Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Critical_Area_210129_v1CRITICAL AREA REPORT Les Schwab Renton, Washington January 26, 2021 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com Associates, Inc. Raedeke Report To: Mr. Matt Hannigan Les Schwab Headquarters 20900 Cooley Road Bend OR 97701 Title: Les Schwab Renton – Critical Area Report Renton, Washington Project Number: 2020-105-001 Prepared By: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 (206) 525-8122 Date: January 26, 2021 Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com Associates, Inc. Raedeke Project Manager: Christopher W. Wright, B.S. Principal/Soil and Wetland Scientist Current Project Personnel: Richard W. Lundquist, M.S. Associate/Wildlife Biologist Annamaria Clark, B.S. Wetland Biologist Will Russack, B.S. Wetland Biologist Submitted by: Signature Christopher W. Wright Printed Name January 26, 2021 DATE iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 1.1 Statement of Purpose .............................................................................................1 1.2 Study Area .............................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................2 2.1 Wetland Delineation ..............................................................................................2 2.2 Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation ................................................................3 2.3 Background Review...............................................................................................3 2.4 Field Sampling Procedures and Data Analysis ......................................................4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................5 3.1 General Property Description ................................................................................5 3.2 Wetland and Stream Descriptions..........................................................................5 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................8 4.1 Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)....................................8 4.2 State of Washington ................................................................................................8 4.3 City of Renton.........................................................................................................9 5.0 IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................10 6.0 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................11 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................12 FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A: Field Survey Data ................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B: WDOE (Hruby 2014) Wetland Rating Form ....................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: Les Schwab Renton Modernization Site Plan ...................................... C-1 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................16 2. King County GIS Map ...........................................................................................17 3. NRCS Soil Survey Map .........................................................................................18 4. National Wetland Inventory Map ..........................................................................19 5. WDFW SalmonScape Map ....................................................................................20 6. WDNR Forest Practices Mapping Tool .................................................................21 7. WDFW Priority Habitat & Species Map ...............................................................22 8. City of Renton Public GIS Map .............................................................................23 9. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................24 1 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This report documents the results of our January 2021 investigation of the Les Schwab project site located in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to document the current site conditions and identify wetlands or streams on or in the vicinity of the site, as well as discuss potential impacts. 1.2 STUDY AREA The Les Schwab Renton project site consists of two parcels located at 354 Union Avenue, in the City of Renton, Washington. The properties are identified as King County Tax Parcel Nos. 5182100010 and 5182100016. This places the project site in a portion of Section 55, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County depict the property boundaries (Figure 2). 2 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 2.0 METHODS 2.1 WETLAND DELINEATION The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the project area could be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area “inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994), as updated for this area by the regional supplement to the COE wetland delineation manual for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010). The COE wetlands manual is required by state law (WAC 173-22-035, as revised) for all local jurisdictions, including the City of Renton. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as “macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List wetland indicator status (WIS) ratings were used to make this determination (Lichvar, et al. 2016). The WIS ratings “reflect the range of estimated probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in wetland versus non-wetland across the entire distribution of the species” (Reed 1988:8). Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL), respectively. In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the majority of the dominant species are rated OBL, FACW, and FAC. A hydric soil is defined as “a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (Federal Register 1995: 35681). The morphological characteristics of the soils in the study area were examined to determine whether any could be classified as hydric. According to the 1987 methodology, wetland hydrology could be present if the soils were saturated (sufficient to produce anaerobic conditions) within the majority of the rooting zone (usually the upper 12 inches) for at least 5% of the growing season, which in this area is usually at least 2 weeks (COE 1991a). It should be noted, however, that areas having saturation to the surface between 5% and 12% of the growing season may or may not be wetland (COE 1991b). Depending on soil type and drainage characteristics, saturation to the surface would occur if water tables were shallower than about 12 inches 3 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 below the soil surface during this time period. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology include direct observation of inundation or soil saturation, as well as indirect evidence such as drift lines, watermarks, surface encrustations, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydrology was further investigated by noting drainage patterns and surface water connections between wetlands and streams within and adjacent to the project area. 2.2 ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK DELINEATION We base our delineations of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for streams on definitions provided under the Washington State Shorelines Management Act of 1971. The Washington State definition for the OHWM is as follows: Ordinary high water line" or "OHWL" means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, provided that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found, the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high water, and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of the mean annual flood.”…(RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC173-22-030(5); WDOE 1994). As outlined in the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1994) Shoreline Administrators Manual, the general guidelines for determining the OHWM include: (1) a clear vegetation mark; (2) wetland/upland edge; (3) elevation; (4) a combination of changes in vegetation, elevation, and landward limit of drift deposition; (5) soil surface changes from algae or sediment deposition to areas where soils show no sign of depositional processes; and/or (6) soil profile changes from wetter conditions (low chroma, high soil organic matter, and lack of mottling) to drier conditions (higher chroma, less organic matter, or brighter mottles). 2.3 BACKGROUND REVIEW In preparation for our site investigations, we reviewed online resource maps from the U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2021) Soil Survey (Figure 3), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS 2021) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI 2021) (Figure 4), WDFW SalmonScape map (Figure 5), Washington Department of Natural Resources (2021) Forest Practices Base Maps (Figure 6), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2021a, 2021b) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on-line mapper (Figure 7), and the City of Renton (2021) Public GIS maps (Figure 8). We examined current and historical aerial photographs (Google Earth 2021) to assist in the definition of existing plant communities, drainage patterns, and land use. 4 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 None of the background materials depicted critical areas within the boundaries of the Les Schwab project site, as the parcels are fully developed. Neither the PHS map or Forest Practices map depicts streams, wetlands, or other critical area in the vicinity. Several background maps, including the King County iMap, SalmonScape, NWI, and City of Renton Public GIS maps, depict an off-site stream east of the project site named Maplewood Creek. The City of Renton Public GIS (2021) maps label the segment of Maplewood Creek nearest the project site as seasonal and non-fish bearing. No background maps depicted wetlands in the immediate vicinity, with the exception of the City of Renton Public GIS map which depicts riverine wetlands off-site to the east, adjacent to Maplewood Creek. 2.4 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the Les Schwab Renton site on January 13, 2021 to verify and collect data in order to determine the western boundary of Wetland 1. We had also planned to delineate the OHWM of Maplewood Creek, however, due to extensive flooding we were unable to define the ordinary highwater mark of the stream. During our field investigation, we inventoried, classified, and described representative areas of plant communities, soil profiles, and hydrologic conditions in both uplands and wetlands. We searched specifically for areas with positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were examined in representative portions of the investigated area according to the procedures described in the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as updated by the Regional Supplement (COE 2010). Plant communities were inventoried, classified, and described during our field investigation. We estimated the percent coverage of each species. Plant identifications were made according to standard taxonomic procedures described in Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), with nomenclature as updated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016). Wetland classification follows the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992). We determined the presence of a hydrophytic vegetation community using the procedure described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010), which requires the use of the dominance test, unless positive indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are also present, in which case the prevalence index or the use of other indicators of a hydrophytic vegetation community as described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010) may also be required. We excavated pits to at least 18 inches below the soil surface, where possible, in order to describe the soil and hydrologic conditions throughout the study area. We sampled soil at locations that corresponded with vegetation sampling areas and potential wetland areas. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell Color 2009). We used the indicators described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010) to determine the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. 5 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Les Schwab project site consists of two parcels which are fully developed. There is a pre-existing commercial building (Les Schwab Tire Center) and the rest of the site is entirely paved to create areas of parking and vehicle access. The site is relatively flat. We did not identify any critical areas or habitat within the bounds of the property. The site is bordered to the west by Union Avenue NE. To the north and south are developed commercial properties. The site is bordered to the east by what appears to be a previously identified Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) which is demarcated at the east of the pavement with a wooden split-rail fence and NGPA signs. The fence was in disrepair in some locations. Directly east of the project site and the fence is an upland area sloping down to the east. We identified Wetland 1 at the toe of the slope. 3.2 WETLAND AND STREAM DESCRIPTIONS We identified one off-site wetland east of the project site. Positive indicators for each of the three wetland parameters were present at the time of our investigation. The delineated area met the necessary criteria for designation as wetlands according to the guidelines of the COE (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement (COE 2010). Wetland 1 is a riverine palustrine wetland that meets the criteria to be regulated as a Category III wetland providing moderate habitat function. Maplewood Creek is shown on several background maps as running through Wetland 1. At the time of our site visit, Wetland 1 and Maplewood Creek were inundated by approximately 18-24 inches of water, likely the result of heavy rains in the days preceding our visit. Due to these conditions, we were not able to positively identify the channelization, top of bank, or indicators used to delineate the OHWM of stream channels. However, we did observe occasional water flow that appeared to be flowing in a southerly direction. 3.2.1 Wetland 1 We delineated the western boundary of Wetland 1 nearest the Les Schwab Renton project site, but not further north or south that the extent of the project parcels. Based on aerial images and background maps, the wetland extends north and further south than the extent of our delineation. In order to rate the wetland, we determined the northern boundary of the wetland as NE 4th Street and the southern boundary as Bremerton Avenue NE, which both appeared to constitute breaks in wetland continuity. Vegetation Wetland 1 is dominated by palustrine forested deciduous (PFO), scrub-shrub (PSS), and emergent (PEM) vegetation classes. The portion of the wetland we delineated was 6 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), with patches of spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) and red-osier dogwood (Cornus alba) (Sample Plot 2, Appendix A). To the wetland south of our delineation, we observed cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) dominating areas of the Wetland 1. Soils and Hydrology Soils within Wetland 1 consisted of three inches of very dark greyish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam over at least seven inches of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) concentrations (Sample Plot 2, Appendix A). This soil profile meets the conditions required for a depleted matrix (indicator F3). Wetland 1 appeared to primarily receive water from a large culvert draining into the wetland from the south side of NE 4th Street, flowing south, and likely feeding into Maplewood Creek. The wetland also likely receives direct precipitation and sheet flow from upland areas. As a result, the wetland contains areas that are seasonally flooded, saturated only, and contains a seasonally flowing stream (Maplewood Creek). We also observed water marks along woody vegetation. At the time of our site visit, the wetland was flooded and storage depths appeared to be at least 24 inches in some areas of the wetland, but during larger storms it may exceed that. Adjacent Uplands In the area adjacent to our delineation, uplands west of Wetland 1 consisted of forest dominated by cottonwood and red alder, with understory dominated by Himalayan blackberry and sword fern (Polystichum munitum) (Sample Plot 1, Appendix A). Three of the four dominant species are considered wetland facultative plants and therefore soils in our sample plot met criteria for presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils consisted of five inches of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy sand over 9 inches of a mixed matrix consisting of 75% brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam and 25% grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam with yellowish brown (10YR 5/5) concentrations. This soil profile did meet criteria to be considered hydric. At the time of our site investigation, there was no evidence of saturation or free water within the upper 14 to 18 inches of the soil profile (Sample Plot 1, Appendix A). 3.2.2 Maplewood Creek At the time of our investigation, the wetland and top of stream bank appeared be inundated by 18-24 inches of water. Due to these conditions, we were unable to identify channelization, top of bank, or other indicators used to delineate the OHWM of a channelized stream. However, aerial images and background maps indicate Maplewood Creek likely has seasonal flow and a width of 4-6 feet. During our investigation, we observed some areas in the center of the wetland where water flow was visible and a lack 7 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 of vegetation may have indicated the channel of Maplewood Creek. We were unable to verify the channel location due to the flooding during our site visit. 3.2.3 Classification and Determination Based on our observations, Wetland 1 meets the necessary criteria for designation as a wetland according to the guidelines of the COE delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement (COE 2010). Wetland 1 is classified as a palustrine forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent (PFO/PSS/PEM) wetland. Based on the 2014 WDOE Wetlands Rating Form for Western Washington (Hruby 2014), we rated Wetland 1 as a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 6 (Wetland 1 Rating, Appendix B). Category III wetlands with moderate habitat function typically require a 100-foot standard buffer, based on proposed adjacent “High Intensity” land use, according to the City of Renton (2020) Code. This buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 75 feet with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 4-3- 050I (3). As discussed above, we did not delineate the OHWM of Maplewood Creek due to flooding at the time of our visit. The City of Renton Public GIS maps (Renton 2021) depict this segment of Maplewood Creek as seasonal and non-fish bearing. Multiple background maps depict the presence of Maplewood Creek in this location (SalmonScape 2021, Water Quality Atlas map 2021, King County iMap 2021) but do not depict the presence of fish. In a segment of Maplewood Creek further downstream south of Bremerton Place NE, SalmonScape (2021) does depict the presence of resident cutthroat trout. However, it does not depict this same fish presence north of Bremerton Place NE in the segment of Maplewood Creek that we investigated nearest the project site. As no evidence supports the presence of fish in this location, it is our professional opinion the segment of Maplewood Creek should be considered seasonal and non-fish bearing. According to City of Renton (2020) Code, “Type Ns” streams receive a 50-foot standard buffer and an additional 15-foot building setback. This buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 40 feet or averaged to a minimum of 25 feet with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 4-3-050I (2). Section 4-3-050B (1g) of City of Renton (2020) Code describes sites to which critical area regulations may not apply, such as sites separated from critical areas by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created structures, roads, or other substantial existing improvements that are found to i) separate subject upland property from the critical area due to width and height and ii) substantially prevent or impair delivery of functions from the subject upland property to the critical area. As described above, the Les Schwab project site is fully developed and consists of pre-existing commercial buildings and paved parking and vehicle access areas. These areas of pavement and structure do not provide any functional buffer to the wetland. Therefore, per Renton (2020) code it appears the effective buffer edge is located where the vegetated portion of the buffer abuts the paved parking lot (Figure 9). 8 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local policies and ordinances, including the City of Renton (2020) code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to wetlands and streams at the site are subject to Federal, State, and the City of Renton (2020) Critical Areas Regulations discussed below; however, this discussion should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. A brief review of federal and state regulations and the City of Renton policy, relative to wetlands and streams, is presented below. 4.1 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251), and thus, if it is under their jurisdiction. We should caution that the placement of fill within wetlands or other “Waters of the U.S.” without authorization from the USACE is not advised, as the USACE makes the final determination regarding whether any permits would be required for any proposed alteration (USACE 2017). If any modification of wetlands or streams is proposed, either directly or indirectly through temporary or permanent activities, a jurisdictional determination (preliminary or approved) from the USACE along with an appropriate federal permit will be required prior to any construction activities. Ultimate authority and jurisdiction to verify that your project is compliant with applicable Federal law lies with USACE. 4.2 STATE OF WASHINGTON Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, an activity involving a discharge in waters of the U.S. and authorized by the COE must also receive certification that the federally permitted activity complies with the federal Clean Water Act, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state laws (such as the Water Resources Act and Hydraulic Code). In Washington State, the certifying agency is usually the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). In addition, if the COE-authorized permit is for actions within the 15 coastal counties, including King County, then the WDOE must confirm or deny that the proposed action complies with the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. The WDOE also regulates activities within isolated wetlands under the state Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW) and the Shoreline Management Act (90.58 RCW) in instances where a wetland or water is determined to be non-jurisdictional by the 9 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 COE. The standards of review for issuance of a permit by the WDOE for activities within non-COE-jurisdictional wetlands or waters are the same as those for Section 401 certifications. 4.3 CITY OF RENTON City of Renton (2020) code regulates wetlands and streams as critical areas. Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as allowed under certain conditions. All direct wetland impacts must be mitigated through wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement. The City of Renton (2020) has the final authority to determine ratings, buffers, and allowed uses of wetlands, their buffers, and other sensitive areas that are under their jurisdiction. The City of Renton (2020) Code determines wetland buffer widths based on wetland category as determined by the WDOE Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014). Using the 2014 WDOE Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014), we rated Wetland 1 as a Category III wetland with 6 habitat points (Wetland 1 Rating, Appendix B). Category III wetlands with moderate habitat function typically require a 100-foot standard buffer, based on proposed adjacent “High Intensity” land use, according to the City of Renton (2020) Code. This buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 75 feet with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 4-3- 050I (3). According to City of Renton (2020) Code, “Type Ns” streams receive a 50-foot standard buffer and an additional 15-foot building setback. This buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 40 feet or averaged to a minimum of 25 feet with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 4-3-050I (2). Wetland and stream buffer widths are measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary or the ordinary high water mark of the stream, respectively, as surveyed in the field. As discussed above in Section 3.2.3, the effective buffer edge is located where the vegetated portion of the buffer abuts the paved parking lot, per City of Renton (2020) Code. 10 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 5.0 IMPACTS For the purpose of assessing potential impacts to Wetland 1, Maplewood Creek, and their associated buffers, we reviewed the Les Schwab Renton Modernization site plan (MacKenzie 2020; Appendix C) provided by Mr. Michael Chen. The plan sheet depicts updates to the parking lot and enhancement of landscape islands. No impacts or alterations appear to be proposed outside of the pre-existing developed area. As described above, the effective buffer edge appears to be located where the naturally vegetated buffer abuts the paved parking lot. This buffer edge is currently marked with a wood split-rail fence and NGPA. Per Renton Code (2020) this fence line appears to be the effective buffer edge. The proposed site plan appears to call out the limits of this pre-existing Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) easement near the east edge of Parcel No. 5182100010 and no work is proposed within the NGPA. Therefore, no direct impacts are proposed to the wetland, stream, or their buffers. 11 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 6.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Les Schwab, Mr. Matt Hannigan, and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Les Schwab. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 12 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Publication. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1995. Soil Conservation Service: changes in hydric soils of the United States. Volume 59, No. 133, pp. 35680-35695. July 13, 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Revised December 15, 1995. Google Earth. 2021. Image for 47.897823N, -122.681928W in Jefferson County, WA. © 2020 Google. Accessed December 2020. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 730 pp. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetlands rating system for western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 14-06-029. October 2014. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Washington 2016 Wetland Plant List.. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Munsell Color. 2009. Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, MI. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. Renton, City of. 2020. Renton Municipal Code, current through December 2020. Renton, City of. 2021. City of Renton Public GIS, Finance and IT Division. Last accessed January 2021. 13 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (Version 2.0). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March 19, 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2017. Special Public Notice. Final Seattle District 2017 Nationwide Permit Regional Conditions for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March 17, 2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. Soil Map – Jefferson County Area, Washington. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper. 2021. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML 14 Les Schwab Renton Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Area Report January 26, 2021 Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. v.1 Shoreline Administrators Manual. Shoreline Management Guidebook, 2nd Ed. Publication No. 93-104a. January 1994. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021a. Priority Habitat and Species on the Web. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Accessed January 2021. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021b. SalmonScape Mapping Tool. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Accessed January 2021. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. Accessed January 2021. https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/default.aspx FIGURES Les Schwab RentonRAI Project #: 2020-105 Note: Wetland boundaries are based on GPS coordinates and are approximate. Date Created: 1/26/2021Created By: A. Clark Pictometry, King CountyI Figure 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS Legend Wetland 1 Buffer (100FT) Effective Buffer Line PROJECT SITE APPENDIX A Field Survey Data US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Les Schwab Renton City/County: Renton Sampling Date:1/13/21 Applicant/Owner: Les Schwab State: WA Sampling Point: SP 1 Investigator(s): Will Russack & Annamaria Clark Section, Township, Range: S55. T23N. R05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 5-7 Subregion (LRR): Northwest forest Lat: 47.487716 Long: -122.162693 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot on forested slope approximately 20 feet east of southeastern parcel boundary VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera (black cottonwood) 30 yes FAC 2. Alnus rubra (red alder) 20 yes FAC 3. 4. 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2m) 1. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) 30 yes FAC 2. Symphoricarpos albus (snowberry) 5 no FAC 3. Ilex aquifoliium (English holly) 5 no FACU 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m) 1. Polystichum munitum (sword fern) 5 yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 5 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 3/2 L.S 5-14 10YR 4/3 75 S.L mixed matrix 5-14 10YR 5/2 25 10YR 5/5 10 C M S.L mixed matrix 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no hydric soil observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: no hydrology observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Les Schwab Renton City/County: Renton Sampling Date:1/13/21 Applicant/Owner: Les Schwab State: WA Sampling Point: SP 2 Investigator(s): Will Russack & Annamaria Clark Section, Township, Range: S55. T23N. R05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest forest Lat: 47.487716 Long: -122.162693 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: sample plot on west side of stream channel at toe of slope VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra (red alder) 20 yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 20 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2m) 1. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) 50 yes FAC 2. Salix lasiandra (Pacific willow) 15 yes FACW 3. Spiraea douglasii (spiraea) 5 no FACW 4. 5. 70 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m) 1. Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass) 20 yes FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 3/2 S.L 3-10 2.5Y 4/2 10YR 3/6 5 C M S.L 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: APPENDIX B WDOE (Hruby 2014) Wetland rating form Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above H M L H M L H M L M L H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO go to 2 YES the wetland class is Tidal Fringe go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO go to 3 YES The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO go to 4 YES The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO go to 5 YES The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 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 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO go to 7 YES The wetland class is Depressional 7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO go to 8 YES The wetland class is Depressional 8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4 Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0 Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4 Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes). Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0 Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a 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. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 see web link above). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes Go to SC 2.2 No Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV Cat. I SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes Go to SC 3.3 No Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Cat. I SC 3.0 - A field identified bog community is in the middle of the south portion of the wetland. Aerial photo interpretation indicates that there is a bog community fringing the central open water area. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Yes Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat I Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, Summary Form Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally Les Schwab Renton RAI Project #: 2020-105 Note: Wetland Boundaries are based on GPS coordinates. Boundaries are approximate. Date Created: 1/25/2021 Map Created By: W. Russack King CountyI Legend PSS PEM PFO 150 ft Buffer Wetland 1 Wetland 1 - Figure 1 Questions: H1.1, H1.2, H1.4, R1.1, R1.2, R2.4, R4.1, R4.2 Wetland 1 is seasonally ponded with a seasonally flowing stream Depressions within wetland <1/2 total area Wetland 1 is Riverine PEM/PSS/PFO (3 strata).High habitat interspersion, >1/3 forested,& width of unit <10x width of stream. Les Schwab Renton RAI Project #: 2020-105 Note: Wetland Boundaries are based on GPS coordinates. Boundaries are approximate. Date Created: 1/25/2021 Map Created By: W. Russack King CountyI Legend Contributing Basin Wetland 1 Wetland 1 - Figure 2 Questions: R2.2, R2.3, R5.2 Les Schwab Renton RAI Project #: 2020-105 Note: Wetland Boundaries are based on GPS coordinates. Boundaries are approximate. Date Created: 1/25/2021 Map Created By: W. Russack King CountyI Legend Accesible & Undisturbed Habitat 1KM Polygon Wetland 1 Wetland 1 - Figure 3 Questions: H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 Les Schwab Renton RAI Project #: 2020-105 Note: Wetland Boundaries are based on GPS coordinates. Boundaries are approximate. Date Created: 1/25/2021 Map Created By: W. Russack King CountyI Legend Accesible & Undisturbed Habitat 1KM Polygon Wetland 1 Wetland 1 - Figure 3 Questions: H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 Les Schwab Renton RAI Project #: 2020-105 Note: Wetland Boundaries are based on GPS coordinates. Boundaries are approximate. Date Created: 1/25/2021 Map Created By: W. Russack King CountyI Legend Accesible & Undisturbed Habitat 1KM Polygon Wetland 1 Wetland 1 - Figure 3 Questions: H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 APPENDIX C Les Schwab Renton Modernization Site Plan VANALL RIGHTS RESERVED MACKENZIE 2020 SHEET TITLE: JOB NO. SHEET THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF MACKENZIE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: Project Les Schwab Renton Modernization 354 Union Avenue NE, Renton, WA 2200047.00 100% DD SET: 11.20.2020 Client Les Schwab 20900 Cooley Road PO Box 5350 Bend, OR 97701 © 1 C1.10 SITE PLAN 220004700\DRAWINGS\CIVIL\047-C1.10.DWG BTC 01/18/21 11:55 1:20 C1.10 SITE PLAN BTC GIM REVISION SCHEDULE Issued AsDelta Issue Date SITE DATA KEYNOTES 1.VERTICAL CURB 2.SIDEWALK 3.ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 4.VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 5.WHEEL STOP 6.BOLLARD 7.BOLLARD STYLE BIKE RACK 8.SAWCUT 9.RAMP WITH HANDRAIL 10.EXISTING TREE - PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION 11.REPLACE SIDEWALK TO NEAREST PANEL PER GRADING PLAN AND CITY OF RENTON STD. PLAN 102 12.REPLACE DRIVEWAY PER GRADING PLAN AND CITY OF RENTON STD. PLAN 104.3 LEGEND 13.75'8'8'8'SITE AREA 54,756 SF (1.26 AC) INTERIOR LANDSCAPE REQUIRED (15 SF/STALL) 720 SF PROVIDED 4,058 SF DISTURBED AREA 1,990 SF PARKING STANDARD 46 STALLS ACCESSIBLE 2 STALLS TOTAL 48 STALLS 9'9'5.4'± 9'5.1'± 9' 30' INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITY EASEMENT 10' UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EASEMENT 24' INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 7.5' EXIST. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT 24' INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITY EASEMENT 15' WATERLINE EASEMENT NGPE EASEMENT PAVING LEGEND AC CONCRETE GRIND AND INLAY PERVIOUS PAVERS EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT WETLAND BOUNDARY 10.3'±18'5.5'3'UNION AVENUE NE5'13.83'2'12'WTB WTB