HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_FinalWtldMemo_EcolSolns08032018.pdf
Wetland Delineation Technical Memorandum
Date: August 3, 2018
To: Ms. Jill Ding, Senior Planner, City of Renton
From: Scott Luchessa, Ecological Solutions, Inc.
RE: Wetland B Delineation for Seattle Pipe Trades Binding Site Plan
On behalf of Seattle Pipe Trades, Ecological Solutions, Inc. (Ecological Solutions) has delineated
the boundaries of Wetland B on the project site located at 595 Monster Road SW in Renton,
Washington. This is King County tax parcel 2423049122. Specifically, this memorandum
(memo) has been produced to address your only remaining comment in your email correspondence
to me dated July 11, 2018 that has not been addressed. The only remaining comment needing to
be addressed is your insistence that the boundaries of Wetland B be delineated . The boundaries
of Wetland B on the site have been delineated despite the fact that there is no proposed
development project that will potentially impact either the wetland or the buffer. In such instances,
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) clearly indicates that wetland delineation is unnecessary. RMC
4-3-050.F.2.e.ii states “A wetland delineation using the methods identified in the approved federal
delineation manual and applicable regional supplement, as required by WAC 173-22-035, is
required for any portion of a wetland on the subject property that will be impacted by the permitted
activities.” The emphasis in italics is mine. Nonetheless, because the bank providing funding for
ongoing renovations being conducted inside the building is at risk, which puts the timeline of
completing the renovations as scheduled and the future teaching schedule for the facility likewise
at risk, Seattle Pipe Trades requested that the delineation be completed . Only the boundaries of
the wetland on their property were delineated.
Your other comments in your email to John Rubenkonig, Sue Soller, and Don Scarberry dated July
10, 2018 were previously addressed in my email dated July 11, 2018 and subsequent voicemail
message to you on July 12, 2018. As noted in that email and voicemail correspondence, Ecological
Solutions’ revised April 3, 2018 report addresses your comments as follows:
1) The classification or rating for both Wetland A and Wetland B is identified on page three;
both wetlands are rated Category III under the current RMC.
2) The rating has recently been corroborated in Soundview Consultants’ (Soundview) report
dated March 20, 2018 for proposed development at 601 Monster Road SW (Soundview
2018). Soundview also describes and maps the wetland vegetation classes.
3) As indicated on page three of my revised wetland report dated April 3, 2018, the standard
buffer for these Category III wetlands per current RMC is 75 feet.
4) However, as indicated on the bottom of page three and top of page four of my revised
report the existing wetland buffer ends at the developed edge of the legal, non-conforming
use on this property (i.e., the buffer is less than the standard 75 feet). Otak (2018) agreed
with the conclusions of my revised report on page six of their technical memorandum on
the Seattle Pipe Trades Binding Site Plan Review that the existing buffer ends at the
developed edge adjacent to both Wetland A and Wetland B for this apparently legal, non -
conforming use.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo 2 August 3, 2018
5) The boundaries of Wetland A on the property that were previously delineated by J.S. Jones
and Associates (2009) have not changed as I previously noted and also was noted in J.S.
Jones and Associates more recent biological assessment (2014). Wetland Resources
(2014) also concluded that the boundaries of Wetland A and Wetland B were consistent
with those previously identified by J.S. Jones and Associates.
The relevant findings of these previous reports, including the wetland ratings , are hereby
incorporated by reference. The remainder of this technical memo briefly describes the methods
and findings of Ecological Solutions wetland determination and delineation investigation
completed on July 20, 2018.
Methods
As required by RMC and state law (WAC 173 -22-035), Ecological Solutions used methods
specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual as modified by
the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Supplement (2010). The routine onsite
determination method was used. Two sample plots (SP -1 and SP-2) were established to make
wetland determinations for the plant associations found on and immediately adjacent to the west
side of the existing building. Both are marked in the field with red and white checkered surveyor
flagging labeled Ecol. Solns. SP-1 and Ecol. Solns. SP-2 written in permanent ink. Plot
dimensions are noted on the completed data forms in Attachment A. SP-1 is representative of the
deciduous forest community. SP-2 is representative of plant communities found on the disturbed
areas immediately adjacent to developed areas on the slope of the fill pad. Wetland determinations
for both are based upon observations of positive indicators of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Wetland indicator statuses were determined using the current
version of the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast regional plant list ratings (Lichvar et al.
2016).
As normal circumstances exist on the site, where positive indicators of all three wetland indicators
were observed, the plant community and plot were determined to be wetland. Plant taxonomy
follows the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Plants database (accessed online July 20,
2018 at https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/). Wetland boundaries were marked with sequentially
labeled fluorescent pink wetland boundary flagging marked B-1 to B-45 in permanent ink.
Wetland flag B-1 is located near the northwest corner of the developed edge of the property near
the intersection of the north and west fences. The flagging proceed s sequentially in a
counterclockwise fashion generally following the toe of the fill slope and ends at wetland flag B-
45 below the railroad grade near the edge of the contiguous forest canopy. Location of old silt
fencing, the ordinary high water mark, and toe of fill (i.e., non -hydric soil) all were used to
determine the wetland boundary.
Vegetation in the sample plots was classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the U nited States (Cowardin et al. 1979).
This is the accepted method of classifying wetland vegetation per RMC. Wetlands were rated
using rating wetlands in western Washington (Hruby 2014), which is incorporated into the current
RMC.
SPT Wetland Delineation 3 August 3, 2018
Findings
As noted above, two sample plots were established in the representative plant associations adjacent
to the developed west edge of the property. Characteristics of the plant communities, soils, and
hydrology in the deciduous forest and disturbed areas are summarized below from the data in
Attachment A. Photographs of conditions observed during this investigation are presented in
Attachment B.
Deciduous Forest Community
The dominant tree species in SP-1 were black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa)
and Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra). The shrub stratum was sparse with red-osier
dogwood (Cornus sericea) being the only species present. Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum
dulcamara), a non-native and invasive vine was also a dominant plant. In the herb stratum, lady’s
thumb (Polygonum persicaria) and narrow-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) were dominant. All of
the dominant plants (6 of 6 = 100 percent) had wetland indicator statuses of FAC, FACW, or OBL.
Thus, the vegetation met the dominance test and the plant community met the hydrophytic
vegetation criterion. Photograph 1 in Attachment B shows the sample plot vegetation.
Soils are mapped by the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) as Puget silty clay
loam (Attachment C). The surface layer to a depth of six inches consisted of a very dark gray
(10YR 3/1) mucky mineral soil that was gritty and stained the fingers when rubbed. Strong brown
(7.5YR 5/8) redoximorphic concentrations were abundant (45 percent) in the matrix and in the
pore linings around living roots. Beneath this fro m six to more than 18 inches was a black muck
(N2.5). A strong odor of hydrogen sulfide was present in the test pit soils. It is uncertain if this
soil is characteristic of the soils throughout the wetland. The mapped soil type was not confirmed.
However, hydrogen sulfide odor is a primary indicator of hydric soil and the hydric soil criterion
was met. Photograph 3 in Attachment B shows the soils in the test pit.
Indicators of wetland hydrology also were observed in the test pit. The surface layer was saturated
to the surface. Standing water was present in the test pit at a depth of 10 inches after about five
minutes. Strong seepage was observed at the interface between the surface layer and the
subsurface layer and it is likely that had more time been allowed for the water level to equilibrate,
the water table likely would have been at six inches. Multiple primary and secondary indicators
of wetland hydrology were observed as indicated in the data form and the wetland hydrology
criterion also was met. Two stormwater pipes were observed near the test pit (Photographs 2 and
5 in Attachment B).
Wetland Determination and Classification
All three parameters were met and the sample plot and community are wetland. Because
there is more than 30 percent cover in the tree stratum, the vegetation met the palustrine
broad-leaved deciduous forested wetland vegetation class, according to the USFWS
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). As noted and mapped by Soundview (2018)
more interior portions of the wetland include palustrine emergent and aquatic bed wetland
vegetation. Emergent areas include dense stands of narrow -leaved cattail, lady’s thumb,
SPT Wetland Delineation 4 August 3, 2018
and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Observations were not made of the aquatic
bed vegetation during this investigation. The surveyed, delineated wetland boundaries and
non-conforming buffer for the existing legal use is shown on Sheet 6 of the Binding Site
Plan prepared by Bush, Roed, and Hitchings dated 8/3/18 (submitted separately by the
applicant).
Algal mat and water marks observed near the toe of slope indicate that the hydrologic
regime in the forested wetland area is seasonally flooded. In addition two pipes near the
sample plot several other pipe inlets were observed near the toe of slope or wi thin the
wetland (see photographs in Attachment B). Stormwater inputs from adjacent developed
areas clearly are a significant component of the wetland s hydrology.
Disturbed Areas
The dominant tree in SP-2 on the fill slope adjacent to the existing build ing and parking included
big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Black cottonwood and Pacific willow were not included as
they were rooted downslope at the edge of the wetland. Red -osier dogwood and Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) were the dominant species in the shrub and vine strata. Blackberry
is dense and forms dense thickets in the plot and elsewhere on the fill slopes. Field horsetail
(Equisetum arvense) was the dominant plant in the herb stratum. Most (3 of 4 = 75 percent) of the
dominant plants FAC or FACW wetland indicator statuses and the vegetation technically met the
dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation.
Though the vegetation was hydrophytic, it is clearly indicative of past disturbance and the drier
conditions present on the slope. Soils were very compacted and construction debris was visible at
the surface in the sample plot and in the test pit. Digging was terminated at depth of nine inches
after concrete rubble and angular gravel were excavated from the te st pit confirming soils are fill.
Gravelly sandy loam soils were powder dry and very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) when
moistened. Photograph 6 in Attachment B shows the fill soil in the test pit and Photograph 4 in
Attachment B shows construction debris at the surface and old silt fencing near the toe of the slope.
Soils were not similar to the mapped NRCS soil type and there were no positive indicators of
hydric soils observed. Therefore, the soil is non-hydric.
Hydrologic characteristics were in sharp contrast to those within the adjacent depression. As noted
soils were very dry and compact. Compacted, concave fill slopes are well drained. There were no
positive indicators of wetland hydrology observed in the sample plot.
Wetland Determination and Classification
Only one of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation was met. Because normal
circumstances were present and none of the difficult situations identified in the regional
supplement were present, the sample plot and vegetation are upland.
SPT Wetland Delineation 5 August 3, 2018
Conclusions
This investigation confirmed that stormwater runoff is conveyed to the wetland as was stated in
Ecological Solutions April 3, 2018 revised report and has been stated by Otak and others too. This
investigation also confirmed that fill from the historic development and old railroad spur forms the
slopes adjacent to the wetland and form the clear topographic breaks/boundaries of Wetland B
near the toe of these slopes. Lastly, this investigation also confirmed that the existing buffer for
the property does not conform to the standard buffer width of 75 feet for this Category III wetland .
Sheet 6 of 6 on the revised binding site plan produced by Bush, Roed, & Hitchings dated 8/3/18.
Rather the buffer ends at the edge of the legal, non-conforming use for both Wetland A and
Wetland B.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Data Forms
Attachment B – Site Photographs
Attachment C – NRCS Soils Map
SPT Wetland Delineation 6 August 3, 2018
References
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States . US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, DC.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update. Publication #14-06-029. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
J.S. Jones and Associates. 2009. Wetland Assessment of the Seattle Area Plumbing and
Pipefitting Property. Prepared by Jeffery Jones and Robert King, J.S. Jones and Associates,
Inc., Auburn, WA.
J.S. Jones and Associates. 2014. Biological Assessment for the Seattle Pipe Trades Expansion.
Prepared by Jeffery Jones, J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc., Issaquah, WA.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant
List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published April 2016. ISSN 2153
733X.
Otak. May 26, 2018. Technical Memorandum: Seattle Pipe Trades Binding Site Plan Review.
Prepared by Kevin O’Brien and Stephanie Modjeski, Otak, Inc., Redmond, WA.
Soundview Consultants. March 20, 2018. Technical Memorandum: Wetland and Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Assessment for 601 Monster Road SW. Prepared by Jon Pickett,
Soundview Consultants, LLC, Gig Harbor, WA.
Wetland Resources. September 8, 2014. Critical Areas Determination Report for King County
Parcels #2423049122 and 2423049123. Prepared for Seattle Plumbing and Pipefitters by
Wetland Resources, Inc., Everett, WA.
ATTACHMENT A
DATA FORMS
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 595 Monster Rd. SW City/County: Renton Sampling Date:7/20/2018
Applicant/Owner: Seattle Pipe Trades State: WA Sampling Point: SP-1
Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Closed depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.473307 Long: -122.246204 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Puget silty clay loam NWI classification: PFO1C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Positive indicators of all three parameters were observed. Sample plot is in a seasonally flooded, forested wetland vegetation class;
wetland used for stormwater management. Two stormwater pipe inlets observed near the sample plot (see Photographs 1 and 2 in Attachment A).
Trees, shrub, and vine cover determined in a 5-meter radius cirular plot; herb cover determined in a 3-meter radius circular plot.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m radius) % Cover Species? Status
1. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 45 Y FAC
2. Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 25 Y FACW
3.
4.
70 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5-m radius)
1. Cornus sericea 5 Y FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
5 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3-m radius)
1. Polygonum persicaria 35 Y FACW
2. Typha latifolia 15 Y OBL
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5-m radius)
1. Solanum dulcamara 45 Y FAC
2.
45 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: All of the dominant plants have FAC, FACW, or OBL wetland indicator statuses and the vegetation is hydrophytic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6" 10YR 3/1 55 7.5YR 5/8 45 C PL, M mucky min. slightly gritty, stains fingers
6-18+ N2.5 100 muck
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Surface layer is mucky mineral with many living roots. Leakage of oxygen out of roots has created redox concentrations in the matrix and
in pore linings (oxidized rhizospheres). Strong sulfide odor is a positive indicator of hydric soil.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): At surface
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Multiple primary and secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. Seepage at interface between surface and subsurface
layers likely reflects water table. Water in the unlined pit at 10 inches after ~ 5 minutes.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 595 Monster Rd. SW City/County: Renton Sampling Date:7/20/2018
Applicant/Owner: Seattle Pipe Trades State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2
Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.473253 Long: -122.246161 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Puget silty clay loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Only one of three parameters was met. Soils are fill and vegetation typical of disturbed areas. Old silt fencing is present along the entire
length of the toe of the slope along the western boundary of the parcel adjacent to Wetland B.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m) % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer macrophyllum 15 Y FACU
2.
3.
4.
15 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m)
1. Cornus sericea 15 Y FACW
2. Daphne mezereum T N FACU
3.
4.
5.
15 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m)
1. Equisetum arvense 15 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m)
1. Rubus armeniacus 65 Y FAC
2.
65 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vasc ular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Vegetation is technically hydrophytic but clearly indicative of past disturbance and much drier conditions present in the buffer.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-9+" 10YR 3/2 100 gsL gravelly sandy loam (fill)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Angular rock and construction debris (concrete rubble) encountered in test pit. Very compact. Old silt fencing runs along the toe of the
slope below trunks of large trees that are decades old. Soil is clearly fill and not the mapped Puget silty clay loam soil type on the NRCS soil map.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No indicates of wetland hydrology were observed.
ATTACHMENT B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-1
Photograph 1 – looking south southwest at palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous forested
wetland vegetation in SP-1 on July 20, 2018; test pit flagging in the center of the plot.
Photograph 2 – scouring around inlet of 8-inch diameter pipe conveying stormwater to the
wetland near SP-1.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-2
Photograph 3 – Standing water and hydric soils in the test pit (SP-1) on July
20, 2018.
Photograph 4 – Construction debris (concrete rubble) and old silt fencing
(partially buried in the buffer adjacent to SP-1 (fence at property boundary
visible in background).
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-3
Photograph 5 – looking east at inlet of white plastic pipe inlet that appears to
convey stormwater to the wetland near SP-1. Concrete rubble at left.
Photograph 6 – Compact, powder dry, gravelly sandy loam fill in SP -2.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-4
Photograph 7 – looking at the inlet of a corrugated metal pipe conveying
stormwater to the wetland at boundary flag B-4.
Photograph 8 – looking east along partially buried white plastic pipe
(bottom arrow) just north of the old railroad spur. Wetland boundary flag
near toe of slope (top arrow).
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-5
Photograph 9 – looking north along approximate wetland boundary (dashed
yellow line) and partially buried, old silt fence (arrow) near toe of the fill
slope..
Photograph 10 – looking west at another corrugated metal pipe inlet in
Wetland B at the toe of slope.
ATTACHMENT C
NRCS SOILS MAP
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington
(Seattle Pipe Trade Soils)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/23/2018
Page 1 of 3525760052577005257800525790052580005258100525820052583005258400525760052577005257800525790052580005258100525820052583005258400556200556300556400556500556600556700556800556900557000557100557200557300557400557500
556200 556300 556400 556500 556600 556700 556800 556900 557000 557100 557200 557300 557400 557500
47° 28' 37'' N 122° 15' 19'' W47° 28' 37'' N122° 14' 11'' W47° 28' 8'' N
122° 15' 19'' W47° 28' 8'' N
122° 14' 11'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 300 600 1200 1800
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,470 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 7, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 31, 2013—Oct 6,
2013
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington
(Seattle Pipe Trade Soils)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/23/2018
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam,
6 to 15 percent slopes
19.6 11.6%
BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam,
15 to 30 percent slopes
2.0 1.2%
Ng Newberg silt loam 22.7 13.4%
Pu Puget silty clay loam 6.4 3.8%
Py Puyallup fine sandy loam 39.9 23.6%
Ur Urban land 30.3 17.9%
W Water 7.9 4.7%
Wo Woodinville silt loam 40.4 23.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 169.1 100.0%
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Seattle Pipe Trade Soils
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/23/2018
Page 3 of 3