOR ESC ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN, SIZE NOR LOCATION OF PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS, OR STORMWATER FACILITIES. 12.ANY AREAS OF EXPOSED SOILS, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED FOR TWO DAYS DURING THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH APRIL 30TH) OR SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON (MAY 1ST THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH) SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC COVER METHODS (E.G., SEEDING, MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING, ETC.) IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE RENTON SWDM. 13.WET SEASON ESC REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST AND APRIL 30TH, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY. 14.ANY AREA NEEDING ADDITIONAL ESC MEASURES, NOT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. 15.THE ESC BMPS ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH OR WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM EVENT. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE SHALL OCCUR MORE FREQUENTLY AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. 16.BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, CATCH BASIN INSERTS PER THE CITY STANDARD PLAN 216.30 SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS DOWNSLOPE AND WITHIN 500 FEET OF A DISTURBED OR CONSTRUCTION AREA, UNLESS THE RUNOFF THAT ENTERS THE INLET WILL BE CONVEYED TO A SEDIMENT POND OR TRAP. ALL CATCH BASIN INSERTS SHALL BE PERIODICALLY INSPECTED AND REPLACED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE FULLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION. 17.AT NO TIME SHALL SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION EXCEED 2/3 OF THE CAPACITY OF THE CATCH BASIN SUMP. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM. 19.AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN(S) CONTAINING EXISTING STORMWATER FACILITIES OR ON-SITE BMPS (AMENDED SOILS, BIORETENTION, PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, ETC.) SHALL BE CLEARLY FENCED AND PROTECTED USING ESC BMPS TO AVOID SEDIMENTATION AND COMPACTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. 20.PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1ST), ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED IN PREPARATION FOR THE WINTER RAINS. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON. AN EXHIBIT OF THOSE AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND THOSE AREAS TO REMAIN UNCOVERED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW. 21.PRIOR TO FINAL CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE, THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER FROM LEAVING THE PROJECT SITE, ALL ESC BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED, AND STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, FACILITIES, AND ON-SITE BMPS SHALL BE RESTORED TO THEIR FULLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE VEGETATED OR OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. AT A MINIMUM, DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHED TO ENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT COVER WILL DEVELOP SHORTLY AFTER FINAL APPROVAL. MULCH WITHOUT SEEDING IS ADEQUATE FOR AREAS TO BE LANDSCAPED BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST. 100100100100100100 100 100105105100100105105 105 105 115 11511512012512512 0125 11511511 0115 1001001 3 0 1 3 0 140 150 16 0 170 180 190 200 210 220 23 0 24 0 130 130130 130 130 130 130130 130140140 140 140140 140140140140140 140 140 140 140 140 140140150150 150 150150 150150150150150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150160160 160160 160 160 16016 0 160 160 160 160160160160160 170 170 170170170170170170 170 170170 170 170 180 18 0 180 180180180180 180 180 180180 180 180190 190 1 9 0 190 190 190190190190190190 200 200 200200 200 200 200200200200 210 210210210 210 210 210210210210 220 220220220 220 220 220220220 230230 230 230 230240 24 0 240 26 0 100100110120120120130100100110110 1101101201 2 0 12 0120 12012 0 1201 2 0 120 1 2 0 1 2 0 1201201201 3 0 130130130 130130130 130100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y100Y100Y100Y100YOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWO H W O H W O H W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW/ / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /PARCEL NO. 2323059021 PARCEL NO. 2323059118 PARCEL NO. 2323059020 PARCEL NO. 2323059070 PARCEL NO. 2314301000 PARCEL NO. 2323059028 SHEETS C2.01, C3.01 SHEETS C2.20, C3.20, L1.03 SHEETS C2.30, C3.30, L1.04 SHEET S C2.10, C3.10, L1.01 SHEET S C2.10, C3.11, L1.02 PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\3 C-1.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:50 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND KEY TO PLAN SHEETS C1.01 4 SEDIMENT BASIN MAD S E N C R E E K WETLAND, TYP WONDERLAND ESTATES HIGH F L O W B Y P A S S L O W F L O W C H A N N E L SR-169HIGH FLOW BYPASS CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER BOUNDARY, TYP CULVERTS GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 60 0 60 120 1"=60' RON REGIS PARK 149TH A V E S E SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4 MADSEN CREEKKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONKING C O U N T Y CITY O F R E N T O NCITY OF RENTONKING COUNTYPROJECT LIMITS, TYP EXISTING EASEMENT PARCEL BOUNDARY SURVEY NOTES: 1.DATA USED FOR THIS SURVEY WAS GATHERED BY PGS. 2.WETLAND AND OHW DELINEATION BY HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS (2018) AND SURVEYED BY PGS (2018). THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY IS NAVD88 HELD WSDOT MONUMENT GPS17169-351 ELEVATION = 63.49 THE BASIS OF BEARING WASHINGTON STATE PLANE NORTH ZONE 83/2011. WEST LINE OF THE SW 1 4 OF SECTION 23-23-5 AS SHOWN (N2° 06' 50"E) VERIFIED TIES TO WSDOT MONUMENTS DESIGNATION GP17169-353 (ID NO. 8460) AND WSDOT MONUMENT DESIGNATION GP17169-351 (ID NO. 8458) VERTICAL DATUM BASIS OF BEARING BUFFER MITIGATION PLANTING AREA 120 130 14 0 15 0 115 120 125 120 125 115120OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWCGCG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CGCGCG CG CG CG CGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCG CG CG CG CG CGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCG CG SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF S F SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFII I II I SITE 1 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN C2.01 5PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:51 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SEDIMENT BASIN EX HIGH FLOW BYPASS MADSEN CREEKMADSEN CREEKLOW FLOW CHANNEL EX CONCRETE BOX CULVERT (11.8' x 3.0') EX HIGH FLOW BYPASS WEIR (~118 FT) 10 0 10 20 1"=10' WONDERLAND ESTATES EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD SILT FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.15-02, TYP 5:1 PROJECT LIMITS, TYP GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.7:1PROTECT FENCE IN PLACE COMPOST SOCK PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.40-02 110 110110 110110 115 105 OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCG CG CG CG CG CG CG CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100YOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCGCG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CGCG105 CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSF SF IIIPROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:51 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 2 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN C2.10 6 20 0 20 40 1"=20' MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWWONDERLAND ESTATES NOTES: 1.TREES SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATION. EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD BIGLEAF MAPLE 24" DBH LOW FLOW CHANNEL EX CONCRETE BOX CULVERT FOR LOW FLOW CHANNEL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CITY OF RENTON SWDM SECTION D.2.1.4.1 SILT FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.15-02, TYP DISTURBANCE / CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITS, TYP TREE REMOVAL, TYP 2:12:1MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE2:12:12:1GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND. EASEMENT LIMITS, TYP COMPOST SOCK PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.40-02 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, TYP REMOVE EXISTING FENCE WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS, APPROX 380 LF TREE PROTECTION, TYP RED ALDER 23" DBH NORWAY MAPLE 27" DBH COMMON HAWTHORN 16" DBH NORWAY MAPLE 14" DBH OREGON ASH 6" DBH CHERRY SP 11" DBH 100 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y / / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /XXX102 103FILLFILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILLFILLFILLFILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILL FILLIIIIII III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III II I PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:51 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 3 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLAN C2.20 7 10 0 10 20 1"=10' PRUNE BRANCHES ON NORTH SIDE TO HEIGHT OF 24 INCHES ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AND OTHERWISE PROTECT EX TREES/HEDGE WONDERLAND ESTATES PAVED PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREA EX CULVERT MADS E N C R E E K REMOVE EX VEGETATION IN 12 FOOT ACCESS CORRIDOR REMOVE EX VEGETATION IN 12 FOOT ACCESS CORRIDOR CURB AT EDGE OF PAVEMENT NOTES: 1.PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS. 2.PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWN. EXISTING TELEPHONE POLE (EXISTING GUY WIRE TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS) REMOVE 16 LF OF EX CHAIN LINK FENCE AND POST(S) AND REPLACE IN KIND UPON COMPLETION OF BERM CONSTRUCTION SEE NOTE 2 SR 16 9 WETLAND DISTURBANCE / CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITS 2:12:1GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND. COMPOST SOCK PER WSDOT STD PLAN I-30.40-02 100100100100100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100101HVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSFHVSF//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PARCEL NO. 232305907015214 149TH AVE SEZONED AS URBAN RESERVE (UR)PARCEL NO. 2323059028ZONED AS RESOURCE CONSERVATION (RC)PROFESSIONAL ENGI NEERREGISTERED STAT E OF WASHINGTON29434M A RK EWBANK75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONO:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\SitePrep-TESC.dwg | 3/11/2021 12:47 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTALCPMME07/17/20201FEBRUARY 202118-06779-001MADSEN CREEK FLOODINGIMPROVEMENT PROJECTORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig.®22DRAFTJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASON-AS NOTEDJ. WAGGONERR. GLEASONM. EWBANKAT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:PROJECT NO:ONE INCH © 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED:DESIGNED:DESIGNED:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING NO:SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISIONBYAPP'DDATESITE 4 - SITE PREPARATION AND TESC PLANC2.308REMOVE ECOLOGY BLOCKWALL (APPROX 60 LF)10010201"=10'REMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING FENCE AS NECESSARYREINFORCE EXISTING WOOD BRIDGE WITHSTEEL PLATE DURING CONSTRUCTIONMADSEN CREEKEX CONCRETE CULVERTEX DRIVEWAYKING COUNTYCITY OF RENTONHIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE PERWSDOT STANDARD PLAN I-30.17-01NOTES:1.PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS.2.PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGINGOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWNWITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.3.IN AREA CLEARED FOR BERM CONSTRUCTION ON NORTH SIDE OFCREEK CHANNEL, SALVAGE DOWNED TREES (NONE ARE LARGERTHAN XX-INCH DIA TRUNK) FOR PLACEMENT ON THE GROUND NEARTHE BERM AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.SEE NOTE 2PROTECT EXISTING FENCE AND GATESTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PERCITY OF RENTON SWDM SECTION D.2.1.4.1 ONSOUTH EDGE EXISTING UNPAVED DRIVEWAY149TH AVE SE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ANDDISTURBANCE / CLEAR AND GRUB LIMITSSR 169CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERWETLAND, TYPEXISTING LAWN AREA TO BE CLEAREDFOR NATIVE MITIGATION PLANTINGS2 : 1 2:1 GENERAL NOTES:1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND.EXISTING EASEMENT FROM WSDOTSTREAM MODIFICATION PROJECT 100Y100Y100Y100Y OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW110 110110 110105 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00L2L1L3L4L5L6 X X X X X X X ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 108 96 100 104 108 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 EG 107.45FGEG 106.38FGEG 103.96FGEG 104.05FGSTA: 1+80.00EG: 103.95FG: 103.80STA: 2+31.05EG: 103.11FG: 102.51STA: 2+90.00EG: 102.65FG: 101.37STA: 3+50.00EG: 102.02FG: 101.20STA: 4+00.00EG: 101.84FG: 101.06-2.52%-2.52%PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:56 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 0+00 - 4+00 C3.10 10 20 0 20 40 1"=20' MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL MATCHLINE - SEE DWG C3.11WONDERLAND ESTATES NOTES: 1.STOCKPILE SUITABLE DREDGED MATERIAL FOR REUSE IN BERM. 2.SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL. 3.TREES SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATION. 4.CONNECT NEW FENCE AT NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS TO EXISTING FENCE USING A NEW PULL POST. EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD CHANNEL DREDGING AND WIDENING (500 LF) HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: PROFILE - UPPER HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL: STA 0+00 - 4+00 1 -1"=20' 1"=10' EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED GROUND GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND. PROJECT LIMITS, 27,300 SF CUT: 325 CY FILL: 240 CY TOTAL BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 120 CY CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 20 CY BERM PLANTING SOIL 100 CY INSTALL NEW FENCE ALIGNED WITH EASEMENT BOUNDARY, CHAIN LINK TYPE 3 PER WSDOT STD PLAN L-20.10-03, SEE NOTE 4 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y100Y100Y100Y100YOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 7+25L8L6L7 L10L9 X X X X X X X X X ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 108 96 100 104 108 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+25 STA: 4+60.00EG: 101.25FG: 100.89STA: 5+10.00EG: 100.79FG: 100.75STA: 5+70.00EG: 100.46FG: 100.58STA: 6+20.00EG: 99.94FG: 100.44EG 98.34FGEGFG-0.28%-0.28% SITE 2 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 4+00 - 7+25 C3.11 11PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:57 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE 20 0 20 40 1"=20'MATCHLINE - SEE DWG C3.10LOW FLOW CHANNEL EX CONCRETE BOX CULVERT FOR LOW FLOW CHANNEL EX CONCRETE BOX CULVERT UNDER SR 169 ELEVATE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL BERM (430 LF), BERM EMBANKMENT FILL PER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS NOTES: 1.STOCKPILE SUITABLE DREDGED MATERIAL FOR REUSE IN BERM. 2.SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL. 3.CONNECT NEW FENCE AT NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS TO EXISTING FENCE USING A NEW PULL POST. PROJECT LIMITS, 27,300 SF CHANNEL DREDGING AND WIDENING (500 LF) HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: PROFILE - UPPER HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL: STA 4+00 - 7+25 1 -1"=20' 1"=10' EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED GROUND LOW FLOW CHANNEL CULVERT SR 169 GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND. CHANNEL AND BERMD C4.10 INSTALL NEW FENCE ALIGNED WITH EASEMENT BOUNDARY, CHAIN LINK TYPE 3 PER WSDOT STD PLAN L-20.10-03, SEE NOTE 3 CUT: 325 CY FILL: 240 CY TOTAL BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 120 CY CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 20 CY BERM PLANTING SOIL 100 CY 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y / / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /XXX1000+001+00 1+25 102 102 103 103L23 L27C1 ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 96 100 104 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+25 EG 103.15FGSTA: 0+50.00EG:FG: 103.00STA: 1+00.00EG:FG: 103.00EG 101.65FGPROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:57 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 3 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE C3.20 12 10 0 10 20 1"=10' NEW LEFT BANK BERM (215 LF) WONDERLAND ESTATES PAVED PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREA EX CULVERT MADS E N C R E E K BC4.11INSTALL RISER TO MATCH PROPOSED GRADE PER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD DETAIL 400.1 CURB AT EDGE OF PAVEMENT NOTES: 1.CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN ACCESS CORRIDORS AND BERM FOOTPRINT AREA. 2.PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS. 3.SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL. 4.PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. EXISTING TELEPHONE POLE (EXISTING GUY WIRE TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERS) SEE NOTE 4 SR 16 9 HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: PROFILE - LEFT BANK BERM 1 -1"=10' 1"=5' WETLAND PROJECT LIMITS PROPOSED GROUND, TOP EL = 103' EXISTING GROUND VISUAL BUFFER BETWEEN LiDAR AND SURVEY TOPOGRAPHY, TYP QUANTITIES CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1,120 SF OVEREXCAVATION FOR BERM SUBGRADE PREP 10 CY BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 25 CY BERM PLANTING SOIL 35 CY AC4.11ALIGN NORTHERN END OF BERM TO PROTECT TALL SHRUBS CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT WALL WITH MORTARED SEAMS EXISTING ARBORVITAE HEDGE TIE INTO HIGH GROUND BY CREEK CULVERT OUTLET TIE INTO BERM 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 + 0 0 1+00 1+19100 101 101 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 L 2 8 L 2 9 L30 L31PARCEL NO. 2323059070 15214 149TH AVE SE ZONED AS URBAN RESERVE (UR) PARCEL NO. 2323059028 ZONED AS RESOURCE CONSERVATION (RC)ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 96 100 104 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+19 EG 100.45FGSTA: 0+50.00EG: 101.12FG: 101.40STA: 1+00.00EG: 100.48FG: 101.40EG 101.35FGPROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:58 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 4 - SITE PLAN AND PROFILE C3.30 13 10 0 10 20 1"=10' NEW RIGHT BANK BERM (115 LF) REINFORCE EXISTING WOOD BRIDGE WITH STEEL PLATE DURING CONSTRUCTION MADSEN CREEK C C4.11 EX CONCRETE CULVERT EX DRIVEWAY KING C O U N T Y CITY O F R E N T O N NOTES: 1.SEE SHEET C4.01 FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL. 2.PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD AREA. ABSOLUTELY NO STAGING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS AS SHOWN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SEE NOTE 2149TH AVE SEPROJECT LIMITS / TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LIMIT SR 16 9 PROPOSED GROUND, TOP EL = 101.4' EXISTING GROUND HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: PROFILE - RIGHT BANK BERM 1 -1"=10' 1"=5' 115' CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE DWG G0.02 FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND. QUANTITIES CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1,050 SF REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS 1 LS OVEREXCAVATION FOR BERM SUBGRADE PREP 5 CY BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL 31 CY BERM PLANTING SOIL 20 CY SITE AREA IN RENTON = 1,490 SF SITE AREA IN KING COUNTY = 2,270 SF EXISTING EASEMENT, TYP ALGN - SITE 2 - ALIGNMENT DATA # L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 START STA. 0+00.00 0+14.42 0+59.50 1+48.11 2+31.05 3+52.69 4+43.41 5+73.71 6+18.47 6+66.24 START COORDINATES N: 171,929.80 - E: 1,316,802.23 N: 171,944.02 - E: 1,316,804.61 N: 171,987.92 - E: 1,316,814.89 N: 172,074.55 - E: 1,316,833.51 N: 172,155.57 - E: 1,316,851.24 N: 172,274.20 - E: 1,316,878.11 N: 172,362.75 - E: 1,316,897.87 N: 172,490.02 - E: 1,316,925.80 N: 172,533.82 - E: 1,316,934.98 N: 172,579.84 - E: 1,316,947.82 LENGTH 14.42' 45.08' 88.61' 82.93' 121.64' 90.72' 130.30' 44.76' 47.78' 58.58' DIRECTION N09°28'53"E N13°11'01"E N12°07'47"E N12°20'39"E N12°45'44"E N12°34'37"E N12°22'42"E N11°50'37"E N15°34'54"E N11°22'55"E ELEV BERM OFFSET TOP OF BERM FG ROAD OFFSET ROAD FG 107.45 107.31 105.76 104.00 102.51 101.19 100.94 100.57 100.45 100.31 16.18 RT 15.55 RT 14.29 RT 14.25 RT 14.79 RT 107.25 106.01 105.50 105.01 104.82 16.54 LT 15.83 LT 19.86 LT 105.49 105.22 104.93 ALGN - SITE 3 - ALIGNMENT DATA # L23 C1 L27 START STA. 0+00.00 0+18.84 1+20.00 START COORDINATES N: 172,693.03 - E: 1,316,708.67 N: 172,674.58 - E: 1,316,704.87 N: 172,646.74 - E: 1,316,800.00 DELTA (Δ) 87° 32' 46" RADIUS 4.00' TANGENT 3.83' LENGTH 18.84' 6.11' 5.00' DIRECTION S11°38'33"W S75°54'13"E ALGN - SITE 4 - ALIGNMENT DATA # L28 L29 L30 L31 START STA. 0+00.00 0+21.03 0+75.19 1+13.02 START COORDINATES N: 172,895.60 - E: 1,316,645.31 N: 172,880.89 - E: 1,316,660.34 N: 172,839.91 - E: 1,316,695.75 N: 172,832.09 - E: 1,316,732.76 LENGTH 21.03' 54.16' 37.83' 6.20' DIRECTION S45°37'56"E S40°49'21"E S78°04'24"E S08°38'06"E ELEV 103.15 103.00 101.64 ELEV 100.45 101.37 101.37 101.37 ALIGNMENT HORIZONTAL CONTROL C4.01 14PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Site.dwg | 3/10/2021 4:58 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE NOTE: NO DATA MEANS EQUATES TO EXISTING CONDITIONS. 2.0' 5.0' 7 1 7 1 2 1 6 IN 18 IN VARIES PER PLAN 10' MIN VARIES PER PLAN 10' MIN 18"18" EASEMENT ROAD 8.6' 7.78' 4.00' 6" FREEBOARD VARIES VARIES PER PLAN 10' MIN PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:01 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 1 AND 2 - SECTIONS C4.10 15 HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SECTION - TYPICAL ARMORED SPILLWAY AT SITE 1 A C3.01NTS NTS EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED GROUND EXISTING CONCRETE BOX CULVERT NOTES: 1.SPILLWAY ROCK MIX TO CONSIST OF 18 IN MIN DEPTH CLASS A ROCK FOR EROSION AND SCOUR PROTECTION PER SECTION 9-13.4 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. EACH LIFT BACKFILLED WITH PERMEABLE BALLAST PER SECTION 9-03.9(2) IF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TO FILL VOIDS AND CREATE A SOLID DRIVEABLE SURFACE. EACH LIFT COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAX DENSITY PER METHOD C OF SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2.TOP ELEV OF PROPOSED ROAD AND BERM VARIES. 3.PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET BETWEEN BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)b OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, COMPACTED PER SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, TYP 6 IN DEPTH BEDDING ROCK WITH 3 4 IN TO 112 IN COARSE AGGREGATE FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PER SECTION 9-03.1(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FOR SOIL STABILIZATION PER SECTION 9-33 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SPILLWAY ROCK MIX SEE NOTE 1 HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: DETAIL - TYPICAL CHANNEL AT SITE 2 D C3.10NTS NTS BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS EXISTING GROUND FINISHED GRADE REMOVE SEDIMENT AND VEGETATION KEY BASE OF BERM INTO SUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GROUND 100-YR WL ELEV BERM PLANTING SOIL OHW SEE NOTE 3 HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SECTION - TYPICAL ARMORED SPILLWAY AT SITE 1 B C3.01NTS NTS EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED GROUND, ELEVATION 124.0 EXISTING CONCRETE BOX CULVERT EXISTING CONCRETE WEIR EX IE=116.9 EX IE=117.8 EXISTING SEDIMENT BASIN HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SECTION - GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD ON BERM C C3.01NTS NTS SPILLWAY CREST ELEVATION 124.0 EXISTING GROUND 6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE PER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE PER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TO EX HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNELWHERE REQUIRED TO MEET SUBGRADE, PLACE COMPACTED BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE PER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, TYP 6 IN CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE PER SECTION 9-03.9(3) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, TYP BERM EMBANKMENT SOIL PER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, COMPACTED PER SECTION 2-03.3(14)C OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED GROUND 1976 CHANNEL DESIGN 2 1 1.5 1 ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 96 100 104 0+00 0+25 WETLAND ELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 96 100 104 0+00 0+40 4.0'WETLANDWETLANDELEVATION IN FEETSTATION 96 100 104 96 100 104 0+00 0+40 4.0'2 1 2 1 WETLAND PROFE SSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHIN G TON29434MARK E WBA N K75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\C-PROFILES.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:02 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE SITE 3 AND 4 - SECTIONS C4.11 16 HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SECTION - TYPICAL CMU WALL AT SITE 3 B C3.20NTS NTS CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT BLOCK WALL WITH MORTARED SEAMS, SEE NOTES NOTES: 1.PLACE LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET BETWEEN BERM FILL AND PLANTING SOIL PER SECTION 9-14.6(2)B OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 100-YR WL ELEV 101.70 FLOOD CONTROL BERM TOP ELEV = 101.4 FT REMOVE ECO-BLOCK WALL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE KEY BASE OF BERM INTO SUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GROUND MADSEN CREEK 100-YR WL ELEV 100.35 BERM PLANTING SOIL BERM EMBANKMENT FILL PER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SECTION - TYPICAL BERM AT SITE 4 C C3.30NTS NTS SEE NOTE 1 FLOOD CONTROL BERM TOP ELEV = 103 FT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE KEY BASE OF BERM INTO SUBSURFACE 50% OF HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GROUND 100-YR WL ELEV 101.70 BERM PLANTING SOIL BERM EMBANKMENT FILL PER SECTION 9-03.16 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS SEE NOTE 1 HORIZ. SCALE: VERT. SCALE: SECTION - TYPICAL BERM AT SITE 3 A C3.20NTS NTS CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT (CMU) WALL NOTES: 1.CREATE SMOOTH, FLAT GROUND SURFACE ALONG WALL ALIGNMENT WITH MINIMAL EXCAVATION TO PROTECT TREE ROOTS. 2.PLACE 8"x8"x16" CMU BLOCKS IN 2 VERTICAL ROWS, INSTALLING REBAR ANCHORING AS WALL LENGTH IS COMPLETED PER SPECIAL PROVISIONS. PRUNED ARBORVITAE HEDGE 2 1 1.5 1 2 1 1.5 1 115 115 1 2 0 120 OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW TSHE ALRU ALRU THPL THPL THPL THPL PSMEPSMEALRU OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW TSHE TSHE ALRUALRUALRUALRUTHPLPSMEPSMEPSME SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLAN L1.01 17N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/21KATHRYN S U ZANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECT75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:10 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER 10 0 10 20 1"=10' MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL LEGEND: THPL ALRU ALNUS RUBRA THUJA PLICATA SITE 1 NATIVE SHRUB ZONE PSME PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII TSHE TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX EXISTING TREES NOTES: 1.PLACE 4-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH MULCH RING AROUND EACH TREE. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH, MULCH RING AROUND EACH SHRUB 2.ENGINEER SHALL FLAG ALL TREES FOR REMOVAL. A CERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST INSPECT TREES REQUIRING REMOVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL, CLEARING, OR GRADING ACTIVITIES. SITE 2 NATIVE SHRUB ZONE 105 105 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW 100100100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW105 SITES 1 AND 2 - PLANTING PLAN L1.02 18N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/21KATHRYN S U ZANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECT75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:11 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER 10 0 10 20 1"=10' MADSEN CREEK HIGH FLOW BYPASS CHANNEL LEGEND: THPL ALRU ALNUS RUBRA THUJA PLICATA NATIVE SHRUB ZONE PSME PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII TSHE TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX EXISTING TREES NOTES: 1.PLACE 4-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH MULCH RING AROUND EACH TREE. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH, MULCH RING AROUND EACH SHRUB 2.ENGINEER SHALL FLAG ALL TREES FOR REMOVAL. A CERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST INSPECT TREES REQUIRING REMOVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL, CLEARING, OR GRADING ACTIVITIES. 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y 100Y / / // / // / // / // / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /XXX102 103 SITE 3 - PLANTING PLAN L1.03 19N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/21KATHRYN S U ZANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECT75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:11 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER 10 0 10 20 1"=10' SR 16 9 MADS E N C R E E K LEGEND: NATIVE SHRUB ZONE GROUNDCOVER ZONE TEMPORARY ACCESS PATH, REPLACED IN-KIND WITH NATIVE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS BERM PLANTING - NATIVE SHRUBS AND BARK MULCH NOTES: 1.PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH, MULCH RING AROUND EACH SHRUB. 2.AVOID DISRUPTING EXISTING ARBORVITAE HEDGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING LAWN TO BE REPLACED IN-KIND 10010 0 10010 0 100 100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y100Y1 0 0 1 0 1 ALRU THPL THPL THPL THPL SITE 4 - PLANTING PLAN L1.04 20N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/21KATHRYN S U ZANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECT75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Planting.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:12 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER 10 0 10 20 1"=10'MADSEN CREEKLEGEND: THPL ALRU ALNUS RUBRA THUJA PLICATA NATIVE SHRUB ZONE GROUNDCOVER ZONE BERM PLANTING - EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX AND NATIVE SHRUBS NOTES: 1.PLACE 4-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH MULCH RING AROUND EACH TREE. PLACE 2-FOOT, 3-INCH DEPTH, MULCH RING AROUND EACH SHRUB. 2.ENGINEER SHALL FLAG ALL TREES FOR REMOVAL. A CERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST INSPECT TREES REQUIRING REMOVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL, CLEARING, OR GRADING ACTIVITIES. 3.NO EQUIPMENT ACCESS, STORAGE, OR STOCKPILING SHALL OCCUR WITHIN WETLANDS AND SENSITIVE AREAS. 4.PRESERVE NATIVE WILLOW SHRUBS TO MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. KING C O U N T Y CITY O F R E N T O N149TH AVE SESR 16 9 CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER SCALE: DETAIL - TYPICAL SITE 2 PLANTING 1 -NTS SCALE: DETAIL - TYPICAL SITE 3 PLANTING 3 -NTS 1.PLANT GROUNDCOVERS, SHRUBS, AND TREES AS SHOWN ON PLAN. GROUNDCOVERS AND SHRUBS SHALL BE IN CLUSTERS OF UNEVEN NUMBERS (E.G. THREE, FIVE, SEVEN, ETC.) 2.PLANTS SHALL BE ARRANGED SO THAT AS THEY MATURE, THEY GROW IN TO MASSINGS AND FULLY COVER THE SOIL SURFACE. 3.PROVIDE A 3 FOOT RADIUS MULCH-ONLY AREA AROUND EACH TREE AND A 2 FOOT RADIUS MULCH-ONLY AREA AROUND EACH SHRUB. SCALE: DETAIL - PLANTING LAYOUT 2 -NTS PLANTING LAYOUT NOTES: TREE, TYP GROUNDCOVER SHRUB, TYP SCALE: DETAIL - TYPICAL SITE 4 PLANTING 4 -NTS PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLANTING DETAILS L1.10 21N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/21KATHRYN S U ZANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECT75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Details.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:14 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE BERM EMBANKMENT FILL BERM PLANTING SOIL NATIVE SHRUBS PLANTED TO ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) 100-YR WL MADSEN CREEK HI-FLOW BYPASS NATIVE SHRUBS ON BERM AND ADJACENT TO THE BERM ACCESS ROAD EROSION CONTROL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIXEROSION CONTROL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE 100-YR WL NATIVE FLOWERING SHRUBS TO REPLACE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS WONDERLAND ESTATES MADSEN CREEK EXISTING ARBORVITAE SHRUB TO REMAIN NATIVE GROUNDCOVER BETWEEN BERM AND CREEK 12" DEEP BERM PLANTING SOIL BERM EMBANKMENT FILL 100-YR WL MADSEN CREEK BERM EMBANKMENT FILL 12" DEEP AVG BERM PLANTING SOIL MADSEN CREEK 100-YR WL MADSEN CREEK NATIVE SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER ON BERM NATIVE PLANTINGS ALONG WETLAND EDGE R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER WETLAND OHW WETLAND BACKFILLED AMENDED SOIL FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF PLANTS, PLACE MULCH LAYER AROUND BASE OF PLANT. MULCH SHALL BE 3" THICK. ENSURE MULCH IS KEPT AWAY FROM PLANT TRUNKS AND STEMS TO PREVENT ROTTING 9 BUILD A SMALL SOIL BERM RING AT PLANT DRIP LINE TO INCREASE WATER RETENTION 8 WHILE BACKFILLING, FIRM SOIL AROUND PLANT GENTLY WITH HANDS TO ELIMINATE AIR POCKETS. DO NOT INJURE ROOT SYSTEM WHILE BACKFILLING AND COMPACTING. ALL ROOTS SHALL BE BURIED BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE 7 ROOT-SHOOT INTERFACE SHALL BE AT SOIL SURFACE. DO NOT BURY TREE COLLAR WHERE TRUNK FLARE OCCURS IN ORDER TO AVOID ROTTING DUE TO BURIAL 6 PLACE PLANT ROOTS INTO PLANTING HOLE ON TOP OF SOIL MOUND AND GENTLY SPREAD ROOTS OUT EVENLY WITH FINGERS, CAREFUL NOT TO CAUSE HARM OR DAMAGE TO ROOTS. NO BUNCHING, J-ROOTING, OR TANGLING OF ROOTS SHALL OCCUR 5 BUILD A SMALL SOIL MOUND IN CENTER OF PLANTING HOLE TO PROVIDE A STABLE BASE FOR PLANTING THE TREE OR SHRUB. COMPACT SOIL MOUND TO REDUCE SOIL SETTLING EFFECTS 4 ROUGHEN SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE WITH SHOVEL OR SPADE 3 REMOVE ROOTS, ROCKS, AND WOODY DEBRIS LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL WEEDS AND DEBRIS FROM PLANTING AREA 2 EXCAVATE PLANTING HOLE 2x THE ROOT WIDTH AND 1.5x ROOT DEPTH WITH ENOUGH ROOM TO ALLOW ROOTS TO BE SPREAD DOWNWARDS AND LATERALLY THROUGHOUT THE SOIL PROFILE. EDGES OF THE PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE CUT PERPENDICULARLY TO THE SOIL SURFACE 1 SCALE: DETAIL - CONTAINER TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING 3 -NTS FINISHED GROUND PLANT AT SAME LEVEL AS GROWN IN CONTAINER PLANTING HOLE/ EXCAVATION 2X GREATER THAN ROOTBALL OR CONTAINER WIDTH 24" DIA SHRUB OR 36" DIA TREE BARK CHIP MULCH RING, 3" THICK LAYER, KEEP AWAY FROM TRUNK OF PLANT EXCAVATE SOIL FOR PLANTING TO DIMENSIONS SHOWN. FIRM SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL AND WATER TO SETTLE. DO NOT LEAVE AIR POCKETS. DO NOT DAMAGE ROOTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS GENTLY LOOSEN AND SPREAD ROOTS AT BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL SCALE: DETAIL - LIVE STAKE PLANTING 4 -NTS 1.STAKES MUST BE 1/2" TO 1" DIAMETER AT BASE OF STAKE. 2.STAKES WILL HAVE MINIMAL WARPING OR BENDS, BEING MOSTLY STRAIGHT IN FORM, FOR EASE OF PLANTING. LIVE STAKE PLANTING NOTES: PLANT LIVE STAKE WITH MIN 2 LATERAL BUDS ABOVE GRADE MINIMUM 2/3 OF LENGTH BELOW GROUND PRE-DIG HOLE BEFORE INSERTING LIVE STAKE, TAMP SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS BASE DIAMETER SCALE: DETAIL - BALL AND BURLAP (B&B) PLANTING/STAKING 1 -NTS 12" MIN 1/2 (5' MIN) 2" MAX 1/2 TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE" (3) 2x2 STAKES. PLACE IN TRIANGULAR SPACING AROUND TREE. TREE ROOTBALL. SET ROOT CROWN AT 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. COARSE COMPOST: 2" DEPTH, 4' DIA. ALLOW 2" CLEARANCE FROM TRUNK FINISHED GROUND BACKFILL WITH SOIL REMOVED FROM HOLE SCARIFY SUBGRADE WIDTH OF PLANTING PIT IS 3 TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL. REMOVE BINDINGS BEFORE BACKFILLING. 12" MIN 1/2 (5' MIN) 2" MAX 1/2 TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE" (3) 2x2 STAKES. PLACE IN TRIANGULAR SPACING AROUND TREE. TREE ROOTBALL. SET ROOT CROWN AT 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. COARSE COMPOST: 2" DEPTH, 4' DIA. ALLOW 2" CLEARANCE FROM TRUNK FINISHED GROUND BACKFILL WITH SOIL REMOVED FROM HOLE SCARIFY SUBGRADE WIDTH OF PLANTING PIT IS 3 TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL. REMOVE BINDINGS BEFORE BACKFILLING. SCALE: DETAIL - BARE ROOT TREE OR SHRUB PLANTING 2 -NTS PLANTING DETAILS L1.11 22N O. 1 4 4 8 E X P . 12/12/21KATHRYN S U ZANNE FO R E STERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ONLI CEN S E D LANDSCA P E A RCHITECT75% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O:\proj\Y2018\18-06779-000\CAD\Dwg\Details.dwg | 3/10/2021 5:14 PM | Eric MarshallINCORPORATE CITY COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS 75% SUBMITTAL CPM ME 07/17/20201 FEBRUARY 2021 18-06779-001 MADSEN CREEK FLOODING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORIGINATED BY: / DATE:CHECKED BY: / DATE:BACK-CHECKED BY: / DATE:///CORRECTED BY: / DATE:VERIFIED BY: / DATE://Know what's below.Call before you dig. ® 22 DRA F T J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON - AS NOTED J. WAGGONER R. GLEASON M. EWBANK AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONEINCH SCALE ACCORDINGLYDRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: PROJECT NO:ONE INCH© 2018 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved.DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DESIGNED: SCALE: DRAWN: DRAWING NO: SHEET NO: OFNo.REVISION BY APP'D DATE R. GLEASON J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER J. WAGGONER K. FORESTER