HomeMy WebLinkAboutM_Public_Benefit_Parcel_190917_VI.pdfPicto m e tr y, K i n g C ounty, K ing C oun ty
King C ou n ty iM ap
Date: 8 /22 /2 0 19 Notes:
Th e informatio n in clu de d on this map h as b ee n co mp iled by K in g Co un ty staff f rom a variety o f so urces a nd is subject to chan gewithout n otice . K in g Co unty make s no repre sen tat io ns or warra nt ies, e xpress or imp lie d, as t o a ccuracy, co mplete ne ss, timeline ss,or rig hts to the use o f such inf orma tion . This d ocument is no t inten de d fo r use as a survey p ro du ct. K ing Co un ty sh all no t b e lia blefor a ny gen eral, sp ecia l, ind irect , incidental, o r con seque ntial d ama ges in clud ing, bu t n ot limited to , lost re ven ue s or lost pr o fitsresulting from t he use or misuse of the informa tion con ta ined on th is map. A ny sale o f this map or inf orma tion on this ma p isprohibited except by written p ermission o f K in g Co un ty.±
Wetland and Stream Delineation Sketch
Parcel #334330086102, Renton, Washington
Prepared for Embay Lee
May 12, 2014
TWC Project #140504
Stream A
WMA 1R/L – 15R/17L
Stream B
WMB 1R/L – 7R/13L
Wetland B
4 flags
Wetland A
A15 – A30
Wetland A
A1 – A14
Do not connect A14 to A15
Wetland C
4 flags
DP-4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-2 DP-1 Legend:
Approximate Wetland
Boundary
Approximate Wetland
Area
Approximate Stream
OHWM
Approximate Property
Boundary
Data Point
Note:
Field sketch only. Areas depicted have
not been surveyed. All locations are
approximate and not to scale.
Wetland boundaries are marked with pink and black
flags.
Stream OHWM are marked with blue and white flags.
Data points are marked with yellow and black flags.
.t :...
.< ".:,. ..... 3' . "..
f .r 2
.... of King, State of Washington: . .. - $ " .- .. .......... C ,.-r:. ........ + -. .... , ... : ,.. : ,:. ;! ii ........... .. :: - .... S .."% ...... .,. .;. i! ::
SU*LIS,,.d ha, - 'i. i .. j ._...... 2 : ...." .:: -/..:-,. .:.
. : = ,< ;- ,:,'
>
:' : . ,r ... ..... .:' ...... ... ..; : :: .... <: ... .-. .. .. , ,~ ....I._ .... ._ .. .. > .b,: !:
?,? :- ,:. ::* .%, .?.. ; j. ?: .... 2 ".+. F ;'I ..... ..... ;:
;~ .: ..:, * >.. .. " .. ...... .::.p .' "" ':. ." -.. -... ........ -.. . 7. ;..+ %:>
.: - Z i .... " .."'*... :: +*-*? .?. ... " ...... . :: :: .'" < ,,.:. :! ; 2" L .. i' ;'Q
: , ,; j J- .%
%: > .. " i' .. .. ,. .. :: ."
i .:. ........ : ,:. ;.. $.:$ ...... ,:. ...'
-* 3 d ..... ; :. f :? . L. -. ., :: .* . s <. .... .. " \
B < .:. 2 '":;#
grnent of Nodary Public
. 1: ,i Z .:. .: ..,,,. . 2. >' .. ,--;*:. .r .. :. ,I--...
,, ,. . :: :'. '.. .:. ..I ....... ..,.. .:. ;. .:. * .. - ....... f ; ,,..*. ...... .:> .. I. _. ., ,;. ;: :C p :: -:. : 2 ;: - f J+- ,,A. -."+:. .- .. 1:.
r:. .:. . .,rr. ., - .T .- ..... *..:. ,r : p ::,+. . + " * ,. .. ., ;. $ -1 :. .:. :... .< ....... ... - .r .... *- .? f 2' '".>. .... . .r : . ,?<, .a ....... .... '?. .... <?',,.. ".'..,. ...... ..... , .. r - .......
.:, .... .:- .' $ Z .:::$' :: I 3"'"7' - .: >.,,. .*. -. ,".",L, .i. , .. ... .*.( :: ?. ,:. : il .: 2' *< "
..:. , ,: ; 4 ... I F:. . : 2' : : :' ?..
,. .? ( b - ., . " 2: .. 4, 5' ,:' ,' .:' 7
2' , ..I 3::: . - ,. " >. ......... +
;; .y .. - ......
I .. ; d . .... $ ;f - " :: *,.
:: :r .$. >
r. X -:>A
Exhibit A ~. ~.,. .. ...... ,: .:. ...... ,.
'E~LA&-.R~,FERRED TO HEREIN IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: _ .......... - ,. .:. .-
'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN
V..<NO:"S; ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
LYb& /... 11 ,% OF -,.,. PLATS, PAGE 81, RECORDS OF
.>:~ . ,:: .,' *; .... ,* +:. c f >P'. .. s. '- ,. .:. ;+... ...... PORTC~N QE~ACA~ED S.E. T~ND STREET,
WHICH UPON::VA~ATION, A:TT~CHEQ;~:Q.SAID PROPERW BY OPERATION
OF LAW. AS VACATE@IN:.$OL!$ME*'H ....... :OF::COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS,
:? ;. ON PAGE 402; .. ' ,.. :: .: ,; ;:. , < '.'"..... $:, . " .. .. ..... .... ;; s.. .... .:.: .. ........ : ). ). : i- .c :: ....
AND TOGETHER WITH MA$,,PORT~O~'& "RwThD G~& ROAD NO.
M, WHICH UPON VACATION;AI-TAC~ED TQ SA;~Q.PR~~ERW BY
OPEFIATION OF LAW, AS PROVIUED'BY OI~DINA~E NO. 374-&:I .::.
RECORDEI~UNDER RECORDING NO. 6;308050569;- .:: i: ;-:>.::,
,;. .. :: 1 .i:. .;. ........... :: 7 ,> 5 ...... ...... q. .. . ;. r r .*'- ', ,. !. .I!. i ;> EXCEPTiTwT PORTION OF SAID TRAC$~69,.'LYING~'sg~~m&T~Rb+ i:
OF LAKE WbSHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E. AND SQ~~~W~~S~RLY .... OF WE. 51ST S+REZT. :i i .:. ; ,:, h' .: . ~. ; ~. :: ....... ...... . I:. ,;: ,::. .:.
.. .. : :: .S' .. ... .:. :<
AN$EX&P~TI-&~~TI~NS LING WITHIN LAKE W~@NG~bd .: .......
BOULEV4W .:.. N.E,,:AND ,< . N:E 5ISTSTREET RIGHT OF WAYS; " 2 <. .< 1'
......... .:.. *
NECESSARY T REMENTS. THE FULL
INSURED.
TRACT 169, LAKE WA
: : :: :: .... ..... . -, . ;. .;- .:
334330-0861, WA, King County --
?.~:CIS Slaiq Eq F2 k,% 5% ?9 Saia r(:'lea
. - . - .. .- . . - - . . . .-- . - - , . . . . .-
NIA NIA : RESAC6 05/28/1997
>(>J!%@;; Erl=~yz~-:$&r; .- - .-
Owner Name (LN M): Lea embay Tax Bllling Zlp: 98125
i'hx Billing Address: 12329 ~oosevelt Way Ne Tax Biillng Zip-: 4800
#mi
Tax Billing City a State: Stram* WA
Subdiilslon:
Schwl District Name:
School Dlstiict Code:
Hlllmans Lake Wash Garden Zoning: It8
Of Eden 03
Renton Ran~e/Townshi~ISectioniOuarter: 05-24-S§E . . . . . .
Street Tvve: Public . .
Census Tract: 247.02 Waterfront View Type: LAKE WASHISAMM VIEW
AVERAGE
Ela;.jhDortrcud Code: 06405MSQMH
.$ wv., ',?**<:.~ ...7<-.,% :< .:.,!..* L.L~-.~. *.>~~~@::? -- -- ~ -.
Tax-ID: 3343300861 Tax Area: 2151
Alt. Tax-TD: 334330086LO2 Legal 0ook/Paqe: 11-81
Parcel ID: 3349300861
Legal Description: HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 3 LOT 169 LESS PORTION LY ELY OF LAKE
WASUINbTON BLVD NE TGW PORTION OF VACATED STREETS ADJOINING LESS PORTION
WWN HIGUWAY PUT BLOCK: PLAT UIT: 159
.;s$j:,i?:sFL.:. . ;2 ;:!~ '6-c.;:~ - - --
Assessment Year 2014 - Preliminary 2014 2013 2012
Aseessed Value - Total $225,000 $225,000 $20l,aW $187,000
hued Value - Land $225,000 $225,000 $201.000 $187,WO
Mark* Value - Total $225,000 $225,000 $201,000 $187,000
Ptarket Value - Land $225,000 $225,000 $201.000 $187,000
YoV Assessad change ($) 50 $24,000 $14,000
YOV Asesmed Change O%
(%I 11.9*% 7.49%
~otal ax Tax year mnse ($1 - -- Change (%)
$2.552 2012
Lot Acres: 1.9 Water Source:
Lot Area: 82,764 Sewer:
Land Use: Residential Acreage ToP~~P~Y:
County Land Use: Vacant (Single Family)
Public
Public Sawice
Type Unknown
Lz<:-; ;<& :~-::@;? &;<g :,:>i:~! ;.::&:~:2:
~ ~
Recording Date: 06/02/1997 Deed Type: Warranty Deed
Ew.nLasy I?£ &R@P? Cmiarpidc .- . .". - .....~ ..?A: .?L.!? z:~.~.->,y;.;.>:~7>*:j*.. ..; < .c?c ;.-:..,...:"., :,,.... ~.;.:. c-:~~%~ *:>, .c:*. -.T;,<::.: .* ~:,,.;..*:~.~::;.:...;~~,~..~,..,>~;~.~-,er~ ::~ <.:c ?<
;,,..9c+:.:.. .:. .~-.,..~~~.~..:~~~+7~,~..~.~ya .; .: :,: !.,,. !z .....? t5z *,:$:.:. ~ :..r:...2 :. :. ~??:-.. ..2!ip~., Property Detail
Ge,!c?.!*<: ,;:: L:.;x?;?Jl:
Page * Of S
Settle Date:
Sale Price:
Auditor No: -- 04/16/2014 .................................................
w--D.?? . . !??/14R014 ............. * hffs"'"' "'. ............................................
Nominal Y .......................................
Lee Embay ..?!?Pf.!?araa ..........................
Sdler Name tee Chung K
Auditor No M14W161401
H&.tNo. 2662754
-dm PwsoM( Repwemathre's
Deed
Lee Chung K
Owner Name (LN FN):
Seller Name (IN FN!:
Chewer Frank G Dc
199706021422
1547365
Warranty Deed
Y
Fisher William T
Lee Embay
Cheerer Frank G Oc
Y
Cheever Frank G
Uleever Frank G Dc
199506131223
1432706
Warranty Deed
-- -
CoumPy af ;lmr&@ -0 "- ..... ..*. ..... .+'?,< :.:*:<: ....: ......, *.!: cs:~..>*:G".<, >:<>,k-z:~.j;+:.<<< *?ti, .:~,;, .C&<.*.<, be5 :<:., ::::sL>.: >>;<:- ,.:> j ,:,.,! !.;:-,,.?a
,,;~e5e.~.2.:~.~~.~a-c...~.L.. :,as c~~,:~.~~~!-,~~~~.~..:.~ :*: .z+.z.x~s~y .!,..: <:.: :..; .,.::. :&,:.>. Property Detail
*"??OW m "&5=7/?sL+;
P*$S 7 c13
I Legend:
Approximate Wetland 1- Boundary
Approximate Wetland I UUL Area
Approximate Stream 1 - OM
Approximate Property 1- Boundary I 0 Data Point
I Note:
Field sketch only. Areas depicted haw
not been surveyed. Ail locations are
approximate and not to scale. May 12,2014
TWC Project #I40504
Wetland and Stream Dellneation Sketch
Parcel #334330086102, Renton, Washington
Prepared for Embay Lee
I Data points are marked with yellow and black flags. 1
Wetland boundaries are marked wlth pink and black
flags.
Stream OHWM are marked with blue and white flags.
PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR
Lee Short PlatICritical Area Variance(s)
5100 Block of lake Washington Blvd NE
PRE 15-000145
CITY OF RENTON
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
March 19,2015
Contact Information:
Planner: Jill Ding, 425.430.6598
Public Works Plan Reviewer: Kamran Yazdidoost, 425.430.7382
Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider
giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the
project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use
and/or environmental permits.
Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and
schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before
making all of the required copies.
The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on
the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The
applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the
proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project
submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or
concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director,
Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development
Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMLINITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 19,2015
TO : Pre-Application File No. 15-000145
FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Lee Short Plat/Critical Area Variance(s), 5100 Block of Lake
Washington Blvd NE (parcel no. 3343300861).
General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-
referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting
issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant
and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information
contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official
decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator,
Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City
Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other
design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to
review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are
available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall
or online at wv~w.rentonwa.gov
Project Proposal: The project site is located on the west side of Lake Washington Blvd NE and
just south of the Renton City limits. The project site is vacant and totals 82,764 square feet (1.9
acres) and zoning is Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The applicant is proposing to
subdivide the site into 2 residential lots. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via
residential driveways off of Lake Washington Blvd NE. Three wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C)
and two streams (Streams A and B) have been identified on the project site. Wetlands A and B
are classified at Category 2 wetlands and Wetland C is classified as a Category 3 wetland.
Streams A and B are Class 3 streams.
Current Use: The site is currently vacant.
Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is zoned Residential-8 dwelling units per
acre (R-8) where interim R-8 (effectively R-6) zoning standards currently apply. Interim zoning
standards were adopted under Ordinance 5724.
The density range allowed in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac). The area located within dedicated right-of-way, private access
easementsltracts, and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine
the "net" site area prior to calculating density. No square footages were provided for the area
within critical areas, therefore staff was unable to calculate the net site area. Based on a gross
site area of 82,764 square feet, the proposal for 2 lots would result in a gross density of 1.05
dwelling units per acre (2 lots / 1.9 acres = 1.05 du/ac), which is below the minimum density
h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\2015 preapps\15-000145.ji11\15-000145 (r-8 2 lot short plat) planning
comments.doc
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 19,2015
TO : Jill Ding, Planner
FROM: Kamran Yazdidoost
SUBJECT: 5032 Lake Washington Blvd
PRE 14-000670
NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-
binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review
comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by
City staff or made by the applicant.
I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal. The following comments are
based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant.
Water:
1. Water Service is provided by Coal Creek Water District. A water availability certificate will be
required to be submitted to the City prior to land use approval.
2. A copy of the approved water plan from the Coal Creek Water District should be
provided to the City during the Utility Construction permit.
Sewer:
1. Sewer service is provided by Coal Creek Sewer District. A Sewer availability certificate will be
required to be submitted to the City prior to land use approval.
2. A copy of the approved sewer plan from the Coal Creek Sewer District should be
provided to the City during the Utility Construction permit.
Storm Drainaqe:
1. There is no drainage structures/ditch on Lake Washington Blvd fronting this project.
1 A drainage report complying with the City adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and
City Amendments will be required. Based on the City's flow control map, the site lies within the
Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Condition). Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A - Flow chart for
determining the type of drainage review required in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water
Design Manual Amendment. Stormwater BMPs applicable to the development must be
provided. The drainage report must account for all the improvements provided by the project.
Stormwater improvements based on the drainage report study will be required to be provided
by the developer.
3. A drainage pfan and drainage report wib! be berequired with the site plan appkatian. Tke report
shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2009 City of
Renton Amendments to the KCSWOM, Chapter 1 and 2. AH core and any special requirements
, shall be contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the
Fbw Corltrol Duration Standard [Forested Conditions).
4. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil
/ permeability with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical
designs far the site from the geotechnical engineer shall f~ submitted with the application. If
infiltration (fun) is proposed, percofath testing is required.
5. Surface water system development fee is $1350.00 for each new 1 This is payable prior to
'issuance of the construction permit. (-pf bk.@v'~,
6. A covenant for storm water drainage facilities will be required.
4'
1. Existing right of way width in SE Lake Washington Blvd is 60 feet. Lake Washington Blvd is
classified as a minor arterial street. To meet the City's new complete street standards, street I
,,, \*flk / improvements including 13 feet of paving from centerline, curb and gutter, an 8-foot planter
. -/strip, a 5-foot sidewalk, and storm drainage improvements are required to be constructed in the w right of way fronting the site per Gty code 4-6-060. Right of Way dedication is not required br
this project.
2. The maximum width of a single loaded garage driveway shall not exceed nine feet (97, and a
double-loaded garage driveway shall not exceed sixteen feet (16').
/' 3. The current transportation impact fee is $2214.44 per new single-family lot. These fees are
payable prior to building permit issuance. Credit will be given for the existing home, These fees
are pargaMe prior to recording of the piat.
4. All utilities serving the site are required to be undergrounded.
5. Street lighting is not required for this short plat.
1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan
submittals. All utility plans shalf conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be
prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer
connection, and storm warer mnnetionr.
3. Water services, sewer stubs, and drainage flow control BMPs are required to be provided to
each lot prior to recording of the short plat.
Lee Short Plat and Critical Area Variance(s), PRE15-000145
Page 2 of 4
March 19,2015
required in the 8-8 zone. A density worksheet would be required at the time of formal fand
use application demonstrating compliance with the minimum and maximum density
requirements of the R-8 zone.
Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development
Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application
(noted as "R-8 standards" herein).
<J" Minimum Lot Size, Width and Deuth -The minimum lot size permitted in Zone R-8, according to
interim zoning standards, is 7,000 square feet for parcels being subdivided. Minimum lot width
j
is 60 feet for interior lots and 70 feet for corner lots; minimum lot depth is 90 feet. No lot
dimension information was inclerded with the pre-application materials, therefore staff was
\ unable to verify compliance with this requirement.
i
Building Standards -The interim standards allow a maximum building coverage of 40% of the lot
area. The maximum impervious coverage in the R-8 zone is 55%. Building height is restricted to
30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story.
Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. The proposal's
compliance with the building standards would be verified at the time of building permif
review.
,,Aetbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the
/ property line or shared driveway. The interim required setbacks for the R-8 zone are:
Front yard: 25 feet for the primary structure.
' Rear yard: 25 feet.
Side yards: 15-foot combined setback with a minimum setback of not less than 5 feet.
. No information regarding setbacks was included with the pre-application materials, therefore
staff was unable to verify compliance with these requirements. Setbacks would be vested at
time of complete Short Plat application submitta!. Setbacks would be verified at the time of
building permit review.
Lot Configuration -One of the following is required:
1. Lot width variation of 10 feet (10') minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-fronting
lots, or
2. Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference), or
3. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (5') minimum for at least every four (4)
abutting street fronting lots.
No information regarding lot dimensions was included with the pre-application materials,
therefore staff was unable to verify compliance with this requirement.
Building Design Standards - The proposed structure would be subject to the Residential Design
Standards outlined in RMC 4-2-115. The proposal's compliance with the residential design
standards would be verified at the time of building permit review.
AccessjParking: Access to the proposed lots would be provided via residential driveways off of
lzke Washington Bivd NE. Each lot is required to accornmadate off street parking for a minimum
of two vehicles.
h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\2015 preapps\15-000145.jill\l5-000145 ((-8 2 lot short plat) planning
comments.doc
Lee Short Plat and Critical Area Variance(s), PRE15-000145
Page 3 of 4
March 19,2015
Driveways: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed 15%, provided that driveways
exceeding 8% are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade
exceeds 15%, a varianc'e is required. The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall
not exceed nine feet (9') and double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16').
Landscaping - Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by
structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with
native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The minimum on-site landscape width required along
street frontages is 10 feet. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further
general and specific landscape requirements. A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted
at the time of Short Plat application.
Significant Tree Retention: A Tree Retention/ Land Clearing (Tree Inventory) Plan along with a
tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree
retention plan must show preservation of at least 30 percent (30 %) of significant trees, and
indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of
significant trees that would be retained. The Administrator may authorize the planting of
replacement trees on the site if it can be demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction that
an insufficient number of trees can be retained.
In addition to retaining 30 percent of existing significant trees, each new lot would be required
to provide a minimum tree density of 2 trees per 5,000 square feet of lot area onsite. Protected
trees that do not contribute to a lot's required minimum tree density shall be held in perpetuity
within a tree protection tract. Based on the required tree retention the Short Plat may need to
be re-designed to accommodate a tree protection tract.
Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order:
Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy; significant trees
on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their
associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than eighteen
inches ( 18") caliper.
Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; Other
significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant non- native trees.
Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or cottonwoods
are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer.
The Administrator may require independent review of any land use application that involves
tree removal and land clearing at the City's discretion.
Critical Areas: A critical area report was included with the pre-application materials. According
to the submitted report three wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C) and two streams (Streams A and
B) are located on the project site. Wetlands A and B were classified as Category 2 wetlands and
Wetland C is classified as a Category 3 wetland. Category 2 wetlands require a 50-foot buffer
and Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. Streams A and B were classified as Class 3
streams, which require a 75-foot buffer. A wetland report and delineation and a stream study
would be required at the time of formal land use application. A mitigation plan would
also be required if impacts to the critical areas and/or buffer areas are proposed. All
critical areas and their buffers are required to be located in separate tracts.
h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\2015 preapps\15-000145.jill\l5-000145 (r-8 2 lot short plat) planning
comments.doc
Lee Short Plat and Critical Area Variance(s), PRE15-000145
Page 4 of 4
March 19,2015
jThe City is in the process of updating its critical areas regulations. It is anticipated that the
! new regulations would be adopted prior to June 30, 2015. It is likely that wetland and stream / buffers will increase under the new regulations.
i
Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPA) Review would be required due to the presence of
critical area on the project site.
Permit Requirements: The proposal would require approval of an administrative short plat and
Environmental (SEPA) Review. The administrative short plat request would be reviewed within
an estimated time frame of six to eight weeks. The fee for a short plat application will be $3,090
($2,000 short plat plus $1,000 SEPA plus 3% Technology Fee). Detailed information regarding
the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts.
.i - ,, The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed
information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the
attached handouts. Once Preliminary Short Plat approval is obtained, the applicant must
complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the
preliminary approval before submitting for Final Short Plat review. Once final approval is
received, the plat may be recorded. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has
been recorded.
Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, impact fees would be
required. Such fees would apply to all projects and would be calculated at the time of building
permit application and payable prior to building permit issuance. The fees are as follows and
fees may change year to year:
Transportation lmpact Fee - $2,214.44 per new single-family house;
Park lmpact Fee - $1,441.29 per new single-family house; and
Fire lmpact Fee - $495.10 per new single-family house.
A handout listing the impact fees is attached. A Renton School District lmpact Fee, which is
currently $5,541 per new home, would be payable prior to building permit issuance.
A handout tisting all of the City's De?lelopment re!ated fees in attached for your review.
Note: When the formal application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly
encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor front
counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please call or email Jill Ding,
Senior Planner at 425-430-6598 or jding@rentonwa.gov for an appointment.
Expiration: Upon approval, the short plat is valid for two years with a possible one year
extension.
h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\2015 preapps\15-000145.jiIl\15-000145 (r-8 2 lot short plat) planning
comments.doc
Fire & Emergency Services
Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE : 3/11/2015 12:OO:OOAM
TO: Jill Ding, Senior Planner .
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plan Review/lnspector
SUBJECT: (Lee Short Plat Preapplication) PRE15-000145
1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is ,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square
feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm
fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed
buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the
requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. There is one hydrant at the
site, it does not have a storz fitting(^ water availability certificate is required from Coal Creek Utility District >
- 2. The fire impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $495.10 per single family unit. , , ci I-
3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are adequate as they exist.
Page 1 of 1
I I I
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY + Cit) ot
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUBMllTAL REQUIREMENTS
PRE-APPLICATION
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200
FREE REVIEW: We offer a free pre-application meeting approximately 2-3 weeks after the receipt of
conceptual plans to discuss development proposals prior to formal submittal of an actual land use
application package and fee payment.
Proposals may either be hand delivered to the attention of the City of Renton Planning Division or you
may apply via the www.MyBuildin~Permit.com website. Meetings are not scheduled until materials are
received by the City. In order for us to review your preliminary proposal, you should provide the
following information folded to a size not exceeding 8 W by 11 inches a minimum of 2 weeks prior to
your preferred Thursday meeting date:
1. Project Narrative: Please provide 5 copies of a letter addressed to th'e Planning
Division referencing the project location and proposed project name, requesting
preliminary review and indicating specific questions or area(s) of concern. The letter
should include your phone number and describe the proposed project in DETAIL.
Discuss the current use(s) of the site and any existing improvements as well as the
proposed use(s) of the property and the scope of the project and proposed
improvements. This is a good time to ask for an estimate of fees and to inquire as to all
required on and off-site improvements. If you are located out of the area and are
unable to attend the meeting in person, please note this in your letter and provide a
mailing address where we can send your comments.
2. Vicinity Map: Please provide 5 copies of a vicinity map at a scale of 1" = 200' or 1" to
100' (see sample on following page). The map should highlight the property, and
include a north arrow (oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet), the scale used for
the map. Krolt Map Company (206-448-6277) produces maps of this type.
3. Site Plan: Please provide 5 copies of a detailed site plan--or plat map in the case of
subdivision proposals--drawn at a legible scale appropriate to the size of the site. We
suggest the map show the following:
Parcel number or street address
Date, scale, and north arrow (oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet)
Subject property with all property lines, adjacent streets and easements
dimensioned and identified. Be sure to use City of Renton and not King
County street names
Location, dimensions and property line setbacks of existing and proposed
structures, parking and loading areas, driveways, and landscape areas
Location of existing driveways adjacent to the subject property or on the
opposite side facing.the subject property
Existing public improvements including: curbs, gutters, sidewalks fire
hydrants
Generalized utilities plan, drainage and storm water run-off provisions, (if
available)
Natural features such as streams, lakes, and wetlands
Topography-existing and proposed contours shown at intervals not greater
than 5'
Building(s) square footage, type of construction and description of
use/occupancy.
4- n*c". Floor Plans (optional): Please provide 5 copies of a plan showing general building
laqout, proposed uses of space, walls, exits and proposed locations of kitchens, baths,
and floor drains, with sufficient detail for City staff to determine if an oil/water
separator or grease interceptor is required, to determine the sizing of a side sewer, and
whether proposed parking is adequate to meet code requirements).
Critical Areas Studies (optional): Please provide 2 copies of any critical areas studies
available for the property.
6. Conceptual Building Elevations (optional): Please provide 5 copies, this is particularly
helpful if your project is located within a design district.
7. Sewer and/or Water Availability Information (if property is located outside of the City
of Renton's utility service area): Please provide 5 copies of the information provided to
you from the utility district (e.g. Soos Creek Water and Sewer District) regarding their
ability to serve the property.
REVIEW PROCESS: In order to determine development feasibility, we offer a free pre-application
meeting approximately 2-3 weeks after the receipt of conceptual plans to discuss proposals. Meetings
are not scheduled until materials are received. These meetings are held on Thursdays and appointments
are available on a first-come, first-served basis. These meetings may be conducted on speculative
projects. The applicant does not need to be a property owner in order to propose development. When
you submit your preliminary application, we will schedule a meeting date for you and City staff to
discuss issues raised by the proposal.
This process provides comments in a written report and verbally in a meeting forum where questions
may be asked directly. A member of the Planning Division provides information on Renton's
development regutations; an engineering plan reviewer provides information on transportation and
-2-
http'llrentonwa govluploadedFileslBusinesslPBPWlDEVSERVlFORMS~P~NNlNG1pre-app.doc
utilities; and a representative of the Fire Department provides comments on fire and emergency services
issues. If plans are detailed enough, our Building Section will also provide comments.
The caliber of staff comments you receive will be directly related to the amount and detail of preliminary , application information provided to us. While we will attempt to cover as many of the planning-related
I aspects of your proposal as possible during this preliminary review, subsequent review of your formal ( 1 application package and title report may reveal issues not identified during this initial review 1
May 14, 2014
Embay Lee
℅ Annette Grupido
Dwellings Seattle Real Estate
6031-A California Ave. SW
Seattle, WA 98136
Re: Renton Lee Property, Wetland and Stream Delineation Study
The Watershed Company Reference Number: 140504
Dear Embay:
On May 9, 2014, Ecologist Katy Crandall and I visited the approximately 1.9-acre property
located adjacent to 5101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE in Renton (Parcel 3343300861). The
purpose of our visit was to conduct a wetland and stream delineation study on the property.
This letter summarizes the findings of this study and details applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. The following attachments are included:
• Wetland Delineation Sketch
• Wetland Determination Data Forms
Methods
Public-domain information on the subject property was reviewed for this delineation study.
These sources include USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil maps, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web), and King County’s GIS mapping
website (iMAP).
The subject property 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 boundaries to make the determination. Data points on-site are
marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. We recorded data at five of these locations.
Wetland and Stream Delineation
Embay Lee
May 14, 2014
Page 2
Delineated wetlands were classified according to the criteria defined in the Renton Municipal
Code (RMC). Wetlands A, B, and C are marked with 30, four, and four pink- and black-
stripped flags, respectively.
The ordinary high water marks (OHWM) of on-site streams were determined based on the
definition provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and WAC 220-110-
020(69). The OHWM is located by examining the bed and bank physical characteristics and
vegetation to ascertain the water elevation for mean annual floods. Areas meeting the
definition were determined to be the OHWM and flagged. Field observations were used to
classify streams according to the criteria defined in the RMC. The OHWM of Streams A and B
are marked with blue- and white-striped flags.
For wetlands and stream that extend beyond the study area, only those boundaries that
encumber the subject property were delineated.
Findings
This undeveloped property is located in a residential area within the City of Renton. The
property slopes downhill at a moderate gradient in a generally east to west direction. Non-
wetland vegetation is characterized by a mostly deciduous forest dominated by bigleaf maple
with Douglas-fir, red alder, and Oregon ash also present in the canopy layer. The understory is
dominated by beaked hazelnut, osoberry, snowberry, sword fern, low Oregon grape, and
Himalayan blackberry. There are three wetlands and two streams present on the subject
property.
Wetland A
Wetland A is a slope and depressional wetland encompassing a substantial portion of the
western part of the study area and extending off-site onto the property to the west (Parcel
3343301080). The wetland contains forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent Cowardin vegetation
communities. Prominent vegetation in Wetland A includes Oregon ash and red alder in the
canopy layer, with red-osier dogwood, lady fern, reed canarygrass, and creeping buttercup
dominant in the understory. The soil in Wetland A is a low chroma (<2) clay loam and loamy
clay with redoximorphic features present. The soil satisfies the criteria for the hydric soil
indicators Redox Dark Surface (F6) and Depleted Matrix (F3). Hydrology for Wetland A is
provided by a high groundwater table and surface water discharge from Streams A and B. The
soil was saturated at the surface and groundwater was six to ten inches below the soil surface at
the time of the inspection.
Wetland B
Wetland B is a riverine wetland located in the northeast portion of the site. The wetland
extends across both sides of Stream B. Only the boundary on the subject property was
delineated, which includes the wetland area south of Stream B. Wetland B contains forested
Wetland and Stream Delineation
Embay Lee
May 14, 2014
Page 3
and emergent Cowardin vegetation communities, although the delineated portion is entirely
emergent. Prominent vegetation includes red alder, reed canarygrass, skunk cabbage, and giant
horsetail. The soil in Wetland B is a very dark greyish brown (2.5Y 3/2) loamy sand with
redoximorphic features present. The soil satisfies the criteria for the hydric soil indicator Sandy
Redox (S5). Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by a high groundwater table and overbank
flooding from Stream B. The soil was saturated at the surface, and the water table was present
at six inches below the surface at the time of the inspection.
Wetland C
Wetland C is a very small, depressional wetland located in the northeastern corner of the
property. The total area is estimated to be less than 100 square feet. Wetland B contains an
emergent Cowardin vegetation community dominated by skunk cabbage and lady fern. The
soil in Wetland B is a very dark grey (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam with redoximorphic features present.
The soil satisfies the criteria for the hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology
for Wetland A is provided by a high groundwater table. Despite its relatively close proximity
to Stream B, it does not appear that overbank flooding from Stream B is a supplemental source
of hydrology. The soil was saturated at the surface, and groundwater was present five inches
below the soil surface during the inspection.
Stream A
Stream A flows through the center of the property beginning at a culvert beneath Lake
Washington Boulevard SE. Flow in Stream A is very shallow, and upon discharging into
Wetland A at the base of the hillside, the flow disperses and becomes poorly defined.
According to the City of Renton’s Water Class Map, the segment of Stream A on the subject
property is classified as a Class 3 water – non-salmonid-bearing, perennial streams.
Stream B
Stream B flows through the property in a generally east to west direction near the northern
property boundary, turning southwest before entering Wetland A. The stream enters the
property from a concrete culvert at the northwestern property corner. Flow in Stream B was
moderate at the time of the inspection, and flow is likely perennial, based on the amount of flow
observed and the substantial channel definition present. Stream B is not identified on the City’s
Water Class Map; however, it is similar in character to Stream A. The average slope of Wetland
B, according to iMAP, is approximately 35 percent. Slopes greater than 16 percent are generally
considered fish migration barriers. Based on the steep gradient and a lack of upstream
connectivity to salmonid-fish-bearing waters, Stream B does not support resident or migratory
salmonid fish species. Based on these criteria, Stream B is a Class 3 water.
Local Regulations
Wetlands and streams in Renton are regulated under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-50,
Critical Areas Regulations. Under the RMC, wetlands are classified as one of three categories
Wetland and Stream Delineation
Embay Lee
May 14, 2014
Page 4
based on size, composition, habitat, and level of disturbance. None of the study area wetlands
provide habitat for endangered or threatened species, nor do any have the composition or size
that would satisfy the criteria for Category 1 wetlands. Wetlands A and B are not significantly
disturbed; contain multiple Cowardin vegetation communities; are not hydrologically isolated;
are not newly emerging; and are not notably small. Based on these criteria, Wetlands A and B
are classified as Category 2 wetlands. Wetland C is not significantly disturbed, but is it has very
low species diversity, only one Cowardin vegetation community (emergent), and is very small
(less than 100 square feet). Per RMC 4-3-50.M.a.iii(c), “All other wetlands not classified as Category
1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands” are classified as Category 3 wetlands. Wetland C
satisfies these criteria.
Wetland buffers in Renton are based on the wetland category. All Category 2 wetlands are
required to have a standard buffer width of 50 feet, as measured from the wetland boundary.
All Category 3 wetlands are required to have a standard buffer width of 25 feet, as measured
from the wetland boundary. In summary, Wetlands A and B have a standard buffer width of 50
feet, and Wetland C has a standard buffer width of 25 feet (RMC 4-3-50.M.6.c).
Streams in Renton are classified based on inventory status as Shorelines of the State, salmonid-
fish use, permanence of flow, and historic conditions. Streams A and B are perennial, non-
salmonid-bearing streams. Therefore, both are classified as Class 3 waters. Stream buffers in
Renton are based on the stream class. Class 3 streams are required to have a standard buffer
width of 75 feet, as measured from the OHWM [RMC 4-3-50.L.5.a.i(b)].
Wetland and stream buffers in Renton may be modified through reduction with enhancement
and buffer averaging (RMC 4-3-50.L.5.c-d. & RMC 4-3-50.M.6.e-f). However, buffer reduction
through enhancement is not applicable to buffers that contain slopes greater than 15 percent,
which, based on a preliminary review of publically-available topographic information, would
include most of the study area buffers. Buffer averaging may be applied provided the buffer
contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or
near the critical area; the total area contained in the averaged buffer is no less than the standard
buffer; buffer enhancement may be necessary depending on site conditions, habitat sensitivity,
and proposed land use characteristics; and averaging will not adversely affect critical area
functions. At no point shall a modified buffer be less than 50 percent of the standard buffer
width or less than 25 feet.
State and Federal Regulations
Wetlands and streams are also regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any filling of Waters of the State, including wetlands
(except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps. Project area
wetlands would likely not be considered isolated, due to their direct connection or close
proximity to Streams A and/or B. A formal isolated status inquiry can be requested from the
Wetland and Stream Delineation
Embay Lee
May 14, 2014
Page 5
Corps through the Jurisdictional Determination process. Federally permitted actions that could
affect endangered species (i.e. salmon or bull trout) may also require a biological assessment
study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Application for Corps permits may also require an individual 401 Water
Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination from Ecology.
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.
Disclaimer
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
to us 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,
Ryan Kahlo, PWS
Ecologist
Enclosures
Wetland and Stream Delineation Sketch
Parcel #334330086102, Renton, Washington
Prepared for Embay Lee
May 12, 2014
TWC Project #140504
Stream A
WMA 1R/L – 15R/17L
Stream B
WMB 1R/L – 7R/13L
Wetland B
4 flags
Wetland A
A15 – A30
Wetland A
A1 – A14
Do not connect A14 to A15
Wetland C
4 flags
DP-4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-2 DP-1 Legend:
Approximate Wetland
Boundary
Approximate Wetland
Area
Approximate Stream
OHWM
Approximate Property
Boundary
Data Point
Note:
Field sketch only. Areas depicted have
not been surveyed. All locations are
approximate and not to scale.
Wetland boundaries are marked with pink and black
flags.
Stream OHWM are marked with blue and white flags.
Data points are marked with yellow and black flags.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project Site: Parcel #3343300861 Sampling Date: 4/09/2014
Applicant/Owner: Embay Lee Sampling Point: DP- 1
Investigator: Kahlo, R; Crandall, K. City/County: Renton / King
Sect., Township, Range S 29 T 24N R 5E State: WA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Depression Slope (%) Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave
Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Kitsap silt loam, 15-30% 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 “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland C Inpit
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 5m diam. ) Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet
1. Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 3m diam. )
1. Ribes lacustre 7 Yes FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Rubus spectabilis 1 No FAC Total % Cover of Multiply by
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
= Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m diam. ) Column totals (A) (B)
1. Lysichiton americanum 15 Yes OBL
2. Atherium filix-femina 10 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B / A =
3. Equisetum telmatiea 3 No FACW
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5. X Dominance test is > 50%
6. Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 *
7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting
8. data in remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants *
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain)
11.
= Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ______
Remarks:
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(425) 822-5242
watershedco.com DP-1
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point – DP-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
0-14 2.5Y 3/1 97 10YR 3/6 3 C M Clay 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) Other (explain in remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
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?
Type: ________________________________________ Yes No
Depth (inches): _____________________________________
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Other (explain in remarks)
Field Observations
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): 5 Yes No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No Depth (in): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project Site: Renton Embay Lee Sampling Date: 4/09/2014
Applicant/Owner: Lee Sampling Point: DP-
Investigator: Kahlo, R; Crandall, K. City/County: Renton / King
Sect., Township, Range S 29 T 24N R 5E State: WA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hillslope Slope (%) 5 Local relief (concave, convex, none) None
Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Kitsap silt loam, 15-30% 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 “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland B inpit
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 5m diam. ) Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet
1. Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 3m diam. )
1. Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of Multiply by
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
= Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m diam. ) Column totals (A) (B)
1. Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW
2. Lysichiton americanum 35 Yes OBL Prevalence Index = B / A =
3. Equisetum telmatiea 5 No FACW
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5. X Dominance test is > 50%
6. Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 *
7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting
8. data in remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants *
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain)
11.
= Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1. Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FACU
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ______
Remarks:
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(425) 822-5242
watershedco.com DP-2
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point – DP-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
0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy clay
loam
4-14 2.5Y 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/4 20 C M 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) Other (explain in remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
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?
Type: ________________________________________ Yes No
Depth (inches): _____________________________________
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Other (explain in remarks)
Field Observations
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): 6 Yes No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No Depth (in): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project Site: Renton Embay Lee Sampling Date: 4/09/2014
Applicant/Owner: Lee Sampling Point: DP-
Investigator: Kahlo, R; Crandall, K. City/County: Renton / King
Sect., Township, Range S 29 T 24N R 5E State: WA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hillslope Slope (%) 30 Local relief (concave, convex, none) None
Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Kitsap silt loam, 15-30% 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 “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 5m diam. ) Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet
1. Thuja plicata 100 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 3m diam. )
1. Corylus cornuta 15 Yes FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of Multiply by
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
= Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m diam. ) Column totals (A) (B)
1. Polystichum munitum 60 Yes FACU
2. Mahonia nervosa 10 No FACU Prevalence Index = B / A =
3. Pteridium aquifolium 5 No FACU
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5. Dominance test is > 50%
6. Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 *
7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting
8. data in remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants *
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain)
11.
= Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ______
Remarks: *Presumed FAC
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(425) 822-5242
watershedco.com DP-3
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point – DP-3
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 2/2 100 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) Other (explain in remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
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?
Type: ________________________________________ Yes No
Depth (inches): _____________________________________
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Other (explain in remarks)
Field Observations
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): Yes No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No Depth (in):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project Site: Renton Embay Lee Sampling Date: 4/09/2014
Applicant/Owner: Lee Sampling Point: DP- 4
Investigator: Kahlo, R; Crandall, K. City/County: Renton / King
Sect., Township, Range S 29 T 24N R 5E State: WA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hillslope 20 Local relief (concave, convex, none) None
Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Kitsap silt loam, 15-30% 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 “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 5m diam. ) Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet
1. Fraxinus latifolia 30 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 17 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 3m diam. )
1. Corylus cornuta 30 Yes FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Prunus emarginata 25 Yes FACU Total % Cover of Multiply by
3. Oemleria cerasiformis 25 Yes FACU OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
= Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m diam. ) Column totals (A) (B)
1. Polystichum munitum 50 Yes FACU
2. Equisetum telmatiea 10 No FACW Prevalence Index = B / A =
3.
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5. Dominance test is > 50%
6. Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 *
7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting
8. data in remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants *
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain)
11.
= Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1. Rubus armeniacus 65 Yes FACU
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ______
Remarks: *Presumed FAC
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(425) 822-5242
watershedco.com DP-4
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point – DP-4
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 3/2 100 Clay loam
12-14 10YR 4/3 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Loamy clay
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) Other (explain in remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
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?
Type: ________________________________________ Yes No
Depth (inches): _____________________________________
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Other (explain in remarks)
Field Observations
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): Yes No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No Depth (in): 12
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project Site: Renton Embay Lee Sampling Date: 4/09/2014
Applicant/Owner: Lee Sampling Point: DP- 5
Investigator: Kahlo, R; Crandall, K. City/County: Renton / King
Sect., Township, Range S 29 T 24N R 5E State: WA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Toe of slope Slope (%) 5 Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave
Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Kitsap silt loam, 15-30% 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 “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil, , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland A inpit
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 5m diam. ) Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet
1. Fraxinus latifolia 60 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 3m diam. )
1. Cornus sericea 45 Yes FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Corylus cornuta 100 Yes FACU Total % Cover of Multiply by
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
= Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m diam. ) Column totals (A) (B)
1. Atherium filix-femina 85 Yes FAC
2. Tellima grandiflora 30 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B / A =
3.
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
5. X Dominance test is > 50%
6. Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 *
7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting
8. data in remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants *
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain)
11.
= Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No
1. Rubus armeniacus 2 No FACU
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ______
Remarks: *Presumed FAC
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(425) 822-5242
watershedco.com DP-5
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point – DP-5
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 3/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam
8-14 2.5Y 5/2
2.5Y 5/1
20 10YR 4/6 10 C M, PL Loamy clay Mixed matrix
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) Other (explain in remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
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?
Type: ________________________________________ Yes No
Depth (inches): _____________________________________
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Other (explain in remarks)
Field Observations
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): 10 Yes No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No Depth (in): 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version