HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Critical_Areas_Exemption_Allura_210526DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D_Critical_Areas_Exemption_Allura_210526
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: May 26, 2021
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA21-000190, CAE
PROJECT NAME: Allura at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption
PROJECT MANAGER: Clark H. Close, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: Lisa Cavell, Mainvue WA LLC
1110 112th Ave NE, Suite 202
Bellevue, WA 98004
OWNER: Allura at Tiffany Park HOA
1110 112th Ave NE, Suite 202
Bellevue, WA 98004
CONTACT: Barry Talkington P.E., Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
PROJECT LOCATION: Allura at Tiffany Park (APN 018880TR-R, 018880TR-G, and 018880TR-D)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Allura at Tiffany Park Homeowners Association, is requesting an
exemption from critical areas regulations to remove four (4) hazardous trees located within critical area buffers
within Allura at Tiffany Park, specifically Tract “G” and Tract “R” (Attachment A). Tract “R” is located behind or west
Lots 9 and 10 and Tract “G” is located on west of Lot 35 (APNs 018880TR-R and 018880TR-G). Tract’s “R” and “G”
both contain a small depression area of approximately 0.08 acres, respectively. Each Category 2 wetland is
supported by shallow ground water and rainfall according to the Wetland Determination Report, prepared by
Wetland /Forest Ecologist (dated June 3, 2014; Attachment B). In addition, two (2) uprooted trees located outside
of the critical area buffers in an Open Space/Tree Protection Tract “D” are also proposed to be removed at the
same time (APN 018880TR-D). According to the applicant, one (1) tree has already been blown over by heavy
winds (Tree #79; Attachment C). The applicant provided a Tree Risk Assessment, prepared by Washington Forestry
Consultants, Inc. (dated April 27, 2021; Attachment D), with the project application, which was later reviewed by
the City's Arborist Ian Gray. The level 2 tree risk assessment found that the five (5) remaining trees have structural
defects and/or decay in their stems and the ‘Fair’ to ‘Dead’ conditions are hazardous to surrounding targets.
Targets include sidewalk, parked cars, pedestrians, homes, backyards, fences, and occupants. The Arborist
concludes that four (4) of the trees should be removed as soon as possible and one multi-stemmed tree (Tree #3
– Bigleaf Maple) has a dead stem that needs to be removed and the other two stems could remain. The applicant
proposes to cut the trees and leave a habitat snag approximately 10 to 15 feet tall to mitigate any potential risk
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption from Critical Areas Regulations
Allura at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption LUA21-000190, CAE
Permit Date: May 26, 2021 Page 2 of 3
D_Critical_Areas_Exemption_Allura_210526
that the trees pose to the identified targets. In addition, the applicant is proposing to replace Trees #1, #2, and
#61 with nine (9) Western Red Cedar trees with a minimum tree height of four to five feet. City Arborist, Ian Gray,
concurs with the Arborist Report’s assessment, provided Tree #3 only has a single dead stem removed (Attachment
E). The Arborist Report does not identify the height of the proposed habitat snag; therefore, staff recommend as
a condition of approval that the applicant cut the hazardous trees located in the critical area tract (Trees 1, 2, and
61 in Tract “G”) and leave a habitat snag no less than 10 feet (10’) in height. In addition, the tree debris shall be
retained within the critical area tract, where feasible.
CRITICAL AREA: Wetlands and Associated Buffers
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: RMC 4-3-050.C.3.c.iii EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES:
Activities taking place in critical areas and their associated buffers and listed in the "Exempt Activities- Permitted
Within Critical Areas and Associated Buffers" table are exempt from the applicable provisions of Section 4-3-050,
provided this letter of exemption has been issued. Vegetation Management for Dangerous Trees is an exempt
activity for Wetlands and required buffers.
Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050.C.3.c.iii. Dangerous Trees: Removal of non-native invasive ground cover
or weeds listed by King County Noxious Weed Board or other government agency or dangerous trees, as defined in
Chapter 4-11 RMC which have been approved by the City and certified dangerous by a licensed landscape architect,
or certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the City based on the type of information required.
Limited to cutting of dangerous trees; such hazardous trees shall be retained as large woody debris in critical areas
and/or associated buffers, where feasible.
FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC Section 4-3-
050.C.2.d:
i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or
Federal law or regulation;
ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or
applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles;
iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored;
iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during
construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required;
v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or
substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may require compliance
with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous
material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific
data.
DECISION: An exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby approved and is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Two (2) Western Hemlock trees (Tree #1 and Tree #2) and one (1) Bigleaf Maple trees (Tree #61) shall be
reduced to a habitat snag no less than 10 feet (10’) in height. In addition, the tree debris shall be retained
within the critical area Tract “G”, where feasible.
2. In Tract “G”, the Applicant shall replace Tree #1, Tree #2, and Tree #61 by planting nine (9) Western Red
Cedar trees (or similar) at least six feet (6') tall within two (2) weeks of hazardous tree removal.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption from Critical Areas Regulations
Allura at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption LUA21-000190, CAE
Permit Date: May 26, 2021 Page 3 of 3
D_Critical_Areas_Exemption_Allura_210526
3. Removal of Tree #3 shall be limited to the removal of the single dead stem.
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION:
_______________________________________ ____________________________________
Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director Date
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by
the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior
to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the
reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will
be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal
within the 14-day appeal time frame.
APPEALS: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on June 9, 2021. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal
period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Due to Governor Jay Inslee’s Proclamation 20-25 (“Stay Home,
Stay Healthy”), the City Clerk’s Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted
electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is
submitted, will be collected at a future date. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and
additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office,
cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. If the situation changes such that the City Clerk’s Office is open when you file your appeal,
you have the option of filing the appeal in person.
EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of decision (date signed).
Attachments: A) Neighborhood Detail Map, B) Wetland Determination Report, C) Site Plan and Tree Retention
Plan, D) Tree Risk Assessment, and E) City Arborist Review Comments
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
5/26/2021 | 4:39 PM PDT
ATTACHMENT ARECEIVEDClark Close 05/20/2021PLANNING DIVISIONNORTH1" = 200'NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARKDocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
WETLAND DETERMINATION
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
Preliminary Plat
City of Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Barbara Yarington
Henley USA, LLC
11100 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
Prepared by:
C. Gary Schulz
Wetland / Forest Ecologist
7700 S. Lakeridge Drive
Seattle, Washington 98178
206-772-6514
June 3, 2014
ATTACHMENT B
RECEIVED
Clark Close 05/20/2021
PLANNING DIVISION
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................2
Background
Site Description
Project Description
Purpose
Methodology
Wetland Determination ...................................................................................................................6
Soils
Hydrology
Wetland Description
Wetland Buffer Impacts & Mitigation .........................................................................................11
Wetland Buffer Impacts
Wetlands A, C, & D: Buffer Averaging
Wetland Buffer Functions
References .....................................................................................................................................17
List of Figures
Vicinity Map (Figure 1) ...................................................................................................................4
Wetland E Buffer Exhibit (Figure 2) .............................................................................................13
Wetland Delineation Map (Figure 3) .................................................................................. Attached
List of Tables
City of Renton Wetland Rating Criteria (Table 1) .........................................................................10
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................18
Wetland Data Plot Forms
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
2
INTRODUCTION
Background
A wetland investigation was conducted on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Property (Renton School
District Property) with site visits during the month of June 2013. The Property is comprised of
several vacant parcels having a total area of 21.66 acres (Parcels #’s 2123059044, 9051, 9154, &
9061). The site is situated near the top of the plateau that borders the Cedar River valley located
north and east. The Property is located near Tiffany Park north of S.E. 160th Street between S.E.
158th Street and Pierce Avenue S.E. in the city of Renton, Washington.
An earlier wetland study was conducted by Grette Associates during 2008 and identified wetland
areas on the project site (Renton School District Property - Grette Associates 2008). Much of the
information provided in the Grette Associates study was reviewed and verified for this report.
Wetland boundaries were field-delineated and surveyed during 2013. Recent site inspections
were conducted with the City’s wetland peer review consultant - OTAK. Several site visits
occurred in April and May 2014 to address comments from OTAK (Technical Memorandum-
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review, 4/3/14). As a result of the peer review one
additional wetland (Wetland E) has been recently delineated, surveyed, and mapped for a revised
site development plan.
This investigation includes five distinct wetland areas (A - E) that have been delineated on the
Property. Wetland data plots have been installed on the site to confirm existing conditions. The
current wetland boundaries are shown in the professional survey prepared by Barghausen
Consulting Engineers, Inc. The current wetland survey (Figure 3) is attached to this report (Sheet
13 of 13 Wetland Delineation Map - Reserve At Tiffany Park, Barghausen Consulting Engineers
6/3/14).
The site plan for development has been recently revised from previous submittals to the City.
Therefore, this wetland report is also revised and replaces the previous wetland report that was
submitted to the City in 2014 (Wetland Determination Reserve At Tiffany Park - Preliminary Plat
City of Renton, Washington, Schulz 2/28/14).
Site Description
The Tiffany Park Property is undeveloped land that is predominantly forest habitat. The tree
cover is comprised of an overstory canopy of mature deciduous and conifer native trees
throughout most of the site. The forest habitat is diverse in plant species and includes a tree over
story, younger tree sub-canopy, shrub under story, and dense groundcover layer.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
3
Existing residential development is located adjacent to or near the site’s boundaries. The
Property is easily accessed by trails on the Mercer Island water pipeline that runs along its east
boundary and the Cedar River water pipeline along the south boundary.
The Property includes flat and undulating topography with moderate elevation changes present
throughout. The coniferous tree cover is predominantly Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). There are also several small groves of western red cedar
(Thuja plicata). The deciduous tree cover is dominated by big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum).
Also throughout the site are red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera),
and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) trees.
Shrub cover in forested areas is comprised of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer
circinatum,), Western hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and Indian plum
(Oemleria cerasiformis). The groundcover includes a dominant cover of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum) and Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus) with scattered cover of salal
(Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa), and
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
Project Description
The Reserve at Tiffany Park is a proposed subdivision to provide new single-family, residential
housing that includes developing 97 lots on a 21.66-acre site. The critical areas tracts will be
established for wetlands and wetland buffers. The critical areas (Tracts B, G, K, & M) have a
total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres). The total native open space that will preserve
native forest habitat including the wetlands and buffers is an area of 175,199 square feet (4.02
acres). The proposed native habitat preservation equals 18.6 percent of the site.
The proposed roadway layout is designed to access the site from existing streets, provide
necessary traffic circulation, and avoid wetland impact. Surface water runoff will be collected
and treated in an underground stormwater detention vault located on the western portion of the
Property (Tract A). Tract A will be developed to be a stormwater facility for detention and water
quality treatment and also be a passive open space area.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Figure —1
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
5
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a wetland determination study for the proposed property
development. In addition, this study includes wetland buffer mitigation measures intended to
meet or exceed City of Renton’s wetland regulations included in their municipal code (Title 4 –
Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts).
Methodology
Typically defined, wetlands are ... "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas". Through the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and local critical areas
regulations, the City reviews proposals that potentially impact wetland and other critical areas.
Because of observed site conditions, combined with jurisdictional wetland regulations, wetland
presence and extent must be determined for site feasibility or the permitting process.
The methodology used for wetland determination was based on the presence of dominant
hydrophytic vegetation (i.e. plant species adapted to, or tolerant of, growing in saturated soil
conditions), hydric soils, and observed wetland hydrology as described in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and consistent with the Regional
Supplemental to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2010). The On-site Determination Method was Routine for areas greater than five
acres. Four wetland data transects were installed to investigate the site. The wetland transects
are generally located south to north on Transect 1 and west to east on Transects 2 to 4. A total of
25 wetland data plots, approximately 0.01 acres in size, were installed throughout the Property.
In general wetland data plots were installed to determine and document wetland boundaries and
potential wetland areas. The wetland data plot forms are included as Appendix A. In addition,
cursory soil excavations were conducted to verify upland conditions where there was significant
cover of hydrophytic vegetation.
The technical criteria for vegetation, soils, and hydrology are mandatory under normal conditions
and must all be met or present for an area to be identified as wetland. Determination of wetland
area was based on observed plant species, topographic relief, soil profiles, and hydrology. Pink
plastic flagging was used to mark the site's wetland boundaries and data plot locations.
Professional base topographic and wetland surveying was used to prepare the drawing attached to
this report. The wetland data plot forms are also attached to this report as Appendix A.
The wetlands were rated using the Renton Municipal Code (Title 4 – Chapter 3 Environmental
Regulations and Overlay Districts). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (USDA 1973), King
County Area Soil Survey, was used to reference soil mapping and classification.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
6
WETLAND DETERMINATION
The City of Renton’s environmental overlay mapping does not identify wetlands on the site. The
initial wetland investigation was conducted during June 2013 without the benefit of observing
active wetland hydrology. However, additional wetland investigations were conducted during
April and May 2014. Wetland areas were reviewed and verified by the City’s wetland peer
review consultant in May 2014. Wetland hydrology indicators are present and five distinct
wetland areas have been delineated on the site. The wetland areas have been professionally
surveyed as shown on Sheet 13 of 13 (Wetland Delineation Map - Reserve at Tiffany Park,
Barghausen Consulting Engineers June 3, 2014). Wetland ratings and standard buffer setbacks
are based on the City of Renton regulations (Title 4 – Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and
Overlay Districts).
Soils
The SCS (USDA 1973) Soil Survey - King County Area has mapped two soil series on the
subject property. The soil map units are Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) and Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam - 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgC). The Alderwood and Kitsap series is comprised of
about 50 percent Alderwood sandy loam and 25 percent Kitsap silt loam. The drainage and
permeability vary. These soils formed in glacial outwash deposits and are associated with conifer
forests. The soils are on uplands but have inclusions of the Indianola series and other soils that
are not large enough to map.
The Alderwood series is also formed under conifers in glacial deposits associated with uplands.
These soils are moderately well drained that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated
substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. The hydric (wetland) soils included within this soil
mapping include the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils
found in depressions.
Certain soil inclusions of poorly drained soils found in depression areas and drainage ways on till
and outwash plains are listed in the Hydric Soils of Washington (Soil Conservation Service
1985). Hydric soils are generally associated with wetland habitats.
Investigation of portions of the upland area confirmed soil that closely resembles the Alderwood
series throughout most of the Property. The northernmost area has soils that closely resemble the
Kitsap silt loam series.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
7
Hydrology
The Property is located in the lower Cedar River drainage basin. All of the site’s wetlands have
seasonal hydrology and were dry during the June 2013 site investigation. However, hydrology
indicators of seasonal inundation and saturated soil are present.
The site's wetlands have influence from rainfall and shallow groundwater. There are no streams
on or connected to the Property. However, there is evidence that surface water runoff can flow
onto the site from developed land located on the north and east sides. Because the wetlands
appear to be closed depressions and not connected to any downstream aquatic habitats, they
could be determined as “isolated” wetlands.
Wetland Description
The on-site wetlands are described and rated as follows. For reference the City’s wetland rating
criteria are listed after the descriptions (Table 1).
Wetland A
Wetland A is a small depression area located on the north side of the Property. It has a dense
shrub cover with a few Western crabapple (Malus fusca) trees. The wetland appears supported
by shallow groundwater and rainfall. Soil excavations found hydric (wetland) soil coloration as
low chroma value (10YR 2/1) to a depth of 13 inches.
The shrub cover is dominated by salmonberry and red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera).
Emergent vegetation cover is low to absent. The area of wetland is 3,326 square feet (0.08
acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton’s wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.1.a.ii. (d)), the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it a relatively undisturbed area and does not meet Category
1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is 50 feet.
Wetland B
Wetland B is a very small depression located on the south side of the Property. It is likely this
wetland has groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from the surrounding
upland. Soil excavations found hydric (wetland) conditions as low chroma values - very dark
brown, mineral soil (10YR 2/1).
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
8
The wetland has dominant shrub cover. There are red alder trees around it but no trees or
groundcover growing in the wetland. The shrub cover is dominated by Douglas’ spirea (Spiraea
douglasii) and black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata). Emergent vegetation cover is absent.
The total area of wetland is 505 square feet (0.01 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton’s wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.1.a.iii (b) (2) (c)),
the wetland is rated a Category 3 because it appears isolated, and although not disturbed is
considered as “smaller, high quality wetlands”. Wetland B does not meet Category 1 or Category
2 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 3 wetlands is 25 feet.
Wetland C
Wetland C is located just east of Wetland B. It is the largest wetland on the site and is a local
depression and swale area. The Cedar River pipeline is located at the lower, southern wetland
boundary. The seasonal surface water flowing into the wetland appears to be blocked or
impounded by the elevated pipeline road. Wetlands B and C are located near the lowest
elevations on the Property.
Wetland C is forested with an open canopy of black cottonwood and a midstory layer of scouler
willow (Salix scoulerana) trees. It has a dense shrub cover dominated by spirea and red osier
dogwood. A scattered emergent vegetation cover includes creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens) and speedwell (Veronica sp.).
The wetland appears supported by shallow groundwater and rainfall runoff. Soil excavations
found hydric (wetland) soil with low chroma value (10YR 2/1) in the upper layer. The area of
wetland is 5,349 square feet (0.12 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton’s wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.1.a.ii. (d)), the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it is a relatively undisturbed area and it does not meet
Category 1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is
50 feet.
Wetland D
Wetland D is located adjacent to the Mercer Island water pipeline. It is a relatively small
depression wetland with seasonal hydrology. Wetland D has a dense shrub cover dominated by
salmonberry, black twinberry, and red osier dogwood. The emergent vegetation cover observed
includes lady fern (Athyrium felix-femina) and piggy back plant (Tolmeia menziesii.).
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
9
The wetland appears supported by shallow groundwater and rainfall runoff. There is a small
concrete culvert under the pipeline road that drains into the wetland. Soil excavations observed a
silt loam hydric soil with low chroma value (10YR 2/1) in the upper layer. The area of wetland
is 3,381 square feet (0.08 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton’s wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.1.a.ii. (d)), the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it is a relatively undisturbed area and it does not meet
Category 1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is
50 feet.
Wetland E
Wetland E is a very small depression located on the northwest side of the Property. The wetland
is situated adjacent to S.E. 18th Street and a developed lot to the west. It is likely this wetland has
groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from the surrounding upland. Soil
excavations found hydric (wetland) conditions as low chroma values - very dark brown, mineral
soil (7.5YR 2/1) and redoximorphic features (mottling) within 10 inches below the surface.
The wetland has sparse shrub cover but salmonberry is dominant. There are red alder trees
around it but no trees or groundcover were observed growing in the wetland. The shrub cover is
dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) with some vine maple and Himalayan blackberry
around the edge. Emergent vegetation cover is absent. The total area of wetland is 665 square
feet (0.015 acres). Significant trash from dumping was observed in the wetland.
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton’s wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.1.a.iii (b) (2) (c)),
Wetland E is rated a Category 3 because it has limited human disturbance and is considered as
“smaller, high quality wetlands”. Wetland E does not meet Category 1 or Category 2 criteria.
The standard wetland buffer width for Category 3 wetlands is 25 feet.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
10
City of Renton Wetland Rating Criteria (RMC Chapter 3, Section M.): Table 1.
M. WETLANDS:
1. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as
described below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in
area, are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in subsection C of this
Section.
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes
of regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance
criteria shall be based on the following rating system:i. Category 1: Category 1 wetlands are
wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or
the presence of essential habitat for those species; and/or
(b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in
dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/or
(c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more
vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or
(d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of
their occurrence; and/or
ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or
(b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or
(c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a
perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category
1 wetlands; and/or
(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as
diking, ditching or channelization; and/or
iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet
the following criteria:
(1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as
diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and
(2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils;
and
(3) May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
(1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by
wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and
Black River Drainage Basin.
(c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
11
WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS & MITIGATION
This section addresses wetland buffer impacts, reductions, and mitigation measures. The project
has several locations where temporary wetland buffer impacts may occur adjacent to new
construction activities. The majority of these locations are directly related to the construction of
retaining walls. One location of permanent wetland buffer impact is anticipated with the required
construction of new roadway that will extend from the existing S.E. 18th Street right-of-way. The
Wetland E Buffer Exhibit (Figure 2) shows the details of permanent buffer impacts associated
with Wetland E and S.E. 18th Street.
The proposed project includes wetland buffer reduction and buffer addition through the use of
buffer averaging. The standard buffers for Wetlands A, C, and D may be reduced through
averaging the buffer width per the criteria identified in RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
Wetland Buffer Impacts
Temporary Buffer Impacts
In general, potential buffer impacts from urban development are variable. Potential impacts may
be mitigated or prevented through code requirements, best management practices, and/or plat
conditions. Minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities adjacent to wetland
buffers will be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and planting of native
species. The minimum buffer distance of 25 feet will be maintained or restored as necessary to
provide buffer functions (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6. f. v.)
There are two locations on the project site where temporary buffer impacts could occur during lot
and roadway construction activities. The larger area is along the north boundaries of proposed
Lots 1 through 6. Due to the slope gradient in this area the slope will be cut and graded to create
residential lots. The estimated area of buffer disturbance at this time in the design is 2,825
square feet. The identified impact for Lots 1 to 4 is within a buffer addition area for Wetland A
and would not impact the standard 50-foot buffer as depicted on the attached Wetland
Delineation Map (Figure 3).
The second location of potential temporary buffer impact would be from constructing a retaining
wall for the new roadway adjacent to the buffer of Wetland D. The impact area shown is about 8
feet wide and 150 feet in length. The area for this temporary impact is 1,203 square feet with
about one-half located within a buffer addition area and the other half in the standard 50-foot
buffer (Figure 3 attached).
All temporary wetland buffer impacts have been based on the preliminary plat design. It is
anticipated that more detailed information will be provided at the 60% design stage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
12
The mitigation for temporary impacts to buffers will be restoration with new tree and shrub
plantings designed to replace site-specific plant community habitat.
Permanent Buffer Impacts
This portion of the wetland report is provided to identify existing and proposed permanent buffer
impacts associated with Wetland E and to request a Letter of Exemption. Wetland E’s standard
buffer is 25 feet. The minimum wetland buffer allowed by code is 25 feet and any reduction or
loss of buffer requires a Letter of Exemption. The city’s code section describing a Letter of
Exemption begins in RMC 4-3-050 C. 4. The appropriate criteria for requesting the Letter of
Exemption are located in RMC 4-3-050 C. 5. (Specific Exemptions – Critical Areas and
Buffers). Section RMC 4-3-050 C. 5 includes a table that lists the identified uses and conditions
that qualify for a Letter of Exemption.
Wetland E’s standard 25-foot buffer has been impacted (cleared, graded, and paved) from the
past construction of S.E. 18th Street and the adjacent sidewalk. The Wetland E Buffer Exhibit
(Figure2) shows the calculated area of existing buffer impact to be 219 square feet.
The Tiffany Park project will require the extension of S.E. 18th Street. Current roadway
standards will require the extension to be 1.5 feet wider than the current right-of-way. In order to
construct the new portion of S.E.18th Street to current standards a very minor portion of Wetland
E buffer would also be impacted. The standard 25-foot buffer would have an impact of 14
square feet (Figure 2).
Per the Table listed in RMC 4-3-050 C. 5. e. (Specific Exemptions – Critical Areas and Buffers),
Exempt Activity - Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities allows for the use of a Letter of
Exemption where impacts are unavoidable and not allowed by the standards. Subsection e. in the
Table states “…the construction of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way, and associated
appurtenances, facilities and utilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be
placed other than the minimum alteration and/or fill needed…”. The proposed area of new
impact to the Wetland E buffer is necessary to construct the S.E. 18th Street extension into the
new residential project. The area of new buffer impact is minimal and would be allowed by code
with a Letter of Exemption.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Figure—2 Figure 2DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
14
Wetland Buffer Averaging
Wetlands A, C, and D are proposed to have limited reductions in buffer width. Wetland B is
within the 50-foot buffer of Wetland C. Because Wetlands B and C have buffers that are
integrated and overlap, the proposed buffer averaging is combined to compensate for buffer
reduction. The standard buffers for Wetlands A, C, and D may be reduced through averaging the
buffer width per the criteria identified in RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f. as listed below:
f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging
buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the
Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical
improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and
ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and
iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and
iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of
Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or
similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on
consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is
an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions
require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and
vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-
case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land
development characteristics.
vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section.
The criteria listed in Section M.6.f. for wetland buffer reduction through averaging are met as
described below. Please refer to Figure 3 (Wetland Delineation Map) for additional details.
The on-site wetlands currently have physical improvements in or near wetland and buffer areas.
There are 2 pipeline corridors and trails in wetland buffers (M.6.f.i.).
The buffer areas after averaging will have more area than the required standard buffer prior to
averaging (net gain in buffer area). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at
ratios that range from 1.6 to 1.0 to 9.5 to 1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D will have buffer areas
significantly greater after buffer averaging than prior to averaging (M.6.f.ii & iii.).
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
15
A discussion of buffer adequacy and best available science is provided in the following section -
Wetland Buffer Functions (M.6.f.iv.).
The proposed buffer reductions are for a combination of planned residential lot and public
roadway uses. All of the proposed buffer reductions are no greater than 50 percent of the
standard buffer widths. The majority of the buffer reductions are about 36 percent of the
standard buffer widths. There are a total of three buffer areas (Wetlands A, C, & D) with a
standard 50-foot buffer that would be reduced to the minimum buffer setback of 25 feet.
(M.6.f.v.).
The proposed buffer averaging plan is shown on Sheet 13 of 13 (Wetland Delineation Map -
Reserve At Tiffany Park (Barghausen Consulting Engineers 1/28/14). Using the buffer tables on
Sheet 13, wetland buffer averaging is described as follows.
Wetland A
The proposed area of buffer reduction (3,740 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (35,583 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a
buffer area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area, and meets the
criteria of RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
Wetland B/C
The Cedar River Pipe Line crosses through a portion of buffer on the south side of Wetland C
causing a loss of buffer function in that location. The loss of buffer function has been an existing
condition for many years.
The proposed area of buffer reduction (2,644 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (11,890 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a
buffer area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area, and meets the
criteria of RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
Wetland D
The Mercer Island Pipe Line crosses through a portion of buffer on the east side of Wetland D
causing a loss of buffer function in that location. The loss of buffer function has been an existing
condition for many years.
The proposed area of buffer reduction (1,627 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (2,589 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a buffer
area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area on the site, and meets
the criteria of RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
16
Wetland Buffer Functions
In support of wetland buffer averaging on this project site the following is a discussion and
review that is taken from the Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1 – A Synthesis of the
Science (Washington State Department of Ecology, March 2005 Pub. # 05-06-006). All of the
on-site wetland buffers are described as forested with dense plant cover dominated by native
species, have relatively flat topography, and have moderately well-drained soils.
Buffers provide functions that include Removing Sediment, Excess Nutrients, and Toxics.
Buffers Influence Microclimate and Provide Screening from adjacent disturbances. Buffers also
Maintain Adjacent Habitat and Habitat Connectivity critical for the life needs of many species
that use wetlands (Volume 1 – A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of
Ecology, Chapter 5, page 5-25 March 2005). The most frequently cited physical characteristics
that influence the effectiveness of a buffer are:
● Vegetation characteristics (composition, density, and roughness – downed material)
● Percent slope
● Soils
● Buffer width and length (adjacent to source of impacts)
The review of these characteristics is focused on water quality related to protection and
improvement. A buffer’s ability to remove sediment, nutrients, toxics and to maintain
microclimate is dependent on physical characteristics and the amount of input the buffer receives
from runoff. Factors that can increase sediment and pollutant removal are:
● Flows are slowed sufficiently to allow particles to settle out,
● Physical filtering by vegetation and roots mechanically removes sediments from the water
column,
● The slope of the buffer is of a low enough gradient to preclude formation of rills and
scouring,
● There is large woody debris on the ground to create roughness, and
● The infiltration rate of the soils allows water to move through the soils rather than on the
surface.
Related to buffer width and the effectiveness in removing sediment (protecting water quality) the
report states “the relationship between the width of the buffer and its effectiveness is non-linear.
The largest particles and the greatest percentage of particles are dropped in the outer portions of
the buffer (closest to the source of sediment). In these outer areas, the rate of surface flow begins
to diminish as the water is slowed by vegetation and woody debris. Slower water movement
allows particles to drop out of the water column” (Washington State Department of Ecology,
Chapter 5, pages 5-28 to 5-30 March 2005).
To summarize, the wetland buffers proposed for buffer reduction through averaging have the
physical characteristics that can protect water quality and wetland hydrologic functions including
flood storage. The factors (listed above) that can increase or provide sediment and pollutant
removal will remain in the reduced buffer areas. The subject wetlands will be preserved and
have the opportunity to improve water quality and reduce flooding and erosion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
17
REFERENCES
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014. Reserve At Tiffany Park, Preliminary Plat for
Henley USA 6/3/14.
City of Renton. 2006. City of Renton Municipal Code (Title IV – Development Regulations).
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, United states Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79-31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Grette Associates. 2008. Renton School District – Tiffany Park Area Wetland And Stream
Assessment Report.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1977. Vascular Plants of the
Pacific Northwest. University Press Seattle, Washington.
Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0).
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of King
County Area, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with Washington Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 1: A
Synthesis of the Science. Ecology Publication # 05-06-006.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
18
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DATA PLOT FORMS
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 30 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. Sambucus racemosa T no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 75 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 75 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Dicentra formosa 15 no FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Polystichum munitum T no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/29/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 13
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland A is on the north side of site. New plot outside Flag # A-5.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 13
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
6 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
16 10YR4/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 10 no FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 30 yes FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. Lonicera involucrata T no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 80 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Cornus stolonifera T no FACW OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Dicentra formosa 35 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Galium aparine T no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 35 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/29/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 14
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland A is on the north side of site. New plot outside #A-6.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 14
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
7 10YR2/1 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated, many roots
16 10YR4/3 20 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
10YR4/2 80 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Acer macrophyllum 15 n/a* FACU Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. n/a* - Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. n/a* - Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Polystichum munitum T no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: Vegetation is disturbed due to human use of the area and trails.
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/29/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 15
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland A is on the north side of site. New plot outside #A-1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 15
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
6 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
16 10YR4/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 7
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 2
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. n/a* - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. n/a* - Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Ranunculus repens 60 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Grass spp. 35 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Rubus ursinus 5 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: Area is on top of the pipeline fill and has recently been mowed as maintenance.
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/29/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 16
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Northeast side of site on the pipeline right-of-way. New plot near Photo #2 of OTAK Tech Memo.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 16
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
6 10YR3/3 100 sandy loam gravelly, dry
14 10YR4/3 100 7.5YR4/6 1 C M sandy loam gravelly, dry
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. n/a* - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. Acer circinatum 15 yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 35 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Oemleria cerasiformis T no FACU OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 50 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Mahonia nervosa 15 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Polystichum munitum 15 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Carex sp. T no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 30 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/29/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 17
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland D is on the southeast side of site. New plot outside Flag #'s D-3 and D-4.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 17
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
13 10YR2/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
17 10YR4/3 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. n/a* - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. n/a* - Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Agrostis tenuis 40 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Poa spp. 40 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Ranunculus repens 5 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. Taraxicum officinale 10 no FACU 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 95 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: Area is on top of the pipeline fill and has recently been mowed as maintenance.
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/29/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 18
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Northeast side of site on the Mercer Island pipeline right-of-way. New plot per Comment #6 of OTAK Tech Memo.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 18
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
13 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, dry
16 10YR4/3 100 sandy loam gravelly, cobbles, dry
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. n/a* - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. n/a* - Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Agrostis tenuis 40 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Poa spp. 40 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Dactylis glomerata 15 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. n/a* - 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 95 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: Area is on top of the pipeline fill and has recently been mowed as maintenance.
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/30/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 19
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Southwest corner of site on the Cedar River pipeline right-of-way. New plot per Comment #10 of OTAK Tech Memo.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 19
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
3 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, dry
8 10YR4/3 100 sandy loam gravelly, dry, compacted
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 15 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Thuja plicata 5 no FAC
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 5 no FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Cornus stolonifera 15 yes FACW OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 20 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Athyrium felix-femina 10 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Rubus ursinus 5 no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/30/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 20
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland B is on the west side of the site. New plot about 40 feet north of Wetland B.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 20
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
3 10YR2/1 100 organic O - layer
7 10YR3/3 100 sandy loam many roots, saturated
11 7.5YR4/6 100 sandy loam saturated
16 7.5YR4/4 100 sandy loam saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 3
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Populus balsamifera 10 no FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = 15 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. Oemleria cerasiformis T no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Spiraea douglasii 60 yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Gautheria shallon 15 no FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. n/a* - Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/30/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 21
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland C is on the southwest side of site. New plot approximately 75 feet north of C.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 21
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
2 100 duff layer organic, many roots
6 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam saturated
14 10YR4/2 100 sandy loam saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 6
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Salix scoulerana 30 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. n/a* -
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Spiraea douglasii 65 yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 65 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Gautheria shallon 10 no FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. n/a* - Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/30/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 22
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
New plot between Wetlands B & C.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 22
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
2 100 duff layer organic, many roots
10 10YR3/2 50 sandy loam saturated
10YR2/2 50
16 10YR4/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Salix scoulerana 15 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. n/a* -
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = 15 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. Lonicera involucrata 10 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Spiraea douglasii 30 yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. n/a* - OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 40 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. n/a* - Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. n/a* - Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 4/30/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 23
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
New plot between Wetlands B & C.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 23
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
3 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
11 10YR4/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
16 10YR2/2 100 sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. n/a* - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. Acer circinatum 12 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 50 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Rubus discolor 15 no FACU OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 50 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. n/a* - Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. n/a* - Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 5/1/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 24
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland E is on the northwest side of site. New plot inside Flag # E-1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 24
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
8 7.5YR4/1 100 M sandy loam gravelly, saturated
17 10YR4/2 50 7.5YR4/6 50 D M sandy loam gravelly, saturated
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. n/a* - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre)
1. n/a* - Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 65 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Oemleria cerasiformis T no FACU OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = , 20% = 65 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
1. Polysticum munitum 35 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. n/a* - Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 35 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date: 5/1/14
Applicant/Owner: Henley USA State: WA Sampling Point: 25
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz Section, Township, Range: 21,T23N,R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland E is on the northwest side of site. New plot is located at Flag # E-1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 25
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
8 10YR3/2 100 sandy loam dry
16 10YR5/3 80 sandy loam dry
10YR5/2 20 sandy loam moist at bottom
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Renton School District - Tiffany Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
FIGURE—3 DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
ALLURA AT TIFFANY PARK
ALLURA AT TIFFANY PARKTED-40-392311/20/2018
ATTACHMENT C
RECEIVED
Clark Close 05/20/2021
PLANNING DIVISION
REPLACEMENT WESTERN RED CEDARS SHALL BE
MINIMUM 4'-5' IN HEIGHT.
BIG LEAF MAPLE. DEAD AND AT RISK OF
FALLING ACROSS R/W. INSIDE CRITICAL AREA
BUFFER. WAS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS
SIGNIFICANT TREE RETENTION
REQUIREMENT. LABELED AS TREE #61 IN
4-27-21 TREE ASSESSMENT. REPLACE WITH
3-WESTERN RED CEDARS.
BIG LEAF MAPLE TREE NOT SURVEYED. DEAD
AND AT RISK OF FALLING ON LOT 35. NOT
COUNTED TOWARDS SIGNIFICANT TREE
RETENTION. LABELED AS TREE #2 IN 4-27-21
TREE ASSESSMENT. REPLACE WITH 3-WESTERN
RED CEDARS.
WESTERN HEMLOCK. DEAD AND AT RISK
OF FALLING ACROSS R/W. INSIDE CRITICAL
AREA BUFFER. WAS NOT COUNTED
TOWARDS SIGNIFICANT TREE RETENTION
REQUIREMENT. LABELED AS TREE #1 IN
4-27-21 TREE ASSESSMENT. REPLACE WITH
3-WESTERN RED CEDARS.
TREE #78 - BIG LEAF MAPLE.
TREE UPROOTED WHEN TREE #79
FELL OVER. IS PUTTING LOTS 24
AND 25 AT RISK. COUNTED AS
SIGNIFICANT TREE. NO
REPLACEMENT REQUIRED.
TREE #79 - HEMLOCK. WIND BLEW
OVER. COUNTED AS SIGNIFICANT
TREE. NO REPLACEMENT
REQUIRED.
DEAD BIG LEAF MAPLE. INSIDE
CRITICAL AREA. NOT COUNTED
TOWARDS SIGNIFICANT TREE
RETENTION REQUIREMENTS.
LABELED AS TREE #3 IN 4-27-21
TREE ASSESSMENT. REPLACE
WITH 3-WESTERN RED
CEDARS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS
WFCI
3601943-1 723
FAX 3601943-4 1 28
1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C
Olympia, WA 98501
URBANIRURAL FORESTRY TREE APPRAISAL HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS
RIGHT-OF-WAYS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES CONTRACT FORESTERS
Member of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American Foresters
April 27, 2021
Randy Weber
Field Operations Manager
Novastar Development, Inc.
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
RE: Tree Risk Assessment – Allura at Tiffany Park HOA
Dear Mr. Weber:
We have inspected five trees in the HOA open space areas at the Allura at Tiffany Park
subdivision in Renton, WA. The purpose was to identify trees that require cultural care or
removal. A level 2 risk assessment was conducted on March 14, 2021.
Findings and Recommendations
The subdivision contains 94 single-family homes with areas of forested open spaces. Tree
species in the open spaces include bigleaf maple, western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla),
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and western
redcedar (Thuja plicata). Tree diameters range between 6- and 40-inches diameter at breast
height (DBH). All of the trees were naturally seeded or resprouted from old stumps. Tree
conditions range between ‘Good’ to ‘Dead’ with most trees being in ‘Fair’ condition.
The subject trees were all located in 3 separate open spaces of the parcel.
Five trees were found to have structural defects and/or decay in their stems. The trees are in
‘Fair’ to ‘Dead’ condition and are hazardous to surrounding targets. Four of the trees should be
removed as soon as possible. One multi-stemmed tree has a dead stem that needs removal, the
other two stems can remain.
The trees are labeled with an orange number at its base corresponding to Table 1.
ATTACHMENT D
RECEIVED
Clark Close 05/20/2021
PLANNING DIVISION
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Allura at Tiffany Park – Tree Risk Assessment
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Photo 1. View of trees #1 and #61 in Tiffany Park Tract G.
Table 1. Summary of Evaluated Trees at Allura at Tiffany Park.
# Species DBH
(in) Tree Condition Target Risk
Rating
Work
Recommended
1 Western
Hemlock 13 Dead- heavily decayed
snag imminent to fail.
Sidewalk,
parked cars,
pedestrians
Extreme-
whole
tree
Remove Hazard Tree
2 Western
Hemlock 24 Dead- heavily decayed
snag imminent to fail.
Homes,
backyards,
fences,
occupants
Extreme-
whole
tree
Remove Hazard Tree
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Allura at Tiffany Park – Tree Risk Assessment
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 3
# Species DBH
(in) Tree Condition Target Risk
Rating
Work
Recommended
3 Bigleaf
Maple 17,37
Fair – multi-stemmed
tree with one dead
stem.
Homes,
backyards,
fences,
occupants
High- one
stem Remove Dead Stem
61 Bigleaf
Maple 14
Very Poor- dead and
broken branches, one
sided crown.
Sidewalk,
parked cars,
pedestrians
Low-
whole
tree
Remove Hazard Tree
78 Bigleaf
Maple 26
Poor- multiple dead
and broken tops;
previous branch
failures; several
wounds in stem.
Home,
backyard,
fence,
occupants
Moderate-
whole
tree and
branches
Remove Hazard
Tree
Summary
Five trees on the Allura at Tiffany Park site were found to be hazardous because of structural
defects and decay in their stems. The trees are considered a ‘Low’ to ‘Extreme’ risk of failure
and striking targets. The recommended tree work should be done immediately.
Please give us a call if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.
Galen M. Wright, ACF, ASCA Joshua Sharpes
ISA Bd. Certified Master Arborist PN-129BU Professional Forester
Certified Forester No. 44 ISA Certified Arborist®,
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Municipal Specialist, PN- 5939AM
ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Allura at Tiffany Park – Tree Risk Assessment
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Attachment 1. Aerial Photo of Allura at Tiffany Park site with
Locations of Hazard Trees
(2019 King County iMap)
Parcel Boundary
Hazard Tree Needing Work
N
1
2
3
61
78
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Allura at Tiffany Park – Tree Risk Assessment
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Attachment 2. Tree Risk Assessment – A Description of the Process
The purpose of this attachment is to summarize the methodology of modern tree risk assessment
for users of this type of information. This methodology has been put into place by the
International Society of Arboriculture and has been in use in its present form since 2013. It
updates the initial changes put into place in 2011.
Tree risk assessment is the systematic and qualitative process to identify, analyze, and evaluate
tree risk. Tree risk evaluation is the process of comparing the assessed risk against given risk
criteria to determine the significance of the risk. This methodology is based on the ANSI A300
standard 1 for tree risk assessment. This standard is supported by a best management practices
guide 2.
Those qualified to do tree risk assessment have the qualification from the International Society of
Arboriculture called ‘Tree Risk Assessor Qualified.’ The methodology for tree risk assessment
is more recently detailed in the authoritative tree risk assessment manual 3, which provides the
state of the art for tree risk assessment.
Risk is the evaluation and categorizing of both the likelihood (probability) of occurrence of a
tree or tree part failure, and the severity of consequences (value of and damage to the target that
is impacted). The magnitude of risk can be categorized and compared to the client’s tolerances
to determine if the risk is acceptable.
Tree risk management is the application of policies, procedures and practices used to identify,
evaluate, mitigate, monitor, and communicate tree risk. It is up to the tree owner to determine
what level of risk they are able to tolerate, and to conduct any mitigation required when that risk
is unacceptable.
There are 3 levels of tree risk assessment:
Level 1 – assessment is limited to a visual assessment of the tree(s) near specified targets, such
as along roadways or utility rights-of-ways to identify specified conditions or obvious defects.
Assessment shall be from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial patrol.
Level 2 – assessment shall include a 360 degree, ground based visual inspection of the tree
crown, trunk, trunk flare, above-ground roots, and site conditions around the tree in relation to
1 ANSI A300 (Part 9 – 2011) – American National Standard for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other
Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment). American
National Standards Institute, Inc. Washington D.C. 14 pgs. 2 Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. 2011. Best Management Practices – Tree Risk Assessment.
International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL. 3 Dunster, Dr. Julian et al. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign,
IL.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Allura at Tiffany Park – Tree Risk Assessment
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 6
targets. It may include sounding the stem to look for internal decay and/or the use of hand tools,
or binoculars to view the crown better. Surrounding site conditions are also evaluated.
Level 3 – all of the level 2 techniques, plus advanced methodologies such as coring or drilling
the tree stem or roots to look for decay, a climbing assessment, probing, pull testing, or radiation,
sonic, or subsurface root assessments.
In tree risk assessment, targets are people who could be injured, property that may be damaged,
or activities that could be disrupted by a tree failure. A tree must have a target for there to be a
risk rating higher than ‘Low’. The target has a value and people are the highest value target,
followed by structures, cars and other high value objects. Fences would be a low value target.
As part of a target assessment, the assessor considers if the target can be moved out of reach of
the tree or tree part that might fail, or if people could be excluded from the target area of the tree.
As part of the risk analysis, the assessor must conduct a site analysis. This may include looking
for signs of recent tree removal that may expose a previously sheltered subject tree to winds,
construction activity that severed roots of the tree, or other site or soils conditions/changes that
affected drainage or tree health.
Defects often predispose a tree or part of a tree to failure. A key part of tree risk assessment is to
categorize the likelihood of failure of the tree or a defective part. The tree or defect is examined,
and the likelihood of failure is categorized in a matrix (below) as: Improbable, Possible,
Probable, or Imminent. A tree with a lifting root plate would likely be categorized as
‘Imminent’ to fail. A tree with a broken and hanging branch that is still attached would likely be
categorized as ‘Improbable’ or ‘Possible.’ Cracks in a trunk or branch would likely be
categorized as ‘Probable’ or ‘Imminent’ to fail.
This rating of ‘Likelihood of Failure’ is then brought forward into the Likelihood of Failure and
Impact matrix to assign a level of risk of the tree. The level of risk is then categorized as Low,
Moderate, High, or Extreme.
The following 2 tables are used by Tree Risk Assessor Qualified professionals to rate the risk of
the tree. Note: this system does not use a numerical rating system as old systems used.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
Allura at Tiffany Park – Tree Risk Assessment
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Attachment 4. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1) Any legal description provided to the Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. is assumed to be correct.
Any titles and ownership's to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is
assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and
clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
2) It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other
governmental regulations, unless otherwise stated.
3) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as
possible; however, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the
accuracy of information.
4) Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of
this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for
such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
5) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidated the entire report.
6) Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any
other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.
7) Neither all or any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including
the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior
expressed written or verbal consent of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. -- particularly as to value
conclusions, identity of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., or any reference to any professional society or
to any initialed designation conferred upon Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. as stated in its
qualifications.
8) This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.,
and the fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence
neither of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding in to reported.
9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily
to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys.
10) Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were
examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to
visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no
warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree or other plant or
property in question may not arise in the future.
Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to
remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual monitoring by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester
will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or
the timing of the failure. It is considered an ‘Act of God’ when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed
over by man’s actions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13
1
Clark Close
From:Ian Gray
Sent:Monday, May 24, 2021 1:22 PM
To:Clark Close
Subject:RE: LUA21-000190 Allura at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption
Hi Clark,
I reviewed the tree Assessment report, although the TRAQ forms were not included, I don’t have ani other issues with
the report. I know the HOA has been trying to address this issue for some time. On the basis of the numbering given in
the report where tree #3 only has a single dead stem removed, I have no objections to the other removals requested.
Best,
Ian Gray
Urban Forestry & Natural Resources Manager
Phone: 425-430-6601 Email: IGray@RentonWA.gov
From: Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 1:03 PM
To: Ian Gray <IGray@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: LUA21-000190 Allura at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption
Ian,
Allura at Tiffany Park Homeowners Association is requesting an exemption from critical areas regulations to remove four
(4) hazardous trees located within critical area buffers (Tract G - 018880TR-R and Tract R - 018880TR-R). In addition, two
(2) uprooted trees located outside of the critical area buffers in an open space tract are proposed to be removed at the
same time (Tract D - 018880TR-D). The submitted files are available online at
https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/Browse.aspx?id=8474043&dbid=0&repo=CityofRenton. I was hoping you could
review the attached Tree Risk Assessment and let me know if you agree with Mr. Wright’s conclusions.
Thanks,
Clark H. Close
City of Renton – Current Planning
Senior Planner
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Tel: 425-430-7289
Fax: 425-430-7300
cclose@rentonwa.gov
ATTACHMENT E
DocuSign Envelope ID: C38CE666-FE9D-4120-B10F-15251AF5BE13