The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEx 20_Critical Areas Report.pdf Critical Area Report RSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CITY OF RENTON March 31, 2021 Prepared for: Laura Brent Brent Planning Solutions PO Box 1586 Mukilteo, WA 98275 Prepared on behalf of (applicant): Renton School District No. 403 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, WA 98178-4803 watershedco.com Reference Number: 180737.1 Contact: Hugh Mortensen President + PWS The information contained in this report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria outlined in the methods section. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty , expressed or implied, is made. i Table o f Co ntents 1 Introduction and Project Description ......................................................................... 4 1.1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................... 4 2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site Location and Existing Uses ......................................................................... 4 3 Critical Areas ................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 5 3.1.1 Non-Wetland ......................................................................................... 7 3.2 Waterways ......................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Habitat ............................................................................................................... 7 4 Local Regulations ......................................................................................................... 8 5 Impact Assessment.................................................................................................... 10 6 Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 11 6.1 Mitigation Sequencing ..................................................................................... 11 6.1.1 Avoidance ............................................................................................ 11 6.1.2 Minimization ....................................................................................... 12 6.1.3 Unavoidable Project Impacts .............................................................. 12 6.1.4 Mitigation Requirements .................................................................... 12 6.2 Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................ 12 6.2.1 Bank Use Plan ...................................................................................... 13 6.2.2 Restoration Plan .................................................................................. 13 6.2.3 Proposed Wetland Buffer Critical Area Functions .............................. 13 6.2.4 Assessment of No Net Loss ................................................................. 13 6.3 Mitigation Goals and Performance Standards ................................................ 14 6.3.1 Goals .................................................................................................... 14 6.3.2 Performance Standards ...................................................................... 14 7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 15 8 References ................................................................................................................. 15 ii Appendi ces Appendix A Delineation Report Appendix B Bank Use Plan Appendix C Temporary Impact Restoration Plan iii List of F igures Figure 1. COR GIS map with wetland identified across Duvall Avenue NE from study area. ........ 9 List of Tables Table 1. Wetland B assessment summary. .................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Wetland C assessment summary. .................................................................................. 6 Table 3. Summary of wetland rating scores, classification, and standard buffer widths per RMC 4-30-050.G.2. ......................................................................................................... 8 4 1 Introduction and Project Description 1.1 Background and Purpose Renton School District (RSD) proposes to design and construct a new elementary school in the South Union neighborhood (project) on 11 parcels (102305-9173, -9249, -9138, -9124, -9076, -9202, -9332, -9139, -9096, -9275, and -9107) with a total combined area of approximately 11 acres (project area). The parcels were previously occupied by single-family residences which have been demolished. The new school will be designed for a capacity of 650 students. The development will include a school building, multi-use playfield, hard surface play area, staff parking lot, rain garden, stormwater pond, fencing, educational kiosk, and bus drop-off access. Right-of-way improvements will include new curb and gutter along the property edge bordering the east side of Chelan Ave NE. In support of the proposed project, ecologists from The Watershed Company (TWC) visited the Chelan Avenue NE study area in Renton, Washington in September and October 2018, and July and September 2019 to delineate jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. Wetlands within 225 feet (ft) of the project area were estimated visually and with publicly available resources. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including wetland/waterway delineations; evaluation of mitigation sequencing; assessment of unavoidable project-related impacts; and a description of proposed mitigation. The project will result in permanent impacts to Wetland B and temporary impacts to the Wetland C buffer. 2 Existing Conditions 2.1 Site Location and Existing Use s The approximately 11-acre project area is comprised of 11 properties zoned R-8 or R-10. The study area is located within the May Creek sub-basin of the Cedar – Sammamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8); Township 23 North, Range 05 East, Section 10. The study area slopes gently to the northwest. A gravel-surfaced segment of Chelan Avenue NE lies in the center of the study area. The property is currently vacant. In September and October 2018, King County parcels 102305-9173, -9249, -9138, -9124, -9076, - 9202, -9332, -9133, and -9139 were screened and delineated. Parcels -9096 and -9275 were screened and delineated on July 16, 2019. Parcel -9107 was screened and delineated on September 27, 2019. 5 3 Critical Areas 3.1 Wetlands Wetlands B and C were identified in the project area and are described in detail in RSD Chelan Ave NE, Wetland Delineation Report prepared by The Watershed Company (TWC; November 2019; Appendix A) and summarized below in Tables 1 and 2. An additional offsite wetland, identified on City of Renton GIS maps (City of Renton 2020), is discussed further in Local Regulations. WETLAND B – Assessment Summary Location: City of Renton; parcels 1023059249, 1023059124 WRIA / Sub-basin: WRIA 8 / May Creek sub-basin 2014 Western WA Ecology Rating: Category IV Local Jurisdiction Buffer Width and Buffer Setback: 50-Foot Buffer 15-Foot Setback Wetland Size: Approx. 0.5 acres Cowardin Classification(s): Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Scrub-shrub HGM Classification(s): Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s): DP-8 Upland Data Sheet(s): DP-7, DP-9 Flag Color: Pink-and-black striped Flag Numbers: A-1 to A-23 Vegetation Tree stratum: Black cottonwood, red alder, willow species Shrub stratum: Himalayan blackberry, cutleaf blackberry, hardhack Herb stratum: Slough sedge, lady fern, reed canarygrass, field bindweed Soils Soil survey: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Field data: Depleted matrix (F3) Hydrology Source: Groundwater, precipitation Field data: Water-stained leaves (B9), Geomorphic position (D2) Wetland Functions Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 5 4 15 Description and Comments Table 1. Wetland B assessment summary. 6 WETLAND B – Assessment Summary Wetland B is a forested and scrub-shrub depressional wetland. The wetland is dominated by invasive species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and field bindweed. Hydrology is presumed to be provided by a seasonally high groundwater table and precipitation. No stormwater pipes or drainage ditches were observed to be contributing to the wetland unit. The wetland unit drains to the north, into a culvert observed at the southeast corner of parcel 1023059173. Slough sedge was observed northeast of the wetland unit; DP-7 was recorded in this area. Wetland vegetation, soil, and hydrology indicators were not met in this area, and th us it was not included in the wetland unit. WETLAND C – Assessment Summary Location: City of Renton; parcels 1023059138, 1023059076, 1023059133 WRIA / Sub-basin: WRIA 8 / May Creek sub-basin 2014 Western WA Ecology Rating: Category III Local Jurisdiction Buffer Width and Buffer Setback: 100-Foot Buffer (75-ft recommended) 15-Foot Setback Wetland Size: Approx. 1 acre Cowardin Classification(s): Palustrine Forested HGM Classification(s): Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s): DP-5 Upland Data Sheet (s): DP-6 Flag Color: Pink-and-black striped Flag Numbers: C-1 to C-39 Vegetation Tree stratum: Black cottonwood, Oregon ash, western red cedar Shrub stratum: Salmonberry, hardhack, black twinberry, Himalayan blackberry, cutleaf blackberry Herb stratum: English ivy, slough sedge, soft rush, sword fern, creeping buttercup Soils Soil survey: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Field data: Depleted matrix (F3) Hydrology Source: Groundwater, precipitation, stormwater pond overflow Field data: Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8), Water-stained leaves (B9), Geomorphic position (D2) Wetland Functions Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 5 19 Table 2. Wetland C assessment summary. 7 WETLAND C – Assessment Summary Description and Comments Wetland C is a forested depressional wetland. Dominant plant species include Oregon ash, English ivy, and slough sedge. Wetland hydrology comes from a seasonally high groundwater table, precipitation, and the overflow from a stormwater pond south of the wetland unit. A swale along the western boundary of parcel 1023059133 conveys flow into the Wetland C. DP-4 was located in this swale. Wetland soil and hydrology indicators were not met, and this area was thus not included in the wetland unit. An algal mat was present throughout much of the investigated wetland area. A culvert is present on parcel 1023059138, which connects two lobes of the unit. The wetland is relatively flat and it is presumed that water can flow bi-directionally through this culvert. The northern end of the wetland located on parcels 102305-9076 or -9138 was not accessed by TWC. The wetland boundary in this area was estimated using publicly available aerial imagery and topography. Historic aerial photographs show the presence of a ditched channel at the northern wetland boundary, which is assumed to be an intermittently flowing outlet. 3.1.1 Non -Wetland Areas outside of identified wetlands did not meet criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. These areas are dominated by Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and maintained lawns. 3.2 Waterways The property lacked stream indicators including watermarks, stained leaves, algae, bed, bank, or fluvially sorted sediments. Based on these findings, there are no jurisdictional streams on the property. 3.3 Habitat A review of publicly available resources including the Washington Department of Fish (WDFW) Priority Habitat Species list (WDFW 2020) and SalmonScape (WDFW 2020) did not map any state or federally listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in the project area. Habitat features located on site include snags and logs located within and outside both Wetland B and C. Animal species observed at Wetland C included songbird species, crow (Corvus sp.), and Pacific Chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla). Animal species that are assumed to use the project area based on the urban location and presence of forest and scrub-shrub vegetation include urban-tolerant mammal species (raccoon, opossum, etc.), and urban-tolerant bird species (robin, jays, and other songbirds). 8 4 Local Regulations Critical areas in the City of Renton (City) are regulated by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. According to RMC 4-3-050, wetlands are rated as one of four categories based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014). Wetland B is a Category IV wetland with 6 points for water quality functions, 5 points for hydrologic functions, and 4 points for habitat functions. Wetland C is a Category III wetland with 7 points for water quality functions, 7 points for hydrologic functions, and 5 points for habitat functions. The RMC assigns wetland buffer widths based on wetland category, habitat score, and adjacent land use. Current and proposed land uses do not meet the criteria for “low impact land uses.” Wetland buffer widths listed in RMC 4-3-050G.2 for “all other land uses” apply to the proposed project. In accordance with RMC 4-3-050G.2, Wetland B, a Category IV wetland, will require a buffer of 50 feet. Wetland C, a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 5 points, requires a standard buffer of 100 feet. Buffers are measured from the wetland boundary. Wetland Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Total Category/Type Standard Buffer Width Wetland B 6 5 4 15 IV 50 ft. Wetland C 7 7 5 19 III 100 ft. The wetland identified on the City of Renton GIS maps is across Duvall Avenue NE from the study area. Per RMC 4-3-050.G.2.6, “Areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided shall not be counted toward the minimum buffer unless these areas can be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions.” Duvall Avenue NE is a paved four-lane thoroughfare in an urban area and interrupts all functions provided by the standard buffer. Thus, the study area is effectively disconnected from the wetland and does not provide buffer functions. It is highly unlikely that it would ever be removed, relocated, or restored to provide buffer functions. Thus, the buffers applied to the wetland would not encumber the study area. Table 3. Summary of wetland rating scores, classification, and standard buffer widths per RMC 4-30- 050.G.2. 9 Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G. 9.d.iv, wetland buffers are to be increased beyond the standard required buffer width if certain unique circumstances are present. The criteria described in this code section are not applicable to the study area and therefore, increased buffers are not warranted. In previous Ecology wetland buffer guidance, “low” habitat function was represented by a score of 3 or 4 points. However, after a detailed analysis of habitat scores for the 211 reference wetlands used to calibrate the rating system, Ecology found that wetlands scoring 3, 4, or 5 points for habitat are more similarly distributed to those scoring ≤ 19 points in the 2004 version. This information prompted Ecology to adjust the habitat score break points in the current wetland buffer tables (Ecology 2018). The modified tables now group habitat scores of 3 to 5 into “low” habitat function. Wetland C, with a habitat function score of 5, would be considered low habitat function under the new Ecology guidance and prescribed a buffer of 75 ft, however, the design observes the 100 ft buffer in excess of Ecology guidance. Wetland buffers in the City of Renton require an additional 15-foot critical area setback. The following uses are allowed within the setback pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G.2: landscaping, uncovered decks less than eighteen inches above grade, building overhangs that do not extend more than twenty four inches into the setback area, and impervious ground surfaces (i.e. driveways and patios) provided that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations and maximum impervious surface limitations. The multi-use playfield extends into Figure 1. COR GIS map with wetland identified across Duvall Avenue NE from study area. COR-mapped wetland Study area (only southern portion shown) 10 the building setback area outside of the Wetland C buffer, however, water quality will not be significantly impacted by the playfield and it will not exceed impervious surface limitations. The City of Renton allows certain activities in wetlands and their associated buffers as exemptions. These include habitat conservation, preservation, habitat enhancement, restoration/mitigation, site investigative work, surface water discharge, maintenance of existing facilities, utilities within the public right-of-way, temporary wetland impacts if restored, maintenance or replacement of existing structures or improvements, modification of an existing single-family dwelling, and the continuance of existing activities. Direct wetland impacts, in addition to being subject to state and federal regulations outlined below, are permitted by the City only if an applicant can prove that the development proposal results in no net loss of wetland acreage and/or function (RMC 4-3-050J.4). Proposals are subject to mitigation sequencing; an applicant must prove that no alternative exists that is less intrusive to the critical area. The City prefers compensation take place on-site, through re-establishment of former wetlands, rehabilitation of wetlands to restore natural functions, creation of wetlands on disturbed upland sites, or enhancing significantly degraded wetlands. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, “cooperative compensation to mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs” are allowed. Unlike buffer reductions that exceed 25%, direct wetland impacts do not require a variance. The City strongly encourages pre-application consultation for all prospective projects involving critical areas. Such early coordination can result in a better understanding of permit processes, submittal requirements, and approval timelines. 5 Impact Assessment The estimated proposed limits of clearing and grading were overlaid on the wetland and waterway buffers using Computer Aided Design software (CAD). The areas of impact were calculated using CAD. The table below provides a summary of unavoidable wetland and buffer impacts. Impacted Feature Impact Type Area1 of Impact (SF) Wetland C Buffer Permanent 0 Conversion 0 Temporary 3,344 Wetland B Permanent 12,181 Conversion 0 Temporary 0 11 Impacted Feature Impact Type Area1 of Impact (SF) TOTAL1 Permanent: 12,181 SF Conversion: 0 SF Temporary: 3,344 SF Project impacts include both permanent impacts to Wetland B and temporary impacts to the Wetland C buffer associated with the design of the proposed elementary school. The project avoids impacts to the higher-functioning, Category III, Wetland C, and instead limits permanent impacts to the lower-functioning, Category IV, Wetland B. The buffer area temporarily impacted by clearing and grading associated with the installation of the multi-use playfield is currently vegetated with invasive or non-native vegetation. All areas temporarily impacted by will be restored at a ratio of 1:1 and enhanced onsite with native vegetation following construction, in accordance with RMC 4-2-050C.3.19. In accordance with RMC 4-3-050G.9.e.iii, the 12,181 sf of Wetland B permanently impacted by the construction will be mitigated with credits purchased from the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument at a ratio of 0.70:1 for Category IV wetlands. Further details on the Mitigation Bank Use Plan are provided in Appendix B. 6 Mitigatio n 6.1 Mitigation Sequencing RMC 4-3-050L.1.b outlines mitigation sequencing for alterations to critical areas. The mitigation sequencing details for avoidance and minimization for the proposed elementary school are described below. 6.1.1 Avoidance The design team and school district evaluated and rejected multiple sites in the school service area, ultimately selecting this location for the school. The Construction of the new elementary school cannot be achieved without incurring permanent impacts to Wetland B and a small area of temporary impacts to the Wetland C buffer. However, the site design avoids permanent wetland impacts to Wetland C. By concentrating the project development on the east side of the project area, the design avoids the higher-functioning Category III wetland, and instead limits permanent impacts to the lower-functioning Category IV wetland. After evaluating multiple design options, the architectural team determined that complete avoidance of the standard 100- foot buffer for Wetland C is not feasible for this project. 12 6.1.2 Minimization Sensitive site design included planning the school features around the wetland and buffer to the extent feasible. Existing trees in and adjacent to the standard buffer are deliberately preserved. For security reasons, black vinyl-coated, four- or six-foot-tall chain link fencing is proposed to be installed along the property boundaries (a six-foot-tall cedar fence will be installed along a portion of the southern boundary). In order to minimize impacts to Wetland C and its buffer, the fabric will be raised 12 inches off the ground to allow the passage of small animals. In addition, concrete footings will not be utilized to secure fence posts in wetland areas. Minimization of impacts will be achieved for the duration of the project by employing Best Management Practices to control erosion and sedimentation and prevent spills by staging equipment. 6.1.3 Unavoidable P roject Impacts Due to the extent and location of Wetlands B and C in the project area and the large area necessary for an elementary school, access, and playfields, 12,181 sf of permanent impacts to Wetland B and 3,344 sf of temporary impacts to the Wetland C buffer are unavoidable. 6.1.4 Mitigation Requirements Temporary and permanent buffer and wetland impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the third and sixth steps outlined in RMC 4-3-050L.1.b: “Rectifying adverse impacts to wetlands, …, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project” and “Compensating for adverse impacts to wetlands, …, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.” Restoration of the 3,344 sf of temporary impacts to the Wetland C buffer, currently vegetated with invasive or non-native vegetation, with native vegetation will achieve equivalent or better habitat functions. Compensation for the 12,181 sf of permanent impacts to Wetland B is provided via credit withdrawal from a Mitigation Bank. 6.2 Mitigation Plan The mitigation plan includes the restoration of areas temporarily impacted and compensation for areas permanently impacted by the proposed project. The proposed mitigation plan is based on City code and Washington State Department of Ecology guidance. A key goal of the mitigation plan is to meet or exceed the functions of the existing impacted critical areas. 13 6.2.1 Bank Use Plan The 12,181 sf of permanent impacts to Wetland B will be mitigated with credits purchased from the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument at a ratio of 0.70:1 for Category IV wetlands. Further details are outlined in the Mitigation Bank Use Plan, included in this report as Appendix B. 6.2.2 Restoration Plan After construction, temporary project impacts to the Wetland C buffer will be restored and planted with native vegetation. The proposed plan is included in Appendix C and will maintain or improve the habitat value and functional performance of the existing Wetland C buffer by replacing invasive and non-native vegetation with native vegetation. Portions of the Wetland C buffer will be enhanced on-site to increase plant community diversity, which will provide indirect functional improvement of the wetland. The proposed restoration includes replanting the temporarily disturbed critical area at a ratio of 1:1 in accordance with RMC 4-3-050C.3.19 for a total of 3,344 sf of restored buffer and an additional 102,040 sf of enhancement plantings, exceeding City code requirements. 6.2.3 Proposed Wetland Buffer Critical Area Functions The functions of Wetland C buffer will not be significantly impacted by temporary clearing and grading during construction. The existing buffer habitat functions were rated at 5 points, which is low habitat function according to the July 2018 Ecology guidance (Ecology 2018), due to the lack of habitat complexity and presence of invasive and non-native plant species. Habitat functions will be improved by adding complexity to the buffer area, which is used during the life cycles of many wildlife species that also make use of the wetland habitat. Enhancement activities will be focused on degraded portions of the buffer that currently lack native tree and shrub cover and/or are dominated by invasive and non-native species. 6.2.4 Assessment of No Net Loss The temporarily impacted area of Wetland C buffer will be restored and enhanced. The infill of Wetland B will be compensated for offsite at Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. The proposed mitigation plan allows for no net loss of wetland or buffer functions and values. The mitigation plan is designed to not only meet but exceed City standard mitigation ratios. In addition to exceeding regulatory requirements, an interpretive sign and kiosk are proposed to be installed at the western edge of the outdoor learning courtyard, facing the protected wetland and buffer habitats in order to foster education about the functions and values of these ecosystems. 14 6.3 Mitigation Goals and Performance Standards A comprehensive five-year maintenance and monitoring plan is included as part of the buffer restoration and enhancement in Appendix C. The plan sets forth performance standards to be met yearly during monitoring, which are summarized below, and specifies appropriate species for planting and planting techniques, monitoring techniques, and describes proper maintenance activities, which are outlined in the plan in Appendix C. This will ensure that enhancement/restoration plantings will be maintained, monitored, and successfully established within the first five years following implementation. 6.3.1 Goals The goals of the mitigation plan include restoring temporary impacts to Wetland C to pre- construction condition and enhance the degraded wetland buffer. To achieve these goals, invasive and non-native species will be removed from the enhancement areas, dense native tree and shrub communities will be planted in areas not currently forested, the understory will be enhanced in existing forest patches, habitat interspersion will be increased by planting groupings of different native strata, and natural decadence will be re-established by adding large woody debris. 6.3.2 Performance Standards The standards listed below will be used to judge the success of the plan over time. Survival: Survival standards may be achieved through establishment of planted material, recruitment of native volunteers, and/or replacement planting as necessary. a. 100% survival of all installed trees and shrubs at the end of Year-1. b. 80% survival of all installed trees and shrubs at the end of Year 2. c. 80% survival of all installed trees and shrubs at the end of Year 5. Species diversity: A minimum of two native tree species, four native shrub species, and two groundcover species will be present in the enhancement area by the end of Year 5. Native vegetation cover in planted areas: a. Achieve at least 25% cover of native trees, shrubs by the end of Year 3. Volunteer native species may count toward this standard. b. Achieve at least 60% cover of native trees, shrubs by the end of Year 5. Volunteer native species may count toward this standard. Invasive species standard: No more than 10% cover of invasive species in the planting area in any monitoring year. Invasive species are defined as any Class A, B, or C noxious weeds as listed by the King County Noxious Weed Control Board. Large woody debris standard: Maintain at least five pieces of large woody debris in the enhancement area with good ground contact during any monitoring year. 15 7 Summary RSD proposes to construct a new elementary school in the South Union neighborhood on 11 parcels with a total combined area of approximately 11 acres. The project will require the infill of one of the two wetlands located onsite and temporarily impact wetland buffer. The project meets City requirements outlined in RMC Chapter 4-3-050. To ensure no net loss of wetland functions, the mitigation plan proposes to restore temporary impacts to Wetland C onsite to equal or better conditions. The proposed restoration includes replanting the temporarily disturbed buffer at a ratio of 1:1 following construction in accordance with RMC 4-3-050C.3.19 for a total of 3,344 sf of restored buffer. The plan also includes 102,040 sf of enhancement plantings for the Wetland C buffer, exceeding City requirements, to increase plant community structural diversity. The 12,181 sf of permanent impacts to Wetland B will be mitigated with credits purchased from the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument at a ratio of 0.70:1 for Category IV wetlands. Finally, a comprehensive five-year maintenance and monitoring plan is included in the mitigation plan. This plan will ensure that proposed enhancement plantings will be maintained, monitored, and successfully established within the first five years following implementation. 8 Referenc es City of Renton. 2020. COR Maps (rentonwa.gov) https://rentonwa.gov/city_hall/administrative_services/Information_technology/maps__ _g_i_s_data accessed 12/31/2020. Accessed 12/31/2020. Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2018. Rating Systems. https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Tools-resources/Rating-systems. Accessed 12/31/2020. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Effective January 2015) – Publication number 14-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. WDFW. 2020. Priority Habitat Species on the Web. https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/. Accessed 12/31/2020. WDFW. 2020. SalmonScape. https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Accessed 12/31/2020. 16 Appendix A DELINEATION REPORT November 26, 2019 Calvin Gasaway Greene Gasaway Architects, PLLC 31620 23rd Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-5049 Email: calvin@greenegasaway.com Phone: (206) 818-5466 Re: RSD Chelan Ave NE , Wetland Delineation Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 180737 Dear Calvin: In September and October 2018, and July and September 2019, ecologists from The Watershed Company visited the Chelan Avenue NE study area in Renton, Washington, to delineate jurisdictional wetlands within a defined study area. This study is in support of the planning of new educational facilities for the Renton School District. This letter summarizes the findings of the study and details applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The following documents are enclosed: •Wetland Delineation Sketches (September 2018, July 2019, September 2019) •Site Map (surveyed by Terrane Land Surveying, Oct 2019)) •Wetland Determination Data Forms •Ecology Rating Forms and Figures Study Area In September and October 2018, King County parcels 102305-9173, -9249, -9138, -9124, - 9076, -9202, -9332, -9133, and -9139 were screened and delineated. Parcels -9096 and - 9275 were screened and delineated on July 16, 2019. Parcel -9107 was screened and delineated on September 27, 2019. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 2 Methods Public-domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this delineation study and include the following: • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (WSS) application • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web, SalmonScape) • Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPARS) • Washington Department of Natural Resources, Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Viewer • King County’s GIS mapping website (iMap) • City of Renton (COR) maps Characterization of climatic conditions for precipitation was determined using the WETS table methodology from the USDA NRCS document Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis, Chapter 19 (September 2015). The Seattle-Tacoma International AP station as recorded by NOAA from 1981-2010 (http://agacis.rcc- acis.org/) was used as a source for precipitation data. The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present. Wetlands The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement) (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] May 2010). Wetland boundaries were determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Areas meeting the criteria set forth in the Regional Supplement were determined to be wetland. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic parameters were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundary to make the determination. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 3 Identified wetlands within the property boundaries were classified using the 2014 Update to the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Publication #14-06-029) (Rating System). Streams The study area was evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030 and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220-660-030. Findings The approximately 12-acre study area is comprised of 12 residential properties zoned R- 8. The study area is located within the May Creek sub-basin of the Cedar – Sammamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8); Township 23 North, Range 05 East, Section 10. The study area slopes gently to the northwest. A gravel-surfaced segment of Chelan Avenue NE lies in the center of the study area. Eleven single-family residences and multiple associated outbuildings are located on the properties. Public-domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this study and include the following, as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of online mapping and inventory resources. Resource Summary USDA NRCS: Web Soil Survey Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes; Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes. USFWS: NWI Wetland Mapper No wetlands mapped within 500 feet of study area. WDFW: PHS on the Web No priority habitat or species mapped within 500 feet of study area. WDFW: SalmonScape No salmonids mapped within project site. Documented presence of salmonids in Honey Dew Creek, approx. 2,000 feet northwest of project area. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 4 WA-DNR: Forest Practices Activity Mapping Tool No mapped streams. Nearest streams approximately 2,000 feet northwest and east. King County iMap No streams or wetlands mapped within 500 feet of study area. City of Renton Maps Mapped wetland southeast of study area; across Duvall Ave NE. WETS Climatic Condition Drier than normal during all site visits except Sept 2019, which was wetter than normal. Wetlands Two wetlands were identified in the study area and are described in Table 2 and Table 3, below. An additional offsite wetland, identified on City of Renton GIS maps, is discussed further in the following section. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 5 Table 2. Wetland B assessment summary. WETLAND B – Assessment Summary Location: City of Renton; parcels 102305-9249, -9124, -9096 WRIA / Sub-basin: WRIA 8 / May Creek sub-basin 2014 Western WA Ecology Rating: Category IV Local Jurisdiction Buffer Width and Buffer Setback: 50-Foot Buffer 15-Foot Setback Wetland Size: Approx. 0.28 acres Cowardin Classifications: Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Scrub-shrub HGM Classifications: Depressional Wetland Data Sheets: DP-3, 8, 10 Upland Data Sheets: DP-7, 9, 11 Flag Color: Pink-and-black striped Flag Numbers: B-1 to B-23; BB-1 to BB-9 Vegetation Tree stratum: Black cottonwood, red alder, willow species Shrub stratum: Himalayan blackberry, cutleaf blackberry, hardhack Herb stratum: Slough sedge, lady fern, reed canarygrass, field bindweed Soils Soil survey: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Field data: Depleted matrix (F3) Hydrology Source: Groundwater, precipitation Field data: Water-stained leaves (B9), Geomorphic position (D2) Wetland Functions Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 5 4 15 Description and Comments Wetland B is a shallow forested and scrub-shrub depressional wetland. The wetland is dominated by invasive species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and field bindweed. Hydrology is presumed to be provided by a seasonally high groundwater table and precipitation. No storm water pipes or drainage ditches were observed to be contributing to the wetland unit. The wetland unit drains to the north, into a culvert observed at the southeast corner of parcel 1023059173. Slough sedge was observed in an area northeast of the wetland unit; DP-7 was recorded in this area. Wetland vegetation, soil, and hydrology indicators were not met in this area, and thus it was not included in the wetland unit. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 6 Table 3. Wetland C assessment summary. WETLAND C – Assessment Summary Location: City of Renton; parcels 102305-9275, -9107, -9138, -9076, -9133 WRIA / Sub-basin: WRIA 8 / May Creek sub-basin 2014 Western WA Ecology Rating: Category III Buffer Width: Buffer Setback: 100-Foot Buffer (75-ft recommended) 15-Foot Setback Wetland Size: Approx. 0.49 acre Cowardin Classifications: Palustrine Forested HGM Classifications: Depressional Wetland Data Sheets: DP-5, 14, 15 Upland Data Sheets: DP-6, 12, 13, 16 Flag Color: Pink-and-black striped Flag Numbers: C-1 to C-39; CC-1 to CC- 15; CCC-1 to CCC-19 Vegetation Tree stratum: Black cottonwood, Oregon ash, western red cedar Shrub stratum: Salmonberry, hardhack, black twinberry, Himalayan blackberry, cutleaf blackberry Herb stratum: English ivy, slough sedge, soft rush, creeping buttercup Soils Soil survey: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Field data: Depleted matrix (F3), Redox Dark Surface (F6) Hydrology Source: Groundwater, precipitation, stormwater pond overflow Field data: Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8), Water-stained leaves (B9), Geomorphic position (D2), FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Functions Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 5 19 Description and Comments Wetland C is a forested depressional wetland. Prevalent plant species include Oregon ash, black cottonwood, English ivy, slough sedge, and hardhack. Hydrology is provided by precipitation, hillslope runoff, and presumed overflow from a stormwater pond south of the wetland unit. A swale along the western boundary of parcel 102305- 9133 appears to convey this flow into the wetland unit. DP-4 was recorded in this swale. Wetland soil and hydrology indicators were not met, and this area was thus not included in the wetland unit. An algal mat was present throughout much of the wetland area on parcel -9076. Culverts are present on parcel -9138 and -9275, which connect three lobes of the unit. The wetland is relatively flat and it is presumed that water is able to flow bi- directionally through these culverts. The wetland appears to drain to the north via a culvert observed at the northern boundary of parcel -9275. The outlet was dry at the time of the July and September site visits, but historic aerial photographs show the presence of an inundated swale connected to this outlet. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 7 Marginal Areas One marginal area was identified in a reconnaissance effort conducted by The Watershed Company in August 2018. This area was originally labeled “Wetland A.” Upon further inspection during the delineation phase, including the recording of Data Point 2, this area was determined to not meet wetland indicators. The area is described in the following table. Table 4. Marginal area (originally “Wetland A”) assessment summary. Marginal Area – Assessment Summary Location: City of Renton; parcels 1023059202, 1023059332 WRIA / Sub-basin: WRIA 8 / May Creek sub-basin 2014 Western WA Ecology Rating: NA Local Jurisdiction Buffer Width and Buffer Setback: NA Size: Approx. 1,000 sq. ft. Cowardin Classification(s): NA HGM Classification(s): NA Wetland Data Sheet(s): NA Upland Data Sheet (s): DP-2 Vegetation Tree stratum: None Shrub stratum: None Herb stratum: Poa sp., Creeping buttercup, common selfheal, white clover Soils Soil survey: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Field data: Redox Dark Surface (F6) Hydrology Source: Precipitation Field data: None Description and Comments This lawn area contained only facultative and facultative upland plants, exhibited very marginal hydric soils, and met no indicators of wetland hydrology. No hydrology sources were identified. Therefore, the area was determined to not be a wetland. Non -wetland areas Areas outside of identified wetlands did not meet criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. These areas are dominated by Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and maintained lawns. Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 8 Streams The property lacked stream indicators including watermarks, stained leaves, algae, bed, bank, or hydraulically sorted sediments. Based on these findings, there are no jurisdictional streams on the property. Local Regulations Critical areas in the City of Renton are regulated by the City’s Critical Areas Regulations Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4-3-050. According to the Code, wetlands are rated as one of four categories based on the Rating System. Wetland B received 6 points for water quality functions, 5 points for hydrologic functions, and 4 points for habitat functions, for a total of 15 points. This classifies Wetland B as a Category IV wetland. Wetland C received 7 points for water quality functions, 7 points for hydrologic functions, and 5 points for habitat functions, for a total of 19 points. This classifies Wetland C as a Category III wetland. Wetland buffers are established based on a combination of the wetland category, habitat score, and adjacent land use. A separate set of buffers is applied in areas of “low intensity” land use: unpaved trails, low intensity open space, or utility corridors. The current and proposed land use in the study area does not fall into that category. Wetland B, a Category IV wetland, will require a buffer of 50 feet. Wetland C, a Category III wetland with habitat scores of 5 points, requires a standard buffer of 100 feet, as measured from the wetland edges. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G. 9.d.iv, wetland buffers are to be increased beyond the standard required buffer width if certain unique circumstances are present. The criteria described in this code section are not applicable to the study area and therefore, increased buffers are not warranted. In addition, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G.9.d.ii, alternate buffer widths may be proposed by a qualified wetland professional. A study shall demonstrate why the standard buffer widths are unnecessary and how alternative widths will provide equivalent ecological protection. The study shall also demonstrate how alternative buffers meet best available science standards. In this instance, we recommend the City of Renton consider the Wetland C habitat score of 5 to be a “low” score and the standard buffer should therefore be 75 feet. In previous Ecology wetland buffer guidance, “low” habitat function was represented by a score of 3 or 4 points. However, after a detailed analysis of habitat scores for the 211 reference Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 9 wetlands used to calibrate the rating system, Ecology found that wetlands scoring 3, 4, or 5 points for habitat are more similarly distributed to those scoring ≤ 19 points in the 2004 version. This information prompted Ecology to adjust the habitat score break points in the current wetland buffer tables in July 2018. The modified tables now group habitat scores of 3 to 5 into “low” habitat function. Wetland buffers in the City of Renton require an additional 15-foot critical area setback. Table 5. Summary of wetland rating scores, classification, and standard buffer widths per RMC 4-30-050(G)(2). Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Total Category/Type Standard Buffer Width Wetland B 6 5 4 15 IV 50 ft. Wetland C 7 7 5 19 III 100 ft. (75-feet recommended) The City of Renton allows certain activities in wetlands and their associated buffers as exemptions. These include habitat conservation, preservation, habitat enhancement, restoration/mitigation, site investigative work, surface water discharge, maintenance of existing facilities, utilities within the public right-of-way, temporary wetland impacts if restored, maintenance or replacement of existing structures or improvements, modification of an existing single family dwelling, and the continuance of existing activities. The wetland identified on the City of Renton GIS maps is across Duvall Avenue NE from the study area. Per RMC 4-3-050G.2.6, “Areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided shall not be counted toward the minimum buffer unless these areas can be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions.” Duvall Avenue NE is a four-lane thoroughfare in an urban area and interrupts all functions provided by the standard buffer. Thus, the study area is effectively disconnected from the wetland and does not provide buffer functions. It is highly unlikely that it would ever be removed, Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 10 relocated, or restored to provide buffer functions. Thus, the buffers applied to the wetland would not encumber the study area. Figure 1. COR GIS map with wetland identified across Duvall Avenue NE from study area. Wetland buffers may be altered if it can be documented that the modified buffer will provide greater function than the standard buffer. This can be completed through buffer averaging or enhancement of the existing buffer (RMC 4-3-050I.3). Averaging allows for reducing the buffer in some areas while increasing the buffer in other areas and may require enhancement in areas that are reduced. Buffers can also be reduced by providing enhancement of the existing buffer. This generally includes removal of invasive species and planting of desirable native species. Wetland buffers may be reduced or averaged by up to 25% of the standard width, or a minimum width of 75 feet in the instance of Wetlands B and C. Reduction or averaging of wetland buffers by more than 25% can only be authorized by a variance. Approval of a variance requires compliance with the decision criteria of RMC 4-9-250.B.5, including a demonstration that the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship because of special circumstances applicable to the property and that the variance request is the minimum necessary to accomplish the project purpose. Any request for buffer averaging or buffer reduction is to be made as part of a project critical areas study. COR-mapped wetland Study area (only southern portion shown) Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 11 Direct wetland impacts, in addition to being subject to state and federal regulations outlined below, are permitted by the City only if an applicant can prove that the development proposal results in no net loss of wetland acreage and/or function (RMC 4- 3-050J.4). Proposals are subject to mitigation sequencing; an applicant must prove that no alternative exists that is less intrusive to the critical area. The City prefers compensation take place on-site, through re-establishment of former wetlands, rehabilitation of wetlands to restore natural functions, creation of wetlands on disturbed upland sites, or enhancing significantly degraded wetlands. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, “cooperative compensation to mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs” are allowed. Unlike buffer reductions that exceed 25%, direct wetland impacts do not require a variance. The City strongly encourages pre-application consultation for all prospective projects involving critical areas. Such early coordination can result in a better understanding of permit processes, submittal requirements, and approval timelines. State and Federal Regulations Wetlands and streams are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any proposed filling or other direct impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands (except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps. Unavoidable impacts are typically required to be compensated through implementation of an approved mitigation plan. Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species may also require a biological assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be demonstrated for activities within jurisdictional wetlands and the 100-year floodplain. Application for Corps permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination from Ecology and a cultural resource study in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Washington Department of Ecology Similar to the Corps, Ecology, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, is charged with reviewing, conditioning, and approving or denying certain federally permitted actions that result in discharges to state waters. However, Ecology review would only become Wetland Delineation Report RSD Chelan Avenue NE November 26, 2019 Page 12 necessary if a Section 404 permit from the Corps was issued or if the Corps did not take jurisdiction over the wetlands. Therefore, if filling activities are avoided, authorization from Ecology would not be needed. If filling is proposed, a JARPA could be submitted to Ecology in order to obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination. Ecology permits are either issued concurrently with the Corps permit or within 90 days following the Corps permit. In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates wetland buffers, unless direct impacts are proposed. When direct impacts are proposed, mitigated wetlands may be required to employ buffers based on Corps and Ecology joint regulatory guidance. Disclaime r The information contained in this letter or report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria outlined in the methods section. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Logan Dougherty Ecologist Hugh Mortensen, PWS President/Senior Ecologist Page 1 of 1 Delineation Sketch – RSD Chelan Avenue Parcel Numbers: 1023059107, 1023059249, 1023059138, Prepared for: Calvin Gasaway Site Visit Date: 1023059124, 1023059076, 1023059202, 1023059133, 1023059332, 1023059139 September 20-21, 2018 Jurisdiction: Renton, WA Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundary is marked with pink- and black-striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. LEGEND Wetland Delineated Wetland Boundary Non-delineated Wetland Boundary Study Area Culvert Data Point (DP) Wetland B Flags B-1 to B-23 Wetland C Flags C-1 to C-39 Connect C-1 to C-39 Do Not Connect C-18 to C-19 Do Not Connect C-26 to C-27 Do Not Connect C-22 to C-23 DP-1 DP-2 DP-3 DP-4 DP-5 DP-6 DP-7 DP-8 DP-9 This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 of 1 Delineation Sketch – RSD Chelan Avenue (Lots 3 and 4) Parcel Numbers: 1023059096, 1023059275 Prepared for: Calvin Gasaway Site Visit Date: July 16, 2019 TWC Ref. No.: 180737 DP-12 Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundary is marked with pink- and black-striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. Wetland C, CC Line Flags CC-1 to CC-15 DP-13 DP-14 DP-11 Do not connect CC-3 to CC-4; Do not connect CC-11 to CC-12 DP-10 Wetland B, BB Line Flags BB-1 to BB-9 Connect BB-1 to B-1 Connect BB-9 to B-23 LEGEND Wetland Delineated Wetland Boundary Non-delineated Wetland Boundary Previously-delineated Wetland Boundary Study Area Culvert Data Point (DP) 371371376376EXISTING FEATURESPROPERTY BOUNDARYDELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFER (110-FT)STREAM OHWMPROPOSED FEATURESSTRUCTURE FOOTPRINT (885 SF)DRIVEWAY FOOTPRINT (405 SF)PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS (TOTALDEVELOPMENT AREA) (2,955 SF)TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS (760 SF)SILT FENCE (180 FT)PROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMES c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATENO.GRAHAM PROPERTYMITIGATION PLANPREPARED FOR: DENNIS GRAHAMPARCEL #00375000002500140TH ST SWUNINCORPORATED SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA SP--RHCM / SP171210OF 31 02-22-2018 DELINEATION MAP LM2 09-12-2018 MITIGATION PLAN RHIMPACTS ASSESSMENTW240105020SCALE: 1" = 10'STREAM A OHWM(150-FT BUFFER)WETLAND ABOUNDARYLEGENDDITCHROWPROPOSEDSINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCEPROPOSED SILTFENCEPROPOSEDDRIVEWAYScale: NTSSILT FENCEA110-FTWETLANDBUFFER8' MAX.LAKE / RIVER / WETLANDSECTIONELEVATIONSILT FENCE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS:1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY.2. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN ACCUMULATION EXCEEDS 6" IN DEPTH.SILT FENCE FABRIC AND WIRE MESH BACKINGSHALL BE WIRED TO TOP, MIDDLE ANDBOTTOM OF POSTKEY SILT FENCE BOTTOM IN 4" X 4" MINIMUMTRENCH BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL.TRENCH THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FENCEWITH NO BREAKS.SILT CONTAINMENT FENCE JOINTSIN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BESPLICED AT POSTS. USESTAPLES,WIRE RINGS, OREQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TOPOSTS.CUT-AWAYSHOWING 2"X2", 14GAUGE WIRE MESHBACKINGSTEEL "T" POST OR 2"x4" WOOD POSTS, OREQUIVALENTFINISH GRADEEDGE OFROAD11042'26'15'5'3' MIN.10'12'140TH ST SWPROPOSED SPLITRAIL FENCEThis page intentionally left blank. Page 1 of 1 Delineation Sketch – RSD Chelan Avenue (Lot 5 ) Parcel Numbers: 1023059107 Prepared for: Calvin Gasaway Site Visit Date: September 27, 2019 TWC Ref. No.: 180737 Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundary is marked with pink- and black-striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. Wetland C, CCC Line Flags CCC-1 to CCC-19 DP-16 LEGEND Wetland Delineated Wetland Boundary Previously-delineated Wetland Boundary Study Area Culvert Data Point (DP) DP-15 Connect CCC-1 to CC-1 Connect CCC-19 to CC-15 Connect CCC-11 to C-23 Connect CCC-10 to C-22 Wetland C, C Line Previously Delineated Wetland C, CC Line Previously Delineated 371371376376EXISTING FEATURESPROPERTY BOUNDARYDELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFER (110-FT)STREAM OHWMPROPOSED FEATURESSTRUCTURE FOOTPRINT (885 SF)DRIVEWAY FOOTPRINT (405 SF)PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS (TOTALDEVELOPMENT AREA) (2,955 SF)TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS (760 SF)SILT FENCE (180 FT)PROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMES c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATENO.GRAHAM PROPERTYMITIGATION PLANPREPARED FOR: DENNIS GRAHAMPARCEL #00375000002500140TH ST SWUNINCORPORATED SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA SP--RHCM / SP171210OF 31 02-22-2018 DELINEATION MAP LM2 09-12-2018 MITIGATION PLAN RHIMPACTS ASSESSMENTW240105020SCALE: 1" = 10'STREAM A OHWM(150-FT BUFFER)WETLAND ABOUNDARYLEGENDDITCHROWPROPOSEDSINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCEPROPOSED SILTFENCEPROPOSEDDRIVEWAYScale: NTSSILT FENCEA110-FTWETLANDBUFFER8' MAX.LAKE / RIVER / WETLANDSECTIONELEVATIONSILT FENCE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS:1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY.2. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN ACCUMULATION EXCEEDS 6" IN DEPTH.SILT FENCE FABRIC AND WIRE MESH BACKINGSHALL BE WIRED TO TOP, MIDDLE ANDBOTTOM OF POSTKEY SILT FENCE BOTTOM IN 4" X 4" MINIMUMTRENCH BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL.TRENCH THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FENCEWITH NO BREAKS.SILT CONTAINMENT FENCE JOINTSIN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BESPLICED AT POSTS. USESTAPLES,WIRE RINGS, OREQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TOPOSTS.CUT-AWAYSHOWING 2"X2", 14GAUGE WIRE MESHBACKINGSTEEL "T" POST OR 2"x4" WOOD POSTS, OREQUIVALENTFINISH GRADEEDGE OFROAD11042'26'15'5'3' MIN.10'12'140TH ST SWPROPOSED SPLITRAIL FENCEThis page intentionally left blank. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEBASIS OF BEARINGSREFERENCESLEGENDVICINITY MAPN.T.S.ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICTVERTICAL DATUMN.T.S.CONTROL MAP ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGEND ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LOT 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 2 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 2 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 2 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 3 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 3 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 3 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 4 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 4 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 4 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 5 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 5 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 5 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 6 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 5 SURVEYOR'S NOTES CONTINUEDLOT 6 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 6 SURVEYOR'S NOTES CONTINUEDLOT 6 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 7 & 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 7 & 10 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 7 & 10 SURVEYOR'S NOTES ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYRENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT LOT 7 & 10 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 9 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 9 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 9 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 9 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 11 & 12 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 11 & 12 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 11 & 12 SCHEDULE B ITEMSLOT 7 & 10 SURVEYOR'S NOTES CONTINUEDLOT 9 SURVEYOR'S NOTES CONTINUEDLOT 11 & 12 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 11 & 12 SURVEYOR'S NOTES CONTINUEDLOT 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT 14 PROPERTY ADDRESSLOT 14 SURVEYOR'S NOTESLOT 14 SURVEYOR'S NOTES CONTINUEDLOT 14 SCHEDULE B ITEMS US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-1 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 8/21/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): R. Kahlo, C. McIngalls Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <2% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: SE corner of study area. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Spiraea douglasii 80 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rubus laciniatus 40 Y FACU OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 120 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Rubus ursinus 60 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 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. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 40 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 2.5Y 3/3 100 Sandy loam 3-12 10YR 3/4 100 Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Completely dry. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-2 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/20/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <2% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Backyard of 1070 Chelan Ave NE: open grassy area. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Ranunculus repens 50 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Trifolium repens 50 Y FAC 3. Poa sp. 20 N FAC* Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Prunella vulgaris 10 N 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. 130 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M, PL Gravelly sandy loam 10-14 10YR 3/3 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M, PL Gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Completely dry. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-3 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 8/21/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): R. Kahlo, C. McIngalls Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland B in-pit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Salix lucida 20 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rubus armeniacus 20 Y FAC OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 20 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 40 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ranunculus repens 20 N FAC 3. Convolvulus arvensis 50 Y UPL 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. 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 14-20 2.5Y 4/2 80 7.5YR 3/4 20 C M Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☒ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☒ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Damp, but not saturated. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-4 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/20/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression / swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <2% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Swale in backyard of 1051 Chelan Ave NE. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Fraxinus latifolia 80 Y FACW 2. Populus balsamifera 40 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) 120 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa sp. 30 Y FAC* Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 30 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Hedera helix 40 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 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. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 60 Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Gravelly sandy silt 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Completely dry. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-5 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/20/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland C in-pit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Fraxinus latifolia 100 Y FACW 2. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 130 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Carex obnupta 40 Y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Hedera helix Trace N FACU 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. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 2/1 100 Gravelly sandy silt 9-15 5Y 5/2 95 7.5YR 5/6 5 C M Gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☒ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☒ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Patches of algal mat present throughout wetland. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-6 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/20/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 6 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland C out-pit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 1. Fraxinus latifolia 60 Y FACW 2. Populus balsamifera 10 N FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B) 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 50 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Malus fusca 15 Y FACW OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 65 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ranunculus repens 5 Y FAC 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. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 85 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-6 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 2/1 100 Silty loam 3-12* 10YR 3/2 99 7.5YR 5/6 1 C M Gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: *Couldn’t dig past 12” due to compaction. 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Completely dry. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-7 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/21/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 7 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <2% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland B out-pit; NE of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 60 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 50 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 8 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 37.5 (A/B) 110 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Ilex aquifolium 20 Y FACU OBL species x 1 = 3. Rubus laciniatus 15 Y FACU FACW species x 2 = 4. Sorbus aucuparia 5 N UPL FAC species x 3 = 5. Spiraea douglasii 2 N FACW FACU species x 4 = 72 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Carex obnupta 60 Y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Hedera helix 60 Y FACU 3. Rubus ursinus 30 Y 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. 150 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-7 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 Gravelly sandy loam 8-16 10YR 4/6 97 7.5YR 5/6 3 C M Gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Completely dry US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-8 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/21/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 8 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland B in-pit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Acer macrophyllum (rooted out) 75 - FACU 2. Alnus rubra 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) 95 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 5 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 5 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Ranunculus repens 85 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Convolvulus arvensis 80 Y FACU 3. Phalaris arundinacea 20 N FACW 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. 185 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-8 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 2/1 100 Gravelly silt loam 7-10 10YR 2/1 96 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/4 3 1 D C M Silt loam 10-16 10YR 5/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Gravelly silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☒ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soil moist. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-9 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/21/18 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 9 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland B out-pit; SW of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 1. Acer macrophyllum 80 Y FACU 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = - 3. FACW species 100 x 2 = 200 4. FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 5. FACU species 90 x 4 = 360 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: 195 (A) 575 (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.94 2. Ranunculus repens 5 N FAC 3. Convolvulus arvensis 10 N 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. 115 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-9 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 7.5YR 2.5/1 100 Sandy loam 6-16 10YR 3/2 100 Gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Completely dry. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-10 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 7/16/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 10 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, G. Brennan Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland B in-pit -- north end of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = - 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Ranunculus repens 60 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Lawn grass 50 Y FAC* 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. 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-10 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 12-18 10YR 4/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☒ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☒ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Several wooden boards placed perpendicularly across swale indicate that the feature is likely inundated at some point during the year. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-11 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 7/16/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 11 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, G. Brennan Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland B out-pit – west of north end of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 25 Y FACU 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) 25 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = - 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species 70 x 3 = 210 5. FACU species 25 x 4 = 100 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: 95 (A) 310 (B) 1. Lawn grass 70 Y FAC* Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3 2. 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. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0** Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status. *Heavy moss cover in lawn. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-11 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-12 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 7/16/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 12 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, G. Brennan Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland C out-pit – east of north end of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = - 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Taraxacum officinale 15 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Dactylis glomerata 40 Y FACU 3. Lawn grass 15 Y 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. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0** Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status **Lots of grass clippings/duff in lawn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-12 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/2 100 Gravelly loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-13 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 7/16/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 13 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, G. Brennan Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland C out-pit – west of north end of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = - 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Holcus lanatus 25 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Taraxacum officinale 20 Y FACU 3. Ranunculus acris 20 Y FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Ranunculus repens 10 N FAC ☐ 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. 75 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0* Remarks: *Lawn clippings/duff groundcover. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-13 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Silt loam Dense grass root system in layer 14-18 2.5Y 4/2 30* Clay loam Mixed matrix 2.5Y 3/1 30* 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: *Charcoal inclusions ~30% in 14-18” layer 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-14 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 7/16/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 14 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, G. Brennan Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland C in-pit – north end of wetland unit. Climatic conditions considered “drier than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1. Populus balsamifera 15 Y FAC 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 15 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Populus balsamifera (sapling) 40 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = - 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 40 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Ranunculus repens 70 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Lawn grass 10 N FAC* 3. Juncus effusus 5 N FACW 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. 85 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0** Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status **Lawn clippings/duff groundcover. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-14 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam Dense grass root system 6-9 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy loam 9-14 2.5Y 3/2 93 7.5YR 4/4 7 C M, PL Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☒ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-15 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/27/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 15 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland C in-pit, parcel no. 1023059107 Climatic conditions considered “wetter than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 1.Fraxinus latifolia 60 Y FACW 2.Populus balsamifera 75 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 135 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1.Fraxinus latifolia 50 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2.Spiraea douglasii 15 Y FACW OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 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. 0* = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0** Remarks: *Carex obnupta patch approx. 2 feet from soil pit. **Groundcover is 1-2 inches of dead leaves. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-15 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/1 100 Silt loam 5-10 10YR 2/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Silt loam 10-16 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Silt loam 16-20 2.5Y 7/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M Silt 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒No ☐Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP-16 Project/Site: Chelan Ave NE, Renton, WA City/County: Renton, WA Sampling date: 9/27/19 Applicant/Owner: Calvin Gasaway State: WA Sampling Point: 16 Investigator(s): L. Dougherty, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: 10, 23N, 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetland C out-pit, parcel no. 1023059107 Climatic conditions considered “wetter than normal” per WETS table methodology. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species 85 x 3 = 255 5. FACU species 50 x 4 = 200 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: 135 (A) 455 (B) 1.Ranunculus repens 50 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4 2.Taraxacum officinale 30 Y FACU 3.Trifolium repens 25 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.Hypochaeris radicata 20 N FACU ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5.Grass sp.10 N FAC* ☐ 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. 135 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: *Presumed FAC indicator status WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-16 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 Silt loam 4-16 7.5YR 2/5/2 99 7.5YR 4/6 1 C M Silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐No ☒Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: 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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 1 Wetland name or number: Wetland B RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Chelan Ave NE – Wetland B Date of site visit: September 20-21, 2018 Rated by: P. Heltzel, L. Dougherty Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: 10/2018 HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ☐Y ☒N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map: King County iMap / Google Earth OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions ☒ or special characteristics ☐) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS ☐ Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 ☐ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 ☐ Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ☒ Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 5 4 15 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ☒ *Peter Heltzel and Logan Dougherty completed the UW Wetland Science and Management Certificate in May 2018. Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland B Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4a Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 6 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 3 Wetland name or number: Wetland B HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ☒NO – go to 2 ☐YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ☒NO – go to 3 ☐YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ☐At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ☒NO – go to 4 ☐YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ☐The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ☐The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ☒NO – go to 5 ☐YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ☐The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number: Wetland B ☒NO – go to 6 ☐YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ☐NO – go to 7 ☒YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ☐NO – go to 8 ☐YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number: Wetland B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: ☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 ☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 ☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 1 ☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 2 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).☐Yes = 4 ☒No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): ☒ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 1/2 of area points = 3 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 5 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. ☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 ☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 ☒ Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☒6-11 = M ☐0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source: Click here to enter text. ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐3 or 4 = H ☒1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? ☐Yes = 2 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2-4 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 6 Wetland name or number: Wetland B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: ☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 4 ☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 ☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 ☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 0 2 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. ☐ Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. points = 7 ☐ Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 5 ☐ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 3 ☐ The wetland is a “headwater” wetland. points = 3 ☐ Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points = 1 ☒ Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in). points = 0 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. ☐ The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit. points = 5 ☒ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. points = 3 ☐ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit. points = 0 ☐ Entire wetland is in the Flats class. points = 5 3 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☐6-11 = M ☒0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐3 = H ☒1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): ☐ Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.points = 2 ☒ Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.points = 1 ☐ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 ☐ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why: …. points = 0 ☐There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 1 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? ☐Yes = 2 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2-4 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 7 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ☐ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ☐ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ☒ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ☒ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ☐ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 1 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ☐ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ☐ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ☒ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ☒ Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ☐ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 1 H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: ☐ > 19 species points = 2 ☒ 5 - 19 species points = 1 ☐ < 5 species points = 0 1 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. ☐ None = 0 points ☒ Low = 1 point ☐ Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are ☐ HIGH = 3points 1 Wetland name or number: Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 8 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ☒ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ☒ Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland. ☐ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) AND/OR overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m). ☐ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed). ☐ At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians). ☐ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata). 2 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐15-18 = H ☐7-14 = M ☒0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = 0% + (0.1%/2) = 0.05% If total accessible habitat is: ☐ > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 ☐ 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 ☐ 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 ☒ < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2 = 6.8% + (1.7%/2) = 7.65% ☐ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 ☒ Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If ☒ > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ☐ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐4-6 = H ☐1-3 = M ☒< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ☐ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ☐ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ☐ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species ☐ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources ☐ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan ☒ Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 ☐ Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 9 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ☐ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ☐ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ☐ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ☐ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ☐ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ☐ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ☐ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ☐ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ☐ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page). ☐ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ☐ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ☐ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ☒ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number: Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 10 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ☐ The dominant water regime is tidal, ☐ Vegetated, and ☐ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ☐Yes –Go to SC 1.1 ☒No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ☐Yes = Category I ☐No= Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ☒Yes – Go to SC 2.2 ☐No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_wetlands_trs.pdf ☐Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ☐No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Not a WHCV Cat. I SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☐No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☐No = Is not a bog Cat. I Wetland name or number: Wetland B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 11 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ☐ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ☐ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ☐ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ☐ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ☐Yes – Go to SC 5.1 ☒No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: ☐ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 ☐ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 ☐ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ☐Yes – Go to SC 6.1 ☒No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ☐Yes = Category II ☐No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ☐Yes = Category III ☐No = Category IV Cat I Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form NA Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 12 Wetland name or number: Wetland B This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 1 Wetland name or number: Wetland C RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Chelan Ave NE – Wetland C Date of site visit: September 20-21, 2018 Rated by: P. Heltzel, L. Dougherty Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: 10/2018 HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ☐Y ☒N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map: King County iMap / Google Earth OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions ☒ or special characteristics ☐) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS ☐ Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 ☐ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 ☒ Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ☐ Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 5 19 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ☒ Peter Heltzel and Logan Dougherty completed the UW Wetland Science and Management Certificate in May 2018. Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland C Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4b Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 6 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 3 Wetland name or number: Wetland C HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ☒NO – go to 2 ☐YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ☒NO – go to 3 ☐YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ☐At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ☒NO – go to 4 ☐YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ☐The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ☐The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ☒NO – go to 5 ☐YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ☐The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number: Wetland C ☒NO – go to 6 ☐YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ☐NO – go to 7 ☒YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ☐NO – go to 8 ☐YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number: Wetland C DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: ☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 ☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 ☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 1 ☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 2 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).☐Yes = 4 ☒No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): ☒ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 1/2 of area points = 3 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 5 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. ☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 ☒ Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 ☐ Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 2 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☒6-11 = M ☐0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source: Click here to enter text. ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☒3 or 4 = H ☐1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? ☐Yes = 2 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2-4 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 6 Wetland name or number: Wetland C DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: ☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 4 ☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 ☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 ☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 0 2 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. ☐ Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. points = 7 ☐ Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 5 ☒ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 3 ☐ The wetland is a “headwater” wetland. points = 3 ☐ Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points = 1 ☐ Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in). points = 0 3 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. ☐ The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit. points = 5 ☒ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. points = 3 ☐ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit. points = 0 ☐ Entire wetland is in the Flats class. points = 5 3 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☒6-11 = M ☐0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☒3 = H ☐1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): •☐ Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.points = 2 •☒ Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.points = 1 ☐ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 ☐ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why: …. points = 0 ☐There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 1 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? ☐Yes = 2 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2-4 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland C Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 7 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ☐ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ☐ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ☐ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ☒ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ☒ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 1 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ☐ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ☒ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ☒ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ☐ Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ☐ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 1 H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: ☒ > 19 species points = 2 ☐ 5 - 19 species points = 1 ☐ < 5 species points = 0 2 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. ☒ None = 0 points ☐ Low = 1 point ☐ Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are ☐ HIGH = 3points 1 Wetland name or number: Wetland C Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 8 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ☒ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ☒ Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland. ☐ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) AND/OR overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m). ☐ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed). ☐ At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians). ☒ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata). 3 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 8 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐15-18 = H ☒7-14 = M ☐0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = 0% + (0.8%/2) = 0.4% If total accessible habitat is: ☐ > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 ☐ 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 ☐ 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 ☒ < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2 = 6.1% + (1.6%/2) = 6.9% ☐ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 ☒ Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If ☒ > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ☐ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐4-6 = H ☐1-3 = M ☒< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ☐ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ☐ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ☐ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species ☐ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources ☐ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan ☒ Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 ☐ Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland C Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 9 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ☐ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ☐ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ☐ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ☐ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ☐ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ☐ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ☐ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ☐ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ☐ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page). ☐ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ☐ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ☐ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ☒ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number: Wetland c Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 10 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ☐ The dominant water regime is tidal, ☐ Vegetated, and ☐ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ☐Yes –Go to SC 1.1 ☒No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ☐Yes = Category I ☐No= Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ☒Yes – Go to SC 2.2 ☐No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_wetlands_trs.pdf ☐Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ☐No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Not a WHCV Cat. I SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☐No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☐No = Is not a bog Cat. I Wetland name or number: Wetland C Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 11 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ☐ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ☐ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ☐ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ☐ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ☐Yes – Go to SC 5.1 ☒No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: ☐ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 ☐ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 ☐ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ☐Yes – Go to SC 6.1 ☒No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ☐Yes = Category II ☐No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ☐Yes = Category III ☐No = Category IV Cat I Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form NA Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 12 Wetland name or number: Wetland C This page left blank intentionally 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Form Figures C HELAN A VENUE NE Wetlands B and C (Depressional) .................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes – D1.3, H1.1, H1.4 ................................................................................ 1 Figure 2. Hydroperiods, outlet(s), and 150-ft area – D1.1, D1.4, H1.2, D2.2, D5.2 .................................. 2 Figure 3. Map of the contributing basins – D4.3, D5.3 ............................................................................. 3 Figure 4a. Wetland B: Undisturbed habitat, high-intensity land uses, and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4b. Wetland C: Undisturbed habitat, high-intensity land uses, and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin – D3.1, D3.2 ................................................... 6 Figure 6. Screen-capture of WQ improvement projects (none) in sub-basins in which units are found. – D3.3 ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Page left blank intentionally to allow for duplex printing. Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 1 WETLANDS B AND C (DEPRESSIONAL) Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes – D1.3, H1.1, H1.4 Palustrine Emergent (not 10%) Palustrine Scrub-shrub Palustrine Forested Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 2 Figure 2. Hydroperiods, outlet(s), and 150-ft area – D1.1, D1.4, H1.2, D2.2, D5.2 Saturated only Occasionally flooded Boundaries of areas within 150-feet Outlet Outlet Seasonally flooded Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 3 Figure 3. Map of the contributing basins – D4.3, D5.3 Wetland B contributing basin Wetland B Wetland C Wetland C contributing basin Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 4 Figure 4a. Wetland B: Undisturbed habitat, high-intensity land uses, and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 High-intensity land use (no shade) Moderate-low intensity land use (blue) Undisturbed habitat (green) Boundary of area within 1 km Accessible moderate-low habitat (purple line) Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 5 Figure 4b. Wetland C: Undisturbed habitat, high-intensity land uses, and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 High-intensity land use (no shade) Moderate-low intensity land use (blue) Undisturbed habitat (green) Boundary of area within 1 km Accessible moderate-low habitat (purple line) Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 6 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin – D3.1, D3.2 Approximate location of wetlands Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 7 Figure 6. Screen-capture of WQ improvement projects (none) in sub-basins in which units are found. – D3.3 Approximate location of wetlands Appendix B BANK USE PLAN W ETLAND M ITIGATION B ANK U SE P LAN Renton School District Elementary School #16 Prepared for: Renton School District, No. 403 7812 South 124th Street Renton, WA 98178-4803 Prepared by: October 2020 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 180737.1 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Ryan Kahlo, PWS, Senior Ecologist Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. October 2020. Renton School District Elementary School #16. Mitigation Bank Use Plan. i T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # 1 Project Description ............................................................................. 1 2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 2 3 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland and Aquatic Area Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4 4 Impacted Wetland Functions ............................................................. 4 4.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 5 4.3 Habitat Functions ............................................................................................ 5 5 On-site Mitigation ............................................................................... 6 6 Site Selection Rationale ..................................................................... 6 7 Proposed Mitigation Credits .............................................................. 9 7.1 WRIA 7 ............................................................................................................. 9 8 Credit Purchase or Transfer Timing ................................................. 9 L IST OF T ABLES Table 1: Project Area Wetlands ....................................................................................... 3 Table 2. Avoided, Minimized, and Expected Impacts to Wetlands ................................... 4 Table 3: Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank Credit Calculations ...................... 9 L IST OF F IGURES Figure 1: Approximate Project Area…………………………………………………………..3 The Watershed Company October 2020 1 W ETLAND M ITIGATION B ANK U SE P LAN R ENTON S CHOOL D ISTRICT – E LEMENTARY S CHOOL #16 1 PROJECT D ESCRIPTION The Renton School District is proposing to design and construct a new elementary school on a series of 11 parcels that have a combined area of approximately 11 acres. The residences that occupied the site were demolished under a separate permit. Additionally, the Renton School District wishes to vacate one or possibly two areas of right-of-way and incorporate them into the development of the proposed elementary school property. Upon securing the right-of-way vacations from the City, the district is proposing a parcel consolidation and development that is to include all 11 parcels. The new elementary school is designed for a capacity of 650 students with classrooms, a library, a cafeteria, a warming kitchen, a gymnasium, and administrative spaces with accommodation for mechanical, electrical and building services. The programmed building area is approximately 77,000 square feet over two stories, with a mechanical platform above. Massing studies are still conceptual in nature, but with the mechanical platforms it is anticipated that the proposed school to be approximately 40’ tall at the highest point. A new vehicle access point will be developed at the southwest edge of the property along Chelan Avenue. Parent queuing and drop-off will be located at the south end of the site in a parking lot accessed from Chelan Ave. The school bus drop-off will be located on the east side of the site accessed from Duvall Ave. To reduce impacts to the principal arterial, the proposed bus access will be right- turn in, right-turn out only. The proposed design also includes new playfields, a covered play area, and pedestrian plazas and pathways across the site. Right-of-way improvements will include new curb and gutter along the property edge bordering the east side of Chelan Ave NE as necessary for the new site access point. The team also anticipates that traffic levels will likely dictate integration of a traffic signal at Duvall Ave NE and NE 10th St. Renton School District Elementary School #16 Wetland Mitigation Bank Use Plan 2 2 EXISTING C ONDITIONS The project area is located in the East Lake Washington – Renton sub-basin in the Cedar – Sammamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8). The Public Land Survey System (PLLS) location of the project is within Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The general project vicinity is shown in Figure 1. Maps of the project site boundaries are provided in Figure 1. Within the specific project area, the topography slopes gently to the northwest. A gravel- surfaced segment of Chelan Avenue NE lies in the center of the project area. Eleven single-family residences and multiple associated outbuildings are located on the properties. Isolated forested patches are present in the project area. These are generally composed of third-growth bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees with an understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and English ivy (Hedera helix). Two wetland areas are present within the project area, Wetlands B and C. Wetland B is a shallow forested and scrub-shrub depressional wetland occupying most of the eastern portion of the site. The wetland is dominated by invasive species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvense), beneath a red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) tree canopy. Hydrology is presumed to be provided by a seasonally high groundwater table and precipitation. No stormwater pipes or drainage ditches were observed to be contributing to the wetland unit. The wetland unit drains to the north, into a culvert observed at the southeast corner of parcel 1023059173. Wetland B is a Category IV wetland that provides a low level of habitat functions based on a lack of species and structural diversity, prevalence of invasive species, and lack of accessible habitat areas in the surrounding landscape. Wetland C is a forested depressional wetland occupying most of the western portion of the site. Prevalent plant species include Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), black cottonwood, English ivy, slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii). Hydrology is provided by precipitation, hillslope runoff, and presumed overflow from a stormwater pond south of the wetland unit. A swale along the western boundary of parcel 102305-9133 appears to convey this flow into the wetland unit. An algal mat is present throughout much of the wetland area, suggesting seasonal inundation. Multiple culverts are present, which connect three lobes of the unit. The wetland is relatively flat, and it is presumed that water is able to flow bidirectionally through these culverts. The wetland appears to drain to the north via a culvert observed at the northern boundary of parcel -9275. The outlet was dry during site inspections in July and September 2019, but historic aerial photographs show the presence of an inundated swale connected to this The Watershed Company October 2020 3 outlet. Wetland C is a Category II wetland that provides a low level of habitat functions based on a lack of structural diversity, habitat interspersion, and lack of accessible habitat areas in the surrounding landscape. There are no streams or other aquatic areas within the project area. Table 1: Project Area Wetlands Wetland Name Wetland area (acres) Ecology Rating Cowardin C lassification HGM Classification Wetland B 0.28 IV PFO, PSS Depressional Wetland C 0.48 II PFO Depressional TOTALS 0.76 ac Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Renton School District Elementary School #16 Wetland Mitigation Bank Use Plan 4 3 AVOIDANCE AND M INIMIZATION OF W ETLAND AND A QUATIC A REA I MPACTS The project has been designed to avoid all impacts to Wetland C and its regulatory buffer. However, given the large areas necessary for an elementary school, parking and access areas, and playfields, it is not feasible to avoid both on-site wetlands. The project design team opted to focus the development footprint on the eastern portion of the site in order to minimize wetland and buffer impacts. By concentrating the project development towards the eastern portion of the project area, the project manages to avoid the higher-functioning Category III wetland entirely, and instead limit impacts to the lower-functioning Category IV wetland. The selected option also reduces the area of wetland impacts, as Wetland C (0.48 acres), which will be preserved, is nearly twice the size of Wetland B (0.28 acres). Based on its greater capacity for storage during wet periods, retention of direct stormwater inputs, and greater structural diversity, Wetland C provides higher levels of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions that Wetland B. Therefore, by preserving Wetland C, the project will minimize wetland impacts on-site and, by association, the surrounding landscape. During construction, the project will implement appropriate best management practices, including a temporary erosion and sediment control plan, high visibility silt fencing, fueling staging areas away from wetlands to protect water quality. Table 2. Avoided, Minimized, and Expected Impacts to Wetlands Wetland Name Total Wetland Area (acres) Potential Fill in Wetland Prior to Avoiding and Minimizing (acres) Proposed Fill in Wetland (acres) Avoidance and Minimization B 0.28 0.28 0.28 No practicable methods for reducing wetland impacts in this area while still meeting project goals for construction of an elementary school. C 0.48 0.48 0.00 Project development footprint concentrated to the eastern portion of the site, avoiding all impacts to wetland and its buffer. TOTALS 0.76 0.76 0.28 4 I MPACTED W ETLAND F UNCTIONS The following impacts to wetland functions are anticipated in association with the project: The Watershed Company October 2020 5 4.1 Water Quality Water quality functions in the affected Wetland B are, in large part, limited by a lack of seasonal impoundment that would allow pollutants to settle out of any stormwater runoff inputs during wet periods. Wetland B does not provide any seasonal inundation, although dense vegetation in the wetland does allow for a moderate ability to trap and store sediments and pollutants. From a landscape perspective, Wetland B does not discharge into a stream or other waterbody, limiting the value its water quality functions provide to society. While the water quality functions provided by Wetland B will be eliminated entirely, the project will incorporate the use of a rain garden to treat stormwater runoff, helping minimize the loss of function. The project will also comply with the requirements of the current Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Stormwater Manual. During construction activities, the project has the potential to temporarily impact water quality; however, the best management practices (BMPs) to be employed during construction will minimize the likelihood and intensity of these potential effects. 4.2 Hydrology Wetland B provides a low level of hydrology functions due, primarily, to a lack of storage volume in the wetland. Wetland B does not provide any seasonal and only minor occasional flood storage that would reduce peak flow velocities in downgradient areas. Since runoff from Wetland B is conveyed into the municipal stormwater system, much of the functions are limited by the built condition of the surrounding landscape. While the minimal hydrology functions of Wetland B will be lost entirely, stormwater runoff generated by the project will be manage by the on-site stormwater system. The storm drainage system is currently under development, but it being coordinated with and verified by the City of Renton and will comply with the requirements of the current Ecology Stormwater Manual. 4.3 Habitat Functions Wetland B provides a low level of habitat functions. These are limited by a lack of species and structural diversity, low interspersion, and habitat fragmentation and dense development in the surrounding landscape. No state- or federally listed endangered or threatened species are known to inhabit Wetland B, and suitable habitat for such species is not present. Wetland B likely provides habitat for ubiquitous urban and suburban wildlife species, including songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, and potentially transient amphibians. It is not possible to replace these lost functions on-site, although the vegetated rain garden may Renton School District Elementary School #16 Wetland Mitigation Bank Use Plan 6 occasionally provide very limited habitat opportunities for some individual species. 5 O N -SITE M ITIGATION Direct impacts to Wetland B cannot be mitigated on-site, due to a lack of suitable areas on-site that would still allow for the proposed development. Portions of the Wetland C buffer will be enhanced on-site, which will provide indirect functional lift to the wetland. Habitat functions will be improved by adding complexity to the buffer area, which is used during part of the life cycles of many wildlife species that may also use the wetland. Increasing plant density will also provide improved filtration and reduction of peak velocities of surface water runoff that may enter the wetland. Enhancement activities will be focused in degraded portions of the buffer that currently lack native tree and shrub cover and/or are dominated by non-native species. Portions of the Wetland C buffer that are temporarily impacted by construction activities will also be restored and enhanced. 6 SITE S ELECTION R ATIONALE The USACE’s Final Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (The Rule) creates a preference for the use of mitigation bank credits to compensate for permitted impacts to aquatic resources. The Rule states “when the permitted impacts are located within the service area of an approved mitigation bank, and the bank has the appropriate number and resource type of credits available, the permittee’s compensatory mitigation requirements may be met by securing those credits from the sponsor” (33 CFR part 332.3b[2]). The project area is located within the service area for one approved wetland mitigation bank, the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Bank) (Figure 2). The project will result in the loss of 0.28 acres of wetland habitat. According to the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank, Mitigation Bank Instrument (Instrument), the primary goal of the restoration and enhancement activities at the Bank is to “increase wetland area and encourage improved hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions, while facilitating environmental education opportunities.” The stated ecological objectives of the Bank are as follows: The Watershed Company October 2020 7 1. Increase wetland area at Springbrook Bank by removing fill material in Units A, B, C, and E to re-establish wetland functions on 17.79 acres. 2. Improve hydrologic functions by increasing wetland area and flood storage capacity in Units A, B, C, and E; extending wetland hydroperiod in Units A, B, C, and D; increasing the connectivity of wetlands in Units A, B, and E to Springbrook Creek; and increasing cover of woody vegetation in portions of all units. 3. Improve water quality functions by increasing wetland acreage; adding additional vegetation classes; increasing the connectivity of wetlands in Units A, B, and E to Springbrook Creek; and increasing the ratio of wetland to stream width in Unit E. 4. Improve habitat functions by increasing; the number of vegetation strata; the number of water depth classes; the number of vertical snags, brush piles, and large woody debris (LWD); canopy closure over the wetlands and in riparian areas; the number of hydrologic regimes; the number of native plant species; the number of plant assemblages; vegetation class interspersion; improve buffer condition; increase the diversity of plant communities in areas currently dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry; and connect new wetland areas in Unit E to Springbrook Creek. 5. Improve floodplain and riparian function by re-establishing hydrologic connectivity to Springbrook Creek and increasing woody cover directly adjacent to the creek in Units A, B, and E. Renton School District Elementary School #16 Wetland Mitigation Bank Use Plan 8 Figure 2. Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank Service Area The anticipated impacts on water quality and hydrology impacts in the surrounding sub-basin are anticipated to be minimal, given the low level of functions provided by Wetland B and the stormwater and rain garden infrastructure included in the project scope. Wildlife habitat functions provided by Wetland B cannot be mitigated on-site or in the surrounding sub-basin, given the extensive development; limited natural areas available for preservation/restoration activities; and the limitations of the Renton School District to acquire such properties. The Bank provides habitat variety, interspersion, connectivity, buffers, and special habitat features/habitat niches significantly exceeding those provided by Wetland B. Therefore, considering the Project Location The Watershed Company October 2020 9 location with the service area and the scope of anticipated impacts to Wetland B, the Bank is the best and most feasible option to replace the lost functions provided by Wetland B 7 PROPOSED M ITIGATION C REDITS 7.1 WRIA 7 The proposed bank credits needed to compensate for the loss of wetland functions were determined using a combination of the credit ratios provided in the Instrument. Per the Instrument, impacts to Category IV wetlands require a credit ratio of 0.70:1. As shown in Table 2 above, the Project would impact a total of 0.28 acres of Category IV wetland. Therefore, the Renton School District would acquire 0.20 credits from the Bank as compensatory mitigation for these unavoidable impacts. Table 3: Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank Credit Calculations 8 C REDIT P URCHASE OR TRANSFER T IMING The Bank is operated jointly by the City of Renton and Washington Department of Transportation. Credit transfers to the Renton School District will require authorization from the Renton City Council. The City is currently working on the pricing for the bank credits with the help of consultants. Depending on the school district’s timing, an administrative credit purchasing mechanism may be adopted prior to the local land use decision for the new school. If a mechanism is not formally in place at the time of the local land use decision, Bank staff has indicated support for a credit purchase with City Council approval. All required credits will be purchased prior to commencement of construction activities, and Impacted Wetland Category Area of Permanent Impacts (acres) Required Credit Ratio Net Credits Required Category IV 0.28 0.70:1 0.0 Renton School District Elementary School #16 Wetland Mitigation Bank Use Plan 10 proof of purchase (e.g., bill of sale) or transfer of credits will be submitted to the regulatory agencies. The Watershed Company October 2020 11 Appendix C TEMPORARY IMPACT RESTORATION PLAN PARCEL BOUNDARYSTANDARD WETLAND BUFFER (100')15' CRITICAL AREA SETBACKDELINEATED WETLANDPARCEL B OF LOT 3PARCEL B-1 OF LOT 7PARCEL B OF LOT 13100'15'50'SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS BY DATE PRINTED BY FILENAME GENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: HM DESIGNED: GMDRAFTED: GM CHECKED: AMCJOB NUMBER:THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYScience & Design750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comNEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #16 MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CHELAN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98059180737.1OF 51 01-28-21 30% CONCEPT MITIGATION PLAN GM 1/28/2021 GRAYSON MORRIS 180737.1 RENTON SD MITIGATION PLAN.DWG PERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VICINITY MAPSSHEET INDEXW1EXISTING CONDITIONSW2IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PLANW3PLANTING PLANW4PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTESW5MITIGATION NOTESNOTES1.CRITICAL AREAS DELINEATED BY THEWATERSHED COMPANY SEPTEMBER 2019.SURVEY DATED OCT 2019 RECEIVED FROMTERRANE LAND SURVEYING.EXISTING CONDITIONSW1160'40'20'0'80'LEGENDSCALE 1:40WETLAND BCATEGORY IVTO BE FILLED50' STANDARD BUFFERSTORMWATER OUTFALL, TYP.100' STANDARD BUFFER15' CRITICAL AREA SETBACKPROJECTLOCATIONCHELANAVE NEWETLAND CCATEGORY III PARCEL B OF LOT 3PARCEL B-1 OF LOT 7PARCEL B OF LOT 13100'15'PARCEL BOUNDARYSTANDARD WETLAND BUFFER (100')PROPOSED TEMPORARY IMPACTS (3,344 SF)BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (102,040 SF)SILT FENCE15' CRITICAL AREA SETBACKPROPOSED LARGE WOODY DEBRIS, TYP.SPLIT RAIL FENCE WITH CRITICAL AREA SIGN (50' O.C.) , TYP.4W4SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS BY DATE PRINTED BY FILENAME GENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: HM DESIGNED: GMDRAFTED: GM CHECKED: AMCJOB NUMBER:THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYScience & Design750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comNEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #16 MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CHELAN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98059180737.1OF 51 01-28-21 30% CONCEPT MITIGATION PLAN GM 1/28/2021 GRAYSON MORRIS 180737.1 RENTON SD MITIGATION PLAN.DWG PERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION W2IMPACTS ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN160'40'20'0'80'SCALE 1:40STORMWATER OUTFALL, TYP.100' STANDARD BUFFER,WITHOUT MITIGATIONWETLAND CCATEGORY IIINOTES1.LEGEND15' CRITICAL AREA SETBACKREMOVE IVY FROM TREE AND PROTECTCRITICAL ROOT ZONE TO THE GREATESTEXENT POSSIBLE2W4 PARCEL B OF LOT 3PARCEL B-1 OF LOT 7PARCEL B OF LOT 13100'15'PARCEL BOUNDARYSTANDARD WETLAND BUFFER (100')15' CRITCAL AREA SETBACKPROPOSED LARGE WOODY DEBRIS, TYP.STEP 1STEP 2STEP 3PLANTING AREA PREPARATIONSTEP 1CUT OR MOW ABOVE GROUND INVASIVEPLANT MATERIAL. REMOVE CLIPPINGSOFFSITE.STEP 2INSTALL WOOD CHIP MULCH 3" DEEP.(SEE PLANTING DETAIL.)STEP 3INSTALL PLANTS. (SEE PLANTING DETAIL.)3" WOODCHIPMULCHEXISTINGCUT ORMOW3"BUFFER PLANTING MIX AQUANTITYSIZESPACINGSALAL / GAULTHERIA SHALLON2001 GALLON9' ocOREGON GRAPE / MAHONIA NERVOSA2001 GALLON9' ocDWARF ROSE / ROSA GYMNOCARPA2001 GALLON9' ocTHIMBLEBERRY / RUBUS PARVIFLORUS2001 GALLON9' ocEVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY / VACCINIUM OVATUM2001 GALLON9' ocBUFFER PLANTING MIX BVINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM1502 GALLON12' ocCASCARA / FRANGULA PURSHIANA1502 GALLON12' ocSALAL / GAULTHERIA SHALLON2251 GALLON9' ocOREGON GRAPE / MAHONIA NERVOSA2251 GALLON9' ocWESTERN SWORD FERN / POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM2251 GALLON9' ocDOUGLAS-FIR / PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII1502 GALLON12' ocCLUSTERED ROSE / ROSA PISOCARPA2251 GALLON9' ocWESTERN HEMLOCK / TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA1502 GALLON12' ocNOTE: PLANT BY SPECIES IN ODD-NUMBEREDGROUPINGS OF 5-15 PLANTSSHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS BY DATE PRINTED BY FILENAME GENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: HM DESIGNED: GMDRAFTED: GM CHECKED: AMCJOB NUMBER:THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYScience & Design750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comNEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #16 MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CHELAN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98059180737.1OF 51 01-28-21 30% CONCEPT MITIGATION PLAN GM 1/28/2021 GRAYSON MORRIS 180737.1 RENTON SD MITIGATION PLAN.DWG PERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION W3PLANTING PLAN AND PLANT SCHEDULE160'40'20'0'80'SCALE 1:40NOTES1.IN LOCATIONS WHERE STRUCTURES WEREREMOVED, AMEND THE MINERAL SOIL WITHCOMPOST.LEGENDSTORMWATER OUTFALL, TYP.100' STANDARD BUFFER]WETLAND CCATEGORY III15' CRITICAL AREA SETBACKScale: NTSSOIL PREPARATION - REMOVE INVASIVES & PLANT1CANDIDATE PLANT LIST4W4 SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS BY DATE PRINTED BY FILENAME GENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: HM DESIGNED: GMDRAFTED: GM CHECKED: AMCJOB NUMBER:THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYScience & Design750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comNEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #16 MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CHELAN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98059180737.1OF 51 01-28-21 30% CONCEPT MITIGATION PLAN GM 1/28/2021 GRAYSON MORRIS 180737.1 RENTON SD MITIGATION PLAN.DWG PERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMITIGATION DETAILSSCALE: NTSScale: NTSCRITICAL AREA SIGN1Scale: NTSLARGE WOODY DEBRIS SETTING DETAIL4Scale: NTSPLANTING DETAIL3Scale: NTSSPLIT RAIL FENCE WITH CRITICAL AREA SIGN2W4NOTES:1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2)TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA.2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT3. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING2X MIN DIA. ROOTBALLREMOVE PLANT FROM POT OR BURLAP &SHAKE OUT CONTAINER SOIL BEFOREINSTALLING. UNTANGLE AND STRAIGHTENCIRCLING ROOTS - PRUNE IF NECESSARY. IFPLANT IS EXCEPTIONALLY ROOT-BOUND, DONOT PLANT AND RETURN TO NURSERY FOR ANACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVESPECIFIED MULCH LAYER. HOLD BACK MULCHFROM TRUNK/STEMSFINISH GRADEREMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS FROM PLANTINGPIT AND SCARIFY SIDES AND BASE. BACKFILL WITHSPECIFIED SOIL. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND PLANT.NOTES:1.ALL LWD SHOULD BE SOURCED FROM TREES CLEARED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SITE.2.LAYOUT OF DETAIL IS CONCEPTUAL. SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION. LAYOUT IN FIELDWITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE CONTRACTING AGENCY.3.WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE TRIMMED AS NECESSARY TO SIT AS SECURELY ASPOSSIBLE ON FINISHED GRADE. DO NOT EXCAVATE WITHIN THE WETLAND.4.DOWNED WOOD SHALL BE MIN 20” DBH AND MIN. TWELVE (12) FOOTMIN. LENGTH. NATIVE SPECIES ONLY, WITH CONIFEROUS SPECIES PREFERRED.WOODY DEBRIS TO BE APPROVEDBY CONTRACTING AGENCY. KEEPROOTS AND BRANCHES ATTACHEDWHERE POSSIBLE.FINISHED GRADEREMOVE ANY SODLAYER BENEATHTHE WOODYDEBRIS.SOD LAYERMIN. 20" DBHMIN. 12'-0"9"18"NOTES:1. IMAGE TO LEFT ISFOR EXAMPLE ONLY2. SIGN TO BEFABRICATED BY ACITY APPROVEDVENDOR.3. SIGNAGE TO BEPLACED ON FENCING,SPACED 50' O.C. ANDPER SPECIFICATIONS.18" MIN. 4"12"12" 3'-0" 6" 12"8'-0" MAX4"CHAMFER TOP OFPOSTS 45 DEGREES TOA DEPTH OF 1" ON ALLFOUR SIDES.ATTACH CITY/COUNTYAPPROVED PRE-PRINTEDMETAL SIGN TO POST WITHTWO 58" DIA. GALVANIZEDCARRIAGE BOLTS. SPACESIGN LOCATIONS 50' O.C..FINISHED GRADECOMPACTED GRAVEL BASE.NO CONCRETE IS TO BEPLACED IN SENSITIVE AREAS.COMPACTED SUBGRADE6" x 6" CEDAR POST NOTCHED TOCONTAIN AND CONCEAL RAILCONNECTION2 X 6 CEDAR RAILS1W4 SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS BY DATE PRINTED BY FILENAME GENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: HM DESIGNED: GMDRAFTED: GM CHECKED: AMCJOB NUMBER:THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYScience & Design750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comNEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #16 MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CHELAN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98059180737.1OF 51 01-28-21 30% CONCEPT MITIGATION PLAN GM 1/28/2021 GRAYSON MORRIS 180737.1 RENTON SD MITIGATION PLAN.DWG PERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION NOTESEXECUTIVE SUMMARYTHIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED AS MITIGATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO THE WETLAND CBUFFER, PER CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC) 4-3-050C.3.19. THE IMPACTS TO THEWETLAND BUFFER ARE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SCHOOL. THE CURRENTOWNER, CITY OF RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEEKS TO RESTORE AND ENHANCE THE WETLANDBUFFER TO IMPROVE FUNCTIONS. PREVIOUSLY DELMOLISHED AND REMOVED RESIDENTIALSTRUCTURES AND VEGETATION WILL BE PLANTED WITH A MIX OF NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS.EXISTING CANOPY VEGETATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY PLANTING UNDERSTORY SHRUBS ANDGROUNDCOVERS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL RESULT IN 3,344 SQUARE FEET OF TEMPORARYIMPACTS TO THE WETLAND C BUFFER. THE EXISTING BUFFER FUNCTIONS IN THE AREA OFTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ARE DEGRADED DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF INVASIVE ANDNON-NATIVE VEGETATION, WHICH HAS BEEN MAINTAINED THROUGH MOWING. TEMPORARYIMPACTS WILL BE RESTORED AT A RATIO OF 1:1 FOR A TOTAL OF 3,344 SQ FT OF RESTOREDBUFFER. ADDITIONALLY, 102,040 SF OF THE WETLAND C BUFFER WILL BE ENHANCED , EXCEEDINGCITY REQUIREMENTS. ENHANCEMENT OF THE DEGRADED BUFFER WILL RESULT IN EQUAL ORBETTER FUNCTIONS AFTER CONSTRUCTION THAN EXISTING CONDITIONS. MITIGATION FORUNAVOIDABLE TEMPORARY IMPACTS INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVESPECIES AND THE INSTALLATION OF A NATIVE TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTCOMMUNITY. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE TABLE BELOW.WETLAND B, A CATEGORY IV WETLAND, IS ALSO LOCATED ONSITE. WETLAND B WILL BE FILLEDAND MITIGATION BANK CREDITS WILL BE PURCHASED.TABLE 1. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARYMITIGATION APPROACH - MITIGATION SEQUENCINGAVOIDANCE. THE DESIGN TEAM AND SCHOOL DISTRICT EVALUATED AND REJECTED MULTIPLESITES IN THE SCHOOL SERVICE AREA, ULTIMATELY SELECTING THIS LOCATION FOR THESCHOOL. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CANNOT BE ACHIEVED ONTHIS SITE WITHOUT INCURRING PERMANENT IMPACTS TO WETLAND B AND A SMALL AREA OFTEMPORARY IMPACTS TO THE WETLAND C BUFFER. HOWEVER, PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACTSTO WETLAND C ARE AVOIDED IN THE SITE PLAN. AFTER EVALUATING MULTIPLE DESIGNOPTIONS, THE ARCHITECTURAL TEAM DETERMINED THAT COMPLETE AVOIDANCE OF STANDARD100-FOOT BUFFERS ARE NOT FEASIBLE FOR THIS PROJECT.MINIMIZATION. WETLAND C (CAT III) WAS PRESERVED, IN PART, DUE TO ITS LARGER SIZE ANDHIGHER FUNCTIONS COMPARED TO WETLAND B (CAT IV). SEVERAL MINIMIZATION TECHNIQUESWERE UTILIZED DURING THE DESIGN PROCESS TO LIMIT IMPACTS TO WETLAND C AND ITSBUFFER. FIRST, SITE IMPROVEMENTS WERE DESIGNED AROUND THE WETLAND AND BUFFER TOTHE EXTENT FEASIBLE. EXISTING TREES IN AND ADJACENT TO THE STANDARD BUFFER AREDELIBERATELY PRESERVED. THE TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT AREA IS VEGETATEDPRIMARILY WITH INVASIVE OR NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES INCLUDING CREEPING BUTTERCUP,REED CANARYGRASS, ENGLISH IVY, AND BLACKBERRY.MITIGATION. MITIGATION FOR UNAVOIDABLE, PERMANENT WETLAND C IMPACTS IS PROVIDEDVIA CREDIT WITHDRAWL FROM AN APPROVED MITIGATION BANK (SEE CRITICAL AREAS REPORTAND BANK USE PLAN FOR DETAILS). TEMPORARY WETLAND C BUFFER IMPACTS, BUFFERRESTORATION AND WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT IS PROPOSED ON THIS PLAN.PROPOSED BUFFER MITIGATION EXCEEDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS UNDER RMC 4-3-050C.3.19.THE PROPOSED MITIGATION IS BASED ON CITY CODE AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OFECOLOGY GUIDANCE. PROPOSED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ARE SUMMARIZED IN TABLE 1ABOVE.MITIGATION AREA WORK SEQUENCE (SEE MATERIALS FOR ITEMS IN BOLD)1.MARK THE CLEARING LIMITS WITH HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING OR SIMILAR MEANS.2.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PREPARATION PLAN (SHEETW4.00).3.WATER IN EACH PLANT THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS.4.INSTALL A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING AT LEAST 1-INCH OFWATER PER WEEK TO THE ENTIRE PLANTED AREA DURING THE DRY SEASON (JUNE 1STTHROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH).5.ONE YEAR AFTER INITIAL PLANTING, APPLY A SLOW-RELEASE, PHOSPHOROUS-FREE,GRANULAR FERTILIZER TO EACH INSTALLED PLANT.GOALS1.ENHANCE DEGRADED WETLAND BUFFER.A.REMOVE NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES FROM THE ENHANCEMENT AREA.B.CREATE A DENSE, NATIVE, TREE AND SHRUB COMMUNITY IN AREAS NOT CURRENTLYFORESTED.C.ENHANCE UNDERSTORY IN EXISTING FOREST PATCHES.B.INCREASE HABITAT INTERSPERSION BY PLANTING GROUPINGS OF DIFFERENT NATIVEVEGETATION STRATA.C.RE-ESTABLISH NATURAL DECADENCE BY ADDING LARGE WOODY DEBRIS TO THE WETLAND.PERFORMANCE STANDARDSTHE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WILL BE USED TO GAUGE THE SUCCESS OF THEPROJECT OVER TIME. IF ALL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED BY THE END OF YEARFIVE, THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE.1.SURVIVAL: SURVIVAL STANDARDS MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTEDMATERIAL, RECRUITMENT OF NATIVE VOLUNTEERS, AND/OR REPLACEMENT PLANTS ASNECESSARY.A.ACHIEVE 100% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED TREES AND SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEARONE.B.ACHIEVE 80% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR TWO.C.ACHIEVE 80% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED TREES AND SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEARFIVE. SURVIVAL STANDARDS MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTEDMATERIAL, RECRUITMENT OF NATIVE VOLUNTEERS, OR REPLACEMENT PLANTS ASNECESSARY.2.SPECIES DIVERSITY: ESTABLISH AT LEAST TWO NATIVE TREE SPECIES, FOUR NATIVE SHRUBSPECIES, AND TWO GROUNDCOVER SPECIES IN THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREAS BY THEEND OF YEAR FIVE. ESTABLISHMENT IS DEFINED AS FIVE OR MORE INDIVIDUAL PLANTS OFTHE SAME SPECIES ALIVE AND HEALTHY.3.COVERBUFFER:A.ACHIEVE 25% COVER OF NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR THREE.B.ACHIEVE 60% COVER OF NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR FIVE.4.INVASIVE SPECIES STANDARD: NO MORE THAN 10% COVER BY INVASIVE SPECIES LISTED ASCLASS A, B, OR C BY THE KING COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD IN ANYMONITORING YEAR.5.LARGE WOODY DEBRIS STANDARD: MAINTAIN AT LEAST FIVE PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRISIN THE ENHANCEMENT AREA WITH GOOD GROUND CONTACT DURING ANY MONITORING YEARMONITORINGPRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MONITORING PHASE, AN AS-BUILT PLAN DOCUMENTINGTHE SUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION OF THE PROJECT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON.IF NECESSARY, THE AS-BUILT REPORT MAY INCLUDE A MARK-UP OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN THATNOTES ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR SUBSTITUTIONS THAT OCCURRED. DURING THEAS-BUILT INSPECTION, THE RESTORATION SPECIALIST WILL ESTABLISH AT LEAST FOURPERMANENT PHOTO-POINTS.THE SITE WILL BE MONITORED TWICE ANNUALLY FOR FIVE YEARS BEGINNING WITH APPROVALOF THE AS-BUILT REPORT. EACH SPRING THE RESTORATION SPECIALIST WILL CONDUCT A BRIEFMAINTENANCE INSPECTION FOLLOWED BY A MEMO SUMMARIZING MAINTENANCE ITEMSNECESSARY FOR THE UPCOMING GROWING SEASON. THE FORMAL LATE-SEASON MONITORINGINSPECTION WILL TAKE PLACE ONCE ANNUALLY DURING LATE SUMMER OR EARLY FALL. DURINGEACH LATE-SEASON MONITORING INSPECTION, THE FOLLOWING DATA WILL BE COLLECTED:1.PLANT COUNTS: COUNTS OF DEAD PLANTS BY SPECIES IN ALL MITIGATION AREAS. A TOTALPLANT COUNT WILL BE DONE IN YEAR 1. BELT-TRANSECTS WITH BASELINE COUNTSESTABLISHED DURING THE AS-BUILT INSPECTION MAY BE USED TO ESTIMATE SURVIVAL INYEARS 2 THROUGH 5 IN LIEU OF A SITE-WIDE COUNT.COUNTS OF DEAD PLANTS WHERE MORTALITY IS SIGNIFICANT IN ANY MONITORING YEARWILL BE RECORDED.2.NATIVE WOODY COVER AS DETERMINED USING VISUAL COVER CLASS ESTIMATES ORESTABLISHED TRANSECTS.3.NATIVE GROUNDCOVER PLANT COVER AS DETERMINED USING VISUAL COVER CLASSESTIMATES.4.ESTIMATES OF INVASIVE HERBACEOUS PLANTS OR GROUNDCOVER USING VISUAL COVERESTIMATES OR ESTABLISHED TRANSECTS, AS APPLICABLE.5.THE SPECIES COMPOSITION, NOTING WHETHER A SPECIES IS NATIVE OR EXOTIC ANDWHETHER PLANTS WERE INSTALLED OR ARE VOLUNTEERS.6.THE GENERAL HEALTH AND VIGOR OF THE INSTALLED VEGETATION.7.PHOTOGRAPHS FROM FIXED PHOTO-POINTS ESTABLISHED DURING THE AS-BUILTINSPECTION.8.ANY EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFE USAGE IN THE MITIGATION AREA.MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED ANNUALLY TO THE CITY. REPORTS SHALLDOCUMENT THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, INCLUDING QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTEDDURING THE MONITORING INSPECTION, AND SHALL PROVIDE MAINTENANCERECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO HELP THE SITE ACHIEVE THE STATEDPERFORMANCE STANDARDS.MAINTENANCETHE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION.1.REPLACE EACH PLANT FOUND DEAD IN THE SUMMER MONITORING VISITS IN THE FOLLOWINGDORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 15 - MARCH 1). REPLACEMENT SHALL BE OF THE SAME SPECIESAND SIZE PER PLAN UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE RESTORATION SPECIALIST.2.GENERAL WEEDING FOR ALL PLANTED AREASA.AT LEAST TWICE ANNUALLY, REMOVE COMPETING GRASSES AND WEEDS FROM AROUNDTHE BASE OF EACH INSTALLED PLANT TO A RADIUS OF 12 INCHES. WEEDING SHOULDOCCUR AT LEAST ONCE IN THE SPRING AND ONCE IN THE SUMMER. THOROUGH WEEDINGWILL RESULT IN LOWER PLANT MORTALITY AND ASSOCIATED PLANT REPLACEMENT COSTS.B.MORE FREQUENT WEEDING MAY BE NECESSARY DEPENDING ON WEED CONDITIONS THATDEVELOP AFTER PLANT INSTALLATION.C.NOXIOUS WEEDS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE ENTIRE MITIGATION AREA, AT LEASTTWICE ANNUALLY.D.DO NOT USE STRING TRIMMERS IN THE VICINITY OF INSTALLED PLANTS, AS THEY MAYDAMAGE OR KILL THE PLANTS.3.MAINTAIN A THREE-INCH-THICK LAYER OF WOODCHIP MULCH ACROSS THE PLANTING AREA,EXCEPT FOR THE EMERGENT PLANTING AREA IN THE WETLAND. MULCH SHOULD BE PULLEDBACK TWO INCHES FROM THE PLANT STEMS.4.INSPECT AND REPAIR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS NECESSARY EACH SPRING. DURING ATLEAST THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS, MAKE SURE THAT THE ENTIRE PLANTING AREARECEIVES A MINIMUM OF ONE INCH OF WATER PER WEEK FROM JUNE 1ST THROUGHSEPTEMBER 30TH.CONTINGENCY PLANIF ANY MONITORING REPORT REVEALS THAT THE RESTORATION PLAN HAS FAILED IN WHOLE ORIN PART, AND SHOULD THAT FAILURE BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, THEAPPLICANT WILL SUBMIT A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR APPROVAL. THISPLAN MAY INCLUDE REPLANTING, SOIL AMENDMENTS OR TOP DRESSING, SUBSTITUTIONS FORSPECIES SELECTED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND ADAPTIVE WEED CONTROL METHODS.SITE PROTECTIONTHE WETLAND WILL REMAIN ON PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY OF RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT. THEWETLAND AND BUFFER WILL BE NOTED ON THE PROPERTY TITLE AS A MAINTENANCE COVENANT.MATERIALS1.WOODCHIP MULCH: ARBORIST CHIPS (CHIPPED WOODY MATERIALS) APPROX. 1 TO 3 INCHESIN MAXIMUM DIMENSION (NOT SAWDUST OR COARSE HOG FUEL). THIS MATERIAL ISCOMMONLY AVAILABLE IN LARGE QUANTITIES FROM ARBORISTS OR TREE-PRUNINGCOMPANIES. MULCH MUST NOT CONTAIN APPRECIABLE QUANTITIES OF GARBAGE, PLASTIC,METAL, SOIL, AND DIMENSIONAL LUMBER OR CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION DEBRIS.2.COMPOST: CEDAR GROVE COMPOST OR EQUIVALENT "COMPOSTED MATERIAL" PERWASHINGTON ADMIN.3.FERTILIZER: SLOW-RELEASE, PHOSPHOROUS-FREE GRANULAR FERTILIZER. MOSTCOMMERCIAL NURSERIES CARRY THIS PRODUCT. LABEL MUST INDICATE THAT PRODUCT ISSAFE FOR AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE. KEEP FERTILIZER IN WEATHER-TIGHTCONTAINER WHILE ON-SITE. FERTILIZER IS ONLY TO BE APPLIED IN YEARS TWO AND THREE,NOT IN YEAR ONE.4.LARGE WOODY DEBRIS: TREES SALVAGED FROM ON-SITE CLEARING, INCLUDING LOGS,ROOTWADS, AND LIMBS WHICH ARE TO BE PLACED ON THE GROUND AT THE DIRECTION OFTHE RESTORATION SPECIALIST.MATERIAL FROM CONIFEROUS TREES IS PREFERRED. WOOD SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER OF 16INCHES OR MORE AND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 10 FEET.5.RESTORATION SPECIALIST: QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ABLE TO EVALUATE AND MONITOR THECONSTRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.6.IMPORT TOPSOIL: SOIL AND COMPOST MIXTURE. THIS MATERIAL IS SOLD AS "2-WAYTOPSOIL" AT CEDAR GROVE COMPOST [425-408-8558]. PLEASE USE THIS MATERIAL OREQUIVALENT.W5