HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS Wetland Assessment 181126 v2.pdf
Wetland Delineation Technical Memorandum
Date: November 15, 2018
To: Ms. Jill Ding, Senior Planner, City of Renton
From: Scott Luchessa, Ecological Solutions, Inc.
RE: Wetland A Delineation for Seattle Pipe Trades Binding Site Plan
On behalf of Seattle Pipe Trades, Ecological Solutions, Inc. (Ecological Solutions) has delineated
a portion of the boundaries of Wetland A on the parcel located adjacent and to the south of the
project site (King County tax parcel 2423049122) at 595 Monster Road SW in Renton,
Washington. This memorandum (memo) has been produced to address your request that a portion
of the boundaries be delineated. For the record, there is no proposed development project that will
potentially impact either the wetland or the buffer and there are fill slopes from the legal
development and historic railroad spur that form the wetland boundary nearest the legally
developed edge of the parking lot (buffer edge). 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 (parking lot curb) adjacent to
Wetland A as has been shown in previous documentation provided to you. The subject boundaries
of Wetland A were previously delineated by J.S. Jones and Associates (2009) and have not
changed as was noted in J.S. Jones and Associates more recent biological assessment (2014).
Wetland Resources (2014) also concluded that the boundaries of Wetland A were consistent with
those previously identified by J.S. Jones and Associates. These studies are valid for a period of
five years. Thus, the 2014 Wetland Resources and J.S. Jones and Associate studies are still current.
The proposed activity is to place the wetland buffer into a new tract per City of Renton
requirements.
Per Ecological Solutions’ revised April 3, 2018 report:
1) The classification or rating for Wetland A is identified on page three; Wetland A is 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 a 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).
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 October 27, 2018.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo 2 November 14, 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 south
side of the developed edge (parking lot). Sample plots are marked in the field with blue polka-
dotted, white surveyor flagging labeled SP-1 Ecol. Soln. 10/27/18 and SP-2 Ecol. Soln.written in
permanent ink. Plot dimensions are noted on the completed data forms in Attachment A. SP-1 is
representative of the broad-leaved deciduous forest and emergent wetland vegetation. SP-2 is
representative of plant communities found on the disturbed areas immediately adjacent to
developed areas on the slope of the fill pad and railroad spur fill. Wetland determinations for both
are based upon observations of the presence or absence 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 November
1, 2018 at https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/). Wetland boundaries were marked with
sequentially labeled fluorescent pink wetland boundary flagging marked A-1 to A-16 in permanent
ink. Wetland flag A-1 is located near the southwest corner of the parking lot. The flagging
proceeds sequentially in a clockwise fashion generally following the toe of the fill slope and ends
at wetland flag A-16 near the toe of the natural slope to the southeast of parking lot . Location of
the ordinary high water mark, toe of fill (i.e., non-hydric soil), and upper edge of cattail plants
(Typha latifolia), and additional test pits all were used to determine the wetland boundaries.
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 by
others as noted above using rating wetlands in western Washington (Hruby 2014), which is
incorporated into the current RMC.
Findings
As noted above, two sample plots were established in the representative plant associations adjacent
to the developed south edge of the property. Characteristics of the plant communities, soils, and
hydrology in the sample plots are summarized below from the data in Attachment A. Photographs
of conditions observed during this investigation are presented in Attachment B.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo 3 November 14, 2018
Broad-leaved Deciduous Forest/Emergent Vegetation
The first sample plot (SP-1) was established near the ecotone between the broad -leaved deciduous
and persistent emergent wetland vegetation classes in Wetland A just southwest of the southwest
corner of the existing parking lot. The dominant species in SP-1 were Pacific willow (Salix lucida
ssp. lasiandra), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and narrow-leaved cattail (Typha
latifolia). Lady’s thumb (Polygonum persicaria) and reed canarygrass also were present but not
dominant. All of the dominant plants (3 of 3 = 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 Woodinville silt
loam (Attachment C). A partially decomposed but mostly recognizable organic matter (duff) three
inches thick was present on the soil surface. The surface layer beneath this duff in the test pit in
SP-1 consisted of more than 15 inches of light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dense, clay loam. Many
(15 percent) medium to very coarse and prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) redoximorphic
concentrations were present in the matrix. This observed soil is similar to the mapped, hydric
Woodinville silt loam. The soil met the F3 (depleted matrix) hydric soil criteria . Photograph 2 in
Attachment B shows the soils in the test pit.
Indicators of wetland hydrology also were observed in the test pit. Strong seepage was observed
at depth of 10 inches below the ground surface. This likely represented the water table elevation.
Water marks and water stained leaves also were observed. There were multiple primary and
secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed as indicated in the data form and the wetland
hydrology criterion also was met.
Wetland Determination and Classification
All three parameters were met and the sample pl ot and community are wetland. Because
there is only 10 percent cover in the tree stratum, the vegetation is classified as persistent
emergent, according to the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). The
surveyed, delineated wetland boundarie s and non-conforming buffer for the existing legal
use is shown on Sheet 5 of 5 of the Binding Site Plan prepared by Bush, Roed, and
Hitchings (BRH) dated 11/14/18 (submitted separately by the applicant).
Water marks observed near the toe of fill slope, presence of fill, and upper extent of
common cattail all were used to delineate the wetland boundaries . Delineated wetland
boundaries are marked by wetland flags A-1 to A-16. The delineated wetland boundaries
are virtually identical to those previously d elineated by J.S. Jones and Associates as shown
in the surveyed wetland boundary map prepared by BRH and Photographs 5-8 and 10-12
in Attachment B.
Disturbed Areas
SP-2, also a rectangular plot, was established on the old railroad spur embankment slope adjacent
to the wetland sample plot (SP-1). The dominant species in the sample plot were paper birch
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo 4 November 14, 2018
(Betula papyrifera), spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry
(Photograph 3). All of the dominant species (4 of 4 = 100 percent) had FAC or FACW wetland
indicator statuses and the vegetation technically met the dominance test for hydrophytic
vegetation. All species are common in disturbe d areas. Himalayan blackberry forms dense
thickets on the fill slopes along much of the delineated wetland boundary.
Though the vegetation was hydrophytic, it is clearly indicative of past disturbance and the drier
conditions present on the fill slopes. Soils were clearly fill consisting of mixed, brighter, coarse
and compacted. Digging was terminated at depth of 10 inches. The surface layer consisted of a
thin, 1.25-inch thick, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. Beneath this was
a compact, very gravelly sandy loam fill consisting of a mixture of brown (10YR 4/3) and dark
yellowish brown material. Photograph 4 in Attachment B shows the fill soil in the test pit. 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 al wetland.
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.
Conclusions
This investigation confirmed that the previously delineated wetland boundaries of Wetland A have
not changed as was stated in Ecological Solutions April 3, 2018 revised report . 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 but ends at the developed edge of the property as
shown on Sheet 3 of 5 on the revised binding site plan produced by Bush, Roed, & Hitchings dated
11/14/18.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Data Forms
Attachment B – Site Photographs
Attachment C – NRCS Soils Map
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo 5 November 14, 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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regio n (Version
2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-3. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble (eds). U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory,
Vicksburg, MS.
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:10/27/2018
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: 47.471864 Long: -122.246800 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville silt loam NWI classification: PFO/EM
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 near the ecotone between broad-leaved deciduous forested
wetland and emergent wetland vegetation in Wetland A Plot is rectangular 6-m long x 4-m wide with the long axis oriented east to west.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 6 m x 4 m) % Cover Species? Status
1. Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 10 Y FACW
2.
3.
4.
10 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 6 m x 4 m)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3-m radius)
1. Typha latifolia 95 Y OBL
2. Polygonum persicaria T N FACW
3. Phalaris arundinacea T N FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
95 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5-m radius)
1. Solanum dulcamara 5 Y FAC
2.
5 = 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: 3 (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
3-0 duff partially decomposed organic matter
0-15+ 10YR 6/2 85 10YR 5/8 15 C M cL clay loam, ribbon >2.5 inches
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: Meets the F3 hydric soil criteria.
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): 10
(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. Strong seepage at 10 inches in unlined test pit. Likely
level of the water table.
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:10/27/2018
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): convex Slope (%): 35
Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.471927 Long: -122.246948 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville silt 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: Plot is located on the old railroad spur embankment adjacent to the wetland. Only one of three parameters was met. Soils are fill and
vegetation typical of disturbed areas (fill slopes).
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m) % Cover Species? Status
1. Betula papyrifera 85 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
85 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m)
1. Spiraea douglasii 55 Y FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
55 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 4 x 6 m)
1. Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW
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 5 Y FAC
2.
5 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
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: Vegetation is technically hydrophytic but clearly indicative of past disturbance and much drier conditions present on the fill slope.
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
0-1.25" 10YR 3/2 100 gsL gravelly sandy loam
1.25-10+ 10YR 4/3-4/4 100 vgsL compact, very gravelly 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: Very compact fill composed of mixed material. No hydric indicators present
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 indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. Fill material is coarse and effectively drained.
ATTACHMENT B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-1
Photograph 1 – Looking east at palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous forested and persistent
emergent wetland vegetation in SP-1 on 10/27/18; test pit flagging at right center.
Photograph 2 – Clay loam (depleted matrix – F3) hydric soil in the unlined test pit in SP-1.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-2
Photograph 3 – Looking east at birch at patch of spiraea in SP-2 on the old railroad spur
embankment and plot flagging on October 27, 2018.
Photograph 4 – Looking east at gravelly sandy loam fill soil in the test pit of SP-2 on
October 27, 2018.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-3
Photograph 5 – Looking east along the toe of fill and approximate wetland boundary
(yellow dashed line) from boundary flag A-5 on October 27, 2018. Silt fencing and the
planted buffer at left.
Photograph 6 – Looking west along the toe of fill and approximate wetland boundary
(yellow dashed line) from boundary flag A-5 on 10/27/18. Silt fencing and planted buffer
(at right).
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-4
Photograph 8 – Looking WNW from forested uplands at t he approximate delineated
boundary (dashed yellow line) and boundary flags A-13 and A-14 (arrows) on 10/27/18.
Photograph 7 – Looking north along the wetland boundary (yellow dashed line) between
cattail (left) and Himalayan blackberry (right) from boundary flag A-12 on 10/27/18.
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-5
Photograph 9 – Looking east at upland forest (bigleaf maple, Himalayan blackberry,
snowberry and sword fern) on the slope east of wetland boundary flags A-13 and A-14.
Photograph 10 – Looking south along the wetland boundary near the toe of slope at the
pink wetland boundary flags A-15 and A-16 (forested wetland on the right).
SPT Wetland Delineation Memo Attachment B
A-6
Photograph 11 – Looking west at the north edge of Wetland A and the legal, non-
conforming edge of buffer at the curb of the parking lot on October 27, 2018.
Photograph 12 – Looking south southeast the approximate delineated boundaries of Wetland A (dashed yellow
line) at the west edge of dense Himalayan blackberry near boundary flags A-10, A-11, and A-12 (arrows).
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