Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RS_Critical_Areas_Study_211214_v1
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT – KENNYDALE GATEWAY VULCAN REAL ESTATE RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Alicia Stedman Vulcan Real Estate 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 23 August 2019 (Revised 07 July 2021) Critical Areas Report – Kennydale Gateway Vulcan Real Estate Renton, Washington Prepared For: Alicia Stedman Vulcan Real Estate 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 23 August 2019 (Revised 07 July 2021) Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Gateway PROJECT SITE LOCATION: The address for the Site is 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in the City of Renton, Washington. The project will take place on a single parcel, approximately 7.2 acres in size (King County Parcel number 3224059049). The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. CLIENT: Alicia Stedman, Residential Development Manager, Vulcan Real Estate PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; David Teesdale, Senior Ecologist; Alana Vidmar, Project Assistant. FIELD SURVEY: An initial evaluation of the Site was completed on 11 November 2018, at which time one offsite wetland and the ordinary high water mark of May Creek were preliminarily delineated. The boundaries of the wetland and the ordinary high water mark for May Creek were refreshed in June 2019 for professional surveying. DETERMINATION: No wetlands, streams, or other critical areas were identified on the Site. May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State, and one Category III wetland were identified and delineated on the May Creek Trail Park property adjacent to the south side of the Site. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: As previously stated under DETERMINATION, May Creek is a Shoreline of the State and has a Shoreline Management Zone extending 200-ft landward from the stream’s delineated ordinary high water mark. This Shoreline Management Zone extends onto the Site at the Site’s southwestern corner. The Shoreline overlay for that portion of the Site within the Shoreline Management Zone is Shoreline High Intensity. This overlay allows for mixed commercial and multi-family residential development. VEGETATION CONSERVATION BUFFER: A 100-ft vegetation conservation buffer is required for May Creek, measured landward from the stream’s ordinary high water mark. This vegetation conservation buffer extends onto the Site in two locations in the Site’s southwestern corner. The area of the Site included within the vegetation conservation buffer is currently unvegetated and covered with impermeable surfaces, thus providing little to no useful ecological functions as a buffer for May Creek. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The Client proposes to develop the Kennydale Gateway property with three units of apartments. The total number of apartments is 378. One unit at the southwestern corner of the northernmost building will be for retail. Access to the Kennydale Gateway property will be provided by a new road that will be constructed off Lake Washington Boulevard N. The proposed interchange for the Kennydale Gateway apartments will be a round-about. An access road will be constructed around the southern two-thirds of the site providing onsite parking and access for emergency vehicles. The southwestern end of the access road will connect back to Lake Washington Boulevard N, but its access will be restricted by bollards for emergency vehicle use only. IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIRED: There will be no direct impacts to any critical areas (May Creek or the offsite wetland) resulting from the proposed development. The proposed development within the Shoreline overlay is consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (RMC 4-3-090). It will be necessary to reduce the 100-ft vegetation conservation buffer so that it terminates at the Site’s southern boundary. This is allowed under the City of Renton’s Shoreline Management Program since there will be no loss of ecological function (that portion of the vegetation conservation buffer on the subject property is currently unvegetated and covered with impervious Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page ii surfaces and the total reduction of buffer width is less than 50% of the standard width). No mitigation is being proposed. However, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development (or designee), may request that the non-native, invasive blackberry currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park along the Site’s southern boundary be removed and replaced with native trees and shrubs. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................. v List of Appendices ........................................................................................................... v Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy ........................................................................ 1 1.3 Qualifications ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Property Description .................................................................................. 1 2.1 Property Location ................................................................................ 1 2.2 Existing Site Development ................................................................... 2 Chapter 3. Methodology .............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Background Data Reviewed ................................................................ 3 3.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................... 3 Chapter 4. Results ....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ........................................................... 4 4.1.1 FEMA Floodplain Map. ........................................................................ 4 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory ................................................................. 5 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................ 5 4.1.4 King County GIS Database ................................................................. 5 4.1.5 City of Renton GIS Database .............................................................. 5 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................................ 5 4.2.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Streams .......................................... 6 4.2.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Wetlands ......................................... 6 Chapter 5. Regulatory Review ..................................................................................... 6 5.1 Federal and State Regulations ............................................................ 6 5.1.1 Washington State Regulations ............................................................ 6 5.1.2 Federal Regulations ............................................................................ 7 5.2 City of Renton Municipal Code – Wetlands ......................................... 7 5.3 City of Renton Municipal Code – Shorelines ....................................... 7 Chapter 6. Proposed Site Redevelopment .................................................................. 7 6.1 Multi-Family Residential Development ................................................ 7 6.2 Retail Space ........................................................................................ 8 Chapter 7. Assessment of Project Impacts .................................................................. 8 7.1 Development within Shoreline Zone .................................................... 8 7.2 Development within Vegetation Conservation Buffer ........................ 18 7.3 Analysis of Mitigation Requirements ................................................. 22 Chapter 8. Summary ................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 9. References .............................................................................................. 25 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2 – Site Parcel Map Figure 3 – USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 5 – Proposed Site Development Figures are found at the end of the report. APPENDICES Appendix A: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Data Forms Appendix B: Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington. Appendix C: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Letter of Map Amendment Determination Document (Removal) Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is the result of an existing conditions study for the property located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, known as Kennydale Gateway (referred to hereinafter as the “Site”). The Site is located in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The Site is a single tax parcel, approximately 7.2-acres in size (King County tax parcel number 3224059049) (Figure 2). This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-120.D.19.S – Stream or Lake Study, Standard, RMC 4-8-120.D.19.W – Wetland Assessment, and RMC 4-8-120D2.B – Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study. In addition, this report addresses the evaluation requirements of the City of Renton’s Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090) (Code Publishing Company 2019a; 2019b). This report will provide and describe the following information: • General property description; • Methodology for critical areas investigation; • Results of critical areas background review and field investigation; • Existing site conditions; and • Regulatory review. 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Stream and wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Bill Shiels, Principal; and David R. Teesdale, PWS. Bill Shiels has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Central Washington University and a Master’s Degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Alaska. He has over 40 years of experience in wetland delineations and mitigations. David Teesdale has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Grinnell College, Iowa, and a Master’s Degree in Ecology from Illinois State University. He has 21 years of experience in wetland delineations and biological evaluations. CHAPTER 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Property Location The address for the Site is 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in the City of Renton, Washington. The project will take place on a single parcel, approximately 7.2 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 2 acres in size (King County Parcel number 3224059049). The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is the NW ¼ of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. The topography of the Site is generally flat and level. The Site is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, by May Creek to the south, by Lake Washington Boulevard North to the west, and by an existing access road on Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) property to the north. The WSDOT access road provides vehicular access to the Site. May Creek, which is designated as a Shoreline of the State, flows east to west adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. The Site is within the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District of the May Creek Shoreline jurisdiction (City of Renton 2015) 2.2 Existing Site Development The Site is currently developed with five (5) light industrial buildings. The buildings are constructed of prefabricated steel on concrete slabs. The Site is accessible via the WSDOT access road, which becomes unpaved as it enters the Site. A stormwater pond was constructed in the southwestern corner of the Site to collect and treat stormwater runoff from both the Site and Lake Washington Boulevard N. This pond appears to discharge into May Creek near the Site’s southwestern corner. Vegetation in the stormwater pond includes red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). The Site is bordered on the east side by I-405 and on the west side by Lake Washington Boulevard N. The May Creek Trail Park (City of Renton) is located along the Site’s southern boundary. The Site is mostly impervious surfaces with scant vegetation along its periphery. The vegetation in the Site’s northwestern corner contains red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with an understory consisting of mowed grass. A small “island” of vegetation existing near the Site’s northern end. Vegetation on this island consists mostly of grasses and scattered landscape trees. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY The critical areas analysis of the Site involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the Site and the immediate surrounding area using published environmental information. This information includes: 1) Wetland and soils information from resource agencies; 2) Critical Areas information from King County and the City of Renton; 3) Orthophotography and LIDAR imagery; and, 4) Relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the Site. The second part consisted of a site investigation where direct observations and measurements of existing environmental conditions were made. Observations included plant communities, soils, hydrology, and stream conditions. This information was used to help characterize the site and define the limits of critical areas onsite and offsite for regulatory purposes (see Section 3.2 – Field Investigation below). Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 3 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information from the following sources was reviewed prior to field investigations: • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019) (www.wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html); • Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2016)(www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/); • King County GIS Database (King County, 2018); • City of Renton GIS Database (City of Renton, 2019); • Orthophotography from USDA’s National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP 2017), Earth Explorer (USGS), and Google Earth. • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Mapper; • USFWS listed species data; and • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3.2 Field Investigation Talasaea Consultants evaluated the Site, including the May Creek Trail Park, on 11 November 2018. The purpose of our evaluation was to locate any critical areas (wetlands or streams) on or in the vicinity of the Site. During our investigation, we delineated the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek. The OHWM was initially mapped using a mapping-grade GPS receiver (Arrow 100) and later surveyed for accuracy by CORE Design. No wetlands or streams were identified on the Site. Wetland delineation within the shoreline zone of May Creek utilized the routine approach as described in the Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology 1997), as required by the City of Renton’s Shoreline Management Code. Ordinary high water marks (OHWM) were evaluated based on the methodology described by the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (WDOE) Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (Hitchcock and Cronquist 2018). Taxonomic names were updated and plant wetland status was assigned according to The National Wetland Plant List, Version 2.4.0 (Lichvar et al. 2016). Wetland classes were determined using the USFWS system of wetland classification (Cowardin et al. 1979). Vegetation was considered hydric if greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species had a wetland plant indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Wetland hydrology was determined based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Corps’ Regional Supplement. These indicators are separated into Primary and Secondary Indicators. Confirmation of wetland hydrology requires the Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 4 demonstration of at least one Primary Indicator or two Secondary Indicators. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: • Drainage patterns; • Drift lines; • Sediment deposition; • Watermarks; • Stream gauge data and flood predictions; • Historical records; and • Visual observations of saturated soil conditions or inundation. Soils on the site were considered hydric of one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps’ Regional Supplement were present. Indicators include: • The presence of organic soils; • Reduced, depleted, or gleyed soils; or • Redoximorphic features in association with reduced soils. An evaluation of patterns of vegetation, hydrology, and soil was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with wire flags or surveyor tape. Appendix A contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both upland and wetland locations. Wetlands were rated using the Washington Department of Ecology’s Wetland Rating System for Western Washington in accordance with City of Auburn Shoreline Management code requirements (Hruby 2006). Data forms used in rating the wetlands are provided in Appendix B. CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This section describes the results of our in-house research and field investigation. For the purpose of this report, the term “vicinity” describes an area within ¼ mile of the Site. Field investigation included an assessment of environmental conditions within 300 feet of the Site. No privately-owned properties were accessed without specific landowner permission. Under those circumstances, our evaluation was limited to what could readily be seen from public properties. 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information The following sources provided information on site conditions based on data compiled from resource agencies and local government. 4.1.1 FEMA Floodplain Map. The floodplain for May Creek was initially mapped as extending onto the Site at the southern boundary (affected map panel 53033C0664F, prepared on 16 May 1995). However, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA, attached to Appendix C) was prepared on 22 May 2012 that removed the property from the mapped floodplain. The map Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 5 panel, itself, has not been revised. Rather, the LOMA serves the interim purpose of revision without having to update an entire map panel. In summary, the property is not within the floodplain of May Creek. 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory does not map any wetlands on the Site (Figure 3). It does map five wetlands offsite within a ¼-mile. Three of the wetlands are identified as palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands that are seasonally flooded (PSSC). May Creek is characterized as a lower perennial riverine wetland with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded (R2UBH). Finally, Lake Washington is mapped to the west of the Site as a lacustrine limnetic wetland with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded, but diked or impounded (L1UBHh). The latter modifier (diked or impounded) refers to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which directly control water elevations in Lake Washington. 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service The NRCS maps one soil on the Site: Normal sandy loam. Norma loam is a very deep, poorly drained soil in depressional areas of outwash plains and till plains. It is formed in alluvium. Typically, the surface area is very dark gray loam to about 10 inches. The subsoil is dark grayish brown sandy loam to about 18 inches. The substratum is dark gray sandy loam to about 60 inches. Norma loam is listed as a hydric soil by the National Technical Committee on Hydric soils. 4.1.4 King County GIS Database King County GIS does not map any critical areas on the Site. It does map one stream on the parcel south of the site. The stream is identified as May Creek; a Shoreline of the State. 4.1.5 City of Renton GIS Database In addition to May Creek, the City of Renton’s critical areas GIS database maps one wetland south of the Site’s southeast corner and north of May Creek. No other critical areas (outside of Lake Washington) are mapped by the City of Renton in the vicinity of the Site. 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions Talasaea Consultants reviewed the existing environmental conditions on the Site on 11 November 2018, which included an evaluation of offsite environmental conditions associated with May Creek. No areas exhibiting wetland conditions were identified on the Site. One wetland was identified landward of the right bank of May Creek (the area of the May Creek park adjacent to the Site). The boundary of this wetland was not flagged in the field. It is shown in Figure 4 based on GIS data from the City of Renton (2019). We did identify the OHWM of May Creek, which was initially located and mapped using an Arrow 100 GPS receiver (no flags or surveyor tape was used). The OHWM of May Creek was later flagged for survey by CORE Design. The surveyed boundary of the OHWM of May Creek was used to determine the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 6 required 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer for May Creek as it extends onto the Site. 4.2.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Streams May Creek is identified as a Shoreline of the State. It is not a Shoreline of Significance, however. The shoreline jurisdiction zone is identified by the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan as “Shoreline: High-Intensity’ (City of Renton 2015). This zone is measured landward from May Creek’s OHWM. In addition to the shoreline management zone, May Creek also has a 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer. No reach of May Creek flows onto the Site. Rather, the parcel it flows through is identified as May Creek Trail Park; a City of Renton-owned property. This parcel is mostly forested and shows signs of restoration and enhancement plantings. A soft surface trail (May Creek Trail) extends onto Lake Washington Boulevard near the Site’s southwestern corner across the northern portion of the park. The trail forms a loop at the park’s eastern end around a City-mapped wetland. The trail does not cross May Creek or continue under I-405 to more City-owned open space associated with May Creek. 4.2.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Wetlands No wetlands were identified on the Site. Two areas of evident surface water were observed in the southern portion of the property. These areas are the result of soil compaction resulting from trailer and equipment storage, as well as vehicular traffic over many years. Puddles are not regulated under the Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2015). One wetland is mapped within the May Creek Trail Park. We evaluated and flagged the existing limits of this wetland and found it to be smaller than presented on the City’s GIS database. We rated the wetland based on RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ii. The wetland rated 12 points for Water Quality Functions, 10 points for Hydrologic Functions, and 15 Points for Habitat Functions. The Total Score for Functions is 37, which qualifies the wetland for a Category III rating. Category III wetlands located within a shoreline jurisdiction having a Habitat Score less than 20 have a 75-foot standard buffer. Applying this buffer to the wetland boundary as mapped by the City of Renton (not Talasaea’s smaller wetland boundary) clearly shows that the buffer does not extend onto the Site. CHAPTER 5. REGULATORY REVIEW 5.1 Federal and State Regulations 5.1.1 Washington State Regulations Critical areas on the Site, such as wetlands and streams, are subject to regulation at the State level primarily by the following statutes: • State Water Pollution Control Act (administered by DOE); • Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (administered by DOE); • Hydraulic Code of Washington (administered by WDFW); • Forest Practices Act (administered by WDNR). Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 7 DOE uses Section 401 of the State Water Quality Certification (WQC) as the primary mechanism for implementing the provisions of the State Water Pollution Control Act. Section 401 WQC is typically issued in conjunction with Section 404 permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Any impacts to streams would also be regulated under the Hydraulic Code of Washington as part of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit process. Land clearing activities that remove more than 5,000 board feet of timber are subject to a Forest Practices Act Review by WDNR (or by the local jurisdiction per agreements with WDNR). 5.1.2 Federal Regulations Critical areas on or adjacent to the Site may be subject to Federal regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Register 2002). The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering compliance with Section 404 via the issuance of Nationwide or Individual Permits for any fill or dredging activities within wetlands or streams. It should be noted that no critical area meeting the definition of a Water of the United States is present on the Site. There will be no requirement to apply for any Federal Permits associated with the Clean Water Act for this project. 5.2 City of Renton Municipal Code – Wetlands Wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline zones within the City of Renton are currently regulated under the RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d (Code Publishing Company 2019b). Waters meeting the definition of a Shoreline of the State are regulated and the Shoreline Management Program (RMC 4-3-090). 5.3 City of Renton Municipal Code – Shorelines The City of Renton regulates Shorelines of the State both by the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). CHAPTER 6. PROPOSED SITE REDEVELOPMENT The Site will be redeveloped with three apartment buildings providing 378 units of apartments (Figure 5). Access to the Site will be provided by a new round-about constructed off Lake Washington Boulevard N at the northwestern corner of the multi-family residential development. Access to the Sound Transit park and ride facility will be provided by a drive aisle across the retail development. 6.1 Multi-Family Residential Development The multi-family residential development (Residential Development) will consist of a three-story “wrap” apartment development with courtyards (Figure 5). The development will occupy approximately 255,379 sf (5.9 acres) of the total Site area (approximately 7.76 acres). A multi-story concrete cast-in-place parking garage will be wrapped by a wood-framed apartment construction. The purpose of this particular design is to “hide” the parking structure to be more aesthetic visually from Lake Washington Boulevard N. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 8 The Residential Development will provide approximately 378 units of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom configurations. Access to the apartments will be provided by air-conditioned corridors. The upper floors of the apartments will have elevator access. The Residential Development will also “wrap” around a central courtyard area. Five additional courtyards will be provided around the periphery of the apartment complex: two will be associated with Building 1 (northernmost proposed building), one associated with Building 2 (southeastern corner of the site, and three associated with Building 3. An access road along the eastern and southern portions of the proposed development will provide parking stalls as well as fire and emergency access to the eastern and southern portions of the complex. The access road will connect to the main entrance off of Lake Washington Boulevard N and will terminate at the Site’s southwestern corner also off of Lake Washington Boulevard N. Access to this road will be restricted by removable bollards. 6.2 Retail Space The retail space will be provided at the southwestern corner of Building 1. The retail space is approximately 1,550 sf in size. Access to the retail space, including fire and emergency services, will be provided by the main access road off of Lake Washington Boulevard. Eight parking stalls will be provided for the retail space. CHAPTER 7. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPACTS 7.1 Development within Shoreline Zone A portion of the Residential Development will occur within the 200-foot shoreline zone for May Creek. The area of impact to the shoreline zone on Site is approximately 55,854 sf. The shoreline zone is identified as a Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District. The objective of this overlay district is to allow large-scale office, commercial, multi-family residential, and public service uses while protecting existing ecological functions, or restoring ecological functions of areas that have been previously degraded (City of Renton 2015). Management policies suggest that water-oriented development activities be considered. However, the City recognizes that properties within this overlay district are likely to have existing developments that are not water-oriented. Therefore, non-water-oriented development should be permitted where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses, or where direct access to the shoreline is not currently provided. Public access is a priority, as well as ecological restoration and aesthetics. The general development standards within the Shoreline High-intensity Overlay District are provided by RMC 4-3-090.D1. The items to be addressed within this section of the shoreline master program are: 1 Applicable code text is provided verbatim in this report to the best of our ability. Any differences between City of Renton’s published code and the text provided herein is due primarily to transcription errors and does not constitute an attempt to modify the original code. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 9 1) “Applicability: This Section shall apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits. Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title IV, Development Regulations, Chapter 4, City-wide Property Development Standards (chapter 4-4 RMC) contain regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. Such provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2) Environmental Effects: a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. The Site is currently developed with impervious surfaces comprising nearly 82-percent of the Site’s total area. Stormwater is currently collected onsite and discharged to a stormwater treatment pond located at the Site’s southwestern corner. The proposed project will include required landscaping and open space. Based on the current development plans, the amount of impervious surfaces will be reduced from 82-percent under current conditions to approximately 76 percent of the total Site area. In addition, enhanced stormwater treatment will be provided to further improve the removal of toxic metals and organic compounds, as well as sediments, trash, and other debris. ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions and processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on- or off-site. The purpose of this report is to evaluate any potential impacts to the shoreline environment resulting from the proposed site development. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 10 iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. It will not be possible to completely avoid impacts to the shoreline on the Site. The portion of the site within the shoreline jurisdiction is currently approximately 84 percent developed with impervious surfaces and buildings. The proposed development plan will increase the area of impervious surfaces within the shoreline jurisdiction by approximately 5 percent. However, stormwater collected on the proposed impervious surfaces within the shoreline jurisdiction will be cleansed using enhanced stormwater treatment technologies before release into the existing stormwater detention pond. It is anticipated that the use of enhanced stormwater treatment technologies will substantially improve the quality of water discharged. No untreated stormwater will be released into the portion of the May Creek shoreline zone south of the Site. b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance with the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Renton. By providing the text of the applicable code, we can directly demonstrate how the proposed project is in compliance. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 11 c. Critical areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction: i. Applicable Critical Areas Regulations: The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, adopted by reference except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2c11 of this Section. Said provisions shall apply to any use, alteration or development within the shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provisions adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail. (a) Aquifer protection areas. The Site is not located within an aquifer protection area. The City of Renton’s water comes from the Cedar Valley aquifer and Springbrook Springs. The Site is not located within either of these areas. Additionally, the Site is outside of the ten-year capture zone for Well 5A, based on the City of Renton’s GIS database. (b) Areas of special flood hazard. A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was issued on 22 May 2012 that removed the Site from the special flood hazard area. (c) Sensitive slopes, twenty five percent (20%) to forty percent (40%), and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. The Site’s topography is generally flat and level throughout. Sensitive slopes do not exist on the Site. (d) Landslide hazard areas. The Site is not located within a landslide hazard area as mapped by the City of Renton’s GIS database. (e) High erosion hazards. The Site is not located within a high erosion hazard area as mapped by the City of Renton’s GIS database (f) High seismic hazards. The Site is located within an area mapped as a high seismic hazard area. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 12 Issues involving development within a high seismic hazard area are an engineering question and outside of the scope of this Critical Areas Report. (g) Coal mine hazards. The Site is not located within a coal mine hazard area as mapped by the City of Renton’s GIS database. (h) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats. The Site contains a portion of the May Creek Reaches Shoreline jurisdiction. The portion of this conservation area within the Site’s boundaries is currently developed with impervious surfaces. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces. The portion of the May Creek Reaches shoreline jurisdiction adjacent to the Site is contained within a City-owned open space that is well vegetated and protected from further development. (i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2 through 5 only. This provision is not applicable. The Site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any Class 2 through 5 fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. ii. Inapplicable Critical Areas Regulations: The following provisions of RMC 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations, shall not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction: This provision is not applicable since no alterations or variances will be necessary for the proposed development plan. iii. Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas: Environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy shall be considered Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas. Regulations for fish habitat conservation areas Class 1 Streams and Lakes are contained within the development standards and use standards of the Shoreline Master Program, including but not limited to subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, which establishes vegetated buffers adjacent to water bodies and specific provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and are scientifically supported by specific studies performed by qualified professionals. The shoreline zone contained within the boundaries of the Site is identified as Shoreline High Intensity. The shoreline designation for the May Creek Trail Park area is Urban Conservancy. The vegetation conservation buffer required for this project is 100 feet measured landward from the OHWM of the regulated shoreline of the state (May Creek). This vegetation conservation Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 13 buffer extends onto the Site at two locations near the Site’s southwestern corner, totaling approximately 5,347 sf. d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction: i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. Unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication No. 96-94) regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. One wetland, Wetland A, was identified within the shoreline jurisdiction of May Creek. The wetland, nor its required buffer, extends onto the Site. ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised August 2004 (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025). We rated the wetland in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program. The wetland satisfied the criteria as a Category III wetland with a low habitat score (less than 20 points). iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study shall be required. This Existing Conditions Report includes an assessment of the offsite wetland. iv. Wetland Buffers: This provision describes the required protective buffer for wetlands based on their rating and their habitat score. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a low habitat score (less than 20 points). The required buffer width is 75 feet measured landward from the surveyed boundary of the wetland. As stated previously in Section 4.2.2 of this report, the buffer for Wetland A (as measured from the edge of the wetland as mapped in the City of Renton’s GIS data and not the smaller Talasaea delineation) does not extend onto the Site at any point. There will be no need to modify (decrease or increase) the required buffer width as a result of the proposed development plan. (a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer requirement for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 14 permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with used characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions. As previously stated, the required buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site. The buffer, itself, is generally well vegetated with native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species. (b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this Chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the standard buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. The buffer currently is well vegetated, albeit bisected by a soft-paved public trail. Increasing the buffer width would not provide any additional protections to the wetland due to the existence of the trail and the disturbance that occurs by its use. (c) Minimum Buffer Width: The minimum buffer width provided by Subsection (c) is 75 feet. We are measuring this buffer from the edge of the wetland based on the City of Renton’s GIS database rather than our much smaller delineation to illustrate that the buffer does not extend onto the Site at any point. v. Provisions for Small Isolated Wetlands: All wetlands shall be regulated regardless of size; provided that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall assure that preservation of isolated wetlands and associated buffer of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of combined wetland and buffer shall maintain effective wetland functions, or be mitigated as provided below. This provision is not applicable. No wetlands meeting the definition provided above exist on or adjacent to the Site. vi. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis when the applicant demonstrates through a wetland study to the satisfaction of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that all of the following criteria are met: This provision is not applicable. The buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site. Buffer averaging will not be required. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 15 vii. Reasonable Use: Wetland buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met: The buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site, thus does not constrain the potential development of the property. Reasonable use will not be addressed for the proposed development. viii. Wetland Buffer Increase Allowed: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the width of the standard buffer width on a case-by-case basis, based on a critical area study, when a larger buffer is required to protect critical habitats as outlined in RMC 4-3-050K, or such increase is necessary to: (a) Protect the function and value of that wetland from proximity of adjacent land use, including noise, light and other disturbance, not sufficiently limited by buffer provided above; The 75-foot standard buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site. The existing vegetation within the May Creek Trail Park is sufficient to protect the wetland from disturbances emanating from the proposed development. It should be noted that increasing the width of the buffer for Wetland A will not provide any additional protection from human disturbances since a public trail surrounds the wetland. Any benefit that might be provided by a larger buffer width would be nullified by human-related disturbances from the use of the public trail. (b) Maintain viable populations of priority species of fish and wildlife; As stated in our response to RMC 4-3-090.D2.d.viii.a above, increasing the buffer width would not provide any additional protection to listed priority fish and wildlife species due to the presence of a public trail that surrounds the wetland. The wetland does reside within City-owned property, which will prevent future development around this reach of May Creek. Protections to priority species, therefore, are provided by the May Creek Trail Park. (c) Protect wetlands and other critical areas from landslides, erosion or other hazards. The wetland and the Site are not in areas identified as landslide or erosion hazard. ix. Allowed Activities in wetlands and buffers: The following uses and activities may be allowed in wetlands or buffer areas by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee subject to the priorities, protection, and mitigation requirements of this Section: Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 16 This provision will not need to be addressed. There will be no direct impacts to Wetland A or its required buffer resulting from the proposed development. x. Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values in accordance with subsection D7 of this Section. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent functions and values. This provision will not be necessary since there will be no direct impacts to Wetland A or its required buffer occurring as a result of the proposed development. xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards for adjacent development shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland, and shall include: (a) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient building area outside wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented whenever feasible to provide a rear yard of at least twenty feet between the buffer area and buildings; The proposed development is not a subdivision. Nevertheless, the proposed development will provide more than the required 20 feet of setback between the buffer area and buildings. (b) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential development to limit domestic animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas; The Site is currently segregated from the May Creek Trail Park by a chain-link fence. The existing fence may be replaced with a two-rail fence or a similar fence type. Currently, there is no protective fencing around Wetland A that would prevent pets from intruding upon the wetland from the existing public trail. (c) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far away from the wetland and buffer as feasible. Roads, driveways, parking lots, and loading areas, mechanical or ventilating equipment shall be located on the sides of buildings away from the wetland, or separated by noise attenuating walls; The only potential noise-generating activity, as described by this provision, is the emergency access road around the perimeter of the proposed development. This road will be infrequently used by emergency vehicles only and will likely not require any noise attenuating practices to protect the wetland or its buffer. (d) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetland shall be limited by locating areas requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland boundary, or Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 17 limiting light mounting heights to a maximum of four feet (4). Windows that will be lit at night should be minimized on the side of buildings facing wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below; A sufficient depth of dense vegetation exists within the May Creek Trail Park to adequately protect the wetland and its buffer from light intrusion. Lighting will be located on the north side of the drive aisle adjacent to May Creek Trail Park. (e) Runoff should be routed to infiltration systems, to the maximum extent feasible, to provide groundwater interflow recharge to wetlands and/or water bodies and to limit overland flow and erosion. The draft geotechnical report for this development plan does not recommend stormwater infiltration onsite due to a relatively shallow groundwater table (estimated to be two to five feet below ground surface). All stormwater will be collected onsite, treated with enhanced stormwater treatment technologies, and released into an existing stormwater detention pond located in the Site’s southwestern corner. Untreated overland flow leaving the developed site will be prevented. The proposed development will not cause any local increase in erosion hazards. (f) Surface and piped stormwater should be routed to existing conveyances or to other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where stormwater is routed to wetlands, system design shall assure that erosion and sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable; No stormwater will be routed to Wetland A. All stormwater will be captured onsite and directed towards an existing stormwater detention pond for gradual release directly into May Creek. (g) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other landscaped areas from entering the buffer, and prevent washing of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the buffer, if slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed fifteen percent (15%), a ten feet [sic] (10’) wide swale to intercept runoff or other effective interception facility approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall be provided at the edge of the buffer; This provision does not apply to the project. Required curb and gutter on the emergency access road will effectively prevent any runoff from lawns or landscaped areas from impacting Wetland A or its required buffer. (h) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management system including limiting use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within twenty five (25) feet of the buffer. An integrated pest management plan will be prepared for this project. It is Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 18 unlikely that any fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides (properly applied by a licensed applicator) would impact the vegetated portion of the buffer since the edge of the buffer for Wetland A (as measured from the map of the wetland in the City of Renton’s GIS database) is approximately 30 feet from the edge of the Site. 7.2 Development within Vegetation Conservation Buffer RMC 4-3-090.D.7 provides guidance for density, setbacks, and height standards. Subsection (a) of this section provides a table indicating shoreline bulk density standards by shoreline jurisdiction. The required setback, or vegetation conservation buffer for May Creek is 100 ft measured landward from the stream’s OHWM. None of the buildings will be located within this 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer. RMC 4-3-090.D.7.a specifies the allowable shoreline bulk standards for development within shoreline zones. The maximum building height within the High Intensity overlay is 35 ft. However, Table note 8 allows for additional building height, stating: 8. “Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use. Height up to that established in chapter 4-2 RMC, Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards, may be allowed for non-water-dependent uses in the following reaches: Lake Washington Reaches C, H, I, and J; Cedar River Reaches A, B, and C; Black River Reach A; May Creek Reach B; and Springbrook Creek Reaches B, C, and D: a. For buildings landward of one hundred feet (100’) from OHWM, the maximum building height shall be defined by a maximum allowable building height envelope that shall: i. Begin along a line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100’) from OHWM at a height of either thirty five feet (35’) or one-half (1/2) the maximum height allowed in the underlying zone, whichever is greater; The underlying zoning for this project is Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR). The maximum allowable building height for this zoning is 250 feet. Therefore, the maximum allowable height starting at 100 feet from the OHWM should be 125 feet. The height of the proposed apartment building within the shoreline zone is approximately 50.5 feet. and ii. Have an upward landward transition at a slope of one vertical to one horizontal from the beginning height either (a) until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC is reached (from which line the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning), or (b) to the end of shoreline jurisdiction, Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 19 whichever comes first.” This item does not apply since there will be no need to increase building height beyond the 50.5 feet currently designed. RMC 4-3-090.F.1 provides guidance on vegetation conservation and shoreline modifications. RMC 4-3-090-F.1.a states: 1. “Vegetation Conservation a. Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as otherwise specified in this Section, water bodies defined as shorelines shall have a minimum 100 foot (100’) vegetation management buffer measured from the OHWM of the regulated shoreline [sic] of the State. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured perpendicular to the OHWM from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the stream. A minimum 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer is shown in Figure 4 of this report. Approximately 6,592 sf of vegetation conservation buffer extends onto the Site at its southwestern corner. The area of the buffer extending onto the Site is not well vegetated. Rather, it is disturbed and mostly impervious surfaces. Consequently, the value of this vegetation conservation buffer area on the Site is poor. b. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Widths by Reach: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may apply the following vegetation buffers provided for in Table 4-3- 090F1i. Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach, as an alternative to the standard vegetation conservation buffer for sites for development that implement water-oriented use and public access as provided in the table for each reach. This section does not apply since water-oriented use or public access is not part of the proposed development. The 75-ft buffer, based on the map of the wetland provide in the City of Renton’s GIS database c. Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots: This section does not apply. There are no single-family lots on the Site. d. Reduction of Vegetated Buffer or Setback Width: i. Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or Designee May Reduce: Based upon an applicant’s request, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks where the Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 20 applicant can demonstrate compliance with criteria in the subsection below. Buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. It will be necessary to reduce the vegetation conservation buffer as it extends onto the Site to accommodate the proposed development plan, which includes parking spaces and required emergency access to buildings along the south side of the development. The area where the vegetation conservation buffer will be reduced currently consists of impermeable surfaces with little to no natural vegetation. ii. Water-Dependent Uses: This subsection is not applicable. The proposed redevelopment of the Site does not include any water-dependent uses. iii. Vegetation Conservation Standard Table Applied: Vegetated buffers specified for areas enumerated in Table 4-3-090F1i, Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach, shall be applied in accordance with those provisions. This subsection does not apply. The Site currently contains no single-family lots. iv. Buffer and Setback Reduction Standards: Based upon an applicant’s request, and the acceptance of a standard stream or lake study, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks by up to fifty percent (50%) if within the High Intensity Overlay or by up to twenty five percent (25%) in all other shoreline overlays except when the buffer widths/setbacks are established by Subsection F1c of this Section, Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots, where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria in the subsections below: (a) The proposal complies with either of the following two (2) criteria: (1) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer is already extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than five percent (5%) non-native invasive species cover; The vegetation conservation buffer for May Creek Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 21 extends onto the Site in two locations near the Site’s southwestern corner. These two areas are currently covered by impermeable surfaces and are generally unvegetated. The remaining vegetation conservation buffer on the May Creek Trail Park property is well vegetated with native trees and shrubs. It appears that vegetation management to enhance the existing buffer habitat and remove non-native invasive species occurs occasionally. or (2) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non- native species; A dense growth of Himalayan blackberry exists along the fence line along the Site’s southern boundary. This growth of blackberry is on City-owned property and can be removed and replanted with native vegetation, pursuant to City of Renton approval. and (b) The proposed project, with width reduction, will result in no net loss of ecological functions as consistent with subsection D2a of this Section, No Net Loss of Ecological Functions; The proposed reduction of the vegetation conservation buffer where it currently extends onto the Site will not cause a net loss of ecological function. The area of proposed buffer reduction is currently devoid of native vegetation (no trees, shrubs, or desirable herbaceous species) and provides no ecological functions to May Creek. The proposed development, however, will install curb and gutter along the edges of the parking aisles and emergency access road. The proposed curb and gutter will prevent untreated and undetained stormwater from flowing offsite and into the vegetated portion of the buffer. In essence, the prevention of undetained and untreated runoff will help improve some of the functions of the vegetation conservation buffer in terms of protecting the water quality of May Creek. and (c) Reduction of the buffer/setback shall not create the need for rigid shoreline stabilization as described in subsections F4aiii(d) and (e) of this Section, Shoreline Stabilization Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 22 Alternatives Hierarchy; The proposed reduction in the buffer/setback will not require any shoreline stabilization. No work will occur within the May Creek Trail Park property. and (d) The reduction shall not create any significant unmitigated adverse impacts to other property in the vicinity. It is unlikely that the reduction in buffer/setback width will create any significant unmitigated adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the Site. There will be no increase in the amount of unvegetated buffer resulting from the proposed development plan. Furthermore, required stormwater management will help prevent the release of undetained and untreated stormwater runoff into the May Creek Trail Park property (e) Review Procedures: (1) Buffer reductions in the High Intensity Overlay shall be approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee as part of a Substantial Development Permit. Buffer reductions in all other shoreline overlays shall be processed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-190I, Variances and Conditional Uses. The proposed development project is located within the High Intensity Overlay and, therefore, shall require a Substantial Development Permit. (2) Written findings shall be made to demonstrate that the buffer reduction substantially implements the criteria of this Section. The preceding discussion of Development within the vegetation conservation buffer serves to fulfill the purpose of this subsection. 7.3 Analysis of Mitigation Requirements It is our understanding of the Shoreline Development code and the proposed development plan that substantial mitigation for reducing the vegetation conservation buffer will not be necessary for this project (City of Renton 2015). There will be no direct impacts to existing vegetation within the vegetation conservation buffer on the Site, nor will there be any impacts to May Creek or Wetland A. The proposed site Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 23 development will not reduce the existing level of ecological functioning of the vegetation conservation buffer. Rather, we anticipate that required stormwater management for this project will help prevent untreated and undetained stormwater from exiting the Site and impacting May Creek. We do envision that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development (or designee) may require the infestation of Himalayan blackberry along the Site’s southern boundary to be removed and the area along the southern property line replanted with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Further mitigation is not warranted based on existing conditions both onsite and offsite. CHAPTER 8. SUMMARY The address for the Site is 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in the City of Renton, Washington. The project will take place on a single parcel, approximately 7.2 acres in size (King County Parcel number 3224059049). The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. The topography of the Site is generally level. The Site is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, by May Creek to the south, to the west by Lake Washington Boulevard North, and by an existing WSDOT access road to the north. The WSDOT access road currently provides vehicular access road to the Site. May Creek is designated as a Shoreline of the State, Urban Conservancy, as it flows east to west adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. The Site is currently developed with five light industrial buildings, constructed of prefabricated steel. Approximately 82 percent of the site is impervious surfaces. A Shoreline of the State (May Creek) is located on a parcel adjacent to the south of the Site. This adjacent parcel is owned by the City of Renton and is used for public recreation and open space. The right bank ordinary high water mark of May Creek is sufficiently close to the Site to place part of the site within a 200-foot shoreline management zone. The Site is designated as Shoreline High Intensity Overlay by the City of Renton. Outside of the 200-foot shoreline management zone, only a portion (approximately 5,347 sf) of a required 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer off of May Creek extends onto the Site (a small wetland is located southeast of the site within the May Creek Trail Park, but its standard 75-foot buffer does not extend onto the Site at any point). The proposed development plan meets the general requirements for development within the High Intensity Overlay. No building will be located within the 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer on the Site. Therefore, height restrictions for development within the vegetation conservation buffer do not apply. Additionally, the portion of the vegetation conservation buffer that extends onto the Site may be reduced by up to 50 percent, or 50 feet. This reduction provision is easily met since the maximum extent of the vegetation conservation buffer onto the Site is no greater than 40 feet. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 24 For the most part, no mitigation will be required for the proposed development or reduction in the vegetation conservation buffer. The area of proposed buffer reduction is currently covered with impervious surfaces and provides no ecological function or value in protecting May Creek or providing useful habitat. The proposed development will not increase this lack of functioning buffer. However, it may be required that the dense growth of Himalayan blackberry along the Site’s southern boundary be removed and the boundary replanted with native trees and shrubs. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 25 CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES Anderson, Paul S., Susan Meyer, Patricia Olsen, and Eric Stockdale. 2016. “Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State.” # 16-06-029. Lacey, WA: Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelines & Environmental Assistance Program. City of Renton. 2015. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Code Publishing Company. 2019a. Renton Municipal Code. Title IV Development Regulations. Vol. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlays. ———. 2019b. Renton Municipal Code. Title IV Development Regulations. Vol. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.” In Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Federal Register. 2002. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C 1251 et Seq.). United States Senate. Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press. Hruby, T. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised, Publication #04-06-025. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N. C. Melvin. 2016. “The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings.” Phytoneuron 2016: 1–17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States.’” Federal Register Volume 80 (No. 124): 75. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 26 FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2 – Site Parcel Map Figure 3 – USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 5 – Proposed Site Development a a a Sa a Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Appendix A APPENDIX A U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2019 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: TAL-1779 Kennydale Gateway City/County: Renton Sampling Date:6-10-2019 Applicant/Owner: Vulcan State: Washington Sampling Point: TP-A1 Investigator(s): DRT Section, Township, Range: Section 32, T24N, R5E ,W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47° 31' 44" Long: 122° 11'55" Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PSS 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: Dominance of wetland vegetation mostly aggressive FAC species. Hydrology indicators were geomorphic position and FAC neutral test. These constitute a weak indication of wetland conditions. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Corylus cornuta 15 Yes FACU 2. Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC 3. Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa 5 FAC 4. 35 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Acer macrophyllum 10 FACU 2. Lonicera involucrata 30 Yes FAC 3. Rubus spectabilis 15 Yes FAC 4. Alnus rubra 5 FAC 5. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 FACU 70 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Polygonum sachalinense 15 FACU 2. Ranunculus repens 80 Yes FAC 3. Epilobium ciliatum 5 FACW 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 30 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (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: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominant species are greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-A1 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 3/3 90 10YR 3/4 10 C M Sandy loam 12"+ 2.5Y 4/4 Sand 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) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil indicators are not met. 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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20" Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20" (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Test plot location meets two Secondary Indicators. However, we believe that these constitute a relatively weak indication of wetland hydrology 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: TAL-1779 Kennydale Gateway City/County: Renton Sampling Date:6-10-2019 Applicant/Owner: Vulcan State: Washington Sampling Point: TP-A2 Investigator(s): DRT Section, Township, Range: Section 32, T24N, R5E ,W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47° 31' 44" Long: 122° 11'55" Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Indicators of wetland vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soil were not met. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 FACU 2. Alnus rubra 30 Yes FAC 3. Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa 10 Yes FAC 4. 45 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Corylus cornuta 10 FACU 2. Acer macrophyllum 60 Yes FACU 3. Rubus spectabilis 10 FAC 4. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Yes FACU 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Galium aparine 60 Yes FACU 2. Ranunculus repens 20 Yes FAC 3. Polygonum sachalinense 10 FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 30 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (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: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominant species not greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-A2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam 6-20 10YR 3/3 100 Sandy Loam 20"+ 10YR 4/2 100 Sandy Loam 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) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil indicators 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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20" Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20" (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Appendix B APPENDIX B WETLAND RATING FORM, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON (2014) Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology? Yes__No___ Date of training______ SEC: ___ TWNSHP: ____ RNGE: ____ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes___ No___ Map of wetland unit: Figure ____ Estimated size ______ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I___ II___ III___ IV___ Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I___ II___ Does not Apply___ Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III =Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Offsite Wetland A TAL- 1779 Offsite Wetland A 11-11-2018 DRT ✔10-2005 32 24N 5E ✔ 1 68 sf ✔ 12 10 15 37 ✔ Cat. III ✔ Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database.Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Offsite Wetland A ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES –The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES –The wetland class is Slope If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Offsite Wetland A ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river ____ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES –The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Offsite Wetland A ✔ ✔ ✔ Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality Points (only 1 score per box) D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points =3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing)points = 1 Unit is a “flat” depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawing Figure ___ D S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure ___ D D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure ___ D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland.Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other_____________________________________ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 (see p. 44) multiplier _____ D TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 Offsite Wetland A 2 1 0 3 5 0 6 ✔ 2 12 Comments: 2 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation Points (only 1 score per box) D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?(see p.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points =4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a “flat” depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland” points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other_____________________________________ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 (see p. 49) multiplier _____ D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 0 0 5 5 ✔ 2 10 Offsite Wetland A Comments: Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat Points (only 1 score per box) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is ¼ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. ____Aquatic bed ____Emergent plants ____Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ____Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: ____The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 Figure ___ H 1.2. Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 ____Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 ____ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure ___ H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Total for page ______ Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Offsite Wetland A ✔ ✔ 2 1 ✔ 3 0 1 2 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always “high”.Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure ___ H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (see p. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) ____At least ¼ acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Offsite Wetland A 2 ✔ 2 ✔ ✔ 2 6 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see p. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit.The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed.” 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer.(relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers Figure ___ H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors,heavily used gravel roads,paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page______ Offsite Wetland A ✔ 1 4 ✔ ✔ 1 2 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit?NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ____Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). ____Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ____Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ____Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age.(Mature forests)Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence,numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ____Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). ____Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ____Westside Prairies:Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). ____Instream:The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ____Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). ____Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ____Cliffs:Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. ____Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ____Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Offsite Wetland A ✔ ✔ ✔ 4 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits)(see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within ½ mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within ½ mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ½ mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within ½ mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within ½ mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within ½ mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions –add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 Offsite Wetland A 3 9 6 15 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (see p. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ___ SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II Offsite Wetland A ✔ No Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site ___ YES____–contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO ___ SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO ____not a Heritage Wetland Cat. I SC 3.0 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks,that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes –Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1.Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No___ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Offsite Wetland A ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ No No Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats?If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 –200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO ___not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO___ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II Offsite Wetland A No No ✔ ✔ Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO __ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO –go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p.1 Offsite Wetland A No ✔ NA Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Appendix C APPENDIX C FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) Case No.: 12-10-1006XDate: LOMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 1 of 3 May 22, 2012 COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY AFFECTED MAP PANEL NUMBER: 53033C0664F DATE: 5/16/1995 FLOODING SOURCE: MAY CREEK CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON A portion of Government Lot 1, Section 32, and a portion of Government Lot 5, Section 29, all in Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, and a parcel of land, as described in the Statutory Warranty Deed (Pan Abode Site), recorded as Document No. 9803260839, in the Office of the Auditor, King County, Washington The portion of property is more particularly described by the following metes and bounds: COMMUNITY NO.: 530088 DATUM: WGS 84 APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 47.530, -122.199 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: STREETS & TRIPS 2009 DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION STREET FLOOD ZONE LOWEST LOT ELEVATION (NGVD 29) BLOCK/ SECTION SUBDIVISIONLOT OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION (NGVD 29) LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION (NGVD 29) WHAT IS REMOVED FROM THE SFHA 1, 5 27.3 to 30.6 feet --26.4 to 30.1 feet X (shaded) Portion of Property 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North ---- Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.) LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA STUDY UNDERWAY CORRECTED COPY This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Amendment for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the described portion(s) of the property(ies) is/are not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document amends the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Engineering Library, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Case No.: 12-10-1006XDate: LOMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 2 of 3 May 22, 2012 LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) COMMENCING at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 29 and 32 of Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian; thence N88°48'34"W, a distance of 545.24 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N30°23'18"W, a distance of 35.21 feet; thence N88°48'34"W, a distance of 77.13 feet; thence 58.06 feet along a non-tangent curve having a radius point of S62°59'23"W, a radius of 120.00 feet, a central angle of 27°43'15", and a chord bearing of N40°52'14"W, a distance of 57.49 feet; thence 68.23 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 21°43'07"; thence N33°00'45"W, a distance of 11.60 feet; thence 437.58 feet along a non-tangent curve having a radius point of S33°54'37"E, a radius of 1115.92 feet, a central angle of 22°28'02", and a chord bearing of S44°51'22"W, a distance of 434.78 feet; thence S30°54'45"W, a distance of 21.71 feet; thence S66°22'10"E, a distance of 14.52 feet; thence S34°06'38"W, a distance of 73.77 feet; thence S31°01'59"W, a distance of 39.45 feet; thence S58°23'49"E, a distance of 38.46 feet; thence S31°31'12"W, a distance of 139.75 feet; thence S62°59'09"E, a distance of 685.08 feet; thence N01°18'40"W, a distance of 323.05 feet; thence N01°16'09"W, a distance of 50.27 feet; thence N00°36'36"W, a distance of 51.27 feet; thence N00°55'35"W, a distance of 50.91; thence N00°13'53"E, a distance of 51.92 feet; thence N01°13'52"E, a distance of 52.48 feet; thence N02°28'45"E, a distance of 52.97 feet; thence 81.08 feet along a curve to the right having a radius point of S86°48'48"E, a radius of 2034.86 feet, a central angle of 02°16'59", and a chord bearing of N04°19'41"E, a distance of 81.08 feet; thence N30°23'18"W, a distance of 35.22 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. STUDY UNDERWAY (This Additional Consideration applies to all properties in the LOMA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)) This determination is based on the flood data presently available. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is currently revising the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map for the community. New flood data could be generated that may affect this property. When the new NFIP map is issued it will supersede this determination. The Federal requirement for the purchase of flood insurance will then be based on the newly revised NFIP map. This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Engineering Library, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Case No.: 12-10-1006XDate: LOMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Page 3 of 3 May 22, 2012 LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) CORRECTED COPY (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding LOMA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)) This Determination Document has been corrected to reflect a change in the previous determination issued for the subject property. Please discard the previous determination document for the subject property. This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Engineering Library, 847 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605. Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration