HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc - folder 3 of 3-,
h ---, 4
I"---.-
1"=30'
o 15 30 60
~ I ! ~
~,'O'.
~~\'~ "::. ./ ~~\~~'"
:'" ':, ..... . ......... / ' .. ~
,,"'.. .... "~ .... C·,-1
<6 ;:
: / r
, ..
. "!--......
lW"431.7 Q '
B,W-4 16.3 15.4 \
I' \\
\
" lh<3~,:'\'
\ IJ IW -432.7 ~ " ff BW 4 1 61~ \
-----__ 4.JQ: .. ______ _
-::~=:~~~~~~~:~~:-
'~.=II ~8,5 0"''';''+ 15.1
lW _m.B(6.0422.70
BW=416:8 6.O
'0" ,~\
) lW:'30,5
7.9SW-422.7
I 71 TW -'23,7
. 8W =422.0
......... ;.
._---------... ~f;J'
.'
------------;-:.--------
(46
432 .60
................... '.
....
~~~. " ;.v
.. / 't:> v ·········· .-' ,,,,' '", ""~ "
45
434.50
....
20) lW -430 .0
. ew -428.0
r<i ;y;
File:P:\ 160005\ 16055\exhibit\ 16055 -x6.dwg Date/Time: 11/17/2014 10:55 AM Scale: I" I '
........
0\\ .... ,&.
'~
<:9., •••••
.. '
44
440 .30
...... ......
43
440.60
BTALKINGTON Xref: ----
~ t-a:
I~
I-
il ;;;
:-
C
'" z
Z z
:5
"-z
~
~ ..
~
<ce
wll. » a:z w<
(/)lL
W lL 1%:-
a; •• 0
l!!~
i.: o
II.
~ z
~
~
1;l
"
'0
1l .~
~~
Jl
t-
:I:<t x::> w .... <tv o
.. > !W i=a:
lL
:I:
~ :::>
~
'5 ~ z ...
~~NN
-ONaJ ca(()&:::il z at I I ~l:n:;;
III ~~~ ........ 1010
NZNN
aJ W ........ -:!II:--
I!
c~ S~ .~ ~~
h ~~ ~;;:
.;:, ~-~ ~~'M.' ·ON';,.~~
I(' " ~
~ ~
I!) .-is-'''e 'CO .. ,~V
~I ~I ~
} ~ J
~I ~ 1 ::
.!; u t ~
, 10 ,.-1
.8 10 ;; ~ 0 -.. 0 .c
.c CD V)
,.-[ .!l ,.-
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
October 10,2014
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Office of the City Clerk
City of Renton
Renton City Hall, 7fu Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Reserve at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner;
Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7fu St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: Henley
USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter;
18215 72" Ave S; Kent, WA 98032
To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner:
Attached is our appeal to the City of Renton Draft Environmental Review Committee Report (DERCR) Dated
September 22, 2014 that includes a determination of mitigated non-significance (DNS-M) for the proposed Reserve
at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA13-001572 development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Renate Beedon, President
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10,2014
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Office of the City Clerk
City of Renton
Renton City Hall, 7'" Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Rocale Timmons, Senior
Planner; Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7fu St; Renton, WA 98055;
Applicant: Henley USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suije 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar
Dev Inc,; Wayne Potter; 1821572' Ave S; Kent, WA98032
Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review
Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this
project after November 7,2014.
The proposed development of Approximately 22 acres of forested land into 98 residential parcels on
4 King County Parcels owned by the Renton School District Number 403 (as of October 7, 2014)
King County Parcel Numbers: 2123059061, 2123059044, 2123059051, and 2123059054
To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner:
The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) is submitting the following comments as an appeal to the
City of Renton Oral! Environmental Review Commiltee Report (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that
includes a detenmination of mitigated non-significance (DNS-M) for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park;
Project Number LUA 13-001572 development.
1.0 OVERVIEW
It should be noted that the 14 days allocated for citizens comments is insufficient and that the Cijy seems to
have deviated from the standards SPEA procedures for this project in an apparent attempt to avoid the
required environmental impact statement (EIS), per RCW 43.21C.031, even though this project has gone on
hold twice to develop more information and additional studies that would already be consistent with an EIS,
Additionally there are several documents and iterations of site plans that are not provided to the public, and
studies (including numerous revisions) that are provided, however, many of these studies have revisions and
it is diffICult to determine what to evaluate in the review process, It was not until the September 22, 2014
DERCR was prepared that the citizens knew which studies (and reports) the City of Renton Environmental
Review Committee would use in the DERCR.
This means 18 documents must be reviewed and commented on in 14 days, and the interesting part about
the DERCR is that it does not include the November 2013 SEPA checklist as an exhibit, even though this is
the only SEPA document the DERCR is using in its SEPA analysis, and this SEPA checklist has numerous
incorrect statements and incorrect analysis based on subsequent studies conducted after this document was
prepared.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
1725 Pierce Avenue S.E., Renton, WA 98058
206-715-3785
renton-oPPosites@comcast.net
Page 12
Comments for the City af Renton Hearing Exammer from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy GrolJp
Reserve at Tiffa'1Y Park, Project Number LUA13-00 1572, ECF, pp, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7. 2014.
RentCfl, WA
October 10, 2014
As the DERCR states on pages 5 and 6:
The applicant has submitted the following reports for review and analysis in supportofthe July 16, 2014 plat
plan:
• Exhibit 1 ERC Report
• Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan (dated July 16,2014)
• Exhibit 3 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (dated July 16, 2014)
• Exhibit 4 Tree Protection Report (June 6,2014)
• Exhibit 5 Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3,2014)
• Exhibit 6 Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014)
• Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Report (dated September 28,2012)
• Exhibit 8 Drainage Report (dated February 24, 2014)
• Exhibit 9 Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014)
• Exhibit 10 Public Comment Letters: 10.1-10.70
• Exhibit 11 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014)
• Exhibit 12 Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27,2014)
• Exhibit 13 I ndependent Secondary Review -Traffic
• Exhibit 14 Independent Secondary Review Wetland (April 3, 2014)
• Exhibit 15 Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9, 2014)
• Exhibit 16 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11,2014)
• Exhibit 17 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated June 12, 2014)
• Exhibit 18 Landscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014)
This is a lot of documents to review and some of these documents are signed and stamped by licensed
geologists and engineers which are too complex for the members of the TPWAG to review and comment on,
therefore, the TPWAG retained the services of a principal hydrogeologistiengineering geologist from with SNR
Company based in Duvall, Washington to conduct a site visit and review the geotechnical and other
geologic/engineering documents. This hydrogeologist and engineering geologist (Steven Neugebauer) has
over 34 years of experience in the geologic sciences and in environmental studies, including the preparation
of SEPA and NEPA EIS and reviewing EISs, EAs, and checklists.
After reviewing the SEPA process for this project, Mr. Neugebauer has indicated that the review process
should have become an EIS process. This is especially the case with number of additional studies that were
required after the SEPA review process began and because of the holds that were placed on this project
simply to address the additional infomnation that would have been required by an EIS anyway.
Tiffany Park. WOC;ds Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffan')' Park: Project Number LUA 13-001572. ECF, pp, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014. and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7. 2014,
Renton, WA
October 10, 2014
All of the supporting documentation required by the City of Renton would be consistent with the actual EIS
instead of a SEPA checklist and having to piecemeal the review process while still have an incorrect SEPA
checklist. which is the only actual SEPA document that was prepared.
As stated above, the only actual SEPA document is the SEPA checklist and it unusual that the City of Renton
did not require an update for the SEPA checklist prepared in November 2013 or for the Geotechnical Report
September 28. 2012 considering these studies and documents were prepared before the City required
additional studies (which is why the project was placed on hold twice and is why an EIS should have been Page I 3
required per RCW 43.21 C.031 -SignifICant impacts).
Although the DERCR does not discuss the accuracy of the only SEPA document that is officially being used
in the decision making process, the TPWAG has included comments on this document. It should be noted
that due to time constraints associated with only 14 days to review and comment on over 18 documents, these
comments are limited because there was insufficient time to comment on all documents, with these comments
focusing on the primary sturdies and reports, the November 2013 SEPA document and the September 22,
DERCR document.
It should also be noted that per the October 7, 2014 e-mail from Rocale Timmons (City of Renton PM for the
Tiffany Park Woods project) states:
Cornrnelit oenoc1s are a/ways held prior to dec:isions.ideterminations in order to
info.rrn the decision process. Ti..tiO forrnal t',l;'o-week comment periods were held
(the second cOl'nment period was a courtesy not required by code). The nfst
comment period ended 011 December 10. 2014 (! Ilave attached the Notice of
ADp!.ication and comment penod announcement), The second comment period
ended 011 August 8. 2014 (I have attached the Norice of Application ana
corr:nent period announcement), ,Cinally staff informally he/d the comment
perioo open to the public to provide comments on the prc;ject. As .long as
comments are received prior to tIle determination/decision we arc able to include
in cur analysis, Therefore. the City W,i// continue to accept comments a/l the way
up until the close of Ihe Public Heanr;g. However, comments are no longer able
to be considered for the SEPA determination as it has already been issued.
Comments received from now on will only be considered when issuing a decision
on the Preliminary Plat
The appeal period commenced on September 26,2014 and will end at 5:00 pm
on October 10. 20141s ff correct that the appeal would go thru the City Clerk to
the Hearing Examiner for a fee of 250. 00. Yes, Appeals of the environmental
determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October
10, 2014, togffh8( 1,1!lrh tile n-;qwred fee 'lJiitl!: 0canng Exarnir:cr. C>;~/ of '!~onton
1I)~;.5 South Gr2o'y IIVay. Fcntor;, WA 9B057.
Oddly, most of the "m~igation" recommended in the DERCR pertains to development related mitigation rather
than actual environmental mitigation.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Cornme'lts for the City of Remon Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, pp, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7. 2013 SEPA checklist.
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22. 2D14, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Renlon, WA
October 10, 2014
This is just one example of the confusion with commenting, it is typically unclear what is to be commented on
and there is never any discussion of making comment periods longer, The typical time frame to comment on
SEPA documents is 30 days, not 14 days,
The City of Renton allocated citizen review time of 14 days makes reviewing and commenting on all of the
supporting reports and the actual DERCR draft document virtually impossible, especially when the City of
Page 14 Renton should have required an EIS,
2.0 SEPA CHECKLIST
As discussed above, the SEPA checklist prepared by Wayne Potter with Novastar Development on November
7, 2013 is the only 'SEPA" document that is presented and still used in the evaluation process (which was
provided for public review), It is unclear why the City did not require a revised checklist at a minimum, but
based on the number of additional studies required and environmental sensitivity of the proposed
development area (the site), the City should have required a SEPA EIS that would be current and discuss all
of the environmental issues in one document will all reports used to make the DNS·M determination, included
as an Appendix,
The proposed Tiffany Park Woods development is located in Renton, Washington as is shown in Figure 1. It
consists of four parcels owned by the Renton School District number 403 (as of October 10, 2014). This
property was "purchased' in the early 1970s as public property for the eventual construction of schools, It
has been used as an outdoor recreational area (like a park) for over 3 decades and over the 3 decades,
citizens have constructed trails, forts, swings, bicycle tracks, and made other improvements,
In fact the site is STILL public property but is being treated as if it were private property (e,g" the TPWAG
requested permission from the school district 403 to have independent wetland studies conducted and was
denied permission from the School District). Regardless, this site has been used by 100s of citizens for over
3 decades for recreation and these cijizens have made improvements on this site. Additionally, there is a
drainage easement on the site (listed in the preliminary Title Report) that is not discussed in any document
that the TPWAG or SNR reviewed.
The SEPA checklist that is still being used by the ERC only included five studies that were used to prepare
the SEPA checklist:
1. Storm water Technicallnforrnation Report (TIR) prepared by 8arghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc,
dated November 2013
2. Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences dated September 28,2012
3. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by the Transpo Group dated November 2013
4. Wetland Determination Report prepared by C, Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist dated October
30,2013
5, Tree Protection Plan and Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated
November 13, 2013
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comm ents for the Cil)' of Renton Hearing Ex.aminer frOO! the Tiffany Par\!. Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Par\!.; Project Number LUA 13-001572 , ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the No .... ember 7, 2013 SEPA checklist ,
Draft En .... ironmental Re .... iew Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared forthis project after
No .... ember 7,2014.
Rentoo, WA
October 10. 2014
Only one of these documents is still used in the DERCR , the Associated Earth Sciences Geotechnical Report ,
which is discussed in the next section. This means that there were more than 18 other studies and reports
prepared for the "SEPA detenmination ' after the SEPA checklist was prepared , yet the SEPA checklist was
never upcated.
The site is approx imately 22 acres in size and is the only undeveloped, forested area in this portion of Tiffany
Park. It is surrounded by high density residential developments (Figure 2) and provides the only significant
green space for the residents in the area because it IS public land and thi s is one of the reasons it has been Page 15
used recreationally for decades .
F~ure 1 " Site Location on Google Earth July 2013 Air Photograph
Figure 2 " Site on May 2013 Air Photograph from Goog le Earth Professional , 2014
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10. 2014
Page 16
Comments for the City of Renton Hearin g Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park Projec! Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF. PP, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Dra ft Environme ntal Re vi ew Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supplemental Stud ies prepa red for this project afte r
No vembe r 7, 2014 .
Rentoo, WA
October 10, 2014
The subject propert y is loca ted in the southeast quarter of Section 21 , Township 23 North, and Range 5 East:
(Figure 3) the northwest property corner (at SE 18th Street ) is located at lati tude 47 .463995' and longitude-
122 .175224', at an approximate elevation of 399 feet above mean sea level (ASL ),
\
\ ,
\, \
\ ,
\
" '01_/
I
I
'i \ i
\ I ~.
""k
'"
1, .... ".
"'-.
Figure 3 -From the King County Quarter Section Map , SEQ Section 21 , T23N , R5E
Based on the SEPA checkl ist, the proposed development (site or subject property ) consists of ninety-eight
(9 8) parcels with a total area of approximately 22 acres (Figure 4). The site is genera ll y dipping to the west,
nort hwest at an approximate average slope of 5%, with areas that have slopes up to 35% (e.g. at the dead
end of SE 18th Street and elsewhere). It should be noted that the number of lots has continued to change,
with the curren t number of lots either being 97 or 96 (this is unclear).
The site is unde vel oped , in 1990 (Figure 5 -July 1990 Air Photograph of Subject Property and Vicinity, from
Go ogle Earth Profe ssional, 2014) and continues to be unde veloped , school district reserve land . However,
just because the land is not developed, does not mean that the la nd was not used and that improvements
were not made by ci tizens. However , the site was comp letely clea red (as was the surrounding area) in 1936
-Figures 6 and 7 and it is unclear what the site was being used for in 1936 . However , it is possible that
acti vi ties included th ose that dealt with hazardous materials , wh ich is not discussed in any environmental
doc ument (no Phase I ESA was conducted, however, the DERCR indicates that there are no environmental
impa cts on the sit e, even though no studies were conducted ).
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10. 2014
Com me nts for the City of Ren ton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Qoup
Reserve at Tiffany Park, PrOj ect Number LUA 13-001572. ECF , PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
!,~ ..
/1
/ • ,
.'
. ,.
I ' •
• . .....
~ >-....
r-~_~~ ~ ~
Figure 4· From the Preliminary Plat Plan
Figure 5 . July 15. 1998 Air Ph otograph from Google Earth , 2014
Renton. WA
October 10. 2014
\ •
, _.
The 1860 Land Office Map (T23N , R5E ) that includes the subject property and vici nity (Figure 8) and the 1895
USGS topographi c map of the Tacoma Quadrang le (Fig ure 9) suggest that th ere may be structu ral anomalies
associa ted with the proposed development site .
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10. 2014
Page 17
Page 18
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Exam :ner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park: Proj ect Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF. PP. CA R: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist ,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Re fK)rt dated September 22 , 2014, and Supplemental Stud ies prepared for this project after
No vember 7, 201 4.
Rent"', WA
October 10, 2014
Figure 6 -1936 Air Photograph of Site and Vicinity -High , from King County iMAP, 2014
Figu re 7 -1936 Air Pho tograph of Site and Vicinity -Mid , from King County iMAP, 2014
The geomorpho log y of the area (Figure 10) suggests that the school district property (site) may be on a relict
landslide or affec ted by a fault; possibly a splay of the Seattle Fault Zone that is located approx imately 3.9
miles north of the site (Figure 11). During the site visit , hummocky ground and bent trees were observed ;
these features are often an indicator of ground movement through surface creep or deeper slumps
(landsl ides).
The September 28 , 2012 Associated Earth Science studies (the report does not state when the field studies
were conducted ) suggest that there are two deposits on this site (the test pit logs were interpreted by Mr.
Neugebauer), recess ional outwash deposits overlying glacia l till , with the till typically being encountered at
about 4 feet belo w the ground surface. The overlying recessional outwash deposits have higher interpreted
hydraul ic conduct iv ity which means that unsaturated zone preferent ial flow will be present at the outwash /till
co ntact , which can create conditions that are conduc ive to surface creep and shallow slumping .
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for th e City of Renton Hearing Exam iner from the TIffan y Park Woods Ad vocacy Group
Reserve at TIffany Park, Project Number LUA 13-00 1572, ECF , PP , CAR ; Comments perta ining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checkl ist ,
Draft Environme ntal Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Suppleme ntal Studies prepared for th is project after
November 7, 2014 .
Renton , WA
October 10, 2014
The zone of bioturbation (u sua lly present within 40 inches of the ground surface) cre ates macropores which
can quickly transport surface water to the co ntact with the glacial till and the overlyi ng recess iona l outwash
deposits. This water combin ed with any impacts to the isostatic equilibrium of the slope (such as the toe of a
slope being cut off) can result in surface creep and shallow slumping ,
Figu re 8· From the 1860 Land Office Map T2 3N, R5E (Section 21)
Figure 9 -From the 1895 USGS Topographic Map of the Tacoma Quadrangle , from Goog le Earth Professional, 2014
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 19
e 110
Comments lor the City 01 Rentoo Heanng Examiner ITem the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Grou p
Reserve at Tiffany Park, Project Nu mber LUA13-OO1572. ECF. PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist.
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 . and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014 .
Renton. WA
October 10, 2014
~
,~
'ti' -
:3ii
l' :
• I i '::I~/
""
.. .
'< "
LOCA n ON OF 5UBJECT PROPERTY
"'---y" , "~'.< 1 ..... -.....
~
Figure 10 -Terrain Map from Google Maps , 2014
Figu re 11 -July 2013 Air Pho tog raph with USGS Holocene Fault ovenay, Google Earth Professional , 2014
The 1895 USGS topo graphic map of the Tacoma quadrangle suggests that a wetland area was loca ted south
of the proposed development. This wetland is in a linear alignment with other isolated water features to the
west and east , with the trend being northwest to southeast. It is very possible that these features are sag
ponds associated with earthquake fau lts that have impacted the structural geology of this area,
Unfortunately , there are no new geologic maps for this area that were created after 2006 when LiDAR became
available , Witho ut LiDAR or actual field studies on the subject property being conducted for the geologic map ,
the surface geology is based on olde r studies that have been conducted in the mapp ing area,
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for lhe City of Ren ton Hearing Exam iner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Qoup
Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13.001572 ECF . P? CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Env ironmenta l Review Committee Re port dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared forthis project aher
November 7.2014 .
Renton , WA
October 10, 2014
Regardless , the geomorphology of this area strongly suggests that recessional outwash depos its \\iill be
present on the surface (as does the Associated Earth Sciences September 28 ,2012 test pit logs). Figu re 10
(Terrain Map ) strongly suggests that either a landslide scarp or rel ict river bank is present to the west of the
site . If this is a relict river bank , it is highly likely that the surface deposits are reces siona l outwas h deposits
overlying glacial lodgem ent till .
Mullineaux , D. R, 1965 (Figure 8) suggests that there are seve ral structura l features in the vicinity of the site ,
includ ing the Renton anticline (folding). The geo logic map suggests there is a wide range in geologic ages Page 111
for the depoSits in th e vicinity of the site, which also suggests that structural controls are present (fo ldin g and
faulting). This map does suggest that glac ial till depos its are present on the site , however , based on Mr.
Neugebauer's int erpret ation of the geomorphology, Associated Earth Sciences (AES) test pit logs , and a
review of boring and well logs for th is area obtai ned from the department of Ecology most , if not all of th e
surface deposits on the s~e are more likely to be Vashon Age recessional outwash deposits (river deposits),
which are most likely fluvial deltaic deposits associated with the draining glacia l lakes , which generally drained
to the wes t, south, and southwest be for e the Juan de Fuca plate began to melt and float.
"if i~.~ ... -}
Figure 12 -From the 1965 Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle , King County, Washington, Mullineaux, D. R.,
USGS
These delta complexes became relict glac ial meltwater channels that are currently occupied by underfi t rivers
in what is ident ifi ed as river valleys . These river valleys are actually remnant deltas that were cut when the
glacia l lak es drained after the Juan de Fuca plate no lo nger blocked the Strait of Juan de Fu ca (this is similar
to the Oso area where there are numerous rel ict landslides present because the delta materials are in here ntly
unstable without the wa te r they were depos ited in).
TIffany Park Woods AdvocaOj Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Par\(; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF , PP, CAR ; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2D14, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014 ,
Renloo . WA
Octobe r 10, 2014
What this means is that the geology , especially the structural geology in this area is complex , as is the ground
water hydrology . However, the AES stud ies were prelimi nary and did not include the level of study to identify
potential geologic haz ards and issues with near surface ground water hydrology as is stated in all of the
wetland reports prepared for this site .
All of the wetland reports state that the water table is present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface in all
Page 112 wetland areas . The water table is, as it sounds , a fiat surface that covers a large area (even perched aquifers),
however , there is no conclusive evidence that perched ground water conditions are present because no
piezometers were installed to make this determination,
The potential impa ct to developmen t (and to ground water quality) is not discussed anywhere, even though
the we tland reports have been accepted and the AES studies indicate that grou nd water can be presen t to
the ground surface on this site. If this is the case, there will be a lot of problems with grading, installing
underground ut ilities , and with foundat ion drains . More importantly , the proposed vault could have problems
stay ing submerged because if the ground water rises to the ground surface , the vault can fioat and rise above
the ground surface ,
Be cause both the wetland studies and the AES studies state that the ground water table has been identified
to be at the ground surface (AES simply states it will be present during the rainy season), because of this,
detai led hydrogeolog ic stud ies should have been conducted to determine if deve lop ment is feasible and to
identify any potential impacts to ground water quality.
Regardless , the following subsection prov ides the TPWAG comments that are specific to the ONLY SEPA
document pro vided (and used ) by the DERCR
2.1 COMMENTS FOR THE SEPA CHECKLIST
Item 11 on the SEPA Checklist states:
Give brief, complete deSCription of your proposal. including the proposed uses
ana the size of the project and site.
The project involves the subdivision of approximately 21 7 acres of land
encompassmg four tax parcels mto 98 srngle-family detached homes. As pan of
thiS development there are three sensitive area/open space tracts conslSlrng of
approximately 2.8 acres (or 13 percent olthe sile) which have been set aSide to
preserve eXisting wetlands and significant trees. There will be approximately
3. 700 linear feet of public roadway (with uti/illes) constructed to serve the
proposed lots.
Th is is completely incorrect. Subsequent studies indicate that there are five wetland areas and the area
requ ire d for signific ant trees (or planting ) has changed as has the number of lots (there will be 97 to 96 lots).
Th is chec klist should have been updated , because review by citizens is difficult when the only SEPA document
that was in cl uded in the DERCR review is inaccurate.
Tiffany Park Wr;xyjs Advocacy Group
Odorer 10, 2014
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Exam iner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Numbe r LUA 13-001572, ECF, po, CAR; Comme nts pertaining to the Nov ember 7,2013 SEPA checklist ,
Draft Environmen ta l Re view Committee Report dated Sept ember 22 , 20 14, and Supplemental Studies prepared forthis projec t after
Nov ember 7, 201 4.
Item 1 (c) (Earth ) states :
What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay sand, gravel,
peat, muck!? If you know the classification of agricultural solis specify them and
note any pnme farmland,
Please reference the sods report prepared by ASSOCIated Earth Sciences, Inc,
Renton, WA
October 10 , 2014
The AES studies are report were pre limi nary and were limited based on budget (the Renton school district
hired AES ) and state that add itional stud ies are requ ired , Page 1 of this report states:
ThiS report is mtended to provide a general geotechnical feasibiiity analysIs of
the site, This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for
any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy Gffy of Renton
requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section
4-3-050J2
Interesting ly the DERCR st ip ulates that this rep ort will be the sale geotechnical document that will be used to
develop this site , as stated on page 7:
The geotechnical report does include specific recommendations in order to
mitigate potential geotechnical Impacts mciuding , site preparation, temporary cut
slopes site disturbance Winter construc tIOn structural fill, foundations,
pavement recommenda tions, Therefore staff recommends as a mitigation
measure that the applicant be reqUired to comply with the recommendations
mcluded in ihe provided Geotechnical Engineermg Report (Exhibit 7),
Mitigat ion Measures :
1, All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent
wffh the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated
Earth Sciences, inc" dated September 28,2012,
The AES report will be discussed in the next section ,
Item 1 (d) states :
Are there surface mdicatlons or history of unstable soils m the Immediate
VICInity? If so. desCrIbe.
No.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 113
Page 114
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Par1o:; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF , pp, CAR; Comments pertain ing to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklis t,
Dra ft Envi ronm enta l Rev iew Committee Report dated September 22 , 201 4, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
Novem ber 7,201 4.
RefltOl1, WA
October 10, 2014
SNR observed hummocky ground and "bent" trees thro ughout this site (Figures 13 and 14 ), especially on
steeper slopes, Bent trees and hummocky ground are typical indicators of ground movement, There were
no comments in the AES repo rt regarding these cond itio ns nor were any studies conducted to detenmine if
ground movement is occurring on the site (the geotechnical study was preliminary and was limited due to
budget constraints ),
Figure 13 -Trees on the left are bent which is oommon where near surface ground creep is occurring
The geologic map , the geomorphology of this area , the proximity to the Seattle Fau lt Zone (a splay may pass
through the site), the stratigraphy , and the subsurface hydrology strongly suggests that the site is a candidate
for shallow ground movement and shallow slumps, Howe ver, this was never addressed with additional , full
scale geotechn ical and engineering geology studies,
The grading plans assume that there is no near surface ground water or slope stability issues , however, all
wetland reports ind icate that the ground water table was present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface
in the wetland areas when the studies the studies were conducted and the AES report states that ground
water wi ll be much higher duri ng the rainy season . Also , as stated above , the simp lest method to suspect
unstable slopes is to look at the trees and walk the ground surface, If bent trees are present and a hummocky
surface is present , it is very like ly that ground movement has and probably still is occurring.
Tiffany Park Woods AdlJocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for the Cit)' of Renton Heari ng Exam iner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocar:t Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park; PrOject Num ber LUA 13.001572 , ECF, PP , CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Env ironmental Review Committee Report dated September 22,2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this proj~t after
November 7, 2014,
Rentoo, WA
Figure 14· More bentTrees
October 10. 2014
Tiffany Park Woo ds Advocac y Group
October 10. 2014
Page 115
Page 116
COf'lmenlS for the City of Renton Hearing Exam:ner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park. Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, !JP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist.
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22,2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
RentOl1, WA
Oclober 10, 2014
Item 1 (d):
Describe the ~Llrpose, ty;Jc. and approximal8 Quantities of any tiili~·,~j 0:" wac1nq
proClGsed. Ind:caie source cI fiH.
A preliminary greJding plan has Deer! prepared lor this project ami d espy has
been allaci7ed, Based on this plan. we anticipate that the on-site structural
grading to balance is apprcximately 95,000 cubiC yards of cut and (,if/' The on~
site strippings (tcpsoli/ is estimated at 22.000 cuNe yards 3(jd will eithor be
spmac on [he ft',r)lsliod fots ana/or exportea off site.
At this tirne n:) irnport or export of material is Gxpected. Some additiOna/ grading
wiN occur on a iot by lot basis during the horne constructlSO{) phase.
Again, this is incorrect. The DERCR indicates that 70,000 cubic yards of material will be moved and 21,000
cubic yards of material will be stripped. Also, it is very likely that stripped materials will be exported offsite.
Item 1 (g):
AbOut what percont of the site w.'1.1 be cov~;red with irn,nervic-us surlHces after
oro/ect construction (for example. asphalt or buildings)?
The iota! on-site irnpervious surface (road'tlIElYS) will De ap,oroximatefy 4. 65 acres
(or 21 oflhe site area (21 7 acres). Based on a maximum impervic-us area per
iG,t cf l5 percent, we have esti.rrJated a tola.! impervious area (for 98 lots with an
average fot size cf 5.200 square feet) of approximately 8.75 acres or 382.255
sqiare feet.
This suggests that there will be 13,45 acres of impervious surfaces on the site, it is unclear how many
impervious surface acres remain after all of the changes that have occurred since the November 2013 SEPA
checklist was prepared. However, considering approximately 4.5 acres of wetlands and retained trees will be
present this only leaves about three acres that are not impervious that are not associated with a critical area
or with tree retention and proposed buffers.
This suggests that during a normal year with approximately 40 inches of precipitation, would generate
approximately 44.83 acre feet on the site each year, with most of the preCipitation occurring from November
to April. There are 325,851 gallons in an acre foot. This does not include runoff from yards and other cleared
areas, which will be much higher than the current forested conditions,
The current runoff from the forested site is estimated to be less than an acre foot due to evapotranspiration
(up to 75% of precipitation is removed by this) and infiltration (up to 20% can be removed via infiltration).
Item 2
a. Who! types of 8rn'ss'cns to the 3if woul,j result frorn the prooosal i! e .. dust
automobile, odors, Industrial wood sI1lOke) du'tng constructicn ane when tl18
Tiffany Park Woods Adyocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner irom lrle Tiffany Park Woods AdVOc:iJcy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13"001572. ECF, PP. CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist.
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22,2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared forthis project after
November 7, 2014.
or::.:j,:;'~t i~ CC!'lpiCe(:'~ f an:v gcncrcli!y cI~s·: ribe ird ~jiV2 JU;:XCXi'ilJ:;) l~;3nt.: ss
It kr 1:)",\"1
Duong plat and nome constructiOn, emlSSiO(IS (,"om construcrion equipment and
veil/des wiif occur en a temporary basIS. Wilen houses are comp/etect there wll!
be ernissions generated frorn automobile/service truck traffic:. AI this time there
are no known quantrties
b. ;l.ra there any off-Site sources of emiss'on or odor that 11'2Y affect your
pmr;osal'i' S8, generally describe.
The Site is surrounded by existing single-famify deveiopments that generate
typical residential enussions: how'ever. there are no known emissions that wi!!
affect thlS project.
C. Froooscd measures to reduce or control emissions or orher i;llpaots to ar, if
any
Ali eGiJipment wII'f be in cornpliance with EPA standards for engine emissions,
anef during construction watenng Viii! be provided to contrOl dust {Jartie/es
FireplJces wilf be usoel in accordance with rewurements of the Puget Sound Air
Quaidy Board (this is actually the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
http://www.pscleanair,org!)
Renton, WA
October 10, 2014
Per SEPA requirements, this should be compared to a no action scenario (comparable to existing conditions).
The TPWAG did not observe any studies or reports that addressed air quality relative to existing conditions
nor does the SEPA checklist address deadheading trucks for the offsite transport of soils that cannot be used
on the site or the impacts to air quality after the development is completed such as wood smoke from fire
places, automobiles, emissions from furnaces and gas water heaters, etc. It is still unclear what air quality
impacts will be present during construction and after construction because this has not been quant~ied.
item 3{a). Surface Water:
::1 !s there any surface water body on or in ~he immediate vicirrty of the sire
jincludlng year-round and seasonal streams, sa.twater. lakes. ponds. wetlands)?
:f yes. desvibe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flov,'S into
Yes. There are three .iso/Cited wetlands located en site. Plsase reference the
wetiand report prepared iJy C Gary Schulz
This is incorrect, there are five (5) wetlands present site and the report prepared by Schulz is not even provided
because other studies (by Schulz and Otak) have been conducted since the SEPA checklist was prepared.
Additionally, there is no discussion regarding the drainage easement on the site (shown in the Title insurance
report),
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 117
Pagel 18
Comnle~ts fer the City oi Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods ,A,dvocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffal1Y Park: Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Renton, WA
October 10, 2014
Additionally, if, as ASE, Schulz, and Otak suggest that a water table is present at or within 7 inches of the
ground surface, there will be surface water flows all over this site during the winter because if ground water is
present at the ground surface, the soil becomes impervious.
:ten 2. (2:: \lviil the project require any wor~ ovc~; !n, or adjacc'"'t lO (within 200
teet: tr.e deSCrIbed walers? if yes. please descI'ibe 2nd sltaer ava,lable p'ans
Yes. Plat and nome construction will occur ~1;'if.hin 200 feet olthe en-site wetiands:
hO'vvever a/l construction will be located beyond (he required buffers as
estaNished by City Code
Page 10 of the DRECR states:
Supplemental inrJependent Secondar; Re'iiew (Exhibit 15). thoro does not
appear to be bU,ffer a~iustrnents on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band
C to take into account the "leek + ioad walls" proposed. It appears that portions
of the walls may fall wfthin the proposed final buffer edges. Ii this is the case. the
plans ShOLj!d De revised to avoid these impacts or to accurately show the
perriidnent iJuffer impacts
This strongly suggests that some activities will occur within buffer areas.
item 3-3 Esfirnate tlie amount of fill and dredge material liia( would Lie placed in
or rerrwved from surfacs water or wetland,") and indicate the area of the site that
WOUiU be affected, indicate the source of fif.! material
None
This is incorrect besed on the grading plans that would include filling ephemeral drainage networks on the
site and the drainage easement on the site.
,Item 3-4) WiN the propos-al reau,ire surface water withdravVals or diverSions? Give
ge!leral description. puroose, and app.rox:mate quantities if known
No
There is a significant amount of storm water that is diverted onto the site through the drainage easement and
from other sources. The proposed development would obviously divert these flows and the natural ephemeral
drainage system.
lterri (3-6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of w::JSte materiais to
surface 'Aiaters? If SQ, describe the type of waste and antic:ipated 'lo/tlme of
disc:liorgc.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for tne City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park: Project NUI'1ber LUA 13-001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to Ihe November 7,2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared forthis project after
November 7, 2014.
,'\'0
Renton. WA
October 10, 2014
This is incorrect. Storm water will be generated on the streets and this storm water becomes point source
flow in the storm water system (including unlined drainage ditches). Additionally, because no Phase I ESA
has been conducted it is unknown if any potential contaminants are located on this site (or other potential
environmental impacts). However, per the Clean Water Act Section 502, point source waters is considered
to be polluted: Page 119
(6) The temi "po/.iutant" means ciredged spoii solid waste. incinerator residue,
sewage garbage sewage SlUdge, rnunitions, chernicAI wastes, biologica/
materials. radioactive matenals. heat. wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,
sand, cellar dirl and indusirial. mun.'cipal. and agricuitura! \1\/8ste discharged into
water This term does not mean (A) 'sewage from vessels" within the meaning
of section '1322 or this title: or (8) water. gas, or other lTJateriai ~1/hich is injected
N710 a weN to facil,'tato production of oil or gas or water derived ,In association
witt! oii or gas production and disposod of in a weH, if the ','.;eil used either to
facilitate pmduction or for disposal purooses IS approved by authority of the State
in which the well is located and If such State determines th8/ such injection or
~flsposa/ w,lii nct result {fl the degradation of ground or surface 'A/ater resources
(14) Tile terrT! "point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock. concentrated animal feeding
operal:on or vessel or other fioatlllg craff, from which pollutants are or may be
discharged. This tcrrr. does not include 8:)nculturai stermwater rjiscilarges and
rsturn .flows from ,irngated agriculture.
(19) Tile term "pollution" means the man-made or man-induced afferation of the
chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water.
This is especially the case, if as stated in the wetland reports and the AES geotechnical report, that the ground
water table is at or within 7 inches of the surface, suggest that waters of the State can be impacted by
contaminants of concern that cannot be removed by a screen. It also suggests that ground water quality can
be impacted due to the presence of ground water at or within 7 inches of the surface. It also suggests that
there could be much greater quantities of storm water generated on the site during the rainy season when
ground water is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (saturated soils at the ground surface are
impervious).
Item 3-b. Ground Water:
1) \Niil ground '/v'ater be l!v'ithd rav'm. or ',viii water be disctlarged to ground water?
G'vc general dcscriptior" purpose, and approximate q,:antllies ,f,,'own,
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 120
Comments for the CI:~' of Renton Hearing Examiner from the TiHai1Y Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reselve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Rentoo, WA
October 10. 2014
Ths.'0:! 'klil us ilD Y(CU:lO't·valer ',l"ithdrawn as d rl~S'/.It orlilis proJec<' (piJi)/ic ;t'at2(
~'vi.'/ ;)(.i' prot/ideo'), iWVlevW storm water '{il/i be csl/e,':';[ed t'J/ a gr::3'llity drair:age
syslffn; and dischargod to an OIJ-sl/e storm PGlld. Tho stonnl1l atcr coilocteci wi,I'j
be disGhargeo' at an approvea' rate Into ti:e existiny storm system Vldhin S, E. 18 1,'
Street. Also. some storm water col/ected from the house roof drains will be
discharged into the on-sffe wetlands to provide a re-charge during storm events.
This is incorrect. Wetland hydrology is ground water hydrology which means that storm water will be
discharged directly into ground water in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State codes such as the
Underground Injection Control Perm~ (UIC) requirements when discharging direcUy into ground water.
Additionally, as previously stated, all weUand reports and even page 4 of AES report (this does not indicate
an elevation that AES believes the ground water will reach), indicate that ground water will be present at
higher elevations during the rainy season.
Two different wetland studies indicate the water table was at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (the
water table is equivalent to an unconfined ground water aquifer). Based on the fact that all hydrologiC studies
indicate that at or near surface ground water is present, it would be very difficult not to impact ground water
on this site when the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface.
Detailed hydrogeologie studies should be conducted as would have been required if an EIS was required by
the City (as is required by RCW 43.21C.031). In reality an EIS should have been required when the City put
the project on hold to allow the developer or property owner fulfill all of the necessary studies at once and to
insure that all SEPA documents are actually current and accurate.
This also states that a storm pond will be used when in reality a storm water vault will be used (this creates
its own problems because of the required maintenance (storm water vaults must be cleaned yearly and any
screens or filters many need to be serviced or changed more frequently -if these facilities are not maintained
correctly, they will allow all pollutants to enter the 60 inch storm water system and reach waters of the United
States (Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to the Cedar River).
Item 3-c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (ircluding storm wate(i and met~od of col!ection
and disposal, if a';y (inc!ude quantities, if kilo'vv:!), "lv'here wiil this water flow?
Vl'il! tll:s water flow Into otlle' waters, If so. descrioe
Stern; wat9t ~'v'ili be roifected by a series of catch basins and conveyed by
stormwater pipe to the on-sfte storm pond (detention) deSigned in acr:ordance
'~vith the City of Renton Storm water DesiQn lvfanuel (Addendum to the King
COU,flty stormwater guidelines). The system will a/so convey drainage from roof
and footings drains to the storm pona'
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Co!rments for toe City of Renton Heanng Examiner from the 1 iffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park' Project Number LUA 13·001572, ECF, pp, CIt,R: Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA chec~list,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014,
Renton, WA
October 10, 2014
This statement is incorrect. A storm water vault will be used and these vaults require a lot of maintenance to
operate correctly. Who will provide this maintenance and be responsible for the water quality leaving the
storm water system on this site?
Item (3-c-2) could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Unlikely. As discussed above, all storm water will be colfected and conveyed to
Wi approved detention pond Furthermore, the storm water will pass through a
stortn .filter vault (water quaMy) prior to discharge off site.
This states that there will be a storm water detention pond and then to a "storm filter vautt'. It is unclear if a
storm water pond will be used on this site, however, if it is and is unlined, there can be direct discharge to
ground water when the ground water table is at or within 7' of the ground surface. Direct discharge of storm
water to ground water is prohibited by State Health Codes, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act unless a UIC permit is obtained (and this requires a high level of treatment before the water can be
discharged into ground water).
110m:; d. Proposed measures to reduce O( control surface, ground, and runo.f{
water impacts, if any
As previously discussed. all drai'nage wiN be coilected and treated (storm fifter
vault) prior /0 discharge (for more detailed discussion see the attached storm
water nA prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, inc. J.
See comment above.
Item 4
f). What kind and amount of vogetation wi!1 be removed or altered?
Upon completion of the proJect ail vegetation within the developable poftion ol
the prcpertv (approximately 18.6" acres) will be removed/alt8rod.
c. Lis! threatened or endarjgered species known to be on or near tile Site,
d. Proposed landscaping use of f!at,lVe piants, or other measures to ore2erve or
enhar:ce vegetation on the site, if any
As requirea' Dy code. we WI'/! be pi eser'/ing 30 percent of significant trees (and/or)
pr'Ovic/ing mitigation wit!! replacernent trees) and protecting the on-site ','I/eflands.
The existing trees to be saved faoproxlmatefy 10? treesj ana wetland/buffers
total? B a~:res, or 13 percent of the site.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10. 2014
Page 121
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Ex.ammer from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park: Project Num ber lUAB.Q01572, ECF, pp, CAR; Co mments perta ining to the Noyember 7, 2013 SEPA checklist ,
Draft Environme nta l Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 20 14 , and Supplementa l Studies prepared for this project after
Noy ember 7, 2014 .
Rentoo , WA
October 10. 2014
Th is is incorrect based on the DERCR , however, it is unclear how many acres will be cleared (this checklist
suggests that 18 .6 out of 22 acres wil l be cleared). The habitat studies did not inc lude more than one day of
field studies therefore it is difficult to determine what species are actually present, especially mig rating species .
The studies would need to be more comprehensive if an EIS were requ ired. However , citizens have provided
the ci ty with photographs of sens it ive species , such as the Pileated Woodpecker and other species, such as
Page I 22 bobcats,
Figure 15 -Male re d-breasted sapsucker, note the numerous woodpecker holes ; Pileated Wood pecker have been
observed on the Site
Tiffany Park Woods Adyocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Exam iner from the Tiffan y Park Woods Advocacy Group
Res erve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572 , ECF, pp , CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Env ironmenta l Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014,
Ren ton, WA
October 10, 2014
Add itionally , the habitat studies did not focus on vegetation , including species that are state heritage plants
(not detailed plant studies were conducted by any botanists). These studies would be required by an EIS.
ItemS
c Is the site part of a migration route? If so explain
Not to our knowledge.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. If any
There will De approximately 28 acres of undiSlurbed open space provided to
help mitigate urban wildlife
There is a known migration route to the northwest , however , it is unclear why this site is not a migration route
or what will happen with the wildlife that uses the site as a habitat when approximately 18 acres are cleared
(and about 4 acres of isolated wetlands will be left along with a buffer area 10 -15 feet wide)? This could
drive the wildl ife into the surround ing neighborhoods and can prese nt a danger to the existing residents in this
area (and their pets ) when the existing forested habitat is destroyed. The site is connected to the northern
for ested area (that bounds the south side of the Cedar River) wh ich suggests there is a corridor to the river
from this site . Additionally , it is like ly that more deer will be hit by automobiles when the habitat is completely
removed.
Item 7 -Environmental Health
a Are there any environmental health hazards, mcludmg exposure to tOXIC
chemicals. risk of fire and explOSion spill. or hazardous waste. that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so. describe
Unlikely However during construction there is always the risk of an aCCIdent
mvolvmg construction equipment and diesel fuel or gasoline dUring house
bUlldmg
ConS ideri ng a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has not been conducted and the site was completely
cleared in 1936 it is unclear how anyone knows if any hazardous wastes are present in the soils or the ground
water on this si te. It is unclear what will happen if contaminated soils or ground water are encountered . A
Phase I ESA shou ld have been conducted as part of the SEPA process and is required for an EIS .
Item 8 -LAND AND SHOR ELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Vacant undeveloped land. Adjacent properties include single-family residential
and publiC utility right-of-way
b. Has the sile been used for agriculture? If so. describe.
I any a 00 s vocacy Group
Odober 10, 2014
Page 123
Page 124
Comments for the City of Renton Heanng Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Grou p
Reserve at Tiffany Paf1o;; Project Number LUA 13·001572, ECF, pp, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist ,
Dra ft Environme ntal Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supp le mental Stud ies prepared for this project after
No vember 7, 2014 .
RentCfl , WA
October 10, 2014
No
c. Descnbe any structures on the site
None.
d W,ll any structures be demolished? If so. what?
Not appllcab/e.
Thi s is in correct. The site is public la nd at the time these comments were prepared (ow ned by the Renton
School District) and has an extensive trail system that was constructed by and maintained by local citizens,
improvements, and there is apparently a stru ct ure located on the site. The site ha s been used as a green
space and re creationa l park area for at least 3 decades as is shown in the following photographs .
Figure t 6 -Fort constructed on the site
Almost all structures that are rela ted to forts are for airsoft war games cond ucted often (players come from as
far away as Puyallup, maybe farther). As previously stated, this sit e is a major source of recreation for local
citizens and others in the area,
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comm en ts for the City of Renton Heanng Examin er from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13'()()1572 , ECF , PP CAR, Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Env ironmenta l Rev iew Committee Report dated September 22, 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014 .
Figu re 17 -Fort on site, nole bent trees and hummock appearance of ground surface
Renton , WA
October 10, 2014
Figure 18 -Banked curve for bicycles local citizens destroyed about five of them 10 rec laim Ihe Irail
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 125
Page 126
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Par'll; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF , PP, CAR Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Renloo , WA
October 10, 2014
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Figure 19 -Structure located on Stte
Comm ents for the Ci ty of Ren ton He aring Examiner from the TiHany Park Woods Advocacy Qoup
Reserve at Tiffany Park: Project Num ber lUA13-OO1572 , ECF, PP, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft En vironmental Review Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Figure 20 -Geocache on the site
Rentol\ WA
October 10, 2014
Tiffany Park Woods Ad vocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 127
Page 128
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner fr om the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park Project Number lUA13-Q01572, ECF. PP. CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist ,
Oraft Environ mental Re vi ew Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
Nov ember 7, 2014.
Renton, WA
October 10, 2014
Figure 21 -Another fort on the site
Figure 22 -Another "fort " on the site on one of the main trails
Tiffany Park Woods Ad .. ocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for th e City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffan y Park Woods Advocacy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park; PrOject Numbe r LUA 13-001 572 , ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014 , and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Renton . WA
October 10. 2014
Figure 23 -Another Fort on the site along one of the tra ils
Figure 24 Another fort on the site on one of the trails
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10 , 2014
Page 129
Page 130
Comments for the City of Renton Hea ring Examiner from th e Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Grou p
Reserve at Tiffany Part; Project Number LUA 13 -001572, ECF , pp, CAR; Comme nts pertaining to the November 7, 201 3 SEPA checklist ,
Draft Environmental Re view Committee Report dated September 22 , 2014 , and Supp lemental Studies prepared for th is project after
Nove mbe r 7, 20 14 .
Rentoo, WA
October 10 , 2014
Figure 25 -Cleanup activities conducted by citizens at the large "rope swi ng " wetland in the northwest part of the site
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10 2014
Figure 26 • Another fort on one of the trai ls
Commer,ts for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods ,';dvocacy G,oup
Reserve at Tiffany Park: Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, pp, CAR, Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014,
Renton, WA
October 10, 2014
It is unclear what the site was used for in the early 1930s and earlier, however, it was completely cleared in
1936 and it is unclear if agricultural activities were conducted on the site,
Item 8 (h),
l-i8S "my part of the site been ciasslfiecl as Dr) "environmentally SOllsitive" area?
if so. s,eecdv,
Yes, "I here am isolated wetlands /ocatcc/ on site. For acidlfienal information
please rev/e\1: the wetland report prepared by C. Gary SctiuiL. Aiso, the site is
located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area
This is incorrect, page 2 of the AES document (which is referenced in the SEPA checklist) states:
Item 8
:n,e site cor;taills areas that meet City of Renton definitions (or Geotectmicai J
C,titica/ Areas.
----~~------~--~-~--------------~~-~---------~--~--
J, ApprOXimately how many people wouia the corrple:ec ["o,ect (isplace'?
tvct 8DpiicaiJ.!e.
k, Proposed moasures to avoid 01' red:Jce displacement Impacts, if any
{v'st !3,npllf;aiJ/e.
I. Proposed rpeasures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existillg and
pro,e;;ted iand uses a,j plans, If ai'y
As part of the preiirninary plat process, the project wlil t)8 reviewed in accordance
\lvith the R-B a'el.o'eiopment standards WhiCh are compatible ',vifh the surrcuno'ing
property.
The site has been historically, and still is, public property and is used as a green area/park for recreational
purposes, It is estimated that l00s of nearby residents use this area recreationally, The proposed
development would permanently remove the site from public use and recreation, The impact fees for parks
will not replace the recreational element of the site and will impact l00s of local citizens,
The existing land use is recreational and site provides habitat functions, surface water controls, and the site
is linked to forests to the north which are a corridor to the Cedar River, This has not been addressed in ANY
document but would be required to be addressed in an EIS,
Item 10
b ',\"hat v:ows in the immediate vicillitJ1 \':ould be altered or obst~~~c:ec{;:
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 131
Page 132
Comments for the City:)f Renton Hearing Exarr'mer from the Tiffany Park Woods AdvoC3cy Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park' Project Number LUAn·00 1572, ECF, pp, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist.
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7 J 2014.
RentCfl. WA
October 10. 2014
A . .',' future homes withm tile project wiN bs sub)e::t to the City building design
stawiards at the tIme of building permit review.
This is incorrect. The site is currently a 22 acre forest with diverse vegetation and habitat functions, The view
is that of a forest with a relatively dense understory that includes numerous species of shrubs, herbs, and
grasses, The view will be substantially changed when the 18,5 acres of the site is cleared, not to mention the
loss of a major recreational area and the impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and surface water in this area
(remember there is a deeded drainage easement on the site),
Item12, RECREATION
Cl. V\ltia: des;gnated and informal recreatinrlal opportunities are in the !nlmediate
vici'~'ty?
The subject property ,IS leeaiea within 655 feet of Tiffany Park Elementary School
which provides so.me lirnited recreation oppartunilies. AlsQ, the site is withil'~
1,000 foet of Tilfany Park which is connected by pedestrian pathways to the
Tiffany-Cascade Scnnec:tor open space and to Cascade Park. Also. aiJl1!ting the
east and soufh {)roperty lines are the Cedar ,C?iver Pipeline right-cf-WBI:: and
Mcrcer islana' Pipeline right-of-way that pro.,ide walking trails Lisea' by the pubfic
C. Would thfl proposed prolect dispace 30y existing recreational uses 7 If sc,
describe
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or contrel irrpacts on recreatio" includi,og
recreation oPPOriun!tles to be provided by the project Or applicant. If any
Each Building Permit will be required to pay a parks impact fee of $530. 76 to
reduce or control recreational impacts.
This is incorrect. As previously stated the site has been used by 100s of local citizens for over 3 decades for
recreational purposes, Citizens have built trails, forts, and bike tracks, and have made other improvements
on this site including what appears to be a structure,
The current estimate is that 97 lots will be developed, but it is unclear how $47,768.40 can provide equivalent
recreational uses for the 22 acres of public property used by 100s of local citizens that will be removed
permanently by the proposed development. This should have been assessed and would have been assessed
if an EIS were required,
Item 13, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Ex.aminer from the Tiffany Park VVoods Advocacy Group
Reserve at rlffany Park; Project Number LLiA 13-001572, ECF, PP. C!~R: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7,2014.
a j.'·e rhere ·]ii}' P/'fiC8:::" or oU/ects listed on ot" .or'JPc~~ec f:.~r (idil']na/ state. {]r
1r)~.'(Ji nreserl/iJtion reglsre.rs kno~.' .. T! to be on or next hI tlis s./!G? if $0. geliera/iy
descr:b9
Ll Seneraliy descn.be any landmarks or evidence of historic. archaeofogica/.
scientific, or cuiturallmportance known t:] be on or next to the site.
NOr1C
c Pr:;poS8r! .I7,sasures to reduce J( c"Jntro! impacts. if any.
Renton, '\I.,IA
October 10. 2014
The SEPA checklist is incorrect, As stated above, the site is a major source of recreation in this area and has
been for at least 3 decades, There is geologic scientific equipment located on the site (see Figure 20), There
have been no studies for state heritage plants identified by the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) as shown on http://www1.dnr.wa.govinhpirefdeskflistsiplantrnk.html.ltis clear that no
research was done to determine ~ any sensitive plant species or state heritage sites are located on the site,
which would be required by an EIS,
Item 14 • Transportation
IJ. ,Is site currently served by public transit? if not 'A/flat.is tne approximate
distanc0 to ti?e nearest transit stor?
No
This incorrect, the April 2014 Transpo Group document states:
The projsct sito.is currently served {iY .King County Melro Route 148 llith eoutes
1()2 ana" ".155 also operatlng wiriJin the study area. Tl:e nearest transil stop lor
.R()ute 148 is .'O:;ated on Lake Youngs Drivo SE and 123rd Avenue SE each near
t.he project access points
It is clear that there are several metro routes in the vicinity of the site, This is one of many errors that are
present in the environmental checklist that the City has adopted and has used in the environmental review
process to make a DNS·M determination, The use of incorrect information and the complexity of having
several iterations of the same documents that also contain errors or do not fully address the site conditions
and the environmental impacts (including ground water) is inconsistent with the purpose of the SEPA review
process, It is apparent that the City did not want to request an EIS for some reason, however, it is clear that
an EIS must be conducted to correctly address all environmental impacts the proposed project will have,
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 133
Page 134
Comments for the City of Renton Heanng Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woo~s Advocar;.; Group
Reserve at Tiffany Park: Project Number LlJA13-001572, ECr. pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the Noyember 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Enyironmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2D14, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014,
RemOil. 'NA
October 10, 2014
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The SEPA process for the proposed Tiffany Park Woods project is convoluted, including two holds, the City
is adopting a completely incorrect SEPA checklist, and the City apparently purposely avoided an EIS that is
called for (based on all the required additional studies, that include several iterations) by WAC 197-11-600
and RCW 43.21C.031.
The City of Renton has adopted Chapter RCW 43.21 C in in the Renton Municipal Code:
Per Rlv1C 4-9-070 (C). The City of Renton adopts as I/S cwn the pO,li~,'ies and
objectives ofthe State EfwiroflnJentai Policy Act of 1971, as a:nsnder: (chapter
43 21C RCWI
As these comments discuss, the City's review deadline of 14 days to complete a review and comment on all
documents that have been prepared for this SEPA process, including addressing the City's DERCR (and
sorting through numerous iterations of the same documents) and to prepare this appeal document is
unreasonable. The City has a much time as it wants because it can simply impose another hold, however,
the citizens do not have this authority.
Because of 14 day time limtts and a lot of confusion over what process the citizens were required to use to
comment on the SEPA related issues (comments or an appeal), the TPWAG could not include detailed
comments for all documents that were reviewed by us and Mr. Neugebauer. Therefore, additional comments
are provided for each report reviewed in PDF format (using Adobe Acrobat 10 or higher) on the CD that
accompanies this report. The comments can be viewed by simply clicking on comments. The included CD
includes all documents reviewed and a PDF copy of this document.
The SEPA process is supposed to be a process that protects the citizens and the environment, however, the
citizens comments have been ignored in the past and have gone unaddressed. This is the last chance the
citizens have to have their concerns addressed and to insure that the SEPA process is fully implemented and
accurately reflects the environmental impacts.
The City of Renton apparent did not check the documents ij requested for accuracy, consistency, errors, or
applicability (such as the September 28, 2012 AES geotechnical report) and the ERC apparently does not
include a licensed geologist, engineering geologist, hydrogeologist.
The AES report clearly states that it is preliminary, the first paragraph of the report states:
This rsporl is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site
development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy Cffy of Renton requirements
for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 J2
Tiffany Park Woods AdIJOCOC'f Group
October 10. 2014
Comments fo: the City of Renton Hearing Examiner frOl1 tile ~iffany Park Woods to.dvor..acy GrOIJO
Reserve at fiffal1Y Park; Project Number LUAI3-001572 ECF, P:J, Cf...R; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22,2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014,
Renton, iNA
October 10, 2014
The DERCR states (page 7)
iiiS,"f;1c;.(S s!Jff /Cconi;ricno's as a r7i!ugat!Oti ':i8asure tnat ii-,If.! ap;)/:"ca:.t/ Or?
r!}C'i.ii(O~]' ta COITi,niy ~I/ith the recorrlf);e;-)(1aih,ns .'nciuL~ed in 1,00 prcv,'deC1 [f~ESl
Geotcchnn.'a.i EligmeerN7g Repol1 (Exhihit 7)
Art!ligation ldeasures
Aii CDt'thwon'< performed, impfementea by tlie apP/lear;!. shaii be corls/stent v',lith
the fc:commendations of the geotechni:;a/ re,OOl1. prepared bV Assocraled EarTh
Scie.1xes. inc:" dated SeptemfJsr 28,2012.
The AES report (page 1) states:
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget. our SEJrViCeS have been
pe.rforrned in accordance with generafly acceptod geotechnic:ai engineering and
englneenng geology practices in eHeei in tf),is area at tho time our report was
p,repared
This indicates that the scope of work was limited by scheduling, but more importantly budget. Per Mr.
Neugebauer (SNR Company), AES was not provided the scheduling and budget to conduct the level of study
warranted for this site, especially when the wetland specialist(s) indicate that the water tabte is at or within 7
inches of the ground surface. This warrants a significantly enhanced study for slope stability, impacts to
ground water quality, impacts to the developed homes, and impacts to all unlined storm water facil~ies on the
site, Additionally, if the ground water table is located at or within 7 inches of the ground surface, it is very
likely that a buried storm water detention vault will fioat and erupt from the ground w~hout adequate anchoring,
Had AES had the budget and time, it would have noted the bent trees, hummocky ground surface and would
have identified the recessional outwash deposits that are typically present up to 40 inches below the ground
surface and that the contact of the recessional outwash deposits and the glacial till is creating a potential
rupture surface, especially when this contact is prone to relatively high amounts of unsaturated zone
preferential flow, This can lead to unstable slopes especially if the toe of the slope is disturbed as it has been
on the site, which is apparently leading to near surface creep and shallow slumping,
There are numerous problems with the SEPA process for this project and ~ is clear that the City should have
required an EIS when it placed the project on hold on December 16, 2013, Instead, the City created a process
that was fragmented which impacted citizen input and made the review process very difficult. Additionally, by
refusing to acknowledge that the proposed project does pose significant environmental impacts; including
impacts to existing recreational uses of the site (for at least 3 decades), which was NEVER addressed in any
document suggests a unbiased, thorough, scientific and social review was NOT conducted.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
Page 135
Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffa1y '?ark \Noods Advocacy Sroup
Reserve al Tiffany Park' Project Number llJA 13·001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist,
Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after
November 7, 2014.
Renton. WA
October 10, 2014
It is clear that the City should have requested that an EIS be conducted and that all supporting documentation
must be thorough, unbiased, consistent. and current. Additionally, for projects this complex and with this
much documentation, the citizens must be provided at least 30 days review time which is consistent with
SEPA protocols in RCW 43.21 C which the city of Renton has adopted into its code.
The TPWAG is submitting this appeal document as a request to the Hearing Examiner to deny the City's
Page 136 request for a DNS·M and to require the City to follow the correct protocols for SEPA studies and
documentation for complex sttes where significant environmental impacts are present (the City has
acknowledged this by placing two holds on the project and requesting more information, but the City did not
focus on many of the SEPA requirements and all proposed mitigation pertains to construction activities rather
than addressing environmental impacts.
It is clear that the existing documents. and this document support the need for an EIS and that more citizen
review time is necessary for citizen review time and commenting.
Sincerely,
TIFFANY PARK WOODS ADVOCACY GROUP
~ ~ \r.Q.Q d2.a-
Renate Beedon
President
SNRCOMPANY
Steven F. Neugebauer
Principal hydrogeologisVengineering geologist
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
October 10, 2014
WETLAND DETERMINATION
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
Preliminary Plat
City of Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Barbara Yarington
Henley USA, LLC
11100 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
Prepared by:
C. Gary Schulz
Wetland / Forest Ecologist
7700 S. Lakeridge Drive
Seattle, Washington 98178
206-772-6514
February 28, 2014
Planning Division
~1&fB)
Date ___ M_A_R---.:O~3::..::..:Z0:..'.:14,---__ _
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DIViSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Background
Site Description
Project Description
Purpose
Methodology
Wetland Determination ................................................................................................................... 6
Soils
Hydrology
Wetland Description
Wetland Buffer Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 11
Wetlands A -D: Buffer Averaging
Wetland Buffer Functions
References ..................................................................................................................................... 15
List of Figures
Vicinity Map (Figure 1) .................................................................................................................. .4
Wetland Delineation Map (Figure 2) .................................................................................. Attached
List of Tables
City of Renton Wetland Rating Criteria (Table 1) ......................................................................... 10
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 16
Wetland Data Plot Form
1
INTRODUCTION
Background
A wetland investigation was conducted on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Property (Renton School
District Property) with site visits during the month of June 2013. The Property is comprised of
several vacant parcels having a total area of21.66 acres (Parcels #'s 2123059044, 9051, 9154, &
9061). The site is situated near the top of the plateau that borders the Cedar River valley located
north and east. The Property is located near Tiffany Park north of S.E. 160th Street between S.E.
158th Street and Pierce Avenue S.E. in the city of Renton, Washington.
An earlier wetland study was conducted by Grette Associates during 2008 and identified wetland
areas on the project site (Renton School District Property -Grette Associates 2008). Much of the
information provided in the Grette Associates study was reviewed and verified for this report.
Wetland boundaries were field-delineated and surveyed during the 2013 site visits. As part of
this investigation, four distinct wetland areas (A -D) have been delineated on the Property.
Wetland data plots have been installed on the site to confirm existing conditions. The current
wetland boundaries are shown in the professional survey prepared by Barghausen Consulting
Engineers, Inc. The current wetland survey (Figure 2) is attached to this report (Sheet 13 of 13
Wetland Delineation Map -Reserve At Tiffany Park, Barghausen Consulting Engineers 1/28/14).
The site plan for development has been recently revised from the original 2013 submittal to the
City. Therefore, this wetland report is also revised and replaces the previous wetland report that
was submitted to the City in 2013 (Wetland Determination Reserve At Tiffany Park -Preliminary
Plat City of Renton, Washington, Schulz 10/30/13).
Site Description
The Tiffany Park Property is undeveloped land that is predominantly forest habitat. The tree
cover is comprised of an overstory canopy of mature deciduous and conifer native trees
throughout most of the site. The forest habitat is diverse in plant species and includes a tree over
story, younger tree sub-canopy, shrub under story, and dense groundcover layer. Much of the
relatively undisturbed forest area is accessible by foot trails used by the neighboring residents.
Existing residential development is located adjacent to or near the site primarily on the north,
east, and south sides. The Property is easily accessed by trails on the Mercer Island water
pipeline that runs along its east boundary and the Cedar River water pipeline along the south
boundary.
2
The Property includes flat and undulating topography with moderate elevation changes present
throughout. The coniferous tree cover is predominantly Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). There are also several small groves of western red cedar
(Thuja plicata). The deciduous tree cover is dominated by big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum).
Also throughout the site are red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera),
and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) trees.
Shrub cover in forested areas is comprised of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer
circinatum,), Western hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and Indian plum
(Oemleria cerasiformis). The groundcover includes a dominant cover of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum) and Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus) with scattered cover of salal
(Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa), and
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
Project Description
The Reserve at Tiffany Park is a proposed subdivision to provide new single-family, residential
housing that includes developing 98 lots on a 21.66-acre site. The critical areas tracts will be
established for wetlands and wetland buffers. The critical areas (Tracts B, G, & K) have a total
area of 112,644 square feet (2.59 acres). The total native open space that will preserve native
forest habitat including the wetlands and buffers is an area of 169,349 square feet (3.88 acres).
The proposed native habitat preservation equals 17.9 percent of the site.
The proposed roadway layout is designed to access the site from existing streets, provide
necessary traffic circulation, and avoid wetland impact. Surface water runoff will be collected
and treated in an underground stormwater detention vault located on the western portion of the
Property (Tract A). Tract A will be developed to be a stormwater facility for detention and water
quality treatment and also be a passive open space area.
3
REFERENCE: Thomas Guide (2006)
Scale:
Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NJA
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(425) 251-6222
(425) 251-8782
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING,
SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:I 16000s\ 1B055\exhibitlgraphics\ 16055 vmap. cdr
• ~
"'
For:
Title:
(iI/fEIIIXC> . ' • -,.
"" ~~ •
,
,~ " • a,
1.£'::<''''
c;rArfJ.
~,
l~1',1
;,~
lH!lD ~1::' " .9.-:.... '",L_ ..
-'£ .... q. ~": '~'~ !~; (~i.~ ~ ;t ']44T~~~"'~ :'.~ if ~ ~
! • .l!-~-_";'~""" t ,'." ;'!;~ -t" t ~ ~ .,->
;/0 ~..;. .. ",
Reserve at Tiffany Park
Renton, Washington
VICINITY MAP
Job Number
16055
DATE: 11/04/13
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a wetland determination study for the proposed property
development. In addition, this study includes wetland mitigation measures intended to meet or
exceed City of Renton's wetland regulations included in their municipal code (Title 4 -Chapter
3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts).
Methodology
Typically defmed, wetlands are ... "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas". Through the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and local critical areas
regulations, the City reviews proposals that potentially impact wetland and other critical areas.
Because of observed site conditions, combined with jurisdictional wetland regulations, wetland
presence and extent must be determined for site feasibility or the permitting process.
The methodology used for wetland determination was based on the presence of dominant
hydrophytic vegetation (i.e. plant species adapted to, or tolerant of, growing in saturated soil
conditions), hydric soils, and observed wetland hydrology as described in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and consistent with the Regional
Supplemental to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2010). The On-site Determination Method was Routine for areas greater than five
acres. Four wetland data transects were installed to investigate the site. The wetland transects
are generally located south to north on Transect 1 and west to east on Transects 2 to 4. A total of
12 wetland data plots, approximately 0.01 acres in size, were installed throughout the Property.
In general wetland data plots were installed to determine and document wetland boundaries and
potential wetland areas. The wetland data plot forms are included as Appendix A. In addition,
cursory soil excavations were conducted to verify upland conditions where there was significant
cover of hydrophytic vegetation. Numerous foot trails were also used to access the Property.
The technical criteria for vegetation, soils, and hydrology are mandatory under normal conditions
and must all be met or present for an area to be identified as wetland. Determination of wetland
area was based on observed plant species, topographic relief, soil profiles, and hydrology. Pink
plastic flagging was used to mark the site's wetland boundaries and data plot locations.
Professional base topographic and wetland surveying was used to prepare the drawing attached to
this report. The wetland data plot forms are also attached to this report as Appendix A.
The wetlands were rated using the Municipal Code (Title 4 -Chapter 3 Environmental
Regulations and Overlay Districts). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (USDA 1973), King
County Area Soil Survey, was used to reference soil mapping and classification.
5
WETLAND DETERMINATION
The City of Renton's environmental overlay mapping does not identifY wetlands on the site.
This wetland investigation was conducted during the dry season without the benefit of observing
active wetland hydrology. However, hydrology indicators are present and four distinct wetland
areas were delineated on the site. The wetland areas have been professionally surveyed as shown
on Sheet 13 of 13 (Wetland Delineation Map -Reserve at Tiffany Park, Barghausen Consulting
Engineers 1/28/14). Wetland ratings and standard buffer setbacks are based on the city of Renton
regulations (Title 4 -Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts).
Soils
The SCS (USDA 1973) Soil Survey -King County Area has mapped two soil series on the
subject property. The soil map units are Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) and Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam -15 to 30 percent slopes (Age). The Alderwood and Kitsap series is comprised of
about 50 percent Alderwood sandy loam and 25 percent Kitsap silt loam. The drainage and
permeability vary. These soils formed in glacial outwash deposits and are associated with conifer
forests. The soils are on uplands but have inclusions of the Indianola series and other soils that
are not large enough to map.
The AIderwood series is also formed under conifers in glacial deposits associated with uplands.
These soils are moderately well drained that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated
substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. The hydric (wetland) soils included within this soil
mapping include the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils
found in depressions.
Certain soil inclusions of poorly drained soils found in depression areas and drainage ways on till
and outwash plains are listed in the Hydric Soils of Washington (Soil Conservation Service
1985). Hydric soils are generally associated with wetland habitats.
Investigation of portions of the upland area confirmed soil that closely resembles the Alderwood
series throughout most of the Property. The northernmost area has soils that closely resemble the
Kitsap silt loam series.
Hydrology
The Property is located in the lower Cedar River drainage basin. All of the site's wetlands have
seasonal hydrology and were dry during the June 2013 site investigation. However, hydrology
indicators of seasonal inundation and saturated soil are present.
6
The site's wetlands appear to have influence from rainfall and possibly shallow groundwater.
There are no streams or related conveyance channels on or connected to the Property. Because
the wetlands appear to be closed depressions and not connected to any downstream aquatic
habitats, they may be determined as "isolated" wetlands.
Wetland Description
The on-site wetlands are described and rated as follows. For reference the City's wetland rating
criteria are listed after the descriptions (Table 1).
Wetland A
Wetland A is a small depression area located on the north side of the Property. It has a dense
shrub cover with a few Western crabapple (Malus fusca) trees. The wetland appears supported
by shallow groundwater and rainfall. Soil excavations found hydric (wetland) soil coloration as
low chroma value (lOYR 2/1) to a depth of 13 inches.
The shrub cover is dominated by salmonberry and red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera).
Emergent vegetation cover is low to absent. The area of wetland is 3,326 square feet (0.08
acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.ii. (d», the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it a relatively undisturbed area and does not meet Category
1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is 50 feet.
WetlandB
Wetland B is a very small depression located on the south side of the Property. It is likely this
wetland has groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from the surrounding
upland. Soil excavations found hydric (wetland) conditions as low chroma values -very dark
brown, mineral soil (lOYR 2/1).
The wetland has dominant shrub cover. There are red alder trees around it but no trees or
groundcover growing in the wetland. The shrub cover is dominated by Douglas' spirea (Spiraea
douglasii) and black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata). Emergent vegetation cover is absent.
The total area of wetland is 505 square feet (0.01 acres).
7
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.iii (b) (2) (e»),
the wetland is rated a Category 3 because it appears isolated, and although not disturbed is
considered as "smaller, high quality wetlands". Wetland B does not meet Category 1 or Category
2 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 3 wetlands is 25 feet.
WetlandC
Wetland C is located just east of Wetland B. It is the largest wetland on the site and is a local
depression and swale area. The Cedar River pipeline is located at the lower, southern wetland
boundary. The seasonal surface water flowing into the wetland appears to be blocked or
impounded by the elevated pipeline road. Wetlands Band C are located near the lowest
elevations on the Property.
Wetland C is forested with an open canopy of black cottonwood and a midstory layer of scouler
willow (Salix scoulerana) trees. It has a dense shrub cover dominated by spirea and red osier
dogwood. A scattered emergent vegetation cover includes creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens) and speedwell (Veronica sp.).
The wetland appears supported by shallow groundwater and rainfall runoff. Soil excavations
found hydric (wetland) soil with low chroma value (lOYR 2/1) in the upper layer. The area of
wetland is 5,349 square feet (0.12 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.1.a.ii. (d», the
. wetland is rated a Category 2 because it is a relatively undisturbed area and it does not meet
Category 1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is
50 feet.
WetlandD
Wetland D is located adjacent to the Mercer Island water pipeline. It is a relatively small
depression wetland with seasonal hydrology. Wetland D has a dense shrub cover dominated by
salmonberry, black twinberry, and red osier dogwood. The emergent vegetation cover observed
includes lady fern (Athyrium felix-femina) and piggy back plant (Tolmeia menziesii.).
The wetland appears supported by shallow groundwater and rainfall runoff. There is a small
concrete culvert under the pipeline road that drains into the wetland. Soil excavations observed a
silt loam hydric soil with low chroma value (lOYR 2/1) in the upper layer. The area of wetland
is 3,381 square feet (0.08 acres).
8
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Coward in et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.ii. (d», the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it is a relatively undisturbed area and it does not meet
Category 1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is
50 feet.
9
City of Renton Wetland Rating Criteria (RMC Chapter 3, Section M.): Table 1.
M. WETLANDS:
1. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as
described below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in
area, are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in subsection C of this
Section.
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes
of regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance
criteria shall be based on the following rating system:i. Category 1: Category 1 wetlands are
wetlands which meet one or more of the followin!! criteria:
(a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or
the oresence of essential habitat for those species; and/or
(b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in
dispersed oatches or otherwise) with two (2) or more ve!!etation classes; and/or
(c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more
vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or
(d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of
their occurrence; and/or
ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
7a) Wetlands that are not Cate!!orv 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or
(iJ) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osorev nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or
(c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a
perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category
1 wetlands; and/or
(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as
dikine:, ditchine: or channelization; and/or
iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet
the following criteria:
(1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as
dikine:, ditchine:, channelization and/or outlet modification; and
(2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal andlor compaction of soils;
and
(3) Mav have altered vegetation.
-(b) Wetlands that are newlv emerging. Newlv emercing wetlands are: m Wetlands occurrine: on top of fill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by
wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and
Black River Drainae:e Basin.
(c) All other wetlands not classified as Cate!!orv 1 or 2 such as smaller, high Qualitv wetlands.
10
WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION
This section addresses wetland buffer reductions and mitigation measures. The proposed project
includes wetland buffer reduction through the use of buffer averaging. The standard buffers for
Wetlands A, B, C and D may be reduced through averaging the buffer width per the criteria
identified in RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f. as listed below:
f Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging
buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the
Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical
improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and
ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and
iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required. standard buffer prior to averaging; and
iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of
Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or
similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on
consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is
an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions
require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and
vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-
case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land
development characteristics.
vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section.
Wetland Buffer Averaging
Wetlands A, C, and D are proposed to have limited reductions in buffer width. Wetland B is
within the 50-foot buffer of Wetland C. Because Wetlands Band C have buffers that are
integrated and overlap, the proposed buffer averaging is combined to compensate for buffer
reduction.
The criteria listed in Section M.6.f. for wetland buffer reduction through averaging are met as
described below. Please refer to Figure 2 (Wetland Delineation Map) for additional details.
11
The on-site wetlands currently have physical improvements in or near wetland and buffer areas.
There are 2 pipeline corridors and heavily used trails in wetland buffers (M.6.f.i.).
The buffer areas after averaging will have more area than the required standard buffer prior to
averaging (net gain in buffer area). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at
ratios that range from 1.6 to 1.0 to 9.5 to 1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D will have buffer areas
significantly greater after buffer averaging than prior to averaging (M.6.f.ii & iii.).
A discussion of buffer adequacy and best available science is provided in the following section -
Wetland Buffer Functions (M.6.f.iv.).
The proposed buffer reductions are for a combination of planned residential lot and public
roadway uses. All of the proposed buffer reductions are no greater than 50 percent of the
standard buffer widths. The majority of the buffer reductions are about 36 percent of the
standard buffer widths. There are a total of three buffer areas that have a minimum buffer
setback of 25 feet. (M.6.f.v.).
In general, potential buffer impacts from urban development are variable. Potential impacts may
be mitigated or prevented through code requirements, best management practices, and/or plat
conditions. Minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities adjacent to wetland
buffers will be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and planting of native
species. The minimum buffer distance of 25 feet will be maintained or restored as necessary to
provide buffer functions.
The proposed buffer averaging plan is shown on Sheet 13 of 13 (Wetland Delineation Map -
Reserve At Tiffany Park (Barghausen Consulting Engineers 1/28/14). Using the buffer tables on
Sheet 13, wetland buffer averaging is described as follows.
Wetland A
The proposed area of buffer reduction (3,740 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (35,583 square feet) that is contignous with the standard buffer. This provides a
buffer area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area, and meets the
criteria of RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
Wetland B/C
The Cedar River Pipe Line crosses through a portion of buffer on the south side of Wetland C
causing a loss of buffer function in that location. The loss of buffer function has been an existing
condition for many years.
12
The proposed area of buffer reduction (2,644 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (11,890 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a
buffer area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area, and meets the
criteria of RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
WetlandD
The Mercer Island Pipe line crosses through a portion of buffer on the east side of Wetland D
causing a loss of buffer function in that location. The loss of buffer function has been an existing
condition for many years.
The proposed area of buffer reduction (1,627 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (2,589 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a buffer
area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area on the site, and meets
the criteria of RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
Wetland Buffer Functions
In support of wetland buffer averaging on this project site the following is a discussion and
review that is taken from the Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1 - A Synthesis of the
Science (Washington State Department of Ecology, March 2005 Pub. # 05-06-006). All of the
on-site wetland buffers are described as forested with dense plant cover dominated by native
species, have relatively flat topography, and have moderately well-drained soils.
Buffers provide functions that include Removing Sediment, Excess Nutrients, and Toxics.
Buffers Influence Microclimate and Provide Screening from adjacent disturbances. Buffers also
Maintain Adjacent Habitat and Habitat Connectivity critical for the life needs of many species
that use wetlands (Volume 1 - A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of
Ecology, Chapter 5, page 5-25 March 2005). The most frequently cited physical characteristics
that influence the effectiveness of a buffer are:
• Vegetation characteristics (composition, density, and roughness -downed material)
• Percent slope
• Soils
• Buffer width and length (adjacent to source of impacts)
The review of these characteristics is focused on water quality related to protection and
improvement. A buffer's ability to remove sediment, nutrients, toxics and to maintain
microclimate is dependent on physical characteristics and the amount of input the buffer receives
from runoff. Factors that can increase sediment and pollutant removal are:
• Flows are slowed sufficiently to allow particles to settle out,
• Physical filtering by vegetation and roots mechanically removes sediments from the water
column,
13
• The slope of the buffer is of a low enough gradient to preclude formation of rills and
scounng,
• There is large woody debris on the ground to create roughness, and
• The infiltration rate of the soils allows water to move through the soils rather than on the
surface.
Related to buffer width and the effectiveness in removing sediment (protecting water quality) the
report states "the relationship between the width of the buffer and its effectiveness is non-linear.
The largest particles and the greatest percentage of particles are dropped in the outer portions of
the buffer (closest to the source of sediment). In these outer areas, the rate of surface flow begins
to diminish as the water is slowed by vegetation and woody debris. Slower water movement
allows particles to drop out of the water column" (Washington State Department of Ecology,
Chapter 5, pages 5-28 to 5-30 March 2005).
To summarize, the wetland buffers proposed for buffer reduction through averaging have the
physical characteristics that can protect water quality and wetland hydrologic functions including
flood storage. The factors (listed above) that can increase or provide sediment and pollutant
removal will remain in the reduced buffer areas. The subject wetlands will be preserved and
have the opportunity to improve water quality and reduce flooding and erosion.
14
REFERENCES
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014. Reserve At Tiffany Park, Preliminary Plat for
Henley USA 1/28/14.
City of Renton. 2006. City of Renton Municipal Code (Title IV -Development Regulations).
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, United states Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79-31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Mannal," Technical
Report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Grette Associates. 2008. Renton School District -Tiffany Park Area Wetland And Stream
Assessment Report.
Hitchcock, c.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1977. Vascular Plants of the
Pacific Northwest. University Press Seattle, Washington.
Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0).
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of King
County Area, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with Washington Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 1: A
Synthesis of the Science. Ecology Publication # 05-06-006.
15
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DATA PLOT FORMS
16
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Renton School District
Henley USA
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace
Subregion (LRR): Lat
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (Age) and Kitsap (AkA
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
6/18113
1
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Long:
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
NWI classification:
No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I8l No D
Are Vegetation 0, Soil D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remar1o:s.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling pOint locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No 0 Is the Sampled Area Ves 181 No 0 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: Wetland A is on the north side of site -inside Flag A-2.
VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants -
Tree Stratum (Plot size: tltOO acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1 Malus fusea ~ I'O§ FACW Number of Dominant Species
2. That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: g (A)
--------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across AI! Strata: ~ (B)
4. --------
SO% " __ ,20%=: __ ~ =: Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sa(;!linglShrub Strat!,!m (Plot size: tltOO acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Q§ (AlB)
1. Acer macro{2h'l./fum ~ I'O§ FAGU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2 Rubus s{29ctabilis 12 ill! FAC Total % Cover of: Multi(;!l~ by
3. Comus stofQnifera !ill I'O§ FACW OBL species --xt =: --
4. --------FAGW species --x2 =: --
S. --------FAG species --x3 '" --
50%= __ ,20%= __ llQ = Total Cover FACU. species --x4 =: --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPLspecles --x5 =: --
1. B!.lbu~ ur~inus :; no FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. Poll£.stichum munitum I ill! FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. --------Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for HydrophyUc Vegetation
S. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is :$3.0 1
7. --------0 4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9 --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% '" __ , 20% =: __ :; = Total Cover 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: --l
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Ves 181 No 0 50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL S p amp mg I omt: 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc 2 Texture Remarks ---------
11 10YR2/1 100 --------silt loam slightly moist
l!l 1l!Y!3m §Q --------silt loam --
--10YR613 <Q --------silt loam --
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
'Type: C= Concentration, O=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, C8=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LARs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls~:
0 Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (55) 0 2 em Muck (AtO)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remaf1o;s)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) I8l Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3'ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): --Hydric Solis Present? Ve. I8l No 0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A1) I8l Water-Stained Leaves (89) I8l Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA " 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salterust (811) I8l Drainage Patterns (B10)
I8l Water Marks (Bl) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (S3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Uving Roots (C3) I8l Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow AquitaJ'd (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants {Ot} (lRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave HummoCks (07)
I8l Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (sa)
Field Observations;
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ve. I8l No 0 --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring weU, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology assumed by hydric soil and indicators,
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Renton School District
ApplicanVOwner: Henley USA
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace
Subregion (LRR): lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (Agel and KitsaD (AkE>
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%). Q
Datum: Long:
NWI classification:
Ves No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
0, Soil
0, Soil
0, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed?
0, or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic?
Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [2l No 0
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach sile map showing sampling poinl localions, Iransects, importanl f •• lur.s .Ic. ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves 0 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 0
Remarks: Wetland A is on the north side of site.
VEGETATION U -T f I se sCient! IC names or plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Alnus rubra 10 ill! FAG Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 IA)
2. --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across AI! Strata: ~ IB)
4. --------
50% '" __ ,20%", __ 10 '" Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling.§hrug ~r~tum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OBl, FACW, or FAC: ;JJ INB)
,. Acer macroQ.h'l.lfum !ill )l§ FAGU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus s12ecrabilis !lQ l!O' FAG Total % Gover of: Mu!:!:ig;ly by:
3. ----~ -DBl species --xI = --
4. --------FACW species --x2" --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --'
50% " __ .20% " __ ill '" Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. tiede.ra heiR! !lQ )l§ !'l! Column Totals: __ IA) __ IB)
2. Pof't§.tichum munitum <!! ill! FACU Prevalence Index = B/A '"
3. --------Hydrophytie Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2· Dominance Test is :-50%
6. --------0 3· Prevalence Index is s.3.0 1
7. --------4· Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0
B. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5· Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytlc Vegetation' (Explain)
11. --------
50% '" __ , 20% '" __ §Q =: Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematiC.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ )
1. --------
2. Hydrophyttc
--------Vegetation Ve. 0 No 181
50%=: __ .20%" __ --=: Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL Sampl'n P' t 2 19 om :
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks --- ------
1 1 DYR2/2 1QQ --------silt loam slightl~ moist
1Z 10YR3/3 100 --------sand~ loam Qn1
---------------- --
-------- ------ ----
---------------- --
------------------
---- -- -- ----------
-------- ----------
'Type: C= Concentration, O .. Oepletion, 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 Soilss:
0 Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (Al0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (86) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Depleted Matrix (FS)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy MuCky Mineral (81) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions {F8}
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth ~nches): --Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check ali that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (Al) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation {A3} 0 Sait Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates {B 13} 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (el) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (CS) 0 Geomorphic Position (O2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or stresses Plants (01) (LRR A)' 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Bl) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): (includes capillaryfringe) --Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Renton School District
Henlev USA
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc,): terrace
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC)
Lat:
City/County: RentonlKing Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%), Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation 0, Soil D, or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes [&l No 0
(If needed, explain any answers in RemarKs.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects Important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves [;l No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves [;l No 0 Is the Sampled Area Ve. [;l No 0 wHhin a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves [;l No 0
Remarks: At Wetland B on the southwest side of site -inside Flag B-1.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: lI..Q.Qw ~ llla!l!>
1. Alnus rubra ~ W FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: g (A)
2. --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (8)
4. --------
50%", __ ,20%= __ ~ ,. Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
1. LQnic.~ra invo/u.crata !lO Y<>§ E8Q Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. SQirea do!!.glasil , !1Q FACW Total % Cover of: Multipl~ b:i:
3. ----nI£ , OBLspecies --xI = --
4. --------FACW species --><2= --
5. --------FAC species --x3 '" --
50% = __ • 20% = __ ~ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPLspecies --x5 = --
1. Ath"Y[ium telix-femina I !1Q FACW Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. ----!J& , Prevalence Index = B/A = __
3. --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------[;l 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ~3.0'
7. --------4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ = Total Cover , Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
--be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:----.J
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Yes [;l NQ 0
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL Sampling Point· 3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
---------
1< 10YR2/1 100 -- --
----sand~ loam dry man~ root!;?:
12 10YR3/1 ~ --------sand~ loam illY
--10YR4!3 10 -- --
Q M sandllioam mottled
------------------
-- ------ ----------
---- ---------- ----
------------ ------
------------ ------
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: Pl=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils]:
0 Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (Al0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (86) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLR~ 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) I8l Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (11 present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): --Hydric Salls Present? Ves I8l No 0
Remarks:
HVDROLOGV
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (Al) I8l Water-Stained Leaves (B9) I8l Water·Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2. 4A. and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Satt Crus1 (B11) I8l Drainage Patterns (Bl0)
I8l Water Marks (Bl) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) I8l Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (CS) 0 FAC-Neutr'al Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (8S) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
I8l Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No I8l Depth Onches): --
Water Table Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth Onches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No I8l Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves I8l No 0 (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology assumed by hydric soil and indicators.
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:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s)
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz.
landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (lRR):
Soil Map UnIT Name: Alderwood (AgO)
Lat:
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): .Q
Datum:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No 0
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks: Wetland B is on the southwest side of site. Plot is outside of Flag B-1
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Afn/,i~ rul2ra, !ill Yml FAG Number of Dominant Species
That Are OSl, FACW, or FAC: g (A)
2. --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: :l (8)
4. --------
50%, __ ,20%= __ !ill '" Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sal2lingLShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OBl, FACW, or FAG: 2ll (AlB)
1. Lonicera involucrata :lQ l'"l! ElIQ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Comus stolonifera ~ JlQ FAGW Total % Gover of: MuttiQI~ b~:
3. ----DIJt: , OBL species --x1 '" --
4. --------FACW species --><2, --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = __ ,20%= __ :l§ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: moo acre) UPLspecies --><5, --
1. Rubus ursinus gQ l'"l! FAGU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (8)
2. PQIy'§.tiqnum muntrum ill JlQ FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = __
3. Pterldlum aguilin!J.m § JlQ FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic VegetatiDn
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is 5,3.0 1
7. --------4 -Morphological Adaptations' (provide supporting 0
8 --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation! (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ :l§ = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed Dr problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:---->
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Yes 181 No 0 50% = __ , 20% , __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Pro.ect Site: Renton School District
SOIL Sampling Point" 4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc2 Texture Remarks
~~-~~----
~ 10YR2f2 100
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ sand¥ IQ~m dtY man¥ rootst
l§ 10YR4/3 100
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ sandy loam <1ni
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
'Type: C== Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, GS",Govered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soillndicalors: (Applicable to alllRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'J:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 crn Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MlRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (FS)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present.
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive layer (if present):
Type:
~~
Depth (inches):
~~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicalors:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (Al) 0 Water.$talned Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained leaves (8S)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MlRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Patterns (810)
0 Water Mar1<s (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (G1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled SOils (C6) 0 FAC·Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soit Cracks (BS) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (DS) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): ~~
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches):
~~
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181 (includes capillary fringe) ~~
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator{s):
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
landform (hillslope, terrace, etc,):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC)
lat
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N RSE
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation D, Soi! D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 122 No 0
(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 I1!l No 0
Hydric Soil Present? YeS 0 No I1!l Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No I1!l within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No I1!l
Remarks: Wetland B is on the southwest side of site.
VE G ETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: t/tOO acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Gover ~ Status
1. Alnus rubra 1!l li<>" Ei\Q Number of Dominant Species 1 IA)
2. ------ThatAre OBL, FACW, or FAC: --
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (6)
4. --------
50%" __ ,20%" __ 1!l = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: tl100 acre) That Are OBl, FAGW, or FAG: Z§ INB)
1. bonlcera involucrata § !lQ FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Comus stQfQ.ntiera lQ yru; FACW Total % Cover of: Multigl¥ b:i:
3. Spirea doug/asH 1!l li<>" FACW OBl species --xt = --
4. --------FAGW species --><2" --
5. --------FAG species --x3" --
50% = __ , 20% = __ ;m = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
tl~rb Slri~,.t\Im (Plot size: t/l00acre) UPL species --><5" --
1. Rubus ursinus lQ l/O§ FACU Column Totals: __ IA) __ IB)
2. ----om: -Prevalence Index::: B/A = _. __
3. ----~ -Hydrophytle Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------I1!l 2 ~ Dominance Test Is >50%
6. --------0 3· Prevalence Index is .:>.3.0'
7. --------0 4 • Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
B. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% " __ ,20% " __ lQ = Total Gover ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood¥ Vjne Stratum (Plot size:----.J
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Yes I1!l No 0
50% " __ , 20% " __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL Sampling Point" 5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
II 10YR312 100 --------sand~ loam Qry
10 2.5Y5/3 100 7.5YR4/6 1Q Q --sand~ loam eLY s;IiQht mQttling
------------------
---- --------------
------ -- -- --------
---------------- --
------------------
------------------
'Type: C", Concentration, O",Oepletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, C5=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 :
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (55) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (86) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surlace (Ali) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surlace (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Jlndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): --Hydric Solis Present? Yes 0 No I!!l
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (G1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No I!!l Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Ves 0 No I!!l Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No I!!l Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No I!!l --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanVOwner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood IAgC)
Lat:
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling POint:
Section, Township. Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex. none):
Long:
No
NWI classificatiOn:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical forthis time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation D. Soil D, or Hydrology D. naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [81 No 0
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 181
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks: At Wetland C on the southwest side of site -outside Flag C-3. Location has non-hydric soil between Wetlands B & C.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum {Plot size: 1/100 acrel Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ----~ , Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: 1 (A)
2. -----~ --
3. -----~ --Total Number of Dominant 1 (B)
4. Species Across All Strata: --------
SO% '" __ ,20%",, __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Saglingft:1brub Str~tu!] (Plot size: 1/100 acrel That Are OSL, FAGW. or FAC: 100 (NB)
1. ----JJI£ , Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. S{2ire~ dougfasii ao lIll§ FAGW Total % Cover of: Mu!ii(;!:I¥b:i:
3. ----JJI£ -OSLspecies --:.:1 "" ---
4. --------FAGW species --><2= --
5. --------FAG species --x3 = --
50%= __ ,20%= __ ao = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --xS "" --,. Rv.I2~!l.r~us 1.0 !lQ FACU Column Totals: __ IA) __ (B)
2. ----JJI£ -Prevalence Index = B/A ""
3. -----~ --Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >SO%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is .:::.3.0 1
7. -------~ 0 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
8. ------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) --
9. -----~ -~ 0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ------ --
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% :: __ , 20% = __ JJj = Total Cover 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood¥ Vine Stratum (Plot size: -l
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Yes 181 No 0
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum __
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL SamplinQ Point: 6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (malst) % Color (mOist) % Typel Loc2 Texture Remarks --- ------1a 10YR412 100 --------sand:iIQam illl'
------------ ---- --
------------ ------
------------------
-------------- ----
------------------
---------- -- ---- --
-------- -- --------
'Type: C", Concentration, D=Depletion, RM",Reduced Matrix, CS",Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL",Pore Uning, M",Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all lRRs, unless otherwise noted.) indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
0 Histosol (Al) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Hlstic Eplpedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MlRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surlace (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surlace (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): --Hydric Solis Present? Yes 0 No I8l
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Weiland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surlace Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 san Crust (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (B1 0)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron DepOSits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (lRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No I8l (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
PrOject Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Invesligator(s):
Renton School District
Henley USA
GarvSchulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (lRR)'
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC)
lat:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of year?
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Q
Datum: Long:
Ves No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
0, Soil
0, Soil
D, or Hydrology
0, or Hydrology
D, significantly disturbed?
0, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Ves No 0
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 181 No 0 Is the Sampled Area Ves 181 No 0 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 181 No 0
Remarks: AI Wetland C on the southwest side of site· inside Flag C-3.
VE G ETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/1 00 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: ~ ~ Status
1. POQ.ulus balsamifera ~ l'tl El\Q Number of Dominant Species
SalIx scouferana That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: g (A)
2. § 1lQ FAC
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: ;1 (B)
4. --------
50% = __ . 20% = __ 2.0 = T ota! Cover Percent 01 Dominant Specjes
SaglinglShrub Stratum'(Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AlB)
1. ----.0&. -Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Seirea douglasii 2§ l'tl FACW Total % Cover of: MultiJ;!ly:by::
3. ----~ , OBL species --x1 ::= --
4. --------FACW species --><2= --
5. --------FAC species --x3= --
50% = __ ,20%= __ !l§ = Total Cover FACU species --x4== --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) UPl species --x5: --,. Rubus ursinus § 1lQ FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. ----.0&. -Prevalence Index == B/A ==
3. --------Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is 5:3.0'
7. ------ --
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0
8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. ------ --
50% '" __ , 20% "' __ ;; =< Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and weIland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody: Vine Stratum (Plot size:---.J
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Ve. 181 No 0
50% '" __ , 20% "' __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL Sampling Point 7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches} Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Lac' Texture Remarks ---------
14 10YR2/1 !ill --------sand~ loam <1rY
--10YR212 1Q ------ --
sand~ loam <1rY
10 10YR4/2 100 ---- -- --
sand~ loam --
---------- ------ --
-- -------- ------ --
------------ -- -- --
---------- -- -- -- --
------------------
'Type: C: Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS",Covered or Coated Sand Grains. "2Locatlon: PL=Pore Uning, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsl:
0 Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 em Muck (AID)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Suriace (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surtace (A12) l8I Redox Dark Surface (FS)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Jlndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix {S4} 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (It present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): --Hydric Soils Present? Yes l8I No 0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (All l8I Waler-Stained Leaves (B9) l8I Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and. 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) l8I Drainage Pattems (B10)
l8I Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table {C2}
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) l8I Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (o5)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (Dt) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
l8I Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No l8I Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No l8I Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No l8I Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes l8I No 0 --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology assumed by hydric soil and indicators,
us Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERM INATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanVOwner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform {hilislope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwaad (AgC)
Lat:
City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N RSE
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, ar Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes t8I No °
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point iocations transects important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye, 0 No 181
Remarks: In small depression near Wetland Transect 1 on the southwest side of site.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Gover ~ ~
1. Pop.fl.lu~ ba/samif@.rn fQ ~ FAG Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: g IA)
2. Salix scoulerana § !lQ FAG
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: J (8) 4. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ go '" Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sa!2linglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/tOO acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: !lli IN8)
1. Malus fusca ;lO ~ FAG Prevalence Index worksheet:
2, AQ~[ QircinatJdmi go ~ FACU Total % Cover of: Multigl~ b¥:
3. ----~ -OBLspecies --xI := --
4. --------FACW species --x2= --
5. --------FAC species --x3 := --
50% = __ ,20%= __ !ill := Total Cover FACU species --x4 := --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ll10D acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. Hedera helix go !lQ ill Column Totals: __ IA) __ (8)
2. ----~ -Prevalence Index", B/A =
3. --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ::;3.0 1
7. --------4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
8, --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9, --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.
, 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) --------
11. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ go = Total Cover 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:----.J
" --------
2, Hydrophytic
--------Vegetation Ve. 181 No 0
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL SamplinQ Point: 8
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' loc2 Texture RemarXs ---------
§ --------------duff ang rQQt§
Jl! 10YR3/2 100 --------sandlllQam 2!l'
Jl! 10YR4(3 100 --------sand~ loam 2!l'
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletlon, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Uning, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
0 Histosol (Al) 0 Sandy Redox (S51 0 2 em Muck (AtO)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histlc (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) '.llndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Solis Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surlace Water (A1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1,2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crus1 (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Water Marks (8t) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry·Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (eg)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron {C4} 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils eC6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Vas 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): (includes capill61)' fringe}
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181 --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Projeci Siie:
ApplicanVOwner'
lnvestigator(s) :
Renion School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC)
Lat
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
City/County: RentonfKing Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 2
Datum: Long:
Yes No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
O. Soil
0, Soil
0, or Hydrology
0, or Hydro!ogy
0, significantly disturbed?
0, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No 0
(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 0 No 181
Hydric Soli Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks: West side of Wetland Transect 1 in shallow swale.
VEGETATION -Use scientific name. of "Iants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer rnacrophvlfum <ill W. FAGU Number of Dominant Species 1 IA)
2. Sorbus scopulina 1.0 --That Are DEL, FACW, or FAC: --
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
4. Species Across All Strata: g IB)
--------
50%" __ ,20%", __ :l.O = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are DEL, FACW, or FAG: OQ INB)
1. OQ.foggnax horridus ;lO W. FAG Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus sQ.ectabilis 1.0 [lQ FAG Total % Cover of: Multipl~ b:y:
3 ----~ -OBL species --x1 = --
4. --------FAGW species --"'" --
5. --------FAC species --""" --
50% = __ .20%" __ '!.O = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acrel UPLspecies --x5= --,. Rubu§. ursinus I [lQ FAGU Column Totals: __ IA) __ IB)
2. PQJ't.~tlkh!lm. muaitum 15 [lQ FAGU Prevalence Index = BfA = __
3. Cf~wniam 1Q [lQ FAG Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytlc Vegetation
5. --------181 2· Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ~3.0'
7. --------4· Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0
B. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) --------
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ go ::= Total Cover ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood~Vine Stratum {Plot size:->
1. --------
2. Hydrophytlc
--------Vegetation Yes 0 No 181
50% = __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site' Renton School District
SOIL Samplinq Point: 9
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Lad Texture Remarks ---------
1£ 75YR3/3 100 --------~anglllQam ilill
10 10YR4i3 100 --------~~nd¥ IQ~DJ ilill
------------------
------------------
-----------------_.
------------------
------------------
------------------
lType: 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 80115 3
:
0 Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 em Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histie (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted 8elow Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (FS)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ~Indlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or oroblematic.
Restrletlve Layer (11 present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Solis Present? Ves 0 No till
Remarks:
HVDROLOGV
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check ali that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Sa~ Crust (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (810)
0 Water Mar1<s (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (8 (3) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Ce)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils {C6} 0 FAC·Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (8S) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No till Depth (Inches): --
Water Table Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (Inches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No till Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Vs. 0 No 181 --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site·
ApplicanVOwner:
Investiga1or(s}:
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC)
Lat:
City/County: RentonlKing Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long:
NWI classification:
No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeaI"'? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 121 No 0
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, 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 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No 0 Is the Sampled Area Ves 181 No 0 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: At Wetland D· inside Flag 0·1.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ----~ , Number of Dominant Species
That Are OSl, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4. --------
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
SapJingiShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1{100 acre) That Are DBL, FACW, or FAG: 1QQ (A/B)
1. LoniceCB involucrata 1Q !1Q FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus SQ.13ctabilis !l§ """ FAC Total % Cover of: Multij;!l~by::
3. Comus sta/aniters 1Q !1Q FACW OBLspecies --x1 = --
4. ------ --
FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --><3" --
50% " __ ,20%" __ !l§ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 '" --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. Ath't.rium ff2.lix4fl.milJ1J. 1Q !1Q FACW Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. Polltstichum munitum 1; !1Q FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = __
3. ------ --
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2· Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 . Prevalence Index is .=;:3.0 1
7. --------4 . Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0
8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. ------ --
0 5 "Wetland Non·Vascular Plants'
10. ------ --
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% '" __ II = Total Cover , Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:----.J
1. ------ --
2. Hydrophytle
------ --Vegetation Ves 181 No 0
50% '" __ I 20% "' __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL Samplinq Point: 10
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc 2 Texture Remarks ---------
1< 10YR2/1 100 --------sin loam §Iightl)l mQist
10 10YR311 1Q!! --------silt loam slightl~ moist
10 10YR412 100 --------silt loam slightl~ moist
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, GS=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 :
0 Histosol (AI) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (Al0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TFI2)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11} 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) I8l Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 1n dicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes I8l No 0
Remarks:
.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) I8l Water-Stained Leaves (B9) I8l Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (exeept MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Sail Crust (Bll) I8l Drainage Patterns (810)
I8l Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (el) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Uving Roots (C3) 181 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 Iron Deposits (95) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted Of Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D?)
I8l Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No I8l Depth (Inches): (includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I8l No 0 --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology assumed by hydric soil and Indicators.
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:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and K1lsap (AkA
Lat:
City/County: RentonlKing Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point
Section, TownShip, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes f8I No 0
Are Vegetation D, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, 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 0 No I!<I
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No I!<I Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No I!<I within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No I!<I
Remarks: Wetland D -outside Flag D-3.
VEGETATION U -IT f I se SClen I IC names or plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acrel Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: lU&Yor ~ Status
1. Rhamnus (2ursh~aia 12 !lll FAG Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBl, FACW, or FAC: ;1 (A)
2. --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (8)
4. ------ --
50% = __ ,20%= __ <§ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
SaglingLShqlb St[a11lrn {Plot size: 1/100 acre} That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: .>Ii (N8)
1. Acer fmQ[QJ2h'i1.lum § !lll FAGU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus s(2ectabi/is <§ l'O§ E8Q Total % Cover of: Multi(;!l)lb)l:
3. Acer cirQjngtum <§ l'O§ FAGU OBLspecies --xl = --
4. --------FACW species --><2= --
5. --------FAC species --><3= --
50%= __ ,20%", __ §§ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Str~tYm (Plot size: 1/100 acrel UPLspecies --x5 = --
1. Rubus u&,infl§. 1Q !lll FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (8)
2. Pol'i§.ti"hlJ.m munifum <ll l'O§ FACU Prevalence Index = BIA = __
3. Ath't.rium felix-femioo. ~ ~ FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. To/mflia menziesii 0 !lll FAG 0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. Mahonia nervosa 1Q !lll FAGU I!<I 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is s3.0'
7. --------0 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
6. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytlc Vegetation' (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ §§ "" Total Cover ' Indicators of hydriC soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ------>
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic --------Vegetation Yes 0 No I!lI
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum __
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL s amp In9 P . t 11 Oln:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc 2 Texture Remarks
~~-~~----
12 10YA312 100
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
silt loam <!!li
12 10YR4/2 100
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
silt loam <!!li
~~ ~~ ~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
tType: C", Concentration, D",Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: Pl=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3:
0 His1oso1 (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (55) 0 2 em MuCk. (A 10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (86) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dar\<. Surface (All) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3l n dicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or oroblematic.
Restrictive layer (If present):
Type: ~~
Depth (inches): Hydrle Salls Present? Yes 0 No IilI
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary lndicalors (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (Al) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt CruS1 (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (810)
0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 OxidIzed Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracl<:s (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No IilI Depth Onches): ~-
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No IilI Depth (inches): ~~
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No IilI Depth 0nches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181 (includes capillary fringe) ~-
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR):
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC)
Lat:
City/County· Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long:
NWI classification:
No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): g
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic condition~ on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetati0n D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes t8I No D
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, 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 0 No 181
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks: Next to north pipeline in shallow swale.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of .plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: IlIaD acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer macrophvlfum ;m m FACU Number of Dominant Species 1 (A)
2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across Ali Strata: g (B)
4 --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ ;m = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 50 (NB)
Sapling[Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1fl00 acrel That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1. Op/o~nax horridus go m FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2 Rubus s(2ectabllis 12 llil E8Q Total % Cover of: Multiplll by:
3. Rubus (2arvifforus li llil FAC OBLspecies --x1 = --
4. ------ --
FAGW species --)(2= --
5. ------ --
FAG species --x3 = --
50% '" __ ,20%= __ ~ '" Total Cover FAGU species --x4 '" --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --xS = --,. RUQus ursin!.§. li llil FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (8)
2. Pterfd/l1m 8QY.iHnl1.fD. 12 llil FACU Prevalence Index", B/A =
3 ----~ -Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: -
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is :;.50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ::;3.0 1
7. ------ --
4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
B. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% "' __ @ = Total Gover ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot slze;--->
1. ------ --
2. Hydrophytic
------ --Vegetation Yes 0 No 181
50% = __ ,20%= __ --'" Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District
SOIL SamDlina Point: t2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth neede.d to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
§ 10YR312 1QQ -- ---- --
s~ng~loam gravell~ dry
14 J..QJ'!3m lQQ -- ------sanQ):' loam gravell~ dry
16. 10YR514 100 --------sand):' loam gravell:i dry
------------------
------------ ------
------------ ------
------------ ------
------------ ------
tType: G= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM::Reduced Matrix, CS=Govered 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:
0 Histosol (All 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 em Muck (A1C)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix ISS) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral {Fl} (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TFI2)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy GJeyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fe)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth unches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check alilhat apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (At) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (AS) 0 Satt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Pattems (B10)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (81S) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Aoots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (G4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (o3)
0 Iron Oeposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (GS) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (OS)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (BS) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (OS) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (Inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181 (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avaitable:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
,
.,. \ ...........
/ \'
I
I
I
, --I _-
,
\----~ONROE AVE SE ;( "/ /
\ \ ".... \ --\--.... \ ..----
dl. I \_-
-I I\' \ _--\---
I
I
I
_,-' I ~ \ ,/-\ -~....... \ ~ '1"--.-' \ .... __
\ n \ \_
\ '";;\ \ .---1 _----I I _/ r--... -\ \ .----, .... -\ \ .----" \ --\ r-\---\ \
I
I
~
\
~
I I \
\ -\ \
\ .... --\ \ ---\ ,---' \ 1\-
\ -, -~ "",--r-r .--\.--/
\-" I
...
\' \
\ I
I -\
\ ---.... \
\ .... -\ \'-\
\ _~ I
I _
\ .... --I __ ,,-
\ --' \ ---e-
16055
~HAtl f{~; Sh ... t -.., ~,.
1".I!IIIII~t:
\ <,:::), ~~ II
\ .... <' i'.-!
).., ",' -~;-' .. I
.... --.... "" ~/l/~::'
---'" l:/ ";~:,
--" '1~~I\ I.~-;',
_'A"
I
I
ii!!!; ! I
I ,',',' I q • -------J
~ I
I ~ > ~ 0 I ~ ~ B ~ I
I •• I
~ , ~ i ------,
I
I
~ I
I ..... I
,/Ii ----__ ...J
I ~1~1~lfn I
I
I
I • • • I -----I
I
I
I
J
J
la215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENf, WA 980:32
(4-25)251-6222
(4-25)251-8782 FAX
,
'" ..-: ,
/
Sea .. ,
1·~6Q'
~'I'
(~ ~ ----"I ~ "\ "-, I
/ I \ "\ 1'--..... /
J \ I " I \ \"\ ,,/ ..........
I \ \ /-.....
I \ "\ //
( \ ).-
I \ ... / ."-"';:'-'. \ -_/ •• ~ '44. -\.--" ..... ; ... z::::: ?-:tir.o ,-----'-.-: ". , ;::\
~i"t,
, ,
"v
/ /....-{"" I,
p_ I I I \
I \ I \ / ./-.,,,<!II'
/ .-'j.'J
/ " (;/ ?'
I ..... ' "'---\ I ..... // \ I
I \ I
/ \ \ I I
I \ \ J-
I _--/ \ \ / -I
I ----\ \ / --..j r--\ /' -
,\', / \ \ /'
I \ ........... / \ 'y/'
, \ _, I ' ,\' 1\ ). ,
/ \ .......... I \ " " " \ -,f, \ ,/ '
I \ I ..... ~/
I \ I '..... ....'"'''
"( \ / "'-'--, \ "
HENLEY USA LLC
11100 MAIN STREET. SUITE 100
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
TItle'
I
I
I
I
1-------
I
I
I
I
~.
o
~
e
WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
FOR
.RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
~
J
"
WETLAND DETERMINATION
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
Preliminary Plat
City of Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Barbara Yarington
Henley USA, LLC
11100 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, W A 98004
Prepared by:
C. Gary Schulz
Wetland I Forest Ecologist
7700 S. Lakeridge Drive
Seattle, Washington 98178
206-772-6514
June 3, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... .2
Background
Site Description
Project Description
Purpose
Methodology
Wetland Determination ................................................................................................................... 6
Soils
Hydrology
Wetland Description
Wetland Buffer Impacts & Mitigation ......................................................................................... 11
Wetland Buffer Impacts
Wetlands A, C, & D: Buffer Averaging
Wetland Buffer Functions
References ..................................................................................................................................... 17
List of Figures
Vicinity Map (Figure I) ................................................................................................................. ..4
Wetland E Buffer Exhibit (Figure 2) ............................................................................................. 13
Wetland Delineation Map (Figure 3) .................................................................................. Attached
List of Tables
City of Renton Wetland Rating Criteria (Table I ) ......................................................................... 1 0
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 18
Wetland Data Plot Forms
INTRODUCTION
Background
A wetland investigation was conducted on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Property (Renton School
District Property) with site visits during the month of June 2013. The Property is comprised of
several vacant parcels having a total area of21.66 acres (Parcels #'s 2123059044, 9051, 9154, &
9061). The site is situated near the top ofthe plateau that borders the Cedar River valley located
north and east. The Property is located near Tiffany Park north of S.E. I 60th Street between S.E.
158 th Street and Pierce Avenue S.E. in the city of Renton, Washington.
An earlier wetland study was conducted by Grette Associates during 2008 and identified wetland
areas on the project site (Renton School District Property -Grette Associates 2008). Much ofthe
information provided in the Grette Associates study was reviewed and verified for this report.
Wetland boundaries were field-delineated and surveyed during 2013. Recent site inspections
were conducted with the City's wetland peer review consultant -OTAK. Several site visits
occurred in April and May 2014 to address comments from OT AK (Technical Memorandum-
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review, 4/3/14). As a result of the peer review one
additional wetland (Wetland E) has been recently delineated, surveyed, and mapped for a revised
site development plan.
This investigation includes five distinct wetland areas (A -E) that have been delineated on the
Property. Wetland data plots have been installed on the site to confirm existing conditions. The
current wetland boundaries are shown in the professional survey prepared by Barghausen
Consulting Engineers, Inc. The current wetland survey (Figure 3) is attached to this report (Sheet
13 of 13 Wetland Delineation Map -Reserve At Tiffany Park, Barghausen Consulting Engineers
6/3/14).
The site plan for development has been recently revised from previous submittals to the City.
Therefore, this wetland report is also revised and replaces the previous wetland report that was
submitted to the City in 2014 (Wetland Determination Reserve At Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat
City of Renton, Washington, Schulz 2/28/14).
Site Description
The Tiffany Park Property is undeveloped land that is predominantly forest habitat. The tree
cover is comprised of an overs tory canopy of mature deciduous and conifer native trees
throughout most of the site. The forest habitat is diverse in plant species and includes a tree over
story, younger tree sub-canopy, shrub under story, and dense groundcover layer.
2
Existing residential development is located adjacent to or near the site's boundaries. The
Property is easily accessed by trails on the Mercer Island water pipeline that runs along its east
boundary and the Cedar River water pipeline along the south boundary.
The Property includes flat and undulating topography with moderate elevation changes present
throughout. The coniferous tree cover is predominantly Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). There are also several small groves of western red cedar
(Thuja plicata). The deciduous tree cover is dominated by big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum).
Also throughout the site are red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera),
and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) trees.
Shrub cover in forested areas is comprised of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer
circinatum,), Western hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and Indian plum
(Oemleria cerasiformis). The groundcover includes a dominant cover of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum) and Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus) with scattered cover of salal
(Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa), and
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
Project Description
The Reserve at Tiffany Park is a proposed subdivision to provide new single-family, residential
housing that includes developing 97 lots on a 21.66-acre site. The critical areas tracts will be
established for wetlands and wetland buffers. The critical areas (Tracts B, G, K, & M) have a
total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres). The total native open space that will preserve
native forest habitat including the wetlands and buffers is an area of 175,199 square feet (4.02
acres). The proposed native habitat preservation equals 18.6 percent of the site.
The proposed roadway layout is designed to access the site from existing streets, provide
necessary traffic circulation, and avoid wetland impact. Surface water runoff will be collected
and treated in an underground stormwater detention vault located on the western portion of the
Property (Tract A). Tract A will be developed to be a stormwater facility for detention and water
quality treatment and also be a passive open space area.
3
-~---... REFERENCE: Thoma Guide (2008) -For: Job Number
Reserve at TIffany Park 16055
Renton, Washington
TItle :
VICINITY MAP
Figure -1 ~ 11104113
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a wetland determination study for the proposed property
development. In addition, this study includes wetland buffer mitigation measures intended to
meet or exceed City of Renton's wetland regulations included in their municipal code (Title 4 -
Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts).
Methodology
Typically defined, wetlands are ... "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typi cally adapted for life in saturated so il conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas". Through the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and local critical areas
regulations, the City reviews proposals that potentially impact wetland and other critical areas.
Because of observed site conditions, combined with jurisdictional wetland regulations, wetland
presence and extent must be detem1ined for site feasibility or the permitting process.
The methodology used for wetland determination was based on the presence of dominant
hydrophytic vegetation (i.e. plant species adapted to, or tolerant of, growing in saturated soil
conditions), hydric soils, and observed wetland hydrology as described in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and consistent with the Regional
Supplemental to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (US Army Corps of
Engineers 20 I 0). The On-site Detem1ination Method was Routine for areas greater than five
acres. Four wetland data transects were installed to investigate the site. The wetland transects
are generally located south to north on Transect I and west to east on Transects 2 to 4. A total of
25 wetland data plots, approximately 0.0 I acres in size, were installed throughout the Property.
In general wetland data plots were installed to determine and document wetland boundaries and
potential wetland areas. The wetland data plot fom1s are included as Appendix A. In addition,
cursory soil excavations were conducted to verify upland conditions where there was significant
cover of hydrophytic vegetation.
The technical criteria for vegetation , soils, and hydrology are mandatory under nonnal conditions
and must all be met or present for an area to be identified as wetland. Determination of wetland
area was based on observed plant species, topographic relief, soil profiles , and hydrology. Pink
plastic flagging was used to mark the site's wetland boundaries and data plot locations.
Professional base topographic and wetland surveying was used to prepare the drawing attached to
this report. The wetland data plot forms are also attached to this report as Appendix A.
The wetlands were rated us ing the Renton Municipal Code (Title 4 -Chapter 3 Environmental
Regulations and Overlay Districts). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (USDA 1973), King
County Area Soil Survey, was used to reference soil mapping and classification.
5
WETLAND DETERMINATION
The City of Renton's environmental overlay mapping does not identify wetlands on the site. The
initial wetland investigation was conducted during June 2013 without the benefit of observing
active wetland hydrology. However, additional wetland investigations were conducted during
April and May 2014. Wetland areas were reviewed and verified by the City's wetland peer
review consultant in May 2014. Wetland hydrology indicators are present and five distinct
wetland areas have been delineated on the site. The wetland areas have been professionally
surveyed as shown on Sheet 13 of 13 (Wetland Delineation Map -Reserve at Tiffany Park,
Barghausen Consulting Engineers June 3, 2014). Wetland ratings and standard buffer setbacks
are based on the City of Renton regulations (Title 4 -Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and
Overlay Districts).
Soils
The SCS (USDA 1973) Soil Survey -King County Area has mapped two soil series on the
subject property. The soil map units are Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) and Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam -15 to 30 percent slopes (AgC). The Alderwood and Kitsap series is comprised of
about 50 percent Alderwood sandy loam and 25 percent Kitsap silt loam. The drainage and
permeability vary. These soils formed in glacial outwash deposits and are associated with conifer
forests. The soils are on uplands but have inclusions of the Indianola series and other soils that
are not large enough to map.
The Alderwood series is also formed under conifers in glacial deposits associated with uplands.
These soils are moderately well drained that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated
substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. The hydric (wetland) soils included within this soil
mapping include the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils
found in depressions.
Certain soil inclusions of poorly drained soils found in depression areas and drainage ways on till
and outwash plains are listed in the Hydric Soils of Washington (Soil Conservation Service
1985). Hydric soils are generally associated with wetland habitats.
Investigation of portions of the upland area confirmed soil that closely resembles the Alderwood
series throughout most of the Property. The northernmost area has soils that closely resemble the
Kitsap silt loam series.
6
Hydrology
The Property is located in the lower Cedar River drainage basin. All of the site's wetlands have
seasonal hydrology and were dry during the June 2013 site investigation. However, hydrology
indicators of seasonal inundation and saturated soil are present.
The site's wetlands have influence from rainfall and shallow groundwater. There are no streams
on or connected to the Property. However, there is evidence that surface water runoff can flow
onto the site from developed land located on the north and east sides. Because the wetlands
appear to be closed depressions and not connected to any downstream aquatic habitats, they
could be determined as "isolated" wetlands.
Wetland Description
The on-site wetlands are described and rated as follows. For reference the City's wetland rating
criteria are listed after the descriptions (Table I).
Wetland A
Wetland A is a small depression area located on the north side of the Property. It has a dense
shrub cover with a few Western crabapple (Malus fusca) trees. The wetland appears supported
by shallow groundwater and rainfall. Soil excavations found hydric (wetland) soil coloration as
low chroma value (lOYR 2/1) to a depth of 13 inches.
The shrub cover is dominated by salmonberry and red osier dogwood (Comus sioionifera).
Emergent vegetation cover is low to absent. The area of wetland is 3,326 square feet (0.08
acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.ii. (d)), the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it a relatively undisturbed area and does not meet Category
I or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is 50 feet.
WetlandB
Wetland B is a very small depression located on the south side of the Property. It is likely this
wetland has groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from the surrounding
upland. Soil excavations found hydric (wetland) conditions as low chroma values -very dark
brown, mineral soil (IOYR 2/1).
7
The wetland has dominant shrub cover. There are red alder trees around it but no trees or
groundcover growing in the wetland. The shrub cover is dominated by Douglas' spirea (Spiraea
douglash) and black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata). Emergent vegetation cover is absent.
The total area of wetland is 505 square feet (0.01 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.iii (b) (2) (c»,
the wetland is rated a Category 3 because it appears isolated, and although not disturbed is
considered as "smaller, high quality wetlands". Wetland B does not meet Category I or Category
2 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 3 wetlands is 25 feet.
WetlandC
Wetland C is located just east of Wetland B. It is the largest wetland on the site and is a local
depression and swale area. The Cedar River pipeline is located at the lower, southern wetland
boundary. The seasonal surface water flowing into the wetland appears to be blocked or
impounded by the elevated pipeline road. Wetlands Band C are located near the lowest
elevations on the Property.
Wetland C is forested with an open canopy of black cottonwood and a midstory layer of scouler
willow (Salix scoulerana) trees. It has a dense shrub cover dominated by spirea and red osier
dogwood. A scattered emergent vegetation cover includes creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens) and speedwell (Veronica sp.).
The wetland appears supported by shallow groundwater and rainfall runoff. Soil excavations
found hydric (wetland) soil with low chroma value (I0YR 2/1) in the upper layer. The area of
wetland is 5,349 square feet (0.12 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.ii. (d», the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it is a relatively undisturbed area and it does not meet
Category 1 or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is
50 feet.
Wetland D
Wetland D is located adjacent to the Mercer Island water pipeline. It is a relatively small
depression wetland with seasonal hydrology. Wetland D has a dense shrub cover dominated by
salmonberry, black twinberry, and red osier dogwood. The emergent vegetation cover observed
includes lady fern (Athyriumfelix-femina) and piggy back plant (Tolmeia menziesii.).
8
The wetland appears supported by shallow groundwater and rainfall runoff. There is a small
concrete culvert under the pipeline road that drains into the wetland. Soil excavations observed a
silt loam hydric soil with low chroma value (IOYR 2/1) in the upper layer. The area of wetland
is 3,381 square feet (0.08 acres).
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.ii. (d», the
wetland is rated a Category 2 because it is a relatively undisturbed area and it does not meet
Category I or Category 3 criteria. The standard wetland buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is
50 feet.
WetlandE
Wetland E is a very small depression located on the northwest side of the Property. The wetland
is situated adjacent to S.E. 18 th Street and a developed lot to the west. It is likely this wetland has
groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from the surrounding upland. Soil
excavations found hydric (wetland) conditions as low chroma values -very dark brown, mineral
soil (7.5YR 2/1) and redoximorphic features (mottling) within 10 inches below the surface.
The wetland has sparse shrub cover but salmonberry is dominant. There are red alder trees
around it but no trees or groundcover were observed growing in the wetland. The shrub cover is
dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) with some vine maple and Himalayan blackberry
around the edge. Emergent vegetation cover is absent. The total area of wetland is 665 square
feet (0.015 acres). Significant trash from dumping was observed in the wetland.
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979), this wetland is classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, and seasonally flooded. In
accordance with Renton's wetland regulations (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.l.a.iii (b) (2) (e»,
Wetland E is rated a Category 3 because it has limited human disturbance and is considered as
"smaller, high quality wetlands". Wetland E does not meet Category I or Category 2 criteria.
The standard wetland buffer width for Category 3 wetlands is 25 feet.
9
City of Renton Wetland Rating Criteria (RMC Chapter 3, Section M.): Table 1.
M. WETLANDS:
I. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as
described below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in
area, are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in subsection C of this
Section.
a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes
of regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance
criteria shall be based on the following rating system:i. Category I: Category 1 wetlands are
wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or
the presence of essential habitat for those species; and/or
(b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in
dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/or
(c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more
vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or
(d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of
their occurrence; and/or
ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or
(b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or
(c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a
perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category
I wetlands; and/or
(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as
diking, ditching or channelization; and/or
iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet
the following criteria:
(I) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as
diking, ditching, channelization andlor outlet modification; and
(2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils;
and
(3) May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
(I) Wetlands occurring on top offill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by
wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and
Black River Drainage Basin.
(c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands.
10
WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS & MITIGATION
This section addresses wetland buffer impacts, reductions, and mitigation measures. The project
has several locations where temporary wetland buffer impacts may occur adjacent to new
construction activities. The majority of these locations are directly related to the construction of
retaining walls. One location of permanent wetland buffer impact is anticipated with the required
construction of new roadway that will extend from the existing S.E. 18 th Street right-of-way. The
Wetland E Buffer Exhibit (Figure 2) shows the details of permanent buffer impacts associated
with Wetland E and S.E. 18 th Street.
The proposed project includes wetland buffer reduction and buffer addition through the use of
buffer averaging. The standard buffers for Wetlands A, C, and D may be reduced through
averaging the buffer width per the criteria identified in RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
Wetland Buffer Impacts
Temporary Buffer Impacts
In general, potential buffer impacts from urban development are variable. Potential impacts may
be mitigated or prevented through code requirements, best management practices, and/or plat
conditions. Minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities adjacent to wetland
buffers will be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and planting of native
species. The minimum buffer distance of 25 feet will be maintained or restored as necessary to
provide buffer functions (RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6. f. v.)
There are two locations on the project site where temporary buffer impacts could occur during lot
and roadway construction activities. The larger area is along the north boundaries of proposed
Lots I through 6. Due to the slope gradient in this area the slope will be cut and graded to create
residential lots. The estimated area of buffer disturbance at this time in the design is 2,825
square feet. The identified impact for Lots I to 4 is within a buffer addition area for Wetland A
and would not impact the standard 50-foot buffer as depicted on the attached Wetland
Delineation Map (Figure 3).
The second location of potential temporary buffer impact would be from constructing a retaining
wall for the new roadway adjacent to the buffer of Wetland D. The impact area shown is about 8
feet wide and 150 feet in length. The area for this temporary impact is 1,203 square feet with
about one-half located within a buffer addition area and the other half in the standard 50-foot
buffer (Figure 3 attached).
All temporary wetland buffer impacts have been based on the preliminary plat design. It is
anticipated that more detailed information will be provided at the 60% design stage.
II
The mitigation for temporary impacts to buffers will be restoration with new tree and shrub
plantings designed to replace site-specific plant community habitat.
Permanent B~fJer Impacts
This portion of the wetland report is provided to identify existing and proposed permanent buffer
impacts associated with Wetland E and to request a Letter of Exemption. Wetland E's standard
buffer is 25 feet. The minimum wetland buffer allowed by code is 25 feet and any reduction or
loss of buffer requires a Letter of Exemption. The city's code section describing a Letter of
Exemption begins in RMC 4-3-050 C. 4. The appropriate criteria for requesting the Letter of
Exemption are located in RMC 4-3-050 C. 5. (Specific Exemptions -Critical Areas and
Buffers). Section RMC 4-3-050 C. 5 includes a table that lists the identified uses and conditions
that qualify for a Letter of Exemption.
Wetland E's standard 25-foot buffer has been impacted (cleared, graded, and paved) from the
past construction of S.E. 18 th Street and the adjacent sidewalk. The Wetland E Buffer Exhibit
(Figure2) shows the calculated area of existing buffer impact to be 219 square feet.
The Tiffany Park project will require the extension of S.E. 18 th Street. Current roadway
standards will require the extension to be 1.5 feet wider than the current right-of-way. In order to
construct the new portion of S.E.ISth Street to current standards a very minor portion of Wetland
E buffer would also be impacted. The standard 25-foot buffer would have an impact of 14
square feet (Figure 2).
Per the Table listed in RMC 4-3-050 C. 5. e. (Specific Exemptions -Critical Areas and Buffers),
Exempt Activity -Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities allows for the use of a Letter of
Exemption where impacts are unavoidable and not allowed by the standards. Subsection e. in the
Table states " ... the construction of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way, and associated
appurtenances, facilities and utilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be
placed other than the minimum alteration and/or fill needed ... ". The proposed area of new
impact to the Wetland E buffer is necessary to construct the S.E. ISth Street extension into the
new residential project. The area of new buffer impact is minimal and would be allowed by code
with a Letter of Exemption.
12
.... -.........
te055 _ ....IlL -_...IlL
_...IlL
1 ., 1 .... .Il6l.I:L
I
I
I
...
/
,,-
"
IIorfII I"...
".
..... ~
" . .....
".
.,Q .... ,. -....
- -=:::,. ~-.-",~ -'1 .. ' h=~
'" "
\ ·····....:>'"",,2
. ...... ",~ •.............. ~, ..
'" .. , ..... .
'" ,.' ....•.......... ,,-
• • j
...
~ ~
I
R j lh'EAT i
TFFANY PAIl( ;;.
~-------II
WETl..AN) E BUi , a I {
EXHIIT Figure-2 l
Por.
Wetland Buffer Averaging
Wetlands A, C, and D are proposed to have limited reductions in buffer width. Wetland B is
within the 50-foot buffer of Wetland C. Because Wetlands Band C have buffers that are
integrated and overlap, the proposed buffer averaging is combined to compensate for buffer
reduction. The standard buffers for Wetlands A, C, and D may be reduced through averaging the
buffer width per the criteria identified in RMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f. as listed below:
f Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging
buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the
Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical
improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and
ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and
iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and
iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of
Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or
similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on
consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is
an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions
require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and
vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-
case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land
development characteristics.
vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section.
The criteria listed in Section M.6.f. for wetland buffer reduction through averaging are met as
described below. Please refer to Figure 3 (Wetland Delineation Map) for additional details.
The on-site wetlands currently have physical improvements in or near wetland and buffer areas.
There are 2 pipeline corridors and trails in wetland buffers (M.6.f.i.).
The buffer areas after averaging will have more area than the required standard buffer prior to
averaging (net gain in buffer area). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at
ratios that range from 1.6 to 1.0 to 9.5 to 1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D will have buffer areas
significantly greater after buffer averaging than prior to averaging (M.6.f.ii & iii.).
14
A discussion of buffer adequacy and best available science is provided in the following section -
Wetland Buffer Functions (M.6.f.iv.).
The proposed buffer reductions are for a combination of planned residential lot and public
roadway uses. All of the proposed buffer reductions are no greater than 50 percent of the
standard buffer widths. The majority of the buffer reductions are about 36 percent of the
standard buffer widths. There are a total of three buffer areas (Wetlands A, C, & D) with a
standard 50-foot buffer that would be reduced to the minimum buffer setback of 25 feet.
(M.6.f.v.).
The proposed buffer averaging plan is shown on Sheet 13 of 13 (Wetland Delineation Map -
Reserve At Tiffany Park (Barghausen Consulting Engineers 1/28/l4). Using the buffer tables on
Sheet 13, wetland buffer averaging is described as follows.
Wetland A
The proposed area of buffer reduction (3,740 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (35,583 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a
buffer area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area, and meets the
criteria ofRMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
WetlandB/C
The Cedar River Pipe Line crosses through a portion of buffer on the south side of Wetland C
causing a loss of buffer function in that location. The loss of buffer function has been an existing
condition for many years.
The proposed area of buffer reduction (2,644 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (11,890 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a
buffer area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area, and meets the
criteria ofRMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
WetlandD
The Mercer Island Pipe Line crosses through a portion of buffer on the east side of Wetland D
causing a loss of buffer function in that location. The loss of buffer function has been an existing
condition for many years.
The proposed area of buffer reduction (1,627 square feet) will be mitigated with the addition of
buffer area (2,589 square feet) that is contiguous with the standard buffer. This provides a buffer
area that is greater than the reduction, greater than the standard buffer area on the site, and meets
the criteria ofRMC 4 Chapter 3, Section M.6.f.
15
Wetland Buffer Functions
In support of wetland buffer averaging on this project site the following is a discussion and
review that is taken from the Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1 -A Synthesis of the
Science (Washington State Department of Ecology, March 2005 Pub. # 05-06-006). All of the
on-site wetland buffers are described as forested with dense plant cover dominated by native
species, have relatively flat topography, and have moderately well-drained soils.
Buffers provide functions that include Removing Sediment. Excess Nutrients. and Toxics.
Buffers Influence Microclimate and Provide Screening from adjacent disturbances. Buffers also
Maintain Adjacent Habitat and Habitat Connectivity critical for the life needs of many species
that use wetlands (Volume 1 -A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of
Ecology, Chapter 5, page 5-25 March 2005). The most frequently cited physical characteristics
that influence the effectiveness of a buffer are:
• Vegetation characteristics (composition, density, and roughness -downed material)
• Percent slope
• Soils
• Buffer width and length (adjacent to source of impacts)
The review of these characteristics is focused on water quality related to protection and
improvement. A buffer's ability to remove sediment, nutrients, toxics and to maintain
microclimate is dependent on physical characteristics and the amount of input the buffer receives
from runoff. Factors that can increase sediment and pollutant removal are:
• Flows are slowed sufficiently to allow particles to settle out,
• Physical filtering by vegetation and roots mechanically removes sediments from the water
column,
• The slope of the buffer is of a low enough gradient to preclude formation of rills and
scounng,
• There is large woody debris on the ground to create roughness, and
• The infiltration rate of the soils allows water to move through the soils rather than on the
surface.
Related to buffer width and the effectiveness in removing sediment (protecting water quality) the
report states "the relationship between the width of the buffer and its effectiveness is non-linear.
The largest particles and the greatest percentage of particles are dropped in the outer portions of
the buffer (closest to the source of sediment). In these outer areas, the rate of surface flow begins
to diminish as the water is slowed by vegetation and woody debris. Slower water movement
allows particles to drop out of the water column" (Washington State Department of Ecology,
Chapter 5, pages 5-28 to 5-30 March 2005).
To summarize, the wetland buffers proposed for buffer reduction through averaging have the
physical characteristics that can protect water quality and wetland hydrologic functions including
flood storage. The factors (listed above) that can increase or provide sediment and pollutant
removal will remain in the reduced buffer areas. The subject wetlands will be preserved and
have the opportunity to improve water quality and reduce flooding and erosion.
16
REFERENCES
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014. Reserve At Tiffany Park, Preliminary Plat for
Henley USA 6/3/14.
City of Renton. 2006. City of Renton Municipal Code (Title IV -Development Regulations).
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, United states Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79-31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Grette Associates. 2008. Renton School District -Tiffany Park Area Wetland And Stream
Assessment Report.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and l.W. Thompson. 1977. Vascular Plants of the
Pacific Northwest. University Press Seattle, Washington.
Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0).
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of King
County Area, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with Washington Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State Volume I: A
Synthesis of the Science. Ecology Publication # 05-06-006.
17
APPENDIXA
WETLAND DATA PLOT FORMS
18
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountain., VllleY', and Coast Region
PrOject Site:
AppIiconl/Owr1o:
Banton Schoo! [)iatrid;
HtoItyUiA
rnn1lgolor(s): Gary Ilsbylz
L.ondIofm (hIIIsIcpo, terrace, *.)0 _
-.... (lM): Lat·
8cII ..,., UnIt -.e: AIde!woad 1AgCl .... K*M Wsf)
CIty/CounIy: I!tn!qn/KIng Sampling Dall:
_::tit. sampling Point: 1
Sdon, TownIhip, Range: 21 TUN ROE
LoeoI_ (concaYo, 00I1V0I<, """.): .....,.". Slope ('%): Q
Long: Datum:
NWI_:
.. No [J (If no, ...... n In _ •. ) N. _, hydroIogio COndltionl on 1110 silo typal lor this limo 01 yur? V ..
Nov~ D, Il0l1 D, orH)drology D, ~_
N. v~oo D, Il0l1 D, or H)droIogy D, ~publomaIic?
No'_~'~ Y .... No D (11-,"""" My_In R_I.)
IUIIMMY OF FINOtHGS -Attach .. "'lIP aMwtnrI ........ peInt 1ee.IIE •• 1 Iran •• Ita, n.,.rtaRt ...... , ek.
t IydI """)lie vogoIotIon Preoont1 Y .. B No [J
HydrIc 8cII ProHnt1 V .. B No D .. ... -..--Y-.. No [J -.-w_ .... oIoIJt ProHnt1 V .. iii No [J
Remark,: W_ A 10 on .,.1IorIh old. 0/ silo· _ Flog MI.
VEGETATION -u.. "1 ... ___ '"' ......
lrM IbJMn (Aot lift: 11100 acrtl -... DomInonI .-Do' ...... T ... W8rkIttMt: lLCm! liIlIIlIII1 IiIIIIII
•• w-... U !III EHai. N_ oIDomInonI8pocits
2. TIIot No 08L, FACW, or FI>G: 2 (A) ------,. ----- -
T .... _ 01 DomInon1
•• 8pocIoI_ All""": 1 (8)
----- -
50%" __ ,20%" __ U "T01OI CoYer P_ 01 DomInonI SpooIoo
Ser:!tootBttMt IbJtyrn (Plot size: 1/1 00 acrtl '""" No OIIL, FACW, or FI>G: iii (MI)
•• AcwBtfA1N1 ..... U !III E6W P ...... IIC1 ..... ~
2. ........ : ," 11 !Ill fA!< Tala!: ~ ea..w m' -1Ix;
3, Cqmw eWooftrp IQ !III EHai. OBI..spocIM --x •• --., ----- -
FACWspocIM --xl" --
s. ----- -
FACspocIM --03---
50%-__ ,20%-__ III • T 0Iat cover FACUspocIM --.. ---
1M IkMum (Ptot Iize: 1(100 I(U) UI'lIf)ldOl --.s---
'-"p'tIt'IimM I 011 E6W Co/umnT_: __ \AI __ (8)
2. PptfwMyn IIIIAifLm I II!l f!W Pr_Indox-.,A-__
3. ----- -
HyIII~VI'II"ln he . .:
4, ------[J • -IIaPdT"'''''~V~
$. ----- -
iii :2: ~ Doi.Ih.a Test .. >50%
I. ------[J 3· ~ Indtx 1I s3,O'
7. ----- -D • -MoIJ'IIOIOgico,........."..' (ProYIdo supponing
e. ----- -
_In-. ... on._......,
t. ----- -
[J 5· Wee.nd Hoo-VIICIJIar Paanta'
'0. ----- -
D P,_,illie ~Vogo1a1Ion' (ExpIoIn)
". ----- -
50%-__ ,20%-__ I -T ... ICoYer '_ oIlijdt1c soil ond -.wi h)'droIogy mull
too "'-. un .... dIOIurbIcI or publemotIc,
wOOIjIy vIM IJratym (plot stu: -->
'-------
2.
..,..,..,.. ------YI., .. all V .. iii N. [J 50% ___ ,20%-__ --• Total Cover -,. ..... Oround In HO!Io """,m __
RomotI<I:
us Army Ccrpa 01 Eng_,. WMtem MountaiM, VaIIey8, and Coast -Version 2.0
L PoIri:1
P __ rlptIo,,, CII .. '_Io ........ _Io_ .. -.OI_ ... _"'-., I
DopIh -RocIoxF_
"""'"I Col« ImoIo!) '" Col« $110loI) '" TIP"' Loc' TOXIUIO -------
11 J.m!Zl1 .IlIII --------IIIU!IIm dtHvlDlili
11 J.lDlI2IZ m ------ --
IiIUIIIm --
--.tmIIQ 2Q ------ --
IIIUiIIm ---- ----------------
---- -- -- -- ------------ ---- --
-- -------- -- ---- --
------ --
-- ----------------
'TIP":Co~.DoDljJlolon. __ -.cs-c-. .. c-__ . 'l.ooaIIon: PLo ...... LInInO. .... _
MpIIrtc lei ..• nul,: ""pI
t. 1000Lllllo, ____ )
.,1I.14art .... " •• t.o"-c M)*k:: w.J
:
0 -""I 0 $IfIdy -CSSI 0 ' .... _""0)
0 -~IA2) 0 ....... -CSII 0 Plod __ (TF2)
0
__ CA3)
0 Loom)' I.b:I<y --11'1) to-fIIlILIIA ') 0 V"" _OM< SuI1oco (TFI2)
0 ~-IA4) 0 Loom)' GIojOd -(F2) 0 0I10r CE>q>IoIn In _)
0 DopIoIod _ COrk SuI1oco ""') 0 DoPoIod _ (Fa)
0 TIIId< COrk _ ",,2) II _00II<_(1'6)
0 Sondyl.b:l<y _ (51) 0 DopIoIod 00II< SuI1oco (F1) ~ '" t>JCIIopIJJ4lC YOgOIOtion one!
0 Sondy GIojOd -(84) 0 -1lopmaIont (fIl =~~-........... _or .
R 'lull •• ~ CI".....:
TIP": --
DopIh '""'*):
~ __ 7 Y .. III No 0 -
............. Ia .. '"# 1111ra:
1'IImory-' (mInimUm "' .......... ; _ ...... ~ s--.y I!-. (2 .. --roquIrod)
0 SuIfoooW_CA1) II W __ Loaw. (III) II W __ '--(lit)
0 Higlo W_ T_ (A2) to-fIIlII.RA " .. oA, ond >III) CIIlJIA I,,, oA, -.11
0 -CA3) [] _ CIuIt (811) III ~"_(Bl0)
II W __ (II1) 0 ""'_(8'3) 0 D<y-Souon W_ T_ «:2)
0 _~(B2) 0 Hydrogoft _ Odor (el) 0 __ on -1magory{Ct)
0 Ddft DopooiII (113) 0 0IicIJIId Rtf :lfherM IIIong Uving ROCIII (C3) II GIomoIphIc PooIIion (D2)
0 Algol Mot or CNIt (84) 0 Pronnco "'_ lion (01) 0 -~(D3)
0 1ron~C85l 0 _Iron _In ~ Soils (CS) 0 FAC-NouIroI TOIl (06)
0 SuI1oco SolI Cnok. (11&) 0 _ or SIr ..... PIanOs (Dl) (LIIR AI 0 _,.,. _ (06) (lilA AI
0 Inundollon _ on _ Imagory (117) 0 0Ih0r CE>q>IoIn In AemarkI) 0 FrosHioove Ht.mmocI<. (07)
II IIpnoIyV..-c-SuI1oco (Ill
field OII •• N .... :
_W_"'_ Y. 0 No II DopIII (lncIloI): --
W_ T_ f'rOMIII? YOI 0 No II DopIh (InchoI): --=='rm,o) VOl 0 No II DopIh (InchoI): --W_Mydo .. ..,_ Y .. II No []
o-t>oIloconlodDalo<*-'_ .... _" ..... _phoIoo."'_lnopocIIono).H_: -W_~_IIy..,..., ... oncI __ .
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountelna, Villeya, and Coest Region
~rojoct SIte:
AppIIcon\IOwner
lnY.lllaatCii (a):
Landfonn P'IIftoIopo, -.co, ole.): _
SubIwgIon (UIR): Uo\'
w .... 1.kItl NIme: MjI 8 M I!c(j' .9'" (8F)
CIty/C<>unty; I!tn!!!n/lQDP Sompling Dolo:
_: riA SamplinfPoinl:
_, TClWrlOhIp, Rongo: ., l'Z3N f!5!! LocoI_ (concave, _ none): _
Long:
NWI d .... cllloo;
II No C fllno, ........ 1n -•• )
SIcpe (%): R
DoIum'
Are _, """oIo\JIC .... dl ...... on ...... 1ypIcoI for IhIo _ "'year? Y ..
AreV..-.,. C, loll C, orH)drolo\ll' C, ~_
AreV..-.,. C, 8011 C, orH)drology C, -'YII'-
No'_ CifooI. __ ,.-? YII II No C
(If noodod, oxpIIiIn ..",_In _.)
_MARY OF FINOIHGI-AItIIcII lite ........ .:. ... NMf'1IIIg 1lOiRI1oc __ .................. __ ......
HydnlpIIyIic 'o'IuotofiOI' I"rount"I Y .. C No II
Hydric IIoiI PrtHnI1 Y .. C No II .. ... ....,....-Y .. C Me II _.-
W_~P.-? Y" C No II
"-"<s: W_AIo ..... I1OIIh_oI ....
YEGETAllOIt -UN IOI.nIIIIc _ "'_
TfM IIrIIum (Pk1t liD; 100D ICI't1
_ute
Oomlnard -Da",k,u. T .. ""at 2I..ll2tII: IaiIII1 liIIIIII
1. AlfXMrufg 11 Il!I flIQ _of __ 1IpociH
Thot No 0IIl, FACW, or FAC: 1 lAl 2. -- -----
3. ------T .... _"' __ I (8) •• ------6pocioI_ /11_:
_" __ ,10%" __ 11 c TotIII coy. ~_ of __ 1IpociH
II (AlII)
I r tpI8h .. ...." (PIoI1iD: tf1QOIQI'Il Thot Are 0lIl., FACW, or FAC:
1. Acw!M4wJ hn II! lIII EA!l!.l ".u .... II ............ Il:
2. "'D'''''''' II! .. flIQ YpIII" Ccrtw qI: tt"i"Y by:
3. ----~ ! 0Bl.---., " --
•• ------FACW ...... --112_ --
I. ------FAC.---d. --
_-__ .10%0 __ llQ • TotII Cowr FACU ...... ... ----
Herb RJatym (PIot.a.: 11100 ICfI) Ul'L.---"'" --
1. ...... ,. II! .. HI COhImnT_: __ lAl __ Ill)
2. ~ ".."".", 2Q DR E.!&II __ .8/A-
3. ------"p ',"wI; \· ...... 411 inc rt ... ;
•• ------C 1 -AIpid Ttot for Ilydiopllylic '1..-..
I. ----- -
II 2· Domlll.~ Tnt",.150%
e. ------C 3 -PftwIenc:e Index II :53.0'
1. ------C •• MoIphoIogicII~' (PrOYIdo""""",,"II
e. ----_In _.oron. ~1hHI) --
t. ----- -
C 5 -Wetland Non-VucuCar Piantl'
'0. ------C p,_,_ Hjdrcphjtic VOQIIIIiOn' (ElIpIoInj
11. ------_, __ .10%, __ III • Total Cover '1ndk:I1ooI 01 h)<IIIo 00II ond _ hydrology mUll
be PfHOIll • ..-. _obod or probIoma1Ic. Woody YklI!I!rIk!m ( __ : ~
1. ----- -
2. .tydr.p .... c ------Y'i bdllR Y .. C .... II 101/.-__ .20%-__ --• T otef Cover ~ % .... _ In HeRo ___
RemIr1ca:
lOlL •• ,.,. PoInt: 2
,.....DM .... Hmn:fDnor'IM .... ....., ....... dowlft.ftt ................ oonnlWl_ ......... ofktdlcllkM • ., I
DopIh -. _FHIIns
(Inchoo) COlor (moiII) % Color (moiII) % TIIM" t.oc' T_ Rom_ ------i mJ!aIl 1m! ------ --
IiILIIlIm "".w mrliW
1I l.IIlmQ 1m! ---------1IIIm Iir
------ --
----------
---- ------ ------------------ ------ --
------ --
----------
---------- -- ---------------------- --
'TIIM': Co 000_,"_" o.DopIoIIan, _Aoducod -. (:8-0 ........ ~....,...-. 'l.ocoIIon: Plo ....... lJning, _
HydrIt ... "'''clll'l: ."," t' ..... uuta. ..... I ........... ., .. ,~.tl .torP. t1II1I111tlCH)Wlc .... ':
0 _""1 0 eonoy-(8$) [] 2"'_""0)
0 -ff>Ipodon (0\2) 0 81rIppod -. lSI) [] ..... ,--(TF2)
0 --~ 0 ~ ~ _ (Fl) joxGopIlIUIA 1) [] Very _ Dork Sur1oo:e (TF'2)
0 Hydrogon -(M) 0 ~ GlI)'OCI Mo1rIx (F2) [] 0Ih0r (E>pIaIn In -I
0 0ejII0I0d _ Dork _ ""'1 0 Oopotod Mo1rIx (F3)
0 ~Dork_""2) 0 _ Dork _ (I't)
0 SOIId\<-'_<S11 0 Oopotod Dork _ (F7) '1ncIIcItofI ot ¥roPhYtic 41, 2 den Iftd
0 SOlId\< GlI)'OCI_ 1S41 0 -Dopouicno (Fa)
_ h'jdroIogymUIII>e_, -Of
Ras' ... wu,.""....:
Tp: --
DojIIh (Inchoo): ..,....---0 110 .. _.:
ItYDROIOQY ~, ...... ..,. ... .,"'.1' .. '.:
PriIMry --~ 01 one qquIrod; """'* ..... IIIIPI)! s-, --12 ot"""" roquItocI)
0 IurfIcoW_""1 0 W_-IIIoInodl_18Il 0 W ___ ~18Il
0 HIgh W_ T_ (0\2) {olcoopI1IUIA 1. 2, 4A, ..... 4., tMLJIA I, 2, 4A, ..... OJ
0 -(~) [] loa CNI1 (111') 0 ~-"'(II101
0 W __ ·(II'I 0 ~"" __ (II'3) 0 0Iy-S0u0n W_ Tlble (C21
0 -Dtpoob(M) 0 H)'Irogon"'" Odor (01) 0 _ VIii .... on ",",",I '"-'Y (Ca)
[] 0Itft~(83) 0 0>idbJ0d ~ oiong lMnIJ -(03) 0 GoomorpIIIc 1'0lI1l00 (02)
0 Algol Mol Of CMt (114) 0 _01_"""(041 0 ShoIIowAqultoRl(D31
0 !ton Dopooita (85) 0 _ """ AodudIon In Tilled SOlIs (01) 0 FAC_T"'(Il5j
0 _ Sol Crock. (88) a _or __ CD')(UlR~ a RalSOCI .... _ (DII) (Ulfl ~
a __ 00_ '"-'Y(B7) 0 0Ih0r (ElfIIIOIn In -I 0 ~-_ Hurnmockl (07)
a IIporMIy V~ Concovo _ (88)
F1etd Otill lIaM:
_ W_ f'roHnt? V .. a No .. DopIh (Inchoo): --
W_T_ f'roHnt? V .. a No .. DopIh (Inchoo): ---,,-v .. 0 No II DopIh~): ......... gI8.~......., YH a No I! (in<IIdM I
DIocrtbo Aacordod 0.. (stroom _, monIIortng won, -,mIoI, ..-............." ._: _0:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -W.at.m Mountains. V .... ys. Ir1d eo ... Region
Londform (IIlIIoIapo, _. otc.): _
......... (I.MI: U1: __
Sd tMp Unit MIme: Mi"f'e" '&9
CItyICounIy: ""*"'MIM ~ Dolo:
_: 'IiA SompIing PcInI:
1IocIIon. T-..!Iongo: 21 TUN ME
~-(ooncaYe.-.nono): _
Lent:
NWl o'IIS"lcaUon:
II No D (lloo.toqlIoInln_ •. )
Slope (%): ;
Dolurr.-
m _/1IydrOIoQIc O.IIdlll.II. on Il1o olio 'W>IcoI for .. _ 01,..., Y ..
m Yogotodon D. SOlI D, or H)<tI..... D. oIgnIIconIIy __
mYogotodon D. 8011 D, or~ D, ........,,.,111 • .-1
m·_C_·~ v., iii No 0
(11_. toqlIoIn." _In _ •. )
IUMIlMY Of 'INDINGS -AttactI ......... ahewlfttl ........... paint IecItieMt _"'.Illa, ..... rtMt........., etc.
Hydrophytlc YetofoIIOn ~ VII II No O·
Hydric Soil ProoonC? VII II No 0 ............... -Veo II No 0 -.-W-.d H)<tIoIogy ProoonC? YII II No 0
Rematkl: IUW_Bon 1IIo __ oIoIIo-_FIog B-1.
VEGETATION -u.. HIentIIIc _ ef .......
Iru I!rItum ptIct liD: 1 "00 MDl -----De ....... TMI WwbMet: lUOD: lIIIIiiIII! IlIWI
I. AtMtuCn ZI Jill Ell!< _of~""""
Tho! m OIL, FICN. fit F"C: Z W 2. ----- -
3. ------T .... _of __ """"_1>1_ Z (8)
4. ----- -_. __ .20%._-II • Toe.! Cover _ of """"'*C .".....
, II pIIhn.4a .... (Plot 1iH: 11100 4QfI) ThIll,.,. 0IIl, flCN ... ~: 1111 (MI)
1. lpnji«Ilm.pfs'l'M iii Jill Ell!< , ................... WNel:
•• ........ .e I /IQ fl!QtJ. IIII1 :It Ci'JwM It MI""~
3. ----~ :
OIL ""'"' --xh --
4. -------FICN ...... --x2---
5. ------fN; """'" --x3a --_._-,20%._-Ii • T o..r CCMII' FloC\) """'" --x4---
Htrtt ........ CI'toI ... : lOgo IQCI\ UPL ...... --x50 --
I. MM/um""""" I /IQ fl!QtJ. COIumnT_: --(.'I) __ III)
2. ----II1II: : ,..-...,. -.. BI"· __
3. ----- -
.t""~¥I,11I 'sr' i:
4. ----- -
0 I -1IopId T .. for HydnlpIIyIIc YogoIoIIon
5. ----- -
II 2· Donilll'IACI TeII""1O%
S. ------0 1-_IOO_losl.0'
7. ----- -0 4.~u'J' 'I1.1I'~eupporting
•• ----- -
_In _ or on. __ oheeI)
•• ----- -
D ,-WiIIInd Non--va.cuIII Plantsl
10. __ ----D ltictAenwlc Hydrophydcv.-uon' (&ptIIIn}
11. ------
150%" __ .20%. __ • ToIOICooter '_",,,,*,,,,,, and -.. hydrology ..... --110,......., __ .. ,.--.
WgodvYJot ........ (Plot _:-l
I. ------
2. _"''',Ie ----- -Vii tIIllI Y .. II No D !IO%. __ .l!O%. __ --.TOI8ICtHtr -,. ..... Ground In Herb SIroIum __ _ :
us Iwrf Corps of EngIneers
lOlL PoInI: ~
......... Dlllr1peioft. to ••• rIIM to 1M ..... needed ....... nt thllndicMor ... ~ the ........ lndlel'l a.)
Do!>th -Redo>< FuIuros
1IncMo) Cdor (moIoIj " Color (moIoIj " T!IIO' Loc' T ....... -. ------.u: lm:!Iill lDIl -- -------laD Ib( manv [ggIJ
11 lAXBn III ---------laD m
--mM!1 1li ----" M -laD II!IIIIIII
------------ ------------------------
------------ -- ---------------- --
----
------------ ------
'TIIIO: Co C.lIc.,~_" D-OopIoIIOn, ____ , cs-c_ Of~ __ . 'LocoIIOn: Pl,.Pcn UnIng, u.._
..,..,.. ....... "1 •• :6'.'" ........ LM ................. ......, k dI ltd ... '10 .... 11 III, tt)IIIIr'Ie ..... 1:
C HiII_lAl) C """-(81} 0 Z ... MllCkIA10)
C .-EpIpodon CA2) 0 IIIr1I>!>Od -(SG) 0 ---(TF2)
C --\AI) 0 Loomy ~ _ (1'1) ......... IIUIA 1) 0 Very _0011< _ (TFI2)
0 HyIIrngorI SuIIIdo (M) 0 Loomy GIoyod -(1'2) 0 01h0r ~ in _.)
C DopIeted _0011< _ IAl I) 0 DopIeted -(F3)
C 1'IIIotc 0011< _lAll) II _0011< _ (Ft)
0 """~Mi_(81) C DopIeted 0011< _ (F7) ·~_."'~~ond
0 ...", GIoyod -(S4j 0 -~(Ft)
_ hjdroloGy _ "_rot, __ er
ReeIttd\Ie u,w" ......,:
TjpO: --
Do!>th 1IncMo): Mr*tc--V .. a No 0 -.:
............ ' ..... e:
..-y~ (rI**num"'-....... ; --..... 'IIPY) IooondoIy --(2 Of m«I NqUirocI)
0 -W_IAI) a W __ 1Id I..MvH (88) II W ___ 1.M'<oI (88)
0 HiplW_T_CA2) ......... IIUIA " Z, OA,"'" <IB) (MUlA 1, 2, OA,"'" 411)
C -(103) 0 Sell CNot (B 11) a tJroinoIIo -... (B10)
II W __ (Jl) 0 ........ ~_(B13) 0 DIy-Souon W_ T_ (CZ)
0 -DIpoob (112) C H)odroIon _ Odor (el) 0 __ on_ ""-Y(C8)
0 Drifl~(a) 0 Cll<khod ~ oIong lMng _ (03) II Goamorphic -\Il2)
0 Algol Mol Of CNot (84) 0 _ ",_Iron (01) 0 -1\quIIorcI (03)
0 Iron DoposIII (B$) 0 _Iron 11_ in T1IIod SolI. (eI) 0 FAC-NounI TOIl (OS)
0 _ Soil CIocb (BS) 0 _ Of _ PIonIl (01) tLRA AI 0 Railed Ant _ (De) tLRR AI
0 _ Y1oIIII."" _ '-(87) 0 01h0r (ElcpIaIn in __ ) 0 F __ ~.(07)
II 8par1t1yv. d Conc:avI_ (118)
fIIId c.ll ,III, ... :
_W __ ? V .. 0 No II Dopth (InchH): --
W_T_~ y" 0 No .. Do!>th (InohH): --
IIIDJ I'JIIk)n PrMenI? y" 0 No a Do!>thOndlH): -...... ,.-v .. .. No 0 ~
DtocriI>o _ 0... ....... _, II .. 1i1orIng MI,"'" phoIoo, previous inIpodIona), W_: -W_~_"II)'CIIIc'" ond-..
W.-m ""'"_, ~, ond Cooot-V..-2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mount .. .,.. V .... ys. and Coast Region
1m: II'aI'C'(I):
AtoJoo IpbQoI Qiayld
HaoIIyW
BID' I;ttu!J
801 .... UnIt Hwne: eM ; d lep'»
,-, -'--
IIompIIng Date:
_: WA sampling PoInt:
_. TownoNp, ..... : 21 InN!I!!E
L.-_~,_IIOIMI): _
Lone:
NWI' de""""':
a No D (1100, .......... _s,)
SIopt !'O): D
Datum: __
Aso _, hJ601OQic'''_. on 1ho IiIolll>lClllor 1hIo _ of ~ V ..
Aso V.,.oatkln D, $011 0. or HJdnlIOIIY D, .. _IIIy_ Aso_~·~ v.. .. No D
Aso v.,.oatkln D. SaIl D, or HjIlrcIogy D, ntIIUtOIIy~? 111-, ..... ",,_ .. -.,)
IUIIIINIY OF FIHDIIIGS -AMelI lite _.-.... ~,...,. .. c ....... " ................ __ • etc •
1I)CII\IPh)4Io VogolOllcn PnHnI? VII .. No D
Hydric SoiII'roMnI"I VII D No a ............. -"" D Me a _.w_
WoIIandlfl*olOtw p_ VII D No a
Remorl<s: WotIondBII ..... __ of .... I'1oIII_oI"... .. l
VEGETATIOtI-u.. _1tIIIIc _ III_lila
Trtt Ii1raMJm (plot aID: 1000 IC(I) _tilt DooIInoIII IndIcaIor DemiMlIIOI Tnt 'WertIMft: ~ 11111!11111 IlIIIIUl
1. AIty,,*, E III ~ _oI_Bpoc:III
2. ThIll Aso OBI., FN:;W, III FN;: I W ------
3, ------ToIII_oI_
Bpoc:III ....... ~_: 3 (81 4, ------
$0%",, __ 20%-__ E -ToIoIC<Mr
_01_ Bpoc:III
fSet:ttiret!bru ..... (Plot liD: 11100 ltD) ThIll Aso DIlL. FN:;W. '" Flo!;: .. \AlB)
1. LmiwI pP\pIII 3D III ~ Pus ............... IIt:
2. acm...",.6i. I l1li fIJ:iIIi. !pW'ltep.t!I: Meptvby;
3. ----~ :
DIIL __ --xl _ --
•• ----- -
FN:;W __ --xt_ --
$. ------FIo!; __ ---s---
_ -__ ,21)%-__ H -T 0lil Co¥or FIo!;U __ --x4 _ --
HIm a.m iPIot Ita: 1I1go em) UPL __ --1<5_ --
I, lJuMyMy 211 III ~ CoIumnT_: __ w __ (8)
2, MwIfdJum ""*'" 12 III! ~ I'reWItInCt ...... &lA ..
3. tJw*iMn newm: I DQ ~ ..,..,..,.. we.e •• "'III II a:
•• ------D 1 -RapId Till"" HyIIi\lPh)4lo vogolOllcn
5. ------a I· OomiI~.nDl Tal It,..,.
S. ------D 3· "rew.ene.lndex ... ~.O'
7, ------D .t$. _p's4>cwc,' Adlf]1IItiDttl1 (ProvIH eupporting
e, ------_In -'111 .. 0_ ohHI)
I. ------D S·W_Non-V_PIonts'
10. __ ----D _ HyIIiaptlyllc v.-.' (E><!>IoInI
11, ------
_-__ .20%" __ H • Toeal COver '-. 0Ih)'dric ooIIlIIII1_hjdroIogvmuol beprN«!!, __ or~,
W9!l!1y YiW __ (I'l0l_: ---l
" ------
2, t"'*cpI:,1Ic ----- -Yep .... " v .. a Me D
_" __ .20%",, __ --• T_COver ,-"BoreGround" ____
_ 0:
USAtmyCOrpoolE .......
lOll. Point:_
......... O ... IpU",: to-............... MtdMI tID __ ,ntthe IndIeItor woonllrm the tIbMACe Of leMllcltoca.) I
DopIh MoIrIx _F_
(InchoI) Color (moIIC) ,. Color (moIIC) ,. T!PO' Loc' TO>durt
_.
------I 1lrlIlZl2 .IlXI -- -- ----....... Ib: many I'OObIt
11 llIXIItGI .IlXI -- ------....... IIa
-- ------ -- ------ ---- --
------------ --
-------- ----------
---------- --
------
-------- ----------
-------- -- --------
'T",,: c.. CoI_III_,. D-OopIoIIoA. RM-Redo_ -. cs.co..r.d« Cootod ..... _. 'l.ocafion: PL-..... UnIng, M-Molrix
H)tIIrtc ..... 1 11 ra: Cl'fPUn"lI to .. L.fIRet ..................... ) •• nlt .b'" ••.• "' .. c..,....Iob':
0 _(III) 0 lonely_1M) 0 2"'_(II1Cl)
0 .-Epipodon (1\2) 0 I8IrIppod -(Sfi) 0 ___ (TF2)
0
__ (,\3)
0 '--"Y """*Y....,.,I Ifl) \OSOOP1101U1A I) 0 V...,_ o..t< _ (TFI2)
0 H)OIIrogon ..-(M) 0 '--"Y C3Ioyod -(F2) 0 0Ih0t (E>cpIoIn In _0)
0 DIpII1ed _ Doo1<""'" (1111) 0 OopI--(f3)
0 ~ Doo1< _ (1112) 0 _Doo1< 8_ (R)
0 80ndy """*Y -(51) 0 DIpII1ed o..t< _ (F7) '-.... oIl1)odooplljlc ~ and
0 80ndy 0I0y0cI-18') 0 -o.-(FI) _h~ ... o1""-. --'" ReaIi""1 ...,.,,,,,......:
T!PO: --
DopIh (InchoI): 11ydrIO--V .. 0 IkI iii -.:
HYDIIOI OQY -........... lilt' .1" a:
f'IInIIIrI'-(1YIInimIrn oIono ....... ; ........... """'" IIecondIty _ (2« moro roquiI«I)
0 _W_(II1) 0 W __ L.ooveI CIII) 0 W __ lMvoo CIII)
0 HItIh W_ T_ (1\2) (ox .... -I, I, 4A, .... 4111 !MUlA 1, I, 4A, .... <III)
0 -(,\3) 0 Ilol CNo1 tB 11 ) 0 ~_(B10)
0 W __ .(Bl) 0 AquoIIo ....... _ tBl31 0 ~W_T_(C2)
0 -~(82) 0 ~_Odot{Cl) 0 _on VI_onAerlol"'-'l (el)
0 IJIiI: DopooI1.I (113) 0 ~~1IIOng LMnoRoola(C3) 0 0t0m0IpNc -(02)
0 AlgOl Mol '" CNo1 fB') 0 _ oI_lrOII!C') 0 _ AqoMWd (03)
0 Iron DoposItI (lIS) 0 _lrOII_1n T_ SolIs (CO) 0 FAC-NouIroI T ... (05)
0 _ SOlI Crock. (lIS) 0 S1urHdor __ (OI)(UlRAj 0 RaIsed IW. _. (D6) (I.RR Aj
0 __ 00_"'-'1(87) 0 0IIl0r CE"IJIOIn In _0) 0 F_·HHve Hummocko (07)
0 SpolMIy Vogo1aIId ConclYt Surtoco CIII)
FIeIII OM. 111M:
_W_~ Yos 0 No .. o.,eo (InchoI): --W_T __ ? YII 0 No II o.,eo (InchoI): --
--. "-1' fringo) ~...,aIory Y .. 0 No II DopIh (IncI\II): W_1IydroIogy _ V .. --0 No II
DoooctIOo _ CEo (oWMh _. -1iotIIoII-. _~."'-~,_ti~OI). H ..,.li0i>i.: -
WIOtOm _. Voltoyl. one! Cout -Vorsion 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western MounUlne. Valleys. end Com Region
Projld Site:
ApflIIc:ont/OWn«:
1nvnIIpIor(o):
8tnIgn 8cbooI ()ttIrtc:t
HtnItyuM
o.y !Ich.!Iz
LIndform~, _, lie.): _
SubfosIIon (lIIA):
SoiIMlpunit NIme: IIf!lII'alllll.'JJ.'W'i\\IQ
~:
~ngDlt.:
_: ItiA SOrnpIIng Point:
-. T-.hIp, Aongo: 21 T&:IN A5E
LocoI relief (c:oncavo, -'.-j: _
Long:
NWI t' "cdlon:
B No 0 (ll1IO, ........ In-..) AI. _'h)oIroIogjIc"'-on .... 1iIo"'** lor ... limo of,....., v ..
AleV~ 0, Soil C, OIH)o:lroIoIy 0, .. i .... oa,_
Ale V~ O. 8011 0, or H)o:lroIoIy 0, -..By piolll.,,_?
Art-~·1'fIIOI1fI v .. B No 0
IW_, ....... ...,._In_.)
IUII .. MYOFFINOINGS-AltIIdI'"*...,aho ............. pelnt:toC ............ II .............. ,...,...Mc.
~VOgoIIIIIon -Y .. B No C
H,*ICIoI1-Y .. 0 No 11 ..... ...,....-v .. 0 Ito 11 -.-w_~...-YII 0 No 11 _: WOlllnd.llon .... __ oI ....
Y&QETATIOH-u.. .......... _ .. _
I,......", tptoIltze: 11100 ICUl
_uIe
DomInon1 --Dec' ... .,.,.... WerUIMIt: 2U1Ia: IIIiBI1 I!IIIa
1. MI-"" lJ l1li ~ _01_,,-, 3 IAl 2. ------'IlIII Ale 08L, FIoCW, Of FloC:
S. ------TOIII H_ of DomInon1 ! (8)
4. ------Spedoo_H_:
!iO%" __ ,2O%" __ lJ .To&Ideowr ........,. 01 DomiIIInl Spedoo tAfII) II I n.".,. .... (PIal": lt100 IQfIl Tho! Ale 0IIl, FIoCW, or FloC:
1. '''''*' i
t • I l1li ~ 'is ... II ............ :
2. """"" I I •• ~ l1li fHHl TIll! ,. Cqww gt .. ,. t btt;
3. ....... ..., lJ .. fHHl OIILopodoo --", --
•• ------FN:.wopodoo --XZ, --
I. -- ----FN:.opodoo --d, --
10%, __ ,20%, __ :III .TOIaIeov.r FACUopodoo --M---
HtQt ItrMyn (JIIoC.a: 11100 IQfIl UPlopocleo --><5, --
1. 81 ......... 1lI .. W<II CoIumnT_: __ 1Al __ Ill
2. ----~ : fi'reYtIIIncIlncIex • IIA.
3. ----~ : .1"""""V ...... ,1 .. lllu11 I:
•• ------0 l-AopIdTOO1Ior~V~
5. ------• 2·_TOO1Io_
I. ------0 3·1'roYoIonco _II SU'
7. ------C •• MoIpIicIIoIIita MOpII11onI' 11'-ouppor1Ing
•• --_1n_oron._1IIHl) ----
g. ------0 6 -Wo1Ion<I Non-Vucuilr Plants'
10. __ ----0 PnllDtertwIc I-tpoptl)* V...,catiOn' (Explain)
11. ------1iO%, __ , 20% , __ 12 • Total Cover '1ndIcatorI 01 h)<1r1c IQII end -1IydroI09\' mUll
1Ie~, __ dIIlu_ orproblema1lc.
Wggllly Y!nt IIrI!ym {Plot _: ---1
1. ------
2. MydI ....... ------Vd, , • • V .. 11 Me 0 60%, __ ,20%, __ --' T 0lIl C<wor -,. .... Ground In HIflIStndum _:
us Amrf Corps 01 E.vr-s W __ I, V~, and Coul-VorslOnZ.O
lOlL Point: I
ProfIle Deecrlplloft: tot .......... .,.. needed ....... lI,,,t ... 1ndoIter ., eonIIrm ... a...o. ., Inll I a.) I
00pIh -RodO><F_
!nc:IIoo) ~(moiOI) '" ~(moIIII '" TVI"" Loo' T ...... -. ------1f. 1IlY!I1I% Jgg -- --
----....... -lII¥
11 U!'It1 Jgg LIYMI III " ---1IIIm lID: .-aN motninII!I
---- ------------------ -------- --
------------------ ------------ ------ ------------ --
-- ------
------------------'Tpt:C-a-. D-DopoIIoft. __ cs.c-.I ... ~Iond_. '~on: PLoPorIlJMIt.-"'*"' .... " I c: "ppM " "' .. UIIIo, ---~ Inll= ....... "olllllil .. ....,..I0Il:':
0 _(AI) 0 Sondy-1SSl 0 2cm_(AIO)
0 Hole Epipodon (At) 0 IIIfIppod -(Sa) 0 __ I_(TFt)
0 _Hide(A3) 0 Loomy -, -IFI) joXoopt MUlA 1) 0 Vory_ Cork IIurIoco (TFI2)
0 ~-(M) 0 Loomy GIoyod -(F2) 0 Other (ExpIoin 11_.)
0 DopIMM Below Cork _ (All) 0 DopIMM -f'3)
0 Thick Cork ..... (A12) 0 _ Cork IIurIoco (FI)
0 !land)< Mucl<y _ (81) 0 DopIoIod Cork _ (F7) slndIcaIorI 01 ~ IAIgIlaliOh and
0 !land)< GIoyod -(54) 0 -o.r-(FI) -1\y<IroIogy ......... -. -...
..... I.ueu,.r"~
TVI"': --
00pIh (inOIIN): "'*"'--V .. 0 No • _:
............ I.,h« IlIra:
I'dmoIy -....-.... ",-...-,-..... oppIy) IoconI1Iry -. (2 or __ roquIrod)
0 _W_(Al) 0 W __ ~(Bt)
0 W __ ~(BIl)
0 ~W_T_IA2) joXoopt MUlA 1, Z. 4A, _ Q) (IIlAA 1.1. 4A, _ Q)
0 -(1<3) 0 Sol CnIII (111) 0 DrIIMgo"""" (1110)
0 W __ (ll) 0 AquIIc 10_ (1113) 0 D<y-$uoon W_ T_ ((:2)
0 --DopoaiIo (112) 0 ~_OcIor(Cl) 0 __ ... _1mogory(CI)
0 0111 DopoaiIa 113) 0 0Jddiz0d ~""'LMng_ ((lS) 0 GoomoIJhIe -(02)
0 Algol I.lol or CnIII (1M) 0 _oI __ Iron(CI) 0 -~(D3)
0 Iron DopoaIIo (IIi) 0 _Iran _on In TIIod _ (CI) 0 f~Tn1(1l5)
0 ..... SolI CfOCb (116) 0 _ or 811 __ (01) (UIR AI 0 _AnI _. (06) (LM AI
0 -. _00 _1mogory (117) 0 Other (E><pIoIn 11-.) 0 froot-HNv.~. (07)
0 ......... V...., concave _ (II) ,......,..1 u ••• ne:
_W_~ V .. 0 No • 00pIh (inchoI): --
W_T_~ V .. 0 No II 00pIh (Inchn): --
-~ V .. 0 No • DopIh (Inchn): -~.Iogy-V .. 0 No • .......
~ __ Data (oIroom _. "",,1I1cN'1I well. _~. ptOYiouIl .p " .... ). H_: -
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Westem Mountllnl, VIIIeyI, IIld Coast Region
RtnIgn 8cbgo! QIItdct
HtnItyuM
Qlrvlcbul&
Landtcm! (hIIoIopo, _, Ole.): _
SubrogIon (lNI):
SolI MIp UNl NIwM: tit nez1 ,ecp
_: riA SamplIng 1'oInt:
_, T-*"!>, ..... : 21 J23N tw:
LocaI_ (concave, -. none): _
lofIg:
NWI C'lll'fIcatiort:
Slope (%): g
Dotum: __
Are -/1\)'IlroIoIIk:"'-on ... Ibljplcol for lhIo"" or,..r? VII II No D '" no, 0JCPIIIIn in _.)
AreV~ D. SOlI D, .. ~ D, 1ignI1Icon1Iv_ Ne·_Clr ... __ ·~ V ... No D
Ar<IV..-oo D, SOlI 0, or~ D, noIInIIIy~ (iI_,O>qIIoInony_in_.)
II_Of FlHDINQI-__ ""'" _ ............... poIIIIle.IIIDna, -. ..... 1_ .......... etc.
~~Pr.-? V_ 0 No ..
HyCIrio SOlI PawonI'? V .. 0 No .. .............. -V .. 0 ... .. -.-W_ ~1'faoon11 VII D No a
Ae_: AlW_ C on ... __ or.· _flog C4. Loc:alion .... ~IOII_ W_. &C.
VIGlTATIOH-u.. .. __ 81_
lEU IIrIIym lPkIt Iize: 1/100 .,., -Dominant -DeMII .... T .... w..attett:: lU<I!m IIII1:iII1 IlIIIIl
1. ----nIJt. , N_ or DomInan1Ipoo1aa (AI ThaI Are OIIL., FICoN, or FAC: 1 2. ------
3. -- ----TGUiI_ 01 DomInan1 (B) IpooIaa _1dI_: 1 4. ----- -_, __ ,20%, __ --• TMllCOvtr .. _ or DomInan1Ipoo1aa
(MI) llI1I!ndbnJb"'" tpIoIlIze: 11101.1 1Cft1 ThaI Are 08L, FICoN, or FAC: 1lI!I
1. ----nIJt. , P ..... II ............. :
2. SpIru.*" 1m -fHai. TrMI '" Oq.w at ..... w
3. ----nIJt. , OIILapadas --.J---
4. ------FlCoNapadas --02---
5. ------FACapadas --"'---____ ,20%, __ .. • T utili Cover FACUapadas --u. --
Ht!tt ......" (Plot ... : 1/1PO eqt\ UPLapadas --16. --
I. ......... 11 IIQ E&I CoIumnT_: __ CAl __ (I)
2. ----nIJt. , ~ Index. 8/A.
3. ------""* .. ,.. ...... 1 I nil • I I:
4. ----- -
0 1 -FIopItI Ttot for H\idlCJIiIIl'lIC VIIJIIIllon
5. ------a 2 .. Doc,t ..... "" Telt II >10%
6. ------0 s· I'W4411oiCe nHK" st·o'
7. -- ----0 4 -MOtpt glO'!:. ~0I .. 1 (P«MdI auppclf1ing
I. -- ----_1n-. ...... ___ 1hHOl
I. ------D 5· Webnd Non-Vas<:utar Plants'
10. __ ----D ... _._ HyaliCJIiIIl'lI v..-oo' (ExplaIn)
11. ------
_" __ ,20%-__ 11 • Total Cover '-. oI¥Ic I0Il ... _1I)o6"OIoty ...... bo..-,. __ ... proIiI_.
W ..... y ......... (I'Io1_:---l
1. ------
2. .., .. .,..,.. ------"J ...... IR V .. a No 0 _-__ ,20%-__ --• T OWl COYer -"' ..... Graundln __
-.:
W_ MounlaIns, Volleys, and Coast -Vertion 2.0
lOll Point I
"... Dee, .1Ion: (DeeorIIM ....... MldldkDtIIooumenth lAIIoMororoenAnn ............ lndll.cl'Ih) I
DIpOh --""-..
(incIIM) Calor (moIot) '" Calor (mdoIj '" Tl'PO' Lac' TIlCIurI -. ------11 J.Ql!HIZ llIO ---- -----1IIIm lb
------------------
---- --------------
------------ ------
-------------------- --
------------ --
---------- --
------
------------------'Tl'PO:C-eo.-maon.DoDopIotion. ____ cs-cov..t ... ~ __ . '1.OcOIIon: pt. ..... ~. _
.,... lei. dlClla,.: ... IIOCIIIII .... LARa, ............... MIld.) Ina " ..... '1 tI ad, H)tiIMe ...... :
C _(AI) C 1lMdy-CS5) C 2cm_(AIO)
C HiIIIc EpIpodon (A2) 0 IVipped -(SI) C Red P.,.." _ (TF2)
C --(A3) 0 1..oImy~ _ (Fl) tuoopIlILIIA I, C Vory_00tk8utloco(TFI2)
C ~ IiuIIIcIe (M) 0 I..oImy ClIO!*! _ (F2) 0 0Ih0r (ElcpIaJn In _.)
C DIpIotocI _ 00tk _ (A I I) 0 DepIoted _ (1'3)
C ~00tk_(A12) 0
_ 00tk _ (1'1)
0 1lMdy~_(8I) 0 DepIoted 00tk _ (F7) "Indicaas ofloydroplljtic vogotoIIon Ind
C SOIIdy ClIO!*! -(lU) 0 -o.pr-(1'1)
_ hjdrcIogy mUll be ... _. __ or
IIwblol" ~ CII--"I:
Tl'PO: --
c.,4h (incIIM): tIyIIdo---0 He I) -"
....... ~ '5)111 • . 0:
I'I1mIIIy -. ............ 01 .... NqIftd; _ ..... oppIy) 8ocondory -. C2 or ..... roquQd)
0 _W_(AI) 0 W __ ~(B8) C W __ necI ~ (III)
C HIgh W_ T_ !AI) to""PIlILIIA 1,1, 4A, -4111 IIIIUIA 1,1, 4A, -481
C _(A3l 0 Soft CrUll (BII) C ~_(810)
C W __ (lI) C AquoIIc ~ __ (SIS) C 01, Sill on W'" T .... (C2)
C _~(82) C ~_Ddor(Ct) C ___ on _Imogory (eI)
C DrtII~(83) C ~~aIonaLMng -(03) C Goal"",,,,,," _ (D2)
C Algol Mot or CNoI (114) C ........ of_Iron (CO) C -AquitoI<t (0:1)
0 ron DopooIII (85) C _ ron _In TIled SOls (C8) C FAC-_ T .. (OS)
0 _ 801 CtocU (81) C _ .. __ tDl)CLRRAI C _ Ant _ (OS) (1.1111 AI
C -. VIsIble on _Imogory (87) C 0Iht< (EopIoIn In _') C F~~H~.{D7)
C IjIo!HIy V ....... concov. _ (III)
........ ' .. 11 .. : _W __
YOI 0 No II DIpOh (incIIM): --W_T __
Vw C No I) DIpOh (incIIM): --..... ....,~ Yw C No I) IJoIIIh (Inohes):
_I¥oo..., _ V .. C NO I) ~
~ -DtIIa (WIroom _. --''il-. _ flIIOIDI. "-'1nIpocIIono).' ...-.:
-.:
W~ _ ........ ondCout-VorwIoo 1.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
1rr.lltlpkX(l): BIN Ictv..!b;
lMdIorm (hIIlaIaf>o ......... ole.): _
SUIngion (LIIA): LIt:
SOil Map UnIt Name: err .... d fMC)
CIIy/CoLwlty. IIIn!go!!(jng Sompllng Dolo:
_: ~ SompIIng PoInt:
_. TownoIIIp ....... : ., TUN NE
IlI.Il11
Z
IIopo (%): Q
DoIUm:
NWI __ o:
II No 0 (1 ......... 10-..) ko _,..,..,..Iagic aondIIiono on ... oIto Iypk:oI to< .... me riA)'Ior? VII
koV~ O. 8011 O. orHydrology O. ~_
ko V~ O. SolI O. or Hydrology O. -.oily proIl/emIIIIc1
VnllNoO
SUItIIMY Of FINDINGS -AtIacII aile ............... ....".... ,...... ........... ....-,Im •• _ ............
ltjoIoupl .... V...-.~ v-II No 0
ItjGo1c SolI "'-"" V. II No 0 ~ .......... -v .. a No 0 -.-W_ItjoIoDloill ~ VII II No 0
Ael'Mrkl: N.W_ Con ... __ riA OlIo· -. FI"IJ C-3.
VEGETATIOH-Uae ___ .r_
TtM SIrMum (PIOIIize: 11 '00 KIt) -0cmInant -I.,n ..... Tal: Weikilh .. t: ~ ilDII:III1 IiIIIIa
1. "..·ttts[fn II! I'll fAC. _ riA DomInoIIlIlpooloo
2. Sfkm...". j fAC. ThaI ko 08l, FACW. or FAC: 2 IA)
!HI
3. ------ToIoI_ riA Don*lonI IIpooIoo _ No_: i (8)
4. -- ----
-'--'-'--U .TotaIecw.r ,_ riA 0cmInant IIpooIoo
(AlB) • ......,..". ..... (Plot Ilze: 11100 IQ1l ThaI ko OBL. FACW. or FAC: llIlI
1. ----~ , '1 ...... '01 ......... 1:
2. SgtMt*Z¥ II I'll fNai ToII!" r.-pi: tt,tw
3. ----~ , OBLopodOI --Kia --
4. ------FACWopodoo --d---
5. ------FACop-. --113_ --10%--010% ___ .. • Talal COYW FACUopodoo --K4, --
Hd ...... (Ptot Ilze: 11100 1QIlP) UPLopodoo --115, --
I. ",...lIIinw I !HI fAW CoIumnT_: __ IA) __ (8)
2. ----~ , Pr, ... ICe Index • I/A •
3. ------... .,. ..... ~ ...... lnhC t 1"1:
4. ------0 1 -AopId Till b' ~V"'-'
5. ------II 2 • 00mlnaI1Ce TNt" >10%
e. ------0 3· -..,. _ II S3.0'
7. ------0 4 • ~ MoptoIionS' (I'r<MH IIIIlIIO'1Ing
e. ----- -
_10_ ....... ____ "'...,
~. ----- -
0 5·WoIIOnd ___ '
10. __ ----0 ProbIomoIIc H)<drq>tI)'Iic VOIjOIOIion' )El<pIoIn)
11. ------50%, __ ._, __ I ' T 0101 COvet
'1ndIcotorI riA h)<1rIo HI and __ h\IdfOIOty .....
be pr_. unlll4 <liItufbId Of~.
WAOdy WJ'I1rIIym (PIot .. :--.J
1. ------
2.
..,..,...
----- -V..-, V. II lie 0 50%-__ 20%-__ --• Total COYer ~ ,. .... Oround in ____
Aomorks:
Project stte: BInIgn ScbaoI 0ItJricI
SOIL l'oInt I _Do ............ : (OooortIM .... dIpIII_ .. _ ... _or_ .. _elt ....... LI
Dopoh ---" (Inohoo) Colo< (moist) " Color (moist) " Typo' ...... T ....... R_.
-- --
--
lA .IlrI1Iall IQ ------ --
"""""1sIIm lID'
--.IlIYIIZt2 til -- ---- --
"""""1sIIm lID'
11 1lrI1HIZ 1llII ------ --
"""""1sIIm --
---- --------------
-------------- --
--
---- -------- -- -- --
---- -- ---------- --
------------ --
-- --
'Tp: C-COfIOlf**", D-O"llIon, ~AeducecI MIICrix. CScCowrH ... CMIed SInd GraIna. ~: Pl.P<nllnlnll,_
M)tdrII: loll h;' r .: .-.pl nth 10" UI ................... nelIMI.) t"l I ....... " .... n ..... ..,.... .... s:
0 _(Al) 0 Sondy-($5) 0 2c:mMuck(Al0)
0 -EpIpodon (A2) 0 81IippId -($I) 0 flldP""'_(TF2)
0 .-HiIOIc(AS) 0 ~ Mucky _ (Fl) to-IIIIIIIJIA t) 0 Vory _ Dw1< SUrfooo (TF12)
0 HycIrogon __ 1M) 0 ~ GIoyod -(1'2) 0 01hef {ElIpIoIn In Ro,""",o)
0 00pI01e<I_ Dor1< SUrfooo (All) 0 Dtp--CI")
0 ~ DoIk _ (A12) II -Dolle _ 4Ft)
0 Sondy Mucky _ (81) 0 ~DoIk_(F7) '1ncIk:Mao oIlI)droph)1Ic ~ ond
0 80ncIy GIoyod --(&0) 0 -eopr-(FI)
_~_"_n1,
unIIIl cIIUMd er
.... IrIt: ... u,.r",........:
TII>O: --
Dop1h (Inohoo): """'"-,-y" III No 0 -.:
........ , ... la .... ll a:
""'-Y --..-....,-...... , _ ...... 1IPPIiI 8ocon«oIy __ C2 or _. r ..... red)
0 _W_(Al) II W-_"'~18Il .. W __ ~18Il
0 HiGh W_ T_ (A2) (!txoopI1IIIJIA 1,,, 4A, ... ..., tMLM 1,,, 4A, .... 4IIj
0 .... ru;a, CA3) 0 Soft Crull (811) .. "'""-...... (810)
II W __ 1B1) 0 ~_(B13) 0 ~_r_(C2)
0 -DopooiIo (B2) 0 H~_Odor(Cl) 0 __ .. AortoI ""-Y(C8)
0 0IIft~(83) 0 ClxiI:1iHd ~ oIong LiWIe _ (C3) II Ooomorphic""'" (D2)
0 Algol Mol or Crut\ (84) 0 _"'_iron (C4) 0 -~(03)
0 iron DopooiIo (115) 0 Rocon1iroo R_on In TIlled _ «8) 0 fAC:N_ ToM (05)
0 Surtaco Soil Crack. (lIS) 0 S1untocI or _..-(01) (lIIR AI 0 _Iv< __ (06) CUIfI AI
0 __ on_ '"-'Y(87) 0 Other {ElIpIoIn In Rem_) 0 _ll ..... _.CD7)
II SporteIyV ....... Concaw _ (III)
_0' IFfte: _W __
YOi 0 No .. DopI/1 (Inohoo): --w_r __ YIO 0 No II DopI/1 (1nd1oo): --.. _-II 0 lin<**" 00jIII0ry IrIngo) Yoo 0 No II DopI/1 (Inohoo): --........ " ..... .., PrMent1' VB No
'*-_ Dolo ItlM"'_, MOIIiIOring _, __ , prevlou.~, r_: -W_ ~_ byllydlto 001 oM.-or
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mount.lna, Valleys, and Coesl Region
Project Silo: IIIItgo lI!tJgg! DiIIr!d
AppticantIOwnor HtnIty U$A,
1rwuIIgoIot(1): OInt 8cII!Il
LancIIorm ~._."'.): _
Subregion (LIIR): lot __
SoU ..,. UntI tame: At' wi 'kG'
Nt _, hl*<>iollc 001_. on flo olio \ypIcoIIor1lllo _ of ~ v ..
CItyICounty: RInIqy'Kk!o SompIing Dat.:
_: ltUo SompIing PolnI:
_ ... Townohilt. PIangt: 21 mt! ME
loog:
NWI' IRclltio .. :
III No C (11110 ....... 10_ •. )
Slope (%): U
Datum:
Are""inUa I C. Soil C .... ~ C, IIglillca'lU)tIIturbeIfP ,.,.._ C~· ~ v.. III No []
NtV~ []. Sol C .... ~ []. noIIJroIIy~ (II_ ...... ..,.,_In-..)
BUIIIINIYOF FlNDlNQS-_. ___ .... _ ........ """,11 •• _ .. __ ...... _ ...........
H)drophylc v.u-on "'-' VOl III No []
H)Oric SolI "'-' VII [] No .. 10 ... -....._ -[] lie II _.w_
W-.cI H)oI<oIoIW "'-1 VOl [] No III "'_: 1n_...-_W_T_l.., ... __ of .....
VEGETATION -UN .......... _ -' ...... Ie
Tru kIIym (Ptot atze: lnoo I!Xf) -00mInIIn1 -... OiDllllnlHlI1 TntWMbMlt: ~ IIIIII:IIIIZ IIIIWI
1. etIIllIlil I ,II • ill !III U& __ 01 DcmInoIIIIipodOI
Sdrere"'" A U& TlIot,.,. OSL. FACW. or FAC: a (0\)
2. l1li
l. ----- -
T .... __ 01 DcmInoIII SpocIoo-" _: a (II) •• ----- -_-__ .2O%-__ II - T 0111 CoYer _01 __ --,
'Wndtr:rt" = (Plot _: 10QO ICD) TIIoI Nt OIIL. FACW. '" FAC: II IAAI)
•• ._11IIiI B lIII f6C< .................. It:
2. AQIc~ II lIII uw ,..."Coywgt -1Ir;
3. ----IIIIt. : 0lIl...,.---.h --
•• ----- -
FACWII'OdOI -->2_ --
5. ----- -
FACII'OdOI -->3_ -----_.20%---II! .T_Cover FACUII'OdOI ... ----
Htrtt "I'D tpIot eta: !flog IpI'Il UPlll'OdOl --.$0 --
I. ''''''''lIIk II II!I HI CoIumnT_:
__ w __ (8)
2. ----IIIIt. : ~htex..8JA.
l. ----- -
_IF' )Ic 'tI • q r Irt.rclllllra:
•• ----- -
[] 1-""'"' Ttot for ~ ~,
5. ----- -
.. t· DomIowa Ttot 10._
5. ------[] '. __ losS.O·
r. ------[] 4 • MorphoIogicoI MII*IOnI' (PrcYIdo ouppor1Ing
I. ----- -
_10 ................ ___ -)
I. ----- -
[] 5· W..sand Non-VIICUIar Ptants'
10. __ --- -
[] _ H!*opI'IyIICVegoIIOOn' (f!>q>Ioin)
11. ------
!50%. __ • ZO% • __ IA .T .... eo-._ 01 "¥*Ie'" oncI_ h)'llrology mutt
Ie pr_"-__ at probIoma1Ic.
Wogdy YJno ....... (PIoI-:-----1
1. ------
2. M ... ...,.. ------Y'. I II"" YOI III No []
!50%. __ .20%-__ --• TaIIII eov. -" Bore _In HOII> ___ _ .:
us /Omty Corpo of EnginMrs
p,ojoct Silo: Rtn!gn Ilcbgo! Q!Mr!c!
I0Il. Point:~
"... ONed, •• .: ,.'11 11M to ............. til tllDlIMntthe IIdGatDr IN' Nnftnn the ........ ., ... ...... I
00pIh ---'nchH) Color (moIot) ... Color (moIot) ... T",,' LDc' T_re --------• --------------e.dIall:tl:lll
11 .IllmIr2 }gil -- --
-----. IlOl
11 ~ }gil --------..... ~ IlOl
-------------- --
--
------------------
-------------- ----------------------
------------------
'TWPt: Coo ConC.fdJlLtion, D-OepIeIion, RM-ReGt1olCld MIIIrIx. ca.oa. .. or COIIIed Sand 0IWnI. 'LoooIIon: I'L-..... ~. _
.....,. .... lrIdi , I: ~"B-'II .. II LMt.. ............. MIIClI.) • II'I.t;rr .... " •• ,IMde ........... ·:
0 -(Al) 0 SOndy-(Sil 0 2aT1_(Al0)
0 -Epipodon (A2) D .....,...-"" 0 _ ""' ... _ (TF2)
0 --(.'03) 0 LDomy Mucky _ (1'1) co-..tlllLllA 1) 0 Very_Dark_(TF1:!)
0 ~ SUIIIdtI (M) 0 LDomy Gla,od _ (F:!) 0 Other (Explain In _.)
0 DepI __ Dark _ (All) 0 ~-'")
0 T_ Dark Gur1oco (Al:!) 0 _DorkGur1oco(FI)
0 Sondy Mucky __ (51) 0 o.,IoIoGI Dark -(F7) ---'" lIjIjrophylic ~ .,.,
0 SOndy GIejo<IMoIrix (54) 0 _ Do_IkloIO (FI) _l¥*oIogymuot be_. __ '" ........ " ...".,,,........,:
T",,: --
00pIh (InchoI):
It)IoIrIo --
Tn 0 ... II
Atrr\IeI1(I:
........ I • Dr"~11Irt: "**' -. ~"'ono __ :"-IIh11lP11111 eICDI_W InIIcatofs C2'" men requlrId)
0 _W_(Al} 0 W_,_1avft (!!II) 0 W __ Loavoo (Bt)
0 HlghW_T_(A2) co-..tMLIIA " I, 4A, -411) \IIUIA t, I, 4A, _ 411)
0 -(.'03) 0 IloIt Cruot (1111) [] ~_(B10)
0 W __ (II1) 0 AquatIc -.. (B1S) [] o.y.SeuonW_T_(C:!)
0 -1IopoOiIO (8:1) 0 ~_Odof(Cl) 0 -_on_'"-Y(OI)
0 Drill DIpOob IN} 0 Cl>dcIIad ~ oIong I.M>g _ (CS) 0 Gooo, .. ,..*" ...... (D2)
0 AIfII MIt Of Cruot (114) [] "-'" -Iron (01) 0 -....-103)
0 Iron DopooIIa (8SI 0 _Iron _In TIIod SOil. (ee) 0 FAC-H_ T .. ps)
0 _loll CracIc. (Be) 0
-"'--(Dl) flM III
0 -Ant Mound. (OS) I\.IIR III
0 __ onAorlll'"-Y(II7} 0 Other (ElcpIoIn In _.) D '_'100 .. Huon_. (D7)
[] SIIIfHIY v.-eo...... -(Be)
,... ••.... ta: _W __
Tn 0 No II 00pIh 0ncII0I}: --W_T __ T .. 0 No II 00pIh (IncIIHl: ----Tn 0 No II 0tptII (inchoI): _H,,*'"_ T .. 0 No B (IncIWn oopIIOry IrIogI) --
o-tbo __ DoIa (oIrtam _. moni1orInf well. _ p/Ictoo .......... inIpOOtiOnO). w.-: -
W.-.m _. V"'."'" Cout-VItIion 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Vaneya, and Coat Region
h\o , )"111 CI ($): Bwy Ictu".
LMldIorm (hihIcIpo. _. Ole.): *'-
SubroFJn (UIRj:
SOH..., UnIt NaIrne: "te: u1 cw;)
Lal:
1ft _/1I!*OIogic __ on III ... I)PcII for thIo _ 01 -' V"
_: 'II.A 80mpIIng PoInt •
_. TownoNp ....... : 21 T23N!Wi
HWt' nClitic .:
II No 0 111110 ....... "'_ •. )
Slope (%): 2
Datum:
AleVegetatlon C, 801 0, or~ C, ~~
1ftV~ O. IaII O. ..~ O . ......-y,._._? 1ft·_CiIoum_·~ V.. • No 0
11I_ ....... ony_In_.)
IUMIIMY OF FINDINGI -MIaotI_ .., ........... " •• peInt.e ..... M t tran ..... , ..... r1IIIt.........., etc.
t~""'Ta CD"" PreMnt1 V .. 0 No II
HycIrIc IloIII'roHnl? V. 0 No II .. ............. --0 lie iii _a_
W_1IjoIroIolgJ ...-V .. 0 No II
"'''''"ob: WIOI_oIW_T_.", __ .
VEGETATION -lIN .cl • ..unc _.,..-
Tm....." tpkJI .. : 11100." --~ -.. Dei, ••• TNt w.1IttIaet ~ II!IIia! liliiii
•• AGIc tDII7CI:IIdrn 21! llIII f6QI.l -"'~1IpUM
2 . ..... "reb TIoaI 1ft OBL. FAON. or FI>I:.: 1 (A)
11 - -
3. ----- -
TOIIoI_oI_ s,-AIlrooa .... _: 2 (8)
4. ----- -_, __ .lO%, __
H .T_COYer _01 ____
8t®dbnrtt Itrtfym tpIot lim: 111QQ aqt\ TIoaI 1ft OIL. FAON. or'l>I:.: III (AlII)
•• lWleener hq7MM H llIII EIlW PM ......................
t. .... r Me 11 IIQ EIlW ToIaI '" Cpt« fit MS' t by:
J. ----~ : OIL.,-. --"', --
4. ------fAON..--->02, --
5. ----- -
FI>I:...---103, --
!IO% .. -' 20% .. __ fA • T 0loi Covor 'ACU ........ --"', --
Htda ... (Aot ltD: 1/100 wn> UPl..---JdI, --
•• e ......... I l1li f6W CoUmT_: __ (A) __ (8)
2. MItjQ'un ".... 11 l1li f6W PNltllenc:e Index .I/A •
3. Qb1Qr*¥ .Ill 1m EIlW .......... '.'tt •• 1rM n"lIlIl1 I:
•• ----- -
0 • -AopioI TOIl for H~ VogotatJOn
$. ------• t· \lo" ..... TOIl iI._
I. ------0 ,. ""'''1Oe Index" .$.3.0'
7. ----- -0 4· MDrphoIoOICII '''''1110.' (ProYkII suppor1Ing
S. -- ----_In ,,_. '" on .. __ 1heo!)
t. ----- -
0
I·W ____ '
'0. __ --- -
0 _ ~V...,.uon' (E>opIoIn)
11. __ ----'-. 01 Ioj\WtC ... onoI_IIjdroIOWV must -,--.20%,--Ii • Total Cover ... ,. ...... nIooo_orprobiomOlic.
Woody VIna w..urn (I'IoI-:----l
•• -----.-
2. _414-' ------'tl, ••••• R 0 lie II V .. _, __ .20%, __ --• T otoI Covor -,.. ..... _In Hoob_m
~.:
w-. _. VIIloyI. and Coul-Veqion 2.0
lOlL P"lnt: •
"..... Diet &pie,,: (DHertIIe lG".,.,. ftHdecf ...... 1Mnl ... 1nGIoRIr orOCll'lllrln" HHnce ef In.cat i., I
DI!IIh -_F_
'""""") Cd« (moItI) ,. Cd« (moIot) ,. Typo' Loe' T ....... Remark. ------JJ uma.It 1lKI ---------1IIIm Ib
11 1lI:IIW1 1lKI --------_M:t.,~ Ib
------------------------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------'TVIII: Coo c.o_", .... D-DopIoIIon. __ -. cs-c-Mor~ __ . ~: 1'Lo ..... 1JnIng. 110_
..,.... ... h .. ElJra:( • .,·IF"I .... LARs. ................ ~ •• , " .... ,; " • ..,... .... 1:
0 -IAI, 0 SondV-1MI 0 I em Muck IAIO)
0 -EpipOdon IAZ) 0 ~-(SI) 0 AI<I __ (TF2)
0 Block HlIIic 10\3) 0 ~ IkI<y _ (1'1) """"" MUlA I, 0 V«y _ Dolt< Surfoce (TFI2)
0 HJdrogon -1M) 0 ~~-(F2) 0 OIlIer (ElcpIoin In Remarks)
0 ~ _ Dolt< $LII1ace IAII) 0 ~-(l'3)
0 TIIicIc Ootk _ IAI2) 0 _ Dolt< Surfoce tFIl
0 SondV Mucky _ (81) 0 ~ Dolt< Surfoce (F7) '-., oIlI)o:Irophytic __ ond
0 IontIy ~ -C84) 0 -~(N) -~::,~-. .. omatiO .
.... 1ctI •• ...,.,,, ........ :
TlI>O: --
DIpIh jIrIchoo): "'*"'--'1' .. 0 No II _:
It'tDROI OIlY -
........ 1.,. II,. b ,[ '. I:
I'rimory _ ........... 01 ... roqoifed; _ 1I .... 1!IIIIy) IecClndlly Ir'ICIk:Ikn C2: 01' MOrt feCIUit*f)
0 Surfoce W_ IAI) 0 W __ LMvH (lit) 0 W __ LMvH (119)
0 HIf/IW_T_(A2) {oIoootIt MUlA 1. I, 4A, _.., IIIUIA 1,a. 4A, -4111
0 "-1A3l 0 $01 Crull (BII) 0 ~-IBIO)
0 W __ (III) 0 ......... _(113) 0 Dry-s-W_T_(C2)
0 -Dopooito (82) 0 ~"-Odor(CI) 0 --"-'"-Y(C8)
C DrIll DopooI1a (131 0 00dcII2M NIizoIphoo .. oIong l.Mng _ (C3) 0 -...... -(02)
0 AIpII Mot or Crull C84) 0 _ai_iron (04) 0 -~1D3l
C Iron Oopooito (M) C A_ Iron _In TIIod SolIs (Ct) 0 F~T"'(D6)
0 ....... Sol er.:o.a C8I) 0 _or __ (01) (UIR AI 0 _ ""-(DI) (UlRAi
0 __ on_~(B1) 0 0Ih0r (ElcpIoin In A_.) 0 "'Gal H __ • (01)
0 a,or.oIy V..-.. Conc:ove ....... (III)
AIM 0' U 4: SurfoceW __
V .. 0 No II DIpIh (InCIIM): --W_T __
'I'-D No II o.,ot> '"""""): ----v .. 0 No II DopIhrOlOheo): ~''''III''''''''' '1' .. 0 lie II ~",,«y"') --
Iloocribo _ Doll ......... _. ~ WIll. _ pIIGtGo. pmtouo Inopeotiono). hYOll_, -
us """" C«pI of E ........
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountalna, V .... ya. and Coast Region
Rtntql 8ctJogI QIIIrId
HtnItyyM
GlryIdM.R
lMIdform (hAll1opo. _ ..... ): _
~jUIR): SolI..., UrtilNlmt: '1t1tnemt! (Wfl
...,.: lU SamplIng Point:
_. T-.hIp ...... : 21 JJ3N!!IiE
L.ocaI_(oonc8vo. _....,: _
lanii:
NWI* '1IoaUoi,:
.. No 0 (Hno.opIoInln_.) Ivo _, hydrologic ...-on .... 0110 \yIIIoII tor _limo of ~ v ..
No V.-.. O. SolI O. CIt ItjodrIlIogy o. oIgo_ ... __
A/w V.-.. O. SolI O. CIt It}drdogy O. -..By ,,,oIM"'01Ic?
A/w0_CiR:umoIoncM0".-? v.. II No 0 111-. ooopIoIn 11ft _In _.)
IUllMAIIY OF FINDINGS -_h _ .... .-... ........... peI1II II""" tno ............... fMUa, e\eo
Hydrophy1Ic v...-.,-Y .. EI No 0
HydrIc SolI PrMont1 Y .. II No 0 .. ... -,...,-Vn II Me 0 -.-W_ H)<Ir<>I<Jw"-Y .. II No 0 _., NW_O·_"", [).1.
VEGnA110N -U .... 1IIIfk: _.,_
TfU I!raIym (Ptot 1iH: '1100 I<Dl -DomInon1 ..-e."' ...... " TMt 'WefUttINt: li..l<!Im IIIII;Iul liliiii
1. ----JIll: : _orDamlnonl ..... III) 1 2. ----TholAle OIL. 'ICN. or fAG: --
3. ------T .... _orDomlnon1 1 (8) •• ----- -
___ Al_:
110% • __ • 20% • __ --• T CJUI CoYer _or __ ...-
.Ill!! (MI) s'f"i"O'Rn*'" (Plot tIze: 'nOD ICD\ TIIo1 A/w OIL, FICN ... FAC:
1. 'eota..,..,.. 111 l1li U&tJ. ...................... 1:
•• eD • t net II .-fAI:< TgIII " CGytr gt ..... trllN';
3. Cqmyr .",.,.. 111 l1li U&tJ. OIL.,..... --xl---
•• ----- -
FICNIIJOCiM --... --
5. ------FAC.,..... --.s. --
_. __ .20%. __ II .T .... co.er fACU IIJOCiM --... --
Herb...", (Plot lin: 111 go.,... \JI'l.,..... --.s. --
I. Mwtfyn ...... 111 l1li U&tJ. CoIumnT_: __ I") __ (8)
2. PQWitun mytiIyn I l1li u.w Pt~ Index-IIA.
S. ----- -
Mj:.: ....... VI: 1 I.ft "I1 ..... lft:
•• ----- -
C 1 -1IopIcI Tool tor tl)cti"""l1iO v ..........
5. -- ----.. I ~ Our •• .....,. ,_ .. >50%
•• ----- -
C 3· PrtYII .... Index II 53.0'
7. ------0 •• h1orp/loIcItIco AdoptAItioM' IP-1Wf)p<If1ing
•• ----_In __ 01''''' __ 0hHI) --
•• ----- -
0 5· WOlIond Non-V __ •
10. ----- -
0 "'_._ Hy\1IoI1II11IC v .......... • (ExpIoin)
11. ------
10%. __ .20%= __ 11 • Total Cover ·--.ofh)oolric: ... lIId_ ~ ......
... ~ ........ oIIoIUIt>H",~.
WggtIy lIint I!r!!yn (PloI_: --.-J
1. ------
2. ....... 1fIIc -- --
- -\ ........ n V .. II No 0 50%. __ .20%. __ --.T .... co.er -,. __ InHOIb_ --:
lOll Point 1l!
........ O .. :clrpUD,,:(OMcrIIN ......................... nt ............ COftftnn ............ otlndlc.'=re.) I
DopIh -RecIoxF_
(inchn) ~(moIot) ,. Color tnoIoI) " TIP"' t.oc' TlXture --------12 m:B2ll llI!! --------IIII..I!!Im ....... moiId
11 .\.Q:t81I1 Jfjg --------IIII..I!!Im tIId'dIIi MOiII
11 .t.a:t.aII2 Jfjg --------IIUIIIm .... mnI.II
------------ ---- ------ ------ --------
------------------
---------- -- ------------------------'TIP":C-ca_ ... _" O'DopIoIIon, __ -.~tr~ __ , "-: 1'lo ..... 1.InIng, 11._
~ loll. II: ate: a: ~p. Ell ..... lJUIla, ............... MtetI.J Indlerura .... "3 all .... M)*Io ..... :
C H_I'oI) C SondyReclox(S5) C 2""'_1'010)
C _ Epipodon (Aa) C SIrippod -(Se) C
Red __ (TF2)
C --«MI C Loomy Mucky _ 1ft) "'*" IIIIJIA 1) C Very _ DtrI< _ (TF12)
C H!dR>IJon ....-1M) C Loomy OIeyod _ (F2) C 0Ih0r (El<pIOIn In _)
C ~_DtrI<_I'o11) C DepI«td -(F3)
C T_ DtrI< s_ 1'012) .. _ DtrI< _ (FI)
C Sondy Mucky -(81) C DepI«td DtrI< _ (1'7) '-. "'~ vogoIoIIon ond
C SondyOloyod _ ($<) C Redox~(FI) -~-... -, ...... Of
Allilctlw Layw fit"......,:
TIP": --
DopIl (inohH): Mydrto-~ v .. .. No C -.:
................. I So
.......,-(minimum "'-........ ;-"IIIIWI') 1Iooondory-(2 ......... ...,nd)
C _W_I'oI) .. W ___ ~CM) l1li W ___ ~CM)
C HIgh W_ T_ (Aa) "'*" IILftA I, t, 4A, .... 411) (MUlA I, I, 4A, -81
C -«MI C SolI Cnool (B") II ~_(810) .. W __ (81) C ~ "".tob._ (813) C o.y.-... W_T_ (C2)
C -0.>0110 (82) C H!dR>IJon -Odor (el) C __ onAorlol mag.,.,(Ct)
C 0ritI DopooIto (83) C ~ """""""1Iong living -(03) II 000m0rphIc -(tl2)
C A/gII Mol Of Cnool (IU) C _ "'_Iron (CO) C -AquIIood (1)3)
C Iron Dopodo (S5) C _Iron _In 1'II1ed SOilS (C8) C FAC-NaGoI T_(05)
C _ Soil CIOd<t (BG) C S1unIedor __ (Dl)(UlRAI C -...,. Mounds (01) (UIR AI
C In"-__ on AorIoI mag.,., (81) C 0Ih0r (El<pIOIn In _) C F __ (D1) .. ~V,,-C-_(III)
,.....011 .. "1M!
S_W_,",-" V .. 0 No .. DopIl (Inchoo): --
W_T_~ VOl C No .. DopIl (incheI): --
-~ VOl C No .. DopI1 (incheI): Woaond "ydoolog)_ V .. II No C (lnc:tWOI....., r.tntol_ --
~ _ 00Ia ____ , __ ",wei, _ phoIoo, pmiouo InIpocIIons), n_: -W_ ""*'*"" __ 10)' hJdo1c'" ond..-s.
W __ no, VoJioyI, ond Cooo1-V_ 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - W • .tern Mountalne, Vaileys.1I1CI Coat Region
1nvoo1ip1or1O): lilly I!!t!u!z
lM>dfofm (hiIIIopI, _. otc.): _
Subtoglon 1I-fII'I): lit: __
SOlI MIP Untl Heme: "1 wggd IOd 2'" <MEt
No -'hydtolotll< ""'-. Oft .... I)IPICOI lot 1hII_ 01 yoor'I V ..
CIIrfCOunly. I!tnI!rI/IQ!M! ~ 08":
_: 'IiA IompIIng -=
8ocIJon, TownoIIIp, ...... : 21 Tm fIAE
tM'1 .,,'1: IIkIfI:
II No C (11 ....... 10 .. -..)
Slope (%): Q
Detum:
NoVogolaIiOn C, IIciI C ... ~ C. 09'_"'_ ,...._~.-'" v.. II No C
NoVogolaIiOn C, IIciI C ... ~ C, IIOIurIIyp_ (11_, .... ""_10_.)
SUMMARY OF FlNDIIIG' -___ ..................... ,.mt-. _.,,, .• ........-........ .-c.
~v'-'I'r-rl VII C No II
Hjdr1c IIciII'ronnl? Voo C No • .... -.....-V .. C lie • -.-W_~1'ronn1? VII C No II _:
W_D·_I'IoGM.
VEGETATION -u.. MienIIIIC _ 111_
Trtt fSrMum (Plot IIH: ll1QO w:nl -CIomInB ...-DDt, •• ct, .......... t lLCM! IIIIIBI2 liliiii
1-""""'" ,.,.,.,. U /HI f6I< _oIDon*-'I ........ 2 I-')
2. --- -
TNI No OIl. FIDN. or FAC: --
3. ------TOIOI _ 01 DonIInont
lS) lIpocIoo_N. _ ! •• ------
!lO%-__ ,""'-__ iii • T 0IIII eov.r _oIDon*-'IIpooiOI III !MI) s'f"Df""mf' &r-= (P1ot lID: 11100 *Ill TI>ot,... OIl. 'ACW, or FAC:
1. AfWAQWt""" I DQ f&I ... , •. II .................
•• III •• _ I ~I U )'II f6I< ,.."ee-ct ..... lw:
3. -....", iii )'II f&I OIL ........ --kl---•• ------FACW ........ --kZ • --
5. ----- -
FAC ........ --k3---
!lO%-__ ,""'-__ II -T 0lIl Cover FACU ........ --"'. --
Htttt .... ~ Iia: 111ag ICft) UPI. ........ --~---
I. 61 •• iDnut ll! /HI ~ CoIumnT_: __ CAl __ (8)
2. f'III " twn I!IIIIum 2Q )'II f6W Pr~ 1nIIIex. filA •
3. AIMiIn"·i'. 2Q )'II fNai ...... iJlI.Ysp'. n'.1 1 I:
•• r"""'lII I • I DQ f6I< C 1 -"""" TOOl lot '1)4i0jlljllc v....-
S. ""'4IM!M ll! DQ f6W II Z·~T"'''>_
e. ------C :I ~ fM,illc:iCllndu II sI.O'
7, ----- -C 4·MriN~'" 6 :t
N' (I'ro'Mo""""""
e. ------
_In_ ... ..,._1hHI)
I. ------C ,·W_ Noo·V_P1on1o·
10, ------C _IIJd'OjlIjIIcVOfalO!lOn' (E~
11. ----- -150% ___ ,""'-__ Ii -T 0lOI Cover '_ oIlIJdrIC"'""" -¥oIOIY-... ...-..., ... -......sor~.
WPA4yVlnl ...... (Plot _:---l
1. ------
•• M)4I ....... ------V·I·,·I." VII C lie II 150% ___ ,""'-__ ---T 0lOI Cover -,. .... _In __
R-':
lOlL Point 11
...... D, ••• tlan: (D •• a ........ ..,.. ................ 111 ........... oanftrm ......... ., ........... ., I
DopIl ---~) ~(mOItI) " ~(mOIOt) " Type' Loc' T ...... Remarks ----11 Jamai% 1JlQ --------III.lIIIm Ib
II .IlInHti 1JlQ ------ --
III.lIIIm Ib
-- -- ---- -- --------
---------------- --
------------------
-- ------------ -- --
-- -- -------- -- ----
---------- --
------
'Type: C-CoI_III_ •. o..OopioIioo. _Ald ..... -. ce..c-N", ~,...~. 'L.ooIIIon: .......... UoIng. M.Mo1r\x
~ .... ' lUI: "",' as 10 .. LRRa. ............ ......., II'Ilieltll'tor Pi allt_;..,.. , •• ,'-:
0 _(AI) 0 IIIndy -(II5j 0 Z"'_lAl0)
0 -Efl/III<IOn (AI) 0 II01ppod -(Sa) 0
___ (TI'2)
0 _ HioIic (A3) 0 ~ ~ _ (Fl) (ooIoopI1IUIA t) 0 Yery_DOII<_(TF12)
0 ""*_ -lM) 0 ~0I0)'0d -(F2) 0 O1hor IElIpIIIn In Romorka)
0 00pI0I0d _ DOlI< _ (All) 0 00pI0I0d -\F3)
0 Thiel< Doll< _!A12) 0
_ Doll< _ (Fe)
0 IIondy Mucky"nero! (!II) 0 00pI0I0d DOII<_\I'1) 'IndicIIorI ofllydropllylic vegNIIon ond
0 SoncIJ 0I0)'0d -. (SO) 0 Redoot ~. (Fe) =~mu .. """"",,, _or .
........... L.,.r fII,.......:
Type: --
DopIo '""'*): "'*"--YII 0 No .. -.:
....... M,. t .1rJ.n",.~
...-,._ (mIo-.n 0I ... ,..not; c:M* ...... 1flIIII) --.._(Zor ..... ~
0 _wow (AI) D W __ ~(BO) 0 W __ l.NVM (MI
D HIgh W_ T_ V<Zl (ooIoopIIIUIA t,,, 4A, ond 4111 (MUlA t,l, 4A, ..... 4111
D .... Ilion (A3) D SolI Cnoot (II 11) 0 D!oInoQI_ (810)
0 W __ (II1) D AquIdIc _a ... (813) 0 ~W_T_(C2)
0 -0..-(112) D ""*"'"" _ Odor (Cl) 0 __ V1oIJIoon_1rnOOet'f (Ci)
0 Dot! Dor>*O 1111) 0 0IddIz0cI Ahlmopheo .. oIong LiVIng _ ((:31 0 _"orphic p_ (OZ)
D .. MIlt fit Cnoot (114) 0 "'-of_Iron (04) 0 -AqoMWd lD3)
D n.n DopooIIo (II5j 0 _ n.n fIecIuction In TIIoII Soh (Ci) 0 ,AC-_ THtl!l51
0 _101 Crocks (16) D _ or __ (01) (LRR "I 0 _ AnI Mound. (OS) (LRR "I
0 --oro -1rnOOet'f (II7l 0 Oller (EIqIIoIn In _.) 0 fnlIt-H_ -. (07)
0 ~ \1 iii ,,1._ C8ftClMlIurfIa (18)
......... ,"SM: _W __
YII 0 No • 0tpIh (inCIIII): --W_T __ YII 0 No • 0tpIh ,noIlooj: --
::==~ YII 0 No • 0tpIh (IncIoes): --............... 1 •• ..........,. Yeo 0 lie ..
__ DeIa eoo-n _. --'111-. _ p/IoIoI. prOYIouo 1nopocIiono). H_: -
W-. _, YoIIoyo. and Coast, V....., 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Weatem Mountains, Velleys, and Coeet Region
8t!'!lQO Igbgol Q!ttricI
HtrtIIyUM
Qtryldwl&
SoiI_ UrIJl Name: "1 DpMl'&iQ
Are _ /tiJlltd<9t "" 'Ne II on'" 1I101WllCll''''''' _ oIyoor'? no
CIIyICounty. !ItmgnIIQng IIompIing Dolo:
_: wto IIompIing PoInt:
_. T __ • fIongo: II InN ME
NWI dwillk 1111":
• No 0 (I1no.O>pIoinIn_.)
Slope !'<): Z
Oe\um.
Arev",",*" O. ... O. ..~ O ........ nI1y_ 11ft -Normel em .tal'lCll-,.....nt? Vea II No 0
NoV",",*" O. ... O. orH)'drolosw O. __ pi tl --. (11-• .,..., any_1ft _.J
IUMIlARYOFF_.-__ """' ................... ,... ......... ,_ ........ __ ....
H)'drlIphyIIc 'I<igoIoIiof. -v .. 0 No • H)<IrIe loll Pmen1? V .. 0 No • .. ... .....--Y .. 0 H. iii -.-W_ H)'droIosw"'-v .. 0 No •
Remark .. : HOld .. nOl1h,....,.1ft __ .
VEGETATION -U ... leftllllc .............
TfM ~ (PkJt ltD: 11'00 ICDl -DomInon1 -• ' ..... TNtW ....... : 2I..l<lI\'J! IIiIIiIII1 .....
I. Acwtnll!rlJM! .." JQ .. fbCI! _ 01 00mIn0nt IIpocioo
1 (A)
2. ----- -
TN"",. OIIL. FN::W. Of FN:.;
s. ----- -
To1II_oI~ I IItM<*_M_: (II)
4. ----- -
110% " __ • ZO% " __ JQ .To1IIC-_oIDom1non1I1tM<*
IerttstI!brt* SIrJMn (Ptot Ita: 1000 wzt) TIIoI No 0IIl. FN::W ... FN:.: II! (AlII)
I. .:II wlpriM 2A )ill f6I< ,'I'I ... u ............. t
2. Be •• $ trW .1.1 !Ill f6Q l)MI" Ctw sf: MI"'iv~
S. De* ........ I !Ill Uk
0lIl. __ --x1---
4. ------FN::W ....... --xi. --
I. ------FN:. __ --.So --
~z-,2O%. __ g • T .... C-FACIJ ....... --M' --
HtrI! In!ym (F'IoI_: 111 QO IC!!I) UPL __ --d. --
I. en_.,.",. I IliI fbCI! CoIumnT_: __ (A) __ till
2. "r'i"m·"" .1.1 IliI fllClJ. ~ Index -1/"" •
3. ----fliIl : M)Idr .... ',. Ya; '1' d I II .; 1'1 .:
4. ----- -
0 I -1!Ipid Tnt lor IlJIItophy1lc ~on
s. -- --- -
III 2·_TOIIIo._
I. ------0 S· __ losl.0'
7. ------0 • -MoI,.-011);1011 • ' , MUM' (PRMde IUppOIting
e. ------_In_ ...... _oheoI)
5. ------0 ,. WOIIInd Hon-V....., f'IInIs'
10. ------0 .. n .... Hdc~·1 •• ntgnl~)
It. ------
110% • __ • ZO% • __ zg • ToIJIIC-'-.oIhJ11t1C ...... _~m .... bO---. ___ ... ~.
wopdy'llnl ..... (I'1oI_:--J
t. ----- -
2. H,".,r.,IC ------............ -0 He • 110% • __ • ZO% " __ --"TOIOIC--" ..... tlroundlft __ _ :
SOtL Point: 12
,.....D .. crlpaon." •• : ... to ................... lllcu ........ lftdIcItDrorcotlftnll ......... ., .. rlea's e.) 1
DopIh -Redox _ ..
(IncIIoo) CcIor....,..., '" Cd« tmoIIII '" T)1>II' Loc' ToxIuro -------I .tmIaQ 1m --------"'!own prwttIy dry
U mw 1m -- -- --
--:Ulldrwm ..., ... *x
11 JmIe 1m --------gndymn .-.. ft
------ --
----------
------------------
---------------- --
---- -- ------------
------ --
-------- --
ITp: C. CCIIlClllllatIa,. D-DeIIllllIan, ""'A,dlad MIItriK, ~ wCOlWClIand Gratna. '1..oooIIon: P\.oPon llnOlG. _
M)dJ1c SOlI til S
$ .:.,.'.l .. tl .... ~.-. ......... ......, ka'c 2J ..... 'i l' 1,..,...--:
0 _(Al) 0 8InI1r -(86) 0 2 em _(A10)
[]
-EpIpodon IA2l 0 I1r1ppod -(86) 0 ---(fF2) 0 --1A2l 0 lOMl)' ~ _ IFI) ..... IILIIA 1) 0 V.., _ Dot1< ..... (TF12)
[] ~-(M) [] Loomy Gloyod _ (F2) 0 01II0r (E>pIoIn In -.)
[] ~_Dot1<""'(All) 0 DopIoItd _ (FS)
[] Thick Dot1< ..... (AU) 0 _ Dot1< ..... (FI)
[] 8InI1r ~ --(51) 0 DIpIMd Dot1< ..... (F7) __ 01 hjdraphy1Ic ~ ond
[] 80ndy (lIoyad -{SO) 0 -Dopnoo-. (1'8)
='" ..':".:r _1>0,..-, or .
• ",ok ... Law-iIf..,.....e):
T)1>II: --
DopIh (inchMI: ..,..._.-Y .. 0 No • _:
......... 1 ", • $ a:
Pfimory~~oI .......... ;_oII_...." s-y -. 12 Of """" roquHd)
[] _W_(Al) 0 W __ ~IBII [] W __ ned ~ IBII
[] Hilt> W_ T_ (1<2) 1Oaopt_ t, l, 4A, ..... ..., IIILRA 1, I, 4A, ..... ...,
[] IIa1urdonIA2l 0 _ CNot 11111) [] IlfoInogo "-(Bl0)
0 W __ (81) 0 ~ __ (BI3) 0 0!y:SNIan W_ T_ (C2)
[] -.,..,....1112) [] ~_Odor(Cl) [] -~ ... -lmogery(C9)
[] DrIft.,..,.... 1113) 0 ~-... ..... ""'LMng-(C3I [] o.onlOlpnic _ (D2)
0 Algol MIl or CNot (110) [] _oI __ 1ron (C4) [] -AquI1MI (03)
0 Iron DtpoIiII (lIS) 0 _ Iron _In TIled Soh (OS) [] FAC:I'IouIr1II TOIl (05)
0 _ 8011 C<ocI<I (111) [] _"' __ (Dl)4LMAI [] _ Mi_ (08) (LAA AI
0 _ V_ ""-Imogery(87) [] 01het (ElIjlIoIn In -., 0 F __ Hummod<I (07)
0 8porMIyV~ Conoove _ (IIa)
fIIWI OIa.lr1 "I lie:
_W_Pr-.c? Y .. 0 No • DopIh (inctIoI): --
W_T_Pr_ y" 0 No • DopIh (IncIIoo): --_Pr-.c? y" [] No • DopIh (IncIIoo): WeII8nd MydIII .. "...,.., YII 0 No • ~ oopIIoryfrlngo) --
DIIcotbo_O'(IIrMm_.~ ..... _~.,.-..~IPIClI •• )$H __ : -
us ,.",., Corps 01 EngInHn Weotem _. Volloya. ond C_-Vonion 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Investigator{s): Gary Schulz
landfonn (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): terrace
Subregion (lRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF)
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N RSE
local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Q
Datum: long:
Yes No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
0, Soil
0, Soil
0, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed?
0, or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic?
Are «Normal Circumstances' present? Yes 181 No 0
(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 181 No 0
Hydric Soli Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: Wetland A is on the north side of site. New plot outside Flag # A-S.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of pl. ants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? ~ ,. Alnus robra lli! """ FAG Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, orFAC: < (A)
2. -- ------
3. -- ------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: < (6)
4. --------
SO%= __ ,20%= __ lli! = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (AlB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) That Are OBl, FACW, or FAC:
1. Sambucus racemosa I "" FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus se.ectabilis Z!i """ FAG Total % Cover of: Multigl~ !:!~:
3. ----nla' , OBl species --x1 = --
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = __ ,20%= __ Z!i = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL spedes --xS = --
1. Dicentra formosa 12 "" FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (8)
2. Pol't-stichum munitum I "" FACU Prevalence Index = BfA = --
3. -- --
-- --
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index Is .::.3.0 1
7. --------4 • Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) --------
9. --------0 5 -Wetland NonNascular Plants 1
10. ------ --
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. ------ --
50%= __ ,20%= __ 12 = Total Cover 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ I
1. -- ---- --
2. Hydrophytic -- ------Vegetation Yes 181 No 0
SO%= --' 20%= ----= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point 13
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typel Lac' Texture Remarks ---------
§ 10YR3/2 100 -- -- -- --
sand~ loam gravelly saturated
1§ 10YR4/2 100 ------ --
sand~ loam gravelly saturated
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
-- -- --------------
---------------- --
-- ---------- ---- --
---------------- --
-- -------------- --
1Type : C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locatlon: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric 801ls3:
0 Hlstosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (FG)
0 Sandy Mucky Minerai (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) 0 Redox Depressions (F8)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Salls Present? Ve. 0 No 181
Remarks:
HVDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Pattems (810)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-8eason Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Uving Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): l
Water Table Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Q
Saturation Present? Ve. 181 No 0 Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 181 No 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), If available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanVOwner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF)
CityfCounty: -Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Q
Datum: Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 18:1 No 0
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology 0, 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 0 No 181
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Ve. 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? YBS 181 No 0
Remarks: Wetland A is on the north side of site. New plot outside #A-6.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Alnus rubra .!Q !)Q FAG Number of Dominant Species 1 (A)
2. Acar macrD/J.fly.llum ;JQ lIll§ FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3. ------ --
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: ~ (B)
4. -- ------
50% = __ , 20% = __ 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species ;U (NB)
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1. Lonic8Ta involucrata I !)Q FAG Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus s{Jactabilis !ill. lIll§ FAG Talal % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Comus sto/Qnifera I !)Q FAGW OBL species --x1 = --
4. --------FACW species --x2= --
5. ------ --
FAC species --x3= --
50%= __ ,20%= __ !ill. = Total Cover FACU species --x4= --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. Dicf/.ntra fQrmosa ", lIll§ FAGU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. Ga/ium aQarina I !)Q FACU Prevalence Index = BIA =
3. --------Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. ------ --
0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytlc Vegetation
5. ------ --
181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ~3.0'
7. -- ------4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0 8. -- ------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. -- ------0 5 -Wetland Non~Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. -- ------
50% = __ I 20% = __ 35 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
WQQSjy Vine Stratum (Plot size: -)
1. -- --
----
2. Hydrophytlc --------Vegetation Ve. 0 No 181 50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Samplinq Point: ,.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typel Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
Z 10YR2/1 1QQ --------sandy loS'!m gravelly saturated many roots
1Ii 10YR'13 <Q --------sangylQam grSlvelly s~tuq;!!ed
--10YR412 rul -- -- -- --
sandy loam gravelly saturated
-- -- -- -- -- ------ --
-- ------ -- ------ --
-- ------ -- ------ --
------ -- -- ------ --
-- -- -- -- -- ------ --
lType: 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 ;
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 em Muck (Al0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (56) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or oroblematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-$tained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (e'Xcept MLRA 1, 2, .4A, and .4B) (MLRA 1,2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) 0 Drainage Pattems (810)
0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observatlons:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (Inches): Q
Saturation Present? Yes (8J No 0 Depth (inches): Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0 (indudes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District· Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF)
Are climatic J hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
City/County: ·Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Q
Datum: Long:
NWI classification:
Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
181, Soil D, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed?
0, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are «Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 121 No 0
D, Soil (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Prasent? Yes 0 No 181
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: Wetland A is on the north side of site. New plot outside #A·1.
VEGETATION U -'fi f I se SClentl Ie names or plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Acar macroll.h'i!Jum 1.§ n/a' FACU Number of Dominant Species
2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: --(A)
-- ------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
4. Species Across All Strata: --(B)
--------
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: --(AlB)
1. nla' -Prevalence Index worksheet: -----
2. ----nla' , Total % Cover of: Multit;!ly:by::
3. ----nla' , OBL species --)(1 = --
4. --------FACW species --><2= --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = ,20%= --= Total Cover FACU species --x4 = ---- --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. -- --
n/a* , Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. Po/"t.stichum munitum I !lQ FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. ------ --
0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. ------ --
Il!l 2· Dominance Test is >50%
6. ------ --
0 3· Prevalence Index is ,::3.01
7. ------ --
4 . Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
--------
9. --------0 5· Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ------ --
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. --------
50%= __ ,20%= __ = Total Cover 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
--be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ )
1. -- ---- --
2. Hydrophytic -- ---- --Vegetation Yes 0 No 181
50%= --' 20% = ----= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks: Vegetation is disturbed due to human use of the area and trails.
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point: 15
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc2 Texture Remarks --- ------
§ 10YR3/2 100 --------§and~ lo~m gravelly saturated
1§ 10YR4/2 100 -- --
-----sand~ loam gravelly saturated
---------- --
------
-- ---- -- ----------
-- ---- -- -- -- ------
-- -- --------------
-- ---------- --
----
-- ---- ------ --
----
1Type : C= Concentration, D=Oepletion, 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;
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Eplpedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MlRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Jndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (FB)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or eroblematic.
Restrictive layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Drainage Pattems (B10)
0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Z
Saturation Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): (indudes capillary fringe) • Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanV01NT1er:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District· Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alder.yood (Age) and Kltsap (AkF)
CitylCounty: ·Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N.R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): none
Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are dimatic J hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation 1:81, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are ~Nonnal Circumstances" present? Yes I8J No D
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, 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? Ves 181 No 0
Hydric Sail Present? Ves 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks: Northeast side of site on the pipeline right-of·way. New plot near Photo #2 of OTAK Tech Memo.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ~-~-
n/a* , Number of Dominant Species
That Are OSLo FACW, ar FAC: ~ (A)
2. --~-----
3. --~--- --
Total Number of Dominant ~ (B)
4. Species Across All Strata:
~-~--- --
50% = ~_, 20% =~_ ~-
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 1lIJ! (AlB)
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1.
~-~-
n/a~ , Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. ~-~-
n/a~ , Total % Cover of: Multiply b~{
3. ~-~-
n/a~ , OBL species
~-
x1 = ~-
4.
~-~-----FACW species ~-
x2=
~-
5.
~-~-----FAC species
~-
x3 =
~-
50% = ~_, 20% =~_ ~-
= Total Cover FACU species
~-
x4 = ~-
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species x5 =
~-~-
1. Ranunculus reQens !ill ".. FACW Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. Grass S[2[2. '" ".. FAC Prevalence Index = BfA =
~-
3. Rubus ursinus ~ !lQ FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
~-~-----0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
~-~--- --
181 2 * Dominance Test Is >50%
6. --~--- --
0 3· Prevalence Index is ~3.01
7. ~-~-----0 4 . Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
8. ~--- --
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
~-
9. ~-~--- --
0 5 . Wetland Non·Vascular Plants 1
10.
~-~-----0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11.
~-~--- --
50% = ~_, 20% =~_ 100 = Total Cover 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
WOO!J.y Vine: Stratum (Plot size: -)
1.
~-~-----
2. Hydrophytic
~-~-----Vegetation Ves 181 No 0
50%= ~_,20%=~_ ~-= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ~-
Remarks: Area is on top of the pipeline fill and has recently been mowed as maintenance.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point· 16
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
§ 10YR3/3 100 ------ --
sandy loam gravelly d!y
11 10YR4/3 100 7.5YR4/6 1 l< M sandy loam gravelly d!y
-- -- -- ------ ------
-- -- -- ------ ------
-- ----------------
-- -- -- -- -- -- ------
-- ---- ------------
------------ -- ----
l Type : 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 Soils~:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (55) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (56) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Salls Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrotogy IndicatOTS:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Pattems (B10)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Ve. 0 No 181 (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicantJO'M'ler:
Invesligator{s):
Renlon School Dislrict -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (lRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkFl
City/County: -RentonlKinq Sampling Date:
Slale: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
long:
NWI classification:
No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%), Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
ArsVsgetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, signlflcantlydisturbsd?
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are ~Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [81 No D
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc -. . •
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 181
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Ve. 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: Wetland 0 Is on the southeast side of site. New plot outside Flag #'s 0-3 and 0-4.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ----nfa* -Number of Dominant Species -~ (A)
2. ------That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: --
3. --------Total Number of Dominant 1 (B)
4. Species Across All Strata: --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species lQ (AlB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: moo acre) That Are OBl, FACW, or FAC:
1. Acer circinatum 10 l"" FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus sQ.ecfabilis ;lO l"" FAC Total % Cover of: Multigl):by:
3. ~mleria cerasfformis I '" FACU OBl species --x1 = --
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = __ , 20% = __ QQ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1f100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --
1. Mahonia nervosa 10 l"" FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. PoI'/.stichum munitum 10 l"" FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = --
3. Carex SQ. I '" FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ~3.01
7. --------0 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ ;m = Total Cover llndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ )
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic --------Vegetation Yes 0 No 181
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District· Tiffany Park
SOIL SampfinQ Point: 17
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of Indicators,) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Lac' Texture Remarks ---------
11 10YR2/2 100 ------ --
sandy loam gravelly saturated
11 10YR4/3 100 ------ --
sandy loam gravelly saturated
---- -------- -- -- --
---- -- --
---- -- -- --
---- -- ------ --
-- --
------ ------ -- -- --
---- -------- -- -- --
---- --
-------- -- --
'Type: 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:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or oroblematic.
Restrictive layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Ves 0 No I)lI
Remarks:
HYDROLOGV
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained leaves (B9) 0 Water·Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MlRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MlRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Pattems (8 1 0)
0 Water Marks (B 1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (lRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No I)lI Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes I)lI No 0 Depth (inches): ~
Saturation Present? Yes I)lI No 0 Depth (inches): Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Ve. I)lI No 0 (indudes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION OAT A FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanUGwner:
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz
landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~
Subregion (lRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (Age) and Kitsap (AkF)
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
local relief (concave, convex, none):
long:
No
NWI classification: ° (If no, explain in Remarks.)
SlOpe (°/0): Q
Datum:
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
0, Soil
0, Soil
0, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed?
0, or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 121 No 0
(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 till No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No till Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No till within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No till
Remarks: Northeast side of site on the Mercer Island pipeline right-of-way. New plot per Comment #6 ofGTAK Tech Memo.
VEGETATION U -·fi f I se SClentl IC names 0 r plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ----nfa* -Number of Dominant Species -2 (A)
2. That Are GBL, FACW, or FAC: ------ --
3. ------ --
Total Number of Dominant
4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
------ --
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (AlB)
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are GBl, FACW, or FAC:
1. nfa* -Prevalence Index worksheet: -----
2. ----n/a* -Total % Cover of: Multiply by: -
3. ----n/a~ , GBl species --x1 = --
4. ------ --
FACW species --x2 = --
5. ------ --
FAC species --x3 = --
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Str~tum (Plot size: 11100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --
1. Agrostis tenuis 1Q ~ FAG Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. Poa sop. 1Q ~ FAG Prevalence Index = BIA =
3. Ranuncufus reeans § "" FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. Taraxicum officinals 1.Q "" FACU 0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------till 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. -------~ 0 3 -Prevalence Index is S3.01
7. -------~ 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
8. data in Remarks Dr on a separate sheet) -------~
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ ~ = Total Cover llndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ )
1. ------ --
2. HydrophyUc ------ --Vegetation Yes till No 0 50% = __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks: Area is on top of the pipeline fill and has recently been mowed as maintenance.
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point: 18
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
1< 10YR3/2 100 --------SSlngyloam grav~lIy d~
12 10YR4/3 100 --------sandy loam gravelly cobbl~~ d~
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
1Type : C= Concentratton, O=Oepletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to alllRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SOilSl:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (Al0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MlRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted 8elow Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): . Hydric Soils Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MlRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (Bl1) 0 Drainage Patterns (810)
0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow AquitBrd (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (lRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181 (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alde!WOQd (Age) and Kltsap (AkF)
Are dimatic J hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
City/County: -RentonlKing Sampling Date:
State' WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): Q
Datum: Long:
Yes No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are Vegetation
181, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed?
D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No 181
D, Soil (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks: Southwest comer of site on the Cedar River pipeline right-of-way. New plot per Comment #10 of OTAK Tech Memo.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ----n/a' 0 Number of Dominant SpeCies ;1 (A)
2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: --------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: ;1 (B)
4. --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (AlB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1. ----nla" , Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. -- --
nla" 0 Total % Cover of: M!Jlligly b~l
3. -- --
nla" 0 OBL species --xi = --
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. -- ------FAC species --x3 = --
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover FACU spedes --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. Agrostis tenuis 40 lI§ FAC Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. PDQ spp. ;!Q lI§ FAC Prevalence Index = BfA =
3. Dactv,lis g/omerata 12 !JQ FACU Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. ----n/a* , 0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index Is ,:::3.0 1
7. --------0 4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydraphytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ , 20% = __ ll> = Total Cover llndicators of hydric soli and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ I
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic --------Vegetation Ves 181 No 0
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks: Area is on lop of the pipeline fill and has recently been mowed as maintenance.
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point: 19
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typal Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
'1 10YR3/2 100 --------sandy loam gravell~ d(y
§ 10YR4/3 100 --------sandy loam gravelly dry compacted
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators fol'" Problematic Hydric 50ils3:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (55) 0 2 em Muck (Al0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox DarK Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicalors of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) 0 Redox Depressions (F8)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present)~
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Ves 0 No till
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (810)
0 Water MarKs (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Sail Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain In Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No till Depth (Inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No till Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No t8I Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Ve. 0 No till (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Renton School Distrid -Tiffany park
ApplicanUOv.rner: Henley USA
Investigator(s): Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace
Subregion (lRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (Age) and Kitsep (AkE)
CitylCounty: -RentonlKing Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~ Slope (%): Q.
Long:
No
NWI classification:
o (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Datum:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation D, Soli D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances n present? Yes 121 No D
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach sita map showing sampling point locations, transects important features etc ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: Wetland B is on the west side of the site. New plot about 40 feet north of Wetland B.
VEGETATION U -ffi f I Is sa SCI en I IC names or plan
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover ~ Status
1. Alnus rubra 10 :&§ FAG Number of Dominant Species ;1 (A)
2. Thuja Q.IiC8t~ li !!Q FAG That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3. ------ --
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (8)
4. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ ZQ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sagling/Sh!:l.!\;;! Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AlB)
1. ----nfa' -Prevalence Index worksheet: -
2. Rubus sQ.8ctabllis li "" FAG Total % Cover of: Multigl~ b~:
3. Comus stolonifera 10 :&§ FACW OBL species --x1 = --
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50%= __ ,20%= __ ZQ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5= --,. Ath":t.rium fefix-famina 1Q :&§ EM; Column Totals: __ (A) __ (8)
2. Rubus ursinus li !!Q FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = --
3. --------Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is .::::3.0 1
7. --------4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0 8. --------data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9 -- ------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ------ --
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ 10 = Total Cover 11ndicators of hydric soU and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot siza: --)
1. -- ------
2. Hydrophytic -- ------Vegetation Yes 181 No 0
50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Tolal Cover Pl"esent?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL SamplinQ Point: 20
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicatol" or continn the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc' Texture Remarks ---------
;l 10YR2/1 1QQ --------omanic ~
Z .1QlIDl;l 1QQ --------sandy loam many roots saturated
11 7.5YR4/6 100 --------~anjjyloam ~
10 7.5YR4/4 100 --------sandy loam saturated
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
l Type : 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 fOI" Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
0 Histosol (A 1 ) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (56) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MlRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Jlndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or oroblematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Solis Present? Yes 0 No ~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check ali that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MlRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MlRA 1,2, 4A, and 4B)
0 SalUration (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Water Marks (B 1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (eS) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (8S) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (lRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remar1<s) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No ~ Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes ~ No 0 Depth (inches): Q
Saturation Present? Yes ~ No 0 Depth (inches): ;l Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No 0 (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available:
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investlgator(s):
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
City/County: -RentonlKina Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Landform (hillslope. terrace. etc.): Local relief (concave. convex. none): concave Slope (%): .Q
Datum: Subregion (lRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap lAkF)
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical forthis time of year? Yes
Long:
No
NWI dassification:
o (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation D, Soil D. or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D
Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Of Hydrology D. 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? Ves 0 No I:lI
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No I:lI Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No I:lI within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves I:lI No 0
Remarks: Wetland C Is on the southwest side of site. New plot approximately 75 feet north of C.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Gover Species? Status
1. Populus balsamifera lQ "" FAG Number of Dominant Species 1 (A)
2. Acer macroQ.h't.llum , "" FACU That Are OSl, FACW, or FAC:
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4. --------
50%= __ ,20%= __ 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (AlB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) That Are OBL, FAGW. or FAG:
1. Oem/eria cerasiformis I "" FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Spiraea do!!9./asii OQ ".. FACW Total % Gover of: Multipl:.-b:xo:
3. -- --
nla' -OBl species --x1 = --
4. -- ------FACW species --x2 = --
5. -- ------FAG species --x3 = --
50%= __ .20%= __ OQ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
H!il!:b Stratym (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. Gautheria shallon 10 "" FAGU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. ----n/a* , Prevalence Index = BfA = --
3. --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. ------ --
0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. -- ---- --
I:lI 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3 -Prevalence Index is ~3.01
7. ------ --
4 _ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0
B. dala in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ------ --
9. --------0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50%= __ ,20%= __ 10 = Total Cover , Indicators of hydric soil and watland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ I
1. --------
2. Hydrophytle
--------Vegetation Ves 0 No I:lI
50%= __ .20%= __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point: 21
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loo' Texture Remarks ---------
~ --100 --------duff layer o[9anic many roots
• 10YR3/2 100 --------sandy loam saturated
.14 10YR4/2 100 --------§!1!ndy loam saturated
------------------
------------------
-- ----------------
------------------
-- --
--------------
l Type : 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:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox: (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (AiD)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (SS) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (FS)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or Droblematic.
Restrictive Layer <If present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Vo. 0 No 121
Remarks:
HVDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (Al) 0 Water-Stajned Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (911) 0 Drainage Pattems (BiD)
0 WaterMarks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (92) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (93) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposjts (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CS) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (97) 0 Other (Explain In Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ve. 0 No 121 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Yes 121 No 0 Depth (Inches): Q
Saturation Present? Yes 121 No 0 Depth (inches): ~ Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 121 No 0 (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanUOwner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
City/County: -Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Q
Datum: Subregion (LRR): Lal: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are "Nonnal Circumstances" present? Yas 181 No D
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, 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? Ves 181 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks: New plot between Wetlands B & C.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Salix seou/arana ]ill -FAC Number of Dominant Species
2. nla" That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: 2, (A)
-- --
,
3. -- ------Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2, (B)
4. -- ------
50% = __ ,20%= __ 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sap:linglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AlB)
1. n/a* -Prevalence Index worksheet: -- ---
2. Spiraea douglasH 65 -FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. -- --
n/a* -OBL species --x1 = ---
4. -- ------FACW species --x2= --
5. -- ------FAC species --x3= --
50% = __ , 20% = __ §Q = T olal Cover FACU species --x4= --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5= --
1. GautherkJ shaHon 1Q !]Q FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. -- --
n/a* , Prevalence Index = BIA = --
3. -- ---- --
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. -- ------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2· Dominance Test is >50%
6. ------ --
0 3· Prevalence Index is .::;:3.0 1
7. ------ --
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ------ --
9. ------ --
0 5 ~ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ------ --
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. ------ --
50%= __ ,20%= __ 1Q = Total Cover ·Indicators ofhydrtc soli and wetland hydrology musl
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ )
1. ------ --
2. Hydrophytic --------Vegetation Ye. 181 No 0 50%= ,20%= --= Total Cover Present? -- --
% Sare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point· 22
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % T'jPe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
;1 --100 --------duff layer organic many roots
1Q 10YR3/2 OQ ---- ----sandy loam saturated
--10YR2/2 50 -- -- --------
10 10YR4/2 100 --------sandy loam gravelly saturated
---- ---- -- -- -- ----
-- --
---- -- -- ------
-- -------- -- ------
---- --------------
1TWe: 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 Sol1s3:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain In Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ali) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or oroblematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Pattems (B10)
0 Water Marks (B 1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundalion Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Ba)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (Inches): Q
Saturation Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0 (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District -Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF)
City/County: -RentonlKing Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Long:
NWI classification:
No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are "Nonnal Circumstances" present? Yes I8l No D
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, 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? Ves till No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No till Is the Sampled Area Ve. 0 No till within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves till No 0
Remarks: New plot between Wetlands B & C.
VEGETATION U -·ro se SCient_ IC names ofl r plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. Salix scoulerana 1.0 l/§§ FAC Number of Dominant Species
2. nla' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: g (A)
· -----
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
4. SpeCies Across Ali Strata: g (B)
-- ------
50% = __ , 20% = __ 1.0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
SaQllng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1QQ (AlB)
1. Lonicera involucrata 1Q "" FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Sgiraea douglasH ;JQ l/§§ FACW Total % Cover of: Multi(!lyby:
3. -- --
nla' · OBL species --x1 = ---
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = ~_. 20% =~_ 1Q = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --
1. ----n/a~ , Column T olals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. n/a* · Prevalence Index = B/A = -- ---
3. ------ --
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
4. ------ --
0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. ------ --
till 2 -Dominance Test Is ::>50%
6. ------ --
0 3 -Prevalence Index is ~3.0'
7. ------ --4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 0 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
------ --
9. ------ --
0 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50%= __ ,20%= __ = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
--be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stralum (Plot size: __ )
1. ------ --
2. Hydrophytlc
------ --Vegetation Ve. till No 0 50%= __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District ~ Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point: 23
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Golor (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --- ---
---
;J 10YR3/2 100 --------sandllioam gr::avell~ §~tlJrated
11 10YR4/2 100 --------sandlllQam gravelly saturated
10 10YR2/2 100 --------sandy loam gravelly saturated
-- --
-- -- ----------
-- ----------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
1Type : C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 1Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsl:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) llndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (FS)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Solis Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Well and Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water~Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water~Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Drainage Pattems (B10)
0 Water Marks (B 1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 181 No 0 Depth (inches): 1
Water Tabla Present? Ves 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Q
Saturation Present? Ves 181 No 0 Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 181 No 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanVO'Mler:
Investigator{s):
Renton School District ~ Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (AgC) and Kitsap (AkF)
CitylCounty: ~Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~
Long:
NWI classification:
No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Slope (%): .Q
Datum:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are "Nonnal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects Important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves 121 No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 121 No 0 Is the Sampled Area Ve. 121 No 0 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 121 No 0
Remarks: Wetland E is on the northwest side of site. New plot inside Flag # E~I.
VEG ETATI o f N -Use scientific names 0 r plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. -- --
n& , Number 0' Dominant Species
2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
--------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
4. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
--------
50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
~aQllng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 11100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AlB)
1. AQ~r {;lrcinatum if "" FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus s128ctabifis !ill ".. El'& Total % Cover of: MultiRI~ b~:
3. Rubus discolor :!.§ "" .E!'&I.! 06l species --xl = --
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = __ , 20% = __ !ill = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --)(5 = --
1. ----n/a' , Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. ----n/a· -Prevalence Index = BIA = ---
3. --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------121 2 ~ Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3· Prevalence Index is ,::3.0 1
7. --------4 ~ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) --------
9. --------0 5· Wetland Non~Vascular Plants1
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. --------
50%= __ ,20%= __ = Total Cover 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
--be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Woody Vine Strmum (Plot size: __ I
1. --------
2. Hydrophytic
------ --Vegetation Ve. 121 No 0 50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School Dislricl-Tiffany Park
SOIL SamplinQ Point: 24
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators_) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
fi 7.5YR4/1 100 ------M sandy loam gravell~ s;;J!urated
11 10YR4/2 ;Q 7.5YR4/6 !'ill Q M sandllioam grav~lI~ saturated
-- -- ---- -- --------
-- -------------- --
-- ----------------
------ ------------
------------------
-------------- ----
l Type : C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
0 Hisiosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox ($5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA i) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
181 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky MineraI (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 Jndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (Fa)
wetland hydrOlogy must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: --
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No 0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
181 Surface Water (Ai) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
181 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 181 Drainage Pattems (B10)
0 Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment DepOSits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 0 Saluration Visible on Aerial Imagery (Ce)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Z
Water Table Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Q
Saturation Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): Q Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 181 No 0 (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site:
ApplicanUOwner:
Investigator(s):
Renton School District· Tiffany Park
Henley USA
Gary Schulz
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood (Age) and Kitsap (AkF)
City/County: ·Renton/King Sampling Date:
State: WA Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range: 21 T23N R5E
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Long:
No
NWI dassification:
o (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Slope (%): Q
Datum:
Are dimatic' hydrologic conditions on the slle typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation D, Soli D, or Hydrology D, significantty disturbed?
Are Vegetation D, Soil D, or Hydrology D, naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes 181 No D
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects Important features etc , , ,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves 0 No 181
Hydric Soil Present? Ves 0 No 181 Is the Sampled Area Ves 0 No 181 within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks: Wetland E is on the northwest side of site. New plot is located at Flag # E~ 1.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status
1. ----n/a~ . Number of Dominant Species
2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
--------
3. --------Total Number of Dominant
4. Species Across All Strata: l (B)
--------
50% = __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling/Shrub StIT!lum (Plot size· 1/100 acre) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~ (NB)
1. ----n/a~ , Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. R!Jb.us sQ.ectabilis li§ JI§ Ell(; Total % Cover of: Multi~l~ b~:
3. ~mlfl.ria cerasifonnis I !!Q EM;\,j OBL species --x1 = --
4. --------FACW species --x2 = --
5. --------FAC species --x3 = --
50% = __ , 20% = __ li§ = Total Cover FACU species --x4 = --
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1/100 acre) UPL species --x5 = --,. Po~ticum muniWm :l> JI§ FACU Column Totals: __ (A) __ (B)
2. ----n/a* , Prevalence Index = BIA =
3. --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. --------0 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. --------181 2· Dominance Test is >50%
6. --------0 3· Prevalence Index is .:::3.0 1
7. --------4 . Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 0 8. --------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. --------0 5· Wetland Non·Vascular Plants'
10. --------0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegelalion 1 (Explain)
11. --------
50% = __ ,20%= __ :l> = Total Cover 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ I
1. --------
2. Hyd.-ophytic --------Vegetation Ves 0 No 181 50% = __ , 20% = __ --= Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum --
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Project Site: Renton School District -Tiffany Park
SOIL Sampling Point: 25
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type l Loc2 Texture Remarks ---------
§ 10YR312 100 --------san!:ti loam Qn<
1!i 10YRS/3 'ill --------sandy loam Qn<
--10YRS/2 £Q --------sandy loam moist at bottom
---- --------------
---- --------------
---- ------------ --
------ -------- -- --
---- -- ------ ---- --
lTWe: 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 Soi15 3:
0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 81ack Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3'ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
TWe : --
Depth (inches): --Hydric Soils Pl"esent? Ves 0 No 181
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (B 1 0)
0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (03)
0 Iron Deposits (8S) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05)
0 Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aeria! Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Water Table Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): --
Saturation Present? Ves 0 No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Ves 0 No 181 (includes capillary fringe) --
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
•
•
.mrFtl~.uu.",v ad FSiQ'
mE
"'" 1IOU.v.H .... CIN'1UIM J.IMtHI iiIWoI
-1 ,
I
I
.-.;.------~
I
I
I
I
~----___ I
\ -... _---..,
\ I , I
, I , ,
\---------~ , ,
\ ,
\ ,
\ ,..{
\ ", , " ,
,-,-
, ... \')'
;,,' , , , -' , ~.--//
........... /
Y
I
• I D.i '.,
J
=: I~~
I
I
...
toCIIII 'iN. 'iIMirT"aI
0Ll &lI'W II r 'I S Hrm CJCIII.
::rnWl~
-......... , .... > -,-> za.. 'JdI
H&I'IIX ... -..: ..,,11,
, ,
1------, , , , ,
~----. , , , , ,
',-----.
-B
~~,.............,-,
• \ , ,
\ ;".
" , , ,
\ \ ....... , , , , ,
~
REi\[, ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT MANAGEMtNT
Roeale Timmons
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Department of Community and
Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
August 29, 2014
COURIER DELIVERY
(425) 430-7219
RE: Revised Tree Protection Plan and Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan
Reserve at Tiffany Park
City File No. LUAA 13-001572
BCE Job No. 16055/ NS Job No. 9318
Dear Roeale:
In response to your August 20, 2014 "On Hold" Notice for the Reserve at Tiffany Park, I am enclosing the
following for your review and consideration:
1. Five (5) copies of the revised "Tree Protection Plan" for the Reserve at Tiffany Park prepared
by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc, and dated August 27,2014
2. Five (5) copies of the revised "Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan" for the Reserve at Tiffany
Park prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. and dated August 20, 2014
3. One (1) electronic disc with the Tree Protection Plan and the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan
in ,pdf format
The enclosed documents/plans have been revised to meet the on-site tree retention requirements by
dropping one lot (which reduces the lot total from 97 to 96), increasing tree protection within Tract A, and
transplanting on-site significant trees to open space tracts,
As outlined in the enclosed Tree Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc,
188 significant healthy trees (30 percent) are required to be retained on site. The enclosed revised Tree
Cutting/Land Clearing Plan proposes to retain 188 trees (30 percent) by retaining 181 healthy significant
trees and transplanting seven (7) healthy significant trees from the on-site buildable area into an open
space tract; therefore, we have met this requirement and no further review is required,
Once the tree retention plan and preliminary plat are approved, all plans will be revised to match one
another. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you.
GWP/dm
16055c,008,doc
ene.: As Noted
cc: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA, LLC (w/enc)
Thomas A. Barghausen, P.E" Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Barry Talkington, P.E., Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Sandy Bailey, Novastar Development, Inc.
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6110 (425) 251-8782 FAX
eliY OF RENTON
RECE1\WC.:
AUG ~ 9,0:4
RUILDING DIVISION
'rfIWWNoVASTARDEVCOM
WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC.
FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS w F c I
360/943-1723
FAX 360/943-4128
1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C
Olympia, WA 98501
-Tree Protection Plan-
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
SE 18th Street
Renton, WA
Prepared for: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA
Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.
Date: August 27,2014
Introduction
RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 2014
CITY 0:: ~ENroN
PLAi\n',':NC; D\/k;:C.li\;
The project proponent is planning to construct a new 96 lot subdivision on 21.66 acres at SE 18th
Street in Renton, W A. The proponent has retained WFCI to:
• Evaluate and inventory all trees on the site pursuant to the requirements of the City of
Renton Tree Protection Ordinance.
• Make recommendations for retention of significant trees, along with required protection
and cultural measures.
Observations
Methodology
WFCI has evaluated trees 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger in the proposed
project area, and assessed their potential to be incorporated into the new project.
The tree evaluation phase used methodology developed by Nelda Matheny and Dr. James Clark
in their 1998 publication Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees
During Land Development.
Site Description
The site was previously logged many years ago and was not replanted. The trees on the site are
all naturally regenerated. Five small wetlands are located on the site. There are no structures
located on the site. There are many trails throughout the site.
URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL • HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS
RIGHT-OF-WAYS' VEGETATION MANAGEMENT' ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES' CONTRACT FORESTERS
Member of International Society of Arboricultufe and Society of American Foresters
I
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Forest Inventory by Forest Cover Type
There are two forest cover types for the purpose of description, Both types are natural stands,
These stands were inventoried using variable area plots installed on a systematic grid across the
site, This sample of the tree population will predict the total population of trees with a 95% level
of confidence, The trees within the proposed tree tracts were 100% inventoried and evaluated.
The location of the types is illustrated on the aerial photo in Attachment # I.
Type I. -Type I is the largest type of the site. The trees in this type are native species. The
species found in this type include bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiz) There
may be a small number of other species intermixed.
A total of 847 trees are projected to exist in the type, ranging in diameter from 6 to 36 inches
DBH. Six hundred and thirty-four (634) of the trees were classified as sound, healthy, long-
term trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown class. The other 213 trees are not long-term
trees due to structural defects or poor health (dead, diseased, or hazardous).
T bl I S a e . ummaryo fT . T rees III type I
#of
DBH Trees in #of Species
Range Total # of Poor Healthy Composition
Species (in.) Trees/acre Trees HeaIth* Trees of Stand
BigleafMaple 6-36 48.7 715 172 543 84%
Douglas-fir 17 1.6 21 0 21 3%
WestemRed 14 2.3 34 0 34 4%
Cedar
Western 14-15 5.2 77 41 36 9%
Hemlock
Sum 6-36 57.8 847 213 634 100%
• Dead. dIseased, or hazardous.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 2
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Type II. --This is a conifer dominated type on the site. A total of 458 trees ranging in diameter
from 6 to 26 inches at DBH are projected to be in the type.
The tree species found in this type include bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, western hemlock and
western red cedar. Three hundred and seventeen (317) trees were classified as sound, healthy,
long-term trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown class. The other 141 trees are not long-
term trees due to poor health (dead, diseased, or hazardous) .
T bl 2 S a e ummaryo fT . T rees III I ype II
#of
Trees in #of Species
DBH Total # of Poor Healthy Composition
Species Ranee (in.) Trees/acre Trees HeaIth* Trees of Stand
Bigleaf Maple 6-24 29.4 229 120 109 50%
Douglas-fir 14-26 13.5 105 21 84 23%
Western Red 18-24 2.9 23 0 23 5% Cedar
Western 10-22 12.9 101 0 101 22% Hemlock
Sum 6-26 58.7 458 141 317 100%
'Dead. dIseased. or hazardous.
Summary of All Trees on the Site
There are a total of 1,305 trees on the site that range from 6 to 36 inches DBH. Of these 1,305
trees, there are 354 trees that are dead, dying, or diseased, leaving 951 that are considered to be
healthy trees. Bigleaf maple is the predominant tree species making up 72% of the significant
trees in the forest.
T bl 3 S a e fliT ummaryo a rees on th S't e I e.
#of Species
DBHRange Total # of # of Trees in Healthy Composition of
Species (in.) Trees Poor HeaIth* Trees Stand
BigleafMaple 6-36 944 292 652 72%
Douglas-fir 14-26 126 21 105 10%
Western Red 18-24 57 0 57 4% Cedar
Western 10-22 178 41 137 14% Hemlock
Sum 6-36 1.305 354 951 100%
Off-Site Impacts
Tree removal on this parcel will not impact trees on any surrounding parcels.
Washington Forestry Consultants. Inc Page 3
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Discussion
Potential for Tree Retention
The following table provides a summary of all potential tree tract areas on the site and whether
the trees could be saved or removed in the project. There are II tracts (Tracts A, B, D, F, G, H,
I, J, K, L, and M) that have the potential to have trees retained on them. These are illustrated on
the proposed site plan in Attachment #2. A detailed summary of trees by tract, species,
condition, and DBH class is provided in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Summary of tree inventory by Tract (see map in Attachment #2).
# Trees
DBH # Trees to be Proposed
# Trees-Range Removed for to Be
Tract Description of Area Existin2* (in) Healtb Issues* Saved*
A SE and NW corners Tract A 15 6-24 0 15
B Area surrounding Wetland A 36 6-50 8 28
D Area east of lots 15-33 67 6-28 18 49
F East of Lots 34-35 1 I3 0 I
G Area surrounding Wetland D 4 14-20 0 4
H Area south oflot 39 40 6-28 3 37
I Area south oflots 37-38 3 8-20 0 3
J Area west of lot 40 8 8-20 0 8
K Area surrounding Wetlands B-C 9 6-18 0 9
L Area south oflot 82 8 8-28 0 8
M Area surrounding Wetland E 19 6-25 0 19
Summary 210 6-50 29 181
* Based on 100% field inventory in tracts.
The inventory was done in the field and not from the surveyed map.
A total of 29 trees were found in the tracts should be removed because of poor health and/or
structural defects. The remaining 181 trees could be retained in the II tracts. As part of the tree
protection plan, a re-assessment will occur after staking.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 4
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Tree Density Calculations
Title 4-4-130 of the Renton Municipal Code calls for 30% of all healthy significant trees in
buildable areas to be retained on the project, or where the required number cannot be retained,
replacement trees are to be planted. The following is a summary of the required and planned tree
retention as based on the currently proposed plan:
Total Project Area
Critical Areas and Buffers
Rights-of-ways
Buildable Area
Total Number of Significant Trees on Site
Trees Excluded from Retention Calculation:
Trees that are Dead Diseased or Dangerous
Trees in Proposed Public Streets
Trees in Critical Areas and Buffers
Trees on Private Easements
Number of Healthy, Significant Trees in Buildable Area:
Required Tree Retention:
30% of healthy significant trees in buildable area:
Planned Tree Retention
Shortfall of Retention under the Minimum Requirement
Proposed 6" plus DBH Tree Transplants from within the site:
21.66 acres
<I. 70 acres>
<4.15 acres>
15.81 acres
1,305 trees
<354 trees>
<238 trees>
<72 trees>
<IS trees>
626 trees
188 trees
<181 trees>
7 trees
7 trees
There are 626 healthy significant trees in the buildable area of the site. At least 188 of these
trees need to be retained to meet the City of Renton Code. The proposed plan retains 181 trees
outside ofthe critical areas and buffers, a shortfall of 7 trees.
In lieu of replacement trees, 7 trees that are at least 6 inches DBH will be transplanted from the
buildable area into a tree tract. This will then satisfY the 188 tree requirement. Transplanted
trees will need to be mulched and have drip irrigation supplied for at least 3 growing seasons.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc PageS
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Recommendations
Tree Protection Measures
Trees to be saved must be protected during construction by a six foot high chain link fence
(Attachment #7), located at the edge of the critical root zone (CRZ). The CRZ shall be the
dripline of the stand of trees, or the limits of construction of the tree tract. Placards shall be
placed on the fencing every 50 feet indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected
Trees". The individual tree CRZ is the dripline (6 feet minimum), unless otherwise delineated by
WFCI.
Tree protection fences should be placed around the edge of the critical root zone (CRZ). The
fence should be erected after logging but prior to the start of clearing. The fences should be
maintained until the start of the landscape installation.
There should be no equipment activity (including rototilling) within the critical root zone. No
irrigation lines, trenches, or other utilities should be installed within the CRZ. Cuts or fills
should impact no more than 20% of a tree's root system. If topsoil is added to the root zone of a
protected tree, the depth should not exceed 2 inches of a sandy loam or loamy fine sand topsoil
and should not cover more than 20% of the root system.
If roots are encountered outside the CRZ during construction, they should be cut cleanly with a
saw and covered immediately with moist soil. Noxious vegetation within the critical root zone
should be removed by hand. If a proposed save tree must be impacted by grading or fills, then
the tree should be re-evaluated by WFCI to determine if the tree can be saved with mitigating
measures, or if the tree should be removed. If at the time of clearing, the overall tree count
fluctuates, the number of transplanted trees will be adjusted accordingly.
Pruning and Thinning
All individual trees to be saved near or within developed areas should have their crowns raised to
provide a minimum of 8 feet of ground clearance over sidewalks and landscape areas, 15 feet
over parking lots or streets, and at least 10 feet of building clearance.
All pruning should be done according to the ANSI A300 standards for groper pruning, and be
completed by an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist , or be supervised by a
Certified Arborist®.
Hazard Tree Inspection
WFCI should be contacted to inspect all save trees after initial clearing to mark any additional
trees for removal that are deemed to be high risk trees to targets within and outside of the save
tree areas.
A second inspection of the save trees should occur after the completion of grading to determine
if any trees were damaged during grading activity.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 6
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Conclusions and Timeline for Activity
I. lSI trees are proposed to be retained in tree tracts within the site (outside of critical areas and
their buffers) and 7 existing 6 inch plus DBH trees are proposed for transplanting. This
satisfies the IS8 tree minimum retention (30%) requirement.
2. The final, approved tree protection plan map should be included in the construction drawings
for bid and construction of the project and should be labeled as such.
3. Stake and heavily flag the clearing limits.
4. Contact WFCI to attend pre-job conference and discuss tree protection issues with
contractors. WFCI can verify all trees to be saved and/or removed are adequately marked for
retention.
5. Complete logging. Complete necessary hazard tree removals and invasive plant removals
from the tree protection areas. No equipment should enter the tree protection areas during
logging.
6. Re-inventory the tree tracts for final save tree counts.
7. Install tree protection fences along the 'limits of construction'. The fences should be located
at the limits of construction or at the drip line of the save tree or as otherwise specified by
WFCI. Maintain fences throughout construction.
S. Complete clearing ofthe project.
9. Contact WFCI to inspect the tree protection areas after initial clearing.
10. Do not excavate stumps within 10' of trees to be saved. These should be individually
evaluated by WFCI to determine the method of removal.
II. Complete all necessary pruning on save trees or stand edges to provide at least 8' of ground
clearance near sidewalks and trails, and 15' above all driveways or access roads.
12. Complete grading and construction ofthe project.
13. Contact WFCI to final inspect the tree protection areas after grading.
14. All save trees within reach of targets should be inspected annually for 2 years by a qualified
professional forester retained by the homeowners association, and bi-annually thereafter.
The purpose of these inspections is to identify trees that develop problems due to changing
micro-site conditions and to prescribe cultural care or removal.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 7
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27114
Summary
The City of Renton Municipal Code calls for 30% of the significant trees be retained on the
buildable area of the site or mitigated for. Based on the current site plan, 181 existing trees, plus
7 existing transplanted trees from within the site in 11 tracts will be retained. This meets the
minimum 188 tree (30%) requirement. Therefore, no additional replacement trees are required.
This tree protection plan coupled with 72 additional trees in the wetlands and buffers will help to
preserve the forested character of the area. As the street trees and landscape trees fill in the
buildable area over time, Tiffany Park will be a very well-treed residential community.
Please give me a call if you have further questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.
P~~.V~
Galen M. Wright, ASCA, ACF
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-0129 BU
Certified Forester No. 44
attachments: #1: aerial photo with forest cover types
#2: site plan with tree tracts
#3: private access roads on site plan
#4: individual tree rating key
#5: description of tree evaluation methodology
#6: glossary of terms
#7: tree protection fence detail
#8: assumptions and limiting conditions
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 8
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan
Attachment #1: Aerial Photo of Reserve at Tiffany Park
with Forest Cover Types (King County iMAP)
Site Boundary
-• -Forest Cover Type Boundary
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc
8/27/14
NORTH
No Scale
I
Page 9
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan
Attachment #2: Reserve at Tiffany Park Proposed
Tree Retention Areas and Tree Protection Fence Locations
, \ ;~' , ,-
\ '!% "
--------"'. '\ \---.
'. " \
, -
,
"
--;
I
..J
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc
I
I
/' J
(-~/
, ,
~/~~)\\
I---------~\.
r---~---~--
t-~-----__
8/27/14
Page 10
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27114
Attachment #3: Reserve at Tiffany Park Private Easement Areas
.'
.,
\ .. .--•. '., Ii. '
" " \ " .~ .---~\ !5.
~.\, ~ .-\
/'1--
~~ \
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc
I
I
I
/-
(~/
, \ , ,
~// "
I
i r--------.
~---------
Page II
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8127/14
Attachment #4: Individual Tree Rating Key for Tree Condition
RATING SYMBOL DEFINITION
Very Good VG • Balanced crown that is characteristic of the species
• Normal lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and
soil type
• Stem sound, normal bark vigor
• No root problems
• No insect or disease problems
• Long-term, attractive tree
Good G • Crown lacking symmetry but nearly balanced
• Normal lateral and tenninal branch growth rates for the species and
soil type
• Minor twig dieback O.K.
• Stem sound, normal bark vigor
• No root problems
• No or minor insect or disease problems -insignificant
• Lon2-term tree
Fair F • Crown lacking symmetry due to branch loss
• Slow lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and
soil type
• Minor and major twig dieback -starting to decline
• Stem partly unsound, slow diameter growth and low bark vigor
• Minor root problems
• Minor insect or disease problems
• Short-term tree 10-30 years
RATING SYMBOL DEFINITION
Poor P • Major branch loss -unsymmetrical crown
• Greatly reduced growth
• Several structurally import dead or branch scaffold branches
• Stem has bark loss and significant decay with poor bark vigor
• Root damage
• Insect or disease problems -remedy required
• Short-term tree J -\0 years
Very Poor VP • Lacking adequate live crown for survival and growth
• Severe decline
• Minor and major twig dieback
• Stem unsound, bark sloughing, previous stem or large branch
failures, very poor bark vigor
• Severe root problems or disease
• No or minor insect or disease problems
• Mortality expected within the next few years
Dead DEAD • Dead
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 12
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27114
Cultural Care Needs:
ABBRV. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
CC Crown Pruning of dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or defective branches over 112 inch in
Cleanin2 diameter -includes removal of dead tops
CT Crown Pruning of branches described in crown cleaning, plus thinning of up to 20% of the
Thinning live branches over Y, inch diameter. Branch should be 1/3 to Y, the diameter ofthe
lateral branch, Thinning should be weB distributed throughout crown of tree, and
should release healthy, long-term branches,
RC Crown Reduction of the crown of a tree by pruning to lateral branches. GeneraBy used to
Reduction remove declining branches or to lighten end weight on long branches.
CR Crown Pruning of lower branches to remove deadwood or to provide ground or building
Raisin2 clearances.
RMV Remove Remove tree due to decline or hazardous conditions that cannot be mitigated by
pruning.
RS Remove Remove basal sprouts from stem of tree.
Sprouts
Rep Replace Tree is small-is in decline or dead. Replace with suitable tree species.
HT Hazard Tree Tree is hazardous and cannot be mitigated by pruning. Recommendation is to
remove tree.
None No Work No work necessary at this time.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 13
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Attachment #5: Description of Tree Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation of the tree condition on this site included the visual assessment of:
I. Live-crown ratio,
2. Lateral and tenninal branch growth rates,
3. Presence of dieback in minor and major scaffold branches and twigs,
4. Foliage color,
5. Stem soundness and other structural defects,
6. Visual root collar examination,
7. Presence of insect or disease problems.
8. Windfinnness if tree removal will expose this tree to failure.
In cases where signs of internal defect or disease were suspected, a core sample was taken to
look for stain, decay, and diameter growth rates. Also, root collars were exposed to look for the
presence of root disease.
In all cases, the overall appearance ofthe tree was considered relative to its ability to add value
to either an individual lot or the entire subdivision. Also, the scale of the tree and its proximity
to both proposed and existing houses was considered.
Lastly, the potential for incorporation into the project design is evaluated, as well as potential site
plan modifications that may allow otherwise removed tree(s) to be both saved and protected in
the development.
Trees that are preserved in a development must be carefully selected to make sure that they can
survive construction impacts, adapt to a new environment, and perfonn well in the landscape.
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, changes in soils
moisture regimes, and soil compaction than are low vigor trees.
Structural characteristics are also important in assessing suitability. Trees with significant decay
and other structural defects that cannot be treated are likely to fail. Such trees should not be
preserved in areas where damage to people or property could occur.
Trees that have developed in a forest stand are adapted to the close, dense conditions found in
such stands. When surrounding trees are removed during clearing and grading, the remaining
trees are exposed to extremes in wind, temperature, solar radiation, which causes sunscald, and
other influences. Young, vigorous trees with well-developed crowns are best able to adapt to
these changing site conditions.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 14
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Attachment #6: Glossary of Forestry and ArboricuItural Terminology
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height (measured 4.5 ft. above the ground line on the high side of the
tree).
Caliper: In Issaquah -Caliper is referring to diameter measurement at DBH.
Live Crown Ratio: Ratio oflive foliage on the stem of the tree. Example: A 100' tall tree with
40 feet of live crown would have a 40% live crown ratio. Conifers with less than 30%
live crown ratio are generally not considered to be long-term trees in forestry.
Crown: Portion of a trees stem covered by live foliage.
Crown Position: Position of the crown with respect to other trees in the stand.
Dominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and from the sides.
Codominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and some from the sides.
Intermediate Crown Position: Receives little light from above and none from the sides. Trees
tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios.
Suppressed Crown Position: Receives no light from above and none from the sides. Trees
tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 15
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan
Attachment #7: Tree Protection Fence Detail
_ POSTS SliCUU> ~
BE MlNWUN
'T -eAR' FENCE
)-----8 FT. "AX. -------j
NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees
AHCHOR POSTS wUST B£ INSTAU.fI)
TO A [)[PTM ex: NO LESS niAH 1/3
OIF TME TOTAL HD'GHT f7 POST.
6 ft. Temporary Chain Link Fence
lHf TREE PROT[cnON FDIC[ SHOUW BE MAINTAINED THftOUCiHOVT
lWE CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING:. AND NOT TO BE REWO~ UNnl
F"JNAl lAHDSCAPING IS IN PROGRESS. AT NO 11W£ SHALL EOU1PU£NT on'ER lNTO THE ROOT PROTECTION lONE (RPZ). AU. SftUSH a..tANlIP
WItHIN TME RPZ SHOULD BE CCIroIF'L£Tm BY HAND TO PREVENT
DIsnJRlANCE OF NA Tl\£ GROUND COVEItS NO CUTS eft F'D..lS. UTTUTY
TRDiOiING, I.KIDInCA nONS TO DRAINAct., OR COHC:R£T£ RISE WA 1£R
SHOULD IMPACT l11E RPI. NO WlMS. CAa..ES. eft OTHER DEVICES
SHOULD BE A rrAOtED TO PR01£(:TtO 1"REES DUft'1NG COHSTRUcnOfrt
IF" lWPACTS t.It.IST OCCUR WI"nflH THE RPI. CCftTACT 'WC1 PRIOR
TO THE OPERA nONS TO ~INE THE PfKlPER PROC£DURE:
10 PROTECT 1)f[ 'l'RErs HlALTH.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc
8/27/14
Page 16
The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14
Attachment #8: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
I) Any legal description provided to the Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. is assumed to be COrrect. Any
titles and ownership's to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed
for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, undcr
responsible ownership and competent management.
2) It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other
governmental regulations, unless otherwise stated.
3) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as
possible; however, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the
accuracy of information.
4) Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of
this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for
such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
5) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidated the entire report.
6) Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any
other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.
7) Neither all or any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including
the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior
expressed written or verbal consent of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. --particularly as to value
conclusions, identity of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., or any reference to any professional society or
to any initialed designation conferred upon Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. as stated in its
qualifications.
8) This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.,
and the fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence
neither of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding in to reported.
9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily
to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys.
10) Unless expressed otherwise: I) information contained in this report covers only those items that were
examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to
visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing. or coring, There is no
warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree or other plant or
property in question may not arise in the future.
Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove
all trees within reach of all targets. Annual inspections by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester will
reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or the
timing of the failure. It is considered an 'Act of God , when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by
man IS actions.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 17
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
JANUARY 2014
l.:SounJall!.w {!on~uttanh~ I
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
JANUARY 16, 2014
PROJECT LOCATION
EAST OF INTERSECTION OF SE 18TH STREET AND MONROE AVENUE SE
RENTON, WA 98058
(KING COUNTY)
PREPARED FOR
BARBARA YARINGTON
L\ND ACQUISITIClK MANAGER
HENLEY USA
11100 MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
BELLEVuE, W A 98004
PREPARED BY
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLe
2907 HARBClRVIEW DRIVE
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
Executive Summary
Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop the Reserve at Tiffany Park (project). The proposed project will
involve subdividing a 22.4-acre site (subject property) into 98 single-family residential lots and providing all
necessary infrastructure. The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and
Monroe Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast 1/.
of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M., within the ciry limits of Renton, W.A. and consists of
four tax parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9154, and 212305-9061).
The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat
and/ or priority species in December 2013 and January 2014. The site was previously assessed for wetlands by
Grette Associates (2008) and recently reconfirmed by Schulz (2013). The previous site assessments identified
four werlands (Werlands A -D) located within the subject property boundaries. No other water bodies or
other potentially regulated habitat features have been previously identified on site. The werlands are likely
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology), and the Ciry of Renton, Washington.
The subject property is undeveloped land currently owned by the Renton School District. A majoriry of the
site is covered vlith second-growth mixed-canopy forest dominated by Douglas Hr, \vestern hemlock, western
red cedar, big-leaf maple, red alder, and black cottonwood. The forest's understory is dominated by
salmonberry, '~ne maple, western hazelnut, snowberry, red elderberry, red huckleberry, and Indian plum. The
ground cover includes sword fern, bracken fern, trailing blackberry, salal, Oregon grape, and bleeding heart.
The Cedar River water pipeline right of way borders the subject property's south boundary and the Mercer
Island water pipeline right of way borders the subject property's east boundary. High-density, single-family
residential developments are located adjacent to, or near, the subject property to the north, east, and south.
The subject property is situated near the top of a plateau that borders the Cedar River Valley to the north and
east.
The proposed project will contain three designated critical areas for protection of the four existing wetlands
and associated buffers. Wetland A is located in Tract B, Wetlands Band C arc located in TractJ, and Werland
D is located in Tract E. The werland tracts total an area of 120,505 square feet (2.77 acres). No additional
potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat or priority species were identified on the site beyond the four
identiHed wetlands and associated buffers; however, the Cedar River mains tern and associated habitat
corridor is located approximately 1,600 feet to the northeast of the site and another sensitive area, Ginger
Creek, to the northwest, is the receiving water body for the local stormwater system, existing and proposed.
\'(Iith the werland protections and careful project design proposed, along with best management practices to
meet current construction standards, no adverse project effects to sensitive habitats and species are
anticipated.
1219,0001 Tiffany Park R~serve
Fish and \,('ildlife Habitat Assessment Study
Soundview Consultants llC
January 9, 2014
Table of Contents
Chapter I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Action Area .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline ................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Potentially Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Priority Species ........................................................... 6
4.2 Landscape/Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 5. Potential Effects Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Habitat Effects ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Species Effects ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Conservation Measures and Management Recommendations ........................................................................ 9
Chapter 6. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Graph ..................................................................................... 4
Tables
Table 1. Sensitive Species and Determination of Project Effects ............................................................... 1
Table 2. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations .................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Priority Species ............................................................ 9
Appendix A ~ Action Area
Appendix B ~ Background Information
Appendix C ~ Site Photographs
Appendix D ~ Biologist Qualifications
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study
Appendices
Sound, .... iew Consultams lJ.c
January 9, 2014
Chapter 1. Introduction
Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop the Reserve at Tiffany Park (project). The proposed project will
involve subdivision of a 22.4-acre site (subject property) into 98 single-family residential lots and all necessary
infrastructure. The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and Monroe
Avenue SE, Renton, W A 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast '/. of Section
21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M., within the city limits of Renton, W.A. and consists of four tax
parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9154, and 212305-9061).
Access to the proposed project will be provided by existing streets, provide necessary traffic circulation, and
avoid impacts to wetlands, beyond minor wetland buffer averaging (Schulz, 2013). Surface water runoff from
the project will be collected in a stormwater detention pond located on the western portion of the subject
property in Tract A.
A previous site investigation identified four wetlands on site (Schulz, 2013). Of the four wetlands, three were
identified as Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and D) and one (1) was identified as a Category III wetland
(Wetland B). The wetlands were rated using the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4-3-050, Part
M. Classification System. Wetlands A, C, and D are proposed to have minor reductions in buffer width.
Wetland B is within the 50-foot buffer of Wetland C These wetlands were identified as isolated features and
no surface water connections or associated water bodies were identified onsite during the previous wetland
delineations or during the recent fish and wildlife habitat assessment performed by Soundview Consultants
LLC (SVC) staff.
This fish and wildlife habitat assessment is intended to identify potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat,
and/ or priority species on or near the proposed project per Renton Municipal Code (fuvIC) Title 4-3-050,
Critical Areas Regulations, and to assess any potential impacts to State and/or Federally-listed species from
the proposed project. The remainder of this document contains project details such as project description,
location, discussion and analysis of the project and potential effects to priority species and critical habitat
identified in the project vicinity. Recommended effect determinations associated with the proposed actions
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Sensitive Species and Determination of Project Effects.
Common name and location Scientific Name Listing Status* Potential for
Impacts
Townsend's Big-eared Bat C01)lnorhinus townsendii SC Unlikely
Grizzly Bear, U rsus arc/os horribilis SE None
Bull Trout Salve/inns confluentll! FT None
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT None
Bald Eagle Halia,etus leucocephalus SS++ None
Great Blue Heron Ardea Herod,(lS SS Unlikely
Marbled Murrelet Bracf.!yramphus marmoratus ST None
Stcclhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss FT None
Northern Spotted Owl S trix occidentalis FT None
Pileated Woodpecker Drycopus pileatus SC Unlikely
Gray Wolf Canis lupus FE None , -. SE State Endangered, ST -State Threatened, 55 -State Sensltne, SC -State Candidate, FE l'ederal Endangered, "IT -Federal Threatened,
++i\lsu protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle protection Act
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve Soundvicw Consultants LLC
Fish and \X'ildlifc Hahitat Assessment Study January 9, 2014
Chapter 2. Proposed Project
2.1 Project Locati on
The subject property is located eas t of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and 1\1o nroc Avenue
Southeast. Renton. WA 98058 (King County) and is situated in th e Southeast II, of Section 21, Township 23
North, Range 5 East \V.J\L, within the city limit s of Renton, \Y/ A. The property contains fOllr tax pa rcels
(2 12305-9044,212305-9051,212305-9154, and 212305-9061 ).
To access the site from I nterstate 40 5 -North, take Ex.it 3 and go south on WA -515. Turn Icft (cast) onto
South Puget Drive and follow it for about 1 mile. T urn left (no rth east) OntO Royal Hill s Drive So uth east and
take the first right onto Lake Youn gs Wa y Southeast. After approximately 0.5 miles turn Icft (s omheast) OntO
SE 18 '" Street. Southeast 18 m Street dead ends at the su bject property.
12 19 .0001 Tiffanr Park Reserve
Fish and \\"ildli fe Ilabitat A ssc~~m en t Stlld~'
I
)d-Tse.16IstSt
% \. se 162nd 51
2
So undnew Co nsultants U £
Ja n ua ry 9, 2014
2.2 Project Description
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional single-family residences and associated
infrastructure within the City of Renton. The proposed project will include site clearing and establishment of
new impervious surfaces such as roadways, driveways, and roof areas. In addition, landscaped pervious areas,
open space, parks, and drainage facilities are all a part of the proposed project. However, the project has been
designed to fully avoid impacts to on site wetlands and associated buffers with dedicated critical areas tracts
to contain these protected features. Additionally, a tree preservation plan is proposed to retain a minimum of
all significant trees (those trees '-"1th a diameter at breast height of 6 inches or greater) or to mitigate
unavoidable loss of significant trees by replanting rw ashingron Forestry Consultants, 2013)
A stormwater detention pond and associated Storm Filter treatment system are proposed for surface water
treatment and detention and will be located in the western portion of the subject property and sized for Level
2 Flow Control meeting Basic Treatment, according to 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The
pond volume will be at least 308,779 cubic feet (Barghausen, 2013). The srormwatcr detention pond is meant
to improve water quality and flow control of water leaving the site. A riser overflow, a jail house grate, and
emergency overflow structure to a proposed 18 inch pipe will discharge runoff into the existing storm drain
conveyance system at the intersection of Lake Youngs Way SE and 18'" Street SE. The treated stormwater
discharge will flow to an existing storm drain conveyance system and eventually to Ginger Creek located to
the northwest of the site. The project is located in the mainstem subarea of the Lower Cedar River Basin.
2.3 Action Area
An action area has been identified for this assessment which encompasses the locations where direct impacts
from project activities will occur (the project area) as well as all areas that may be directly or indirectly
affected by the proposed project either through physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms. The
geographic limits of the action area were defined by considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms
that may lead to impacts on priority species and associated habitat (further defined in Chapter 4). Two
mechanisms have been identified as having potential for impacting the potentially regulated fish and wildlife
species and/or associated habitat. These potential impact mechanisms include temporary impacts from noise
of the construction actions and equipment and the long-term effects of increased impervious surfaces which
may alter stormwater runoff, in hydrologic regime and pollutants to downstream areas.
Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health-related
consequences (\'l/SDOT, 2013). Terrestrial noise (transmitted through air) is measured in decibels (dB), on a
logarithmic scale. The threshold for human hearing begins at 0 dBA and the level at which a human would
experience irreversible hearing loss is 180 dBA. Washington Department of Transportation (\'l/SDOT)
Biological Assessment guidance document rwSDOT, 2010) provides a value for ambient noise levels in
residential suburban areas with moderate population density, such as the City of Renton, as 55 dBA during
the daytime. Numerical values for noise generated by typical construction machinery, such as land-clearing
equipment, road construction equipment and trucks are also given in the WSDOT guidance manual, some of
the loudest of which would generate 81 dBA of noise. The project proposes to use construction equipment
including an excavator, loader and a dump truck which may produce noise levels as high as 81dB at fifty (50)
feet from the activity. Calculating the terresrtial project action area due to the higher noise levels during
project actions, a radius of approximately 1,007 feet surrounding the project area will experience higher than
ambient noise levels during the proposed actions. Please see Table 2 and Figure 2 for the calculations and
Appendix A for the visual representation of this action area.
Stormwatcr impacts from the project may include altered hydrology and pollutant loading within the Cedar
River watershed basin due to the increase in impervious surfaces. Pollutant loading of copper and zinc from
12t9.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 3
Soundview Consultams LLe
January 9, 2014
increased use and increases in impervious surface are likely. The proposed stormwater treatment system has
been designed per King County S\x'D:\f, to slow peak flows using Level 2 flow control and to implement
Basic Treatment of runoff using an engineered StormFilter system (Barghausen, 2013). It is expected that
this treatment system will remove eighty (80) percent of the plat's total suspended solids (King County
SWDM, 2009). The proposed stormwater infrastructure, starmwater detention and treatment will discharge
to existing stormwater facilities prior to entering Ginger Creek. \Xlith proper stormwater system design and
maintenance, all long-term or short-term pollution loading impacts potentially associated with this project are
anticipated to be effectively managed and no offsite extension of the action area is anticipated for stormwater
impacts.
Fi re 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Gra h.
Terrestrial Attenuation
90
80
70
i 60 -1 50
u
;ri"
'1"'00.1 ' • ,
-r= -
.~ --jc ,-' .~ i : 1 1-I L,; -:-:-~---... 40 ,
~ .... !
+----1-_:_ _ _ ___ -i-- '
. "--';
• Construction Noise ,'i I, ~j L·:-~ttT~--· C
~ 30 ~f--" • Ambient Noise
20
10 "'L '--,--'1 ilL ; _: . !i T .
o -1-,-,. "~-'----''----''=Ei.''+--=-:.J.i---.l---'-; _'-'.'1 1'4 i" ___ '."''-'~'':--;~: ..•...• ~ .. "'c=j.JJ ii:~'
50 500 5000 50000
Distance (ft)
Table 2. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations.
Terrestrial Attenuation Table
Distance from Source Construction Ambient Sound Noise
l.Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA)
50 0.00947 81 55
100 0.018939 75 55
200 0.037879 69 55
400 0.075758 63 55
SOO 0.151515 57 55
1600 0.30303 51 55
3200 0.606061 45 55
6400 1.212121 39 55
12800 2.424242 33 55
25600 4.848485 27 55
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
{!ish and \Y/ildlifc Habitat Assessment Study 4
Measured Noise Pressure
(Micro-Pascals) (atm)
224403.6909
112468.265
56367.65863
28250.75089
14158.91569
7096.267785
3556.55882
1782.501876
893.3671843
447.7442277
2.27E-08
1.l4E-08
5.71E-09
2.S6E-09
1.43E-09
7.19E-l0
3.6E-1O
l.S1E-lO
9.05E-ll
4.54E-ll
Soundvicw Consultants w_
January 9, 2014
Chapter 3. Methods
This chapter summarizes the methods used in this fish and wildlife habitat assessment, as pertaining to the
goals and requirements set forth by the City of Renton, per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Critical Areas
Ordinance, Title 4-03-050.
Prior to the recent site investigations, a thorough review of background data and pertinent documentation
was conducted, including the pre\~ous wetland delineation report (Schulz, 2013), Final Tree Protection Plan
by Washington Forestry Consultants Inc. (2013), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland
Inventory, the USGS Soil Survey data maps, and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USfWS), and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS).
The site assessment was conducted by three qualified fish and wildlife biologists as defined in &.\I!C 4-11-170
(Qualified Professional) (refer to Appendix F for biologists qualifications). A thorough investigation that
included an assessment of vegetative structure and composition of dominant species, any special habitat
features, presence and evidence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife species, and level of human
disturbance along with a verification of wetland presence and habitat quality was performed on December 19,
2013 by two fish and wildlife biologists. A separate critical areas assessment was conducted on January 2,
2014 to verify identification of select onsite features. Visual observations using stationary and walking survey
methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Any special habitat features or signs of wildlife
activity were photographed for documentation and noted for further examination. All field assessments used
the best available science pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 365-195-905 and definitions
contained in RMC 4-03-050.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
fish and \X'ildlifc Habitat Assessment Study 5
Soundyiew Consultants LtC
January 9, 2014
Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.1 Potentially Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Priority Species
Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the
project. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
lists contain those species and habitats protected by Federal and State laws. According to WDFW
SalmonS cape and PHS online senices, no priority habitats and/or species are identified on thc subject
property; however, a more densely forested area within the action arca (Appendix B2) is located to the
northeast, adjacent to the Ccdar River, and is identified by PHS as a biodiversity habitat area and corridor.
The Cedar River contains listed salmonid priority species of coastal resident cutthroat, Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, bull trout, sockeye, and steelhead. As the site is located within the Cedar River watershed, the project
site has potential to impact the in stream habitat of the Cedar River. In addition, PHS data lists a Bald Eagle
management area to the east of the subject property in an unidentified location within the aerial map
generated via PHS online services (see Appendix B for the PHS data map). No eagle nests were directly
observed during field assessments conducted by Sound view Consultants, LLC.
Grizzly bears and gray wolves are not likely to use the action area. Grizzly bear (Ursus arc!os hombilis) preferred
habitat is semi-open country usually in mountainous areas. These animals arc found in the Selkirk Mountains
or the Cascade Range, and will not be found within the action area. No habitat is found in the action area for
this species, and it is highly unlikely that one would be present in the action area. Gray wolf (Canis luptls)
preferred habitat type is found in forests, open meadows, rocky rides, lakes and rivers, locally within Selkirk
Mountains, or the Cascade Range, and will not be found within vicinity of the action area. USF\X'S (web site
2012) indicates that there might be gtay wolf presence in Snohomish County but not King County. No
habitat is found in the action area for thls species.
In addition, the site contains habitat features identified during the assessment, such as standing snags and
mature trees and dense shrub cover in most places, notable for use by priority a"vian and mammal species.
Several tree snags of various conifer and deciduous species and ages that could provide forage areas and
shelter for various woodpeckers (e.g. Pilcated Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Downey Woodpecker) were
identified onsite in addition to the delineated wetlands (Schulz, 2013). However, these species were not
identified as being present during the recent site investigations. Small passerine nests and Douglas squirrel
(Tamiasciurus doug!asi,) nests were identified throughout the subject property along with direct observations of
black-capped chickadees (Po,dle atricaPil!us), dark-eyed juncos (junco byemalis), and evidence of black-tailed deer
(Odocoil,tls hemiontls). Considering the subject property borders an existing residential community, it is also
likely habitat for more opportunistic species such as coyotes (Canis lalrans), raccon (Procyon 1010r), and opossum
(Didelphis vizginiana) among others. However, these species lack Federal and State protections, and are not
included on priority species lists or discussion of effects (Chapter 5.2).
Pileated \Xloodpeckers most often nest in old-growth forest and mature tree stands, provided large snags are
present. The subject property contains a few potential foraging elements in the wetlands and associated
buffers. Snags in the subject area show signs of woodpecker foraging activities, but few trees will likely
provide nesting sites for many years_ Pileated Woodpeckers are found in urban forests and are listed on
\'{'OFW's PHS list; however PHS does not indicate the species presence in the vicinity of the subject
property_ Bat roosting sites are also likely to be available oosite in the larger evergreen trees, and used
seasonally. Project effects to priority species are discussed further in Chapter 5.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \'\/ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 6
Sound view Consultants I.l.c
January 9, 2014
4.2 Landscape/Existing Conditions
Topography/Setting
The subject property is located within the Cedar River watershed and is positioned on a valley plateau. The
topography of the site consists of moderate elevation changes throughout. Schulz (2013) determined no
surface flo\vs of water are present on the subject property; this fact was confirmed by Soundview Consultants
LLC's site visits conducted in December 2013 and January 2014.
A WDFW PHS biodiversity area and habitat corridor is located in the project action area, and the Cedar River
is located approximately 1,600 feet from the subject property. \xTDF\'(7's interactive data map (Salmons cape)
identifies no streams with fish presence within the subject property's boundaries or of sufficient proximity so
as to have buffers extend onsite. No priority habitats or Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant or animal
species were observed during Soundview Consultant's surveys.
The Cedar River water pipeline runs along the subject property's south boundary and the Mercer Island water
pipeline runs along the subject property's east boundary. Both pipelines are fully enclosed, subsurface
facilities and the right-of-ways are maintained by the City of Renton, W A. Residential developments are
located adjacent to or near the subject property to the north, east, south, and west. The subject property is
situated near the top of a plateau that borders the Cedar River Valley to the north and east. A subject
property vicinity map is provided in Figure 1.
Soils/ Vegetation
The NRCS Soil Survey of King County, Washington identified two soil series. A majority of the site contains
the soil series Nderwood gravelly sandy loam (86 percent of the subject property) and a small portion along
the south end of the project that is classified as Arents, Alderwood material (14 percent of the subject
property). Appendix C Map C6 contains the NRCS soils map.
The entire subject property is forested and was subject to previous logging and clearing activities. Forested
areas are primarily characterized by coniferous and deciduous trees. Coniferous tree cover is predominantly
Douglas fIr, Western hemlock, and Western red cedar. The deciduous tree cover is predominantly big leaf
maple, black cottonwood, bitter cherry and red alder. The understory is mostly composed of salmonberry,
vine maple, salal, Oregon grape, western hazelnut, snowberry, red elderberry, red huckleberry, and Indian
plum. The ground cover includes sword fern, bleeding heatt, and bracken fern. Non-native vegetation found
on the subject property includes English ivy, Scotch broom, and holly. Appendix B5; Table B-1, provides a
detailed list of plant species observed during the site investigation on the subject property.
Hydrology/Wetlands
No stormwater structures or man-made aquatic features were identified on the subject property. In addition,
no naturally occurring streams drainages were identified onsite or adjacent to the subject property. Wetland
hydrology appears to have a high influence from rainfall, a shallow groundwater table, and surface sheet flow.
Because the wetlands appear to be closed depressions and not connected to any downstream aquatic features
or habitats, they may be fully isolated wetlands.
Schulz (2013) identifIed a total of four (4) omite wetlands identified as Wetlands A-D. Three wetlands
(Wetlands 1\, C, D) were rated as Category II wetlands; one wetland (Wetland B) was rated as a Category HI
wetland. There are three (3) Critical Area tracts are being established for wetlands and wetland buffers (E, E,
and K) that total 120,505 square feet (2.77-acres). Each critical area will be identified using necessary signs as
required by King County (public Rule 21 A-24).
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \~rjldlifc Habitat Assessment Study 7
S()undview Cunsultants J.LC
January 9,2014
Chapter 5. Potential Impacts Analysis
An analysis of potential impacts on regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species from the proposed
project is detailed below.
5.1 Habitat Impacts
Onsite habitat impacts will include loss of standing snags, mature treeS and dense shrub cover in most places;
however, these impacts are being mitigated via a wetland preservation and significant tree consenration plan
(Washington Forestry Consultants, 2013). Project actions of site clearing and establishment of new
impervious surfaces such as roadways, driveways, and roof areas will remove at least seventy percent of
significant trees and surrounding upland understory vegetation. Other habitat features on site, such as snags
in the wetland areas will be preserved as wildlife habitat (2.77-acres).
Water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients and other inputs from subject
property runoff/stormwater are a potential source for direct effects on listed species; however, the
stonnwater system will detain and treat runoff to minimize downstream impacts to the Cedar River basin.
The project does propose stormwater treatment facilities and B1-IPs. An increase in impervious surfaces can
change hydrologic dynamics and cause a decline in evapotranspiration and a decrease in inftltration (NOAA,
2003). On a watershed scale, accumulative actions "\vruch increase impervious surfaces may have an overall
negative impact on hydrology. Changes in hydrology, from increases in impervious surfaces and loss of
forested areas, can reduce infiltration and dilution. Urban runoff and storm water discharge can increase
loading of nutrients, bacteria, metals, pesticides, and other toxicants to streams (NOAA, 2003). In addition,
changes in hydrology can increase frequency and severity of flooding, accelerate channel erosion and
streambed substrate disturbance (NOAA, 2003). Because of this, a stormwater detention pond will be utilized
to slow peak flows and regulate storm water discharge rates. The proposed project does not propose to
impact any ESA or State listed species.
Offsite habitat impacts due to increased noise levels from construction activities could potentially create
temporary negative impacts on the use of offsite habitat features in a small portion of the outer action area.
The offsite habitat features include the more densely forested sloped area adjacent to the Cedar River habitat
corridor within the outer limit of the action area. Construction equipment will likely produce noise at levels
higher than ambient levels as discussed in Chapter 2.4 regarding noise action area calculations. The estimated
threshold of harassment/injury for marbled murrelets and spotted owls is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites;
therefore, if northern spotted owl, bald eagle, or marbled murrelet nests are in the action area, the temporary
project effects are not anticipated to harass or injure nesting indi\~duals. For example, the disturbance
threshold at marbled murrelet nesting sites is an estimated 70dBA (WSDOT, 2013). It is unlikely nesting sites
are located wiclain the action area as this area is located in a suburban area previously impacted by logging
activities and there are no suitable nesting habitats within or near the proposed project site. Any anticipated
habitat impacts to offsite areas are anticipated to be temporary and minor due to the existing level of
development.
5.2 Species Impacts
Priority species potentially impacted by onsite project actions include Pileated woodpecker and Townsend
bats. Evidence of woodpecker presence was observed in standing snags in and around onsite wetlands;
however, no Pileated woodpeckers were observed and the forage signs were inconclusive for Pileated
woodpecker presence. Pteservation of wetlands will provide protection of these habitat features. Townsend
bats may use significant trees as roosting areas. The significant tree preservation plan will provide additional
habitat availability for these species.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study
Soundvicw Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
Offsitc priority aquatic species associated ,,,;'th the Cedar River in water habitat are not anticipated to be
negatively affected by the project due to conservation measures discussed in Chapter 5. L Terrestrial priority
species associated with the Cedar River habitat corridor may be affected by terrestrial noise if they are \vithin
a small footprint of the 1,007 foot action area surrounding the project during project actions. As the action
area is limited to areas adjacent to residential development and temporary in nature, no lasting negative effects
are anticipated to priority species (Table 3).
Table 3. Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Priority Species.
Common name and location Scientific Name Listing Status* Potential for
Impacts
Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii SC Unlikely
Grizzly Bear, Ursus arctos honibi/is SF None
Bull Trout 5alvelinus confluentus FT None
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT None
Bald Eagle Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us SS++ None
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias SS Unlikelv
Marbled Murrelet Braehyramphus nJannoratus ST None
Steelhead Trout Oncorbynchus mykiss FT None
Northern Spotted Owl 5trix oeadentalis FT None
Pileated Woodpecker Drycopus pi/eatus SC Unlikely
Gray Wolf Canis lupus FE None , , ' SE State Endangered, ST State Threatened, SS State Senslt!\e, SC State Candidate, FE Federal Endangered, Fl federal Threatened,
+ + Also protected under the BalJ and Golden Eagle protection Act
5.3 Conservation Measures and Management Recommendations
Avoidance and minimization measures in the project plan include TESC measures consisting of silt fencing,
seeding of disturbed soils, and brush barriers installed using BMP's. Outlined in the project's Stonnwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (S\'i'PPP) and TESC Plan prepared by the Project Engineer and approved by the
responsible Wetland Scientist prior to clearing and grading activities, Once TESC measures are in place, the
site will be selectively logged and site development will proceed.
Equipment will he kept in good working order free of leaks. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles
will be kept out of preserved wetlands, drainages, and the respective buffers, and the areas ,vill be kept free of
spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material will be sourced from areas onsite or from approved
suppliers, and will be free of pollutants and hazardous materials.
IUvIC Title 4-4-130 requires that a minimum of 30% of all healthy significant trees be retained on the project
r-V A Forestry, 2013). Significant trees were defined in the forestry report (Washingron Forestry Consultants,
Inc., 2013) as ranging in diameter from 6 ro 36 inches diameter at hreast height (DBH) and classified as
sound, healthy, long-tenn ttees. Code compliance for the project requires retention of at least 168 of the 559
significant trees identified in the project area or mitigation for removal of any of these significant trees.
According to the forestry report, 102 existing significant trees are proposed to be retained and an additional
planting of 396 native trees on the subject property. The forestty report also discusses proposed actions for
retaining existing significant trees.
Management recommendations for preserving hydrologic features on the subject property include using high
visibility fencing to protect critical areas, implementing a contingency plan if necessary. All wetland and buffer
areas associated with the conservation actions will be protected by installation of construction fencing to
discourage intrusion and improper use of these areas.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study 9
SounJview Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
As the wetlands were the only critical habitat areas identified on site, implementation of the follo\ving
management measures will help ensure that sensitive fish and wildlife species located on the subject property
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development.
• Appropriate signage will be installed along the outer perimeter of the wetland buffers, that are
likely to be intruded upon by humans, indicating the sensitive nature of the habitat;
• Activities within the critical areas should be limited to passive recreational activities (e.g. wildlife
viewing);
• Pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers should not be used or stored within the 50 foot
buffer of each wetland;
• Temporary silt fencing should be installed between the proposed residences and the wetland
buffers during construction;
• Stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces should be inf.tltrated or treated pnor to
dispersion into wetlands and/ or off-property drainage systems, and
• Careful site planning and construction methods should be implemented to ensure no negative
impacts will be made to the critical areas identified in this habitat assessment.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Resen:e
Fish and \'\!i1dhfe Habitat Assessment Smdy 10
Sound view Consultants Uk
January 9, 2014
Chapter 6. References
Barghausen Engineering, Land Planning, Surveying. 2013. Preliminary Technical Information
Report: Reserve at Tiffany Park. Prepared for Henley USA, LLC; November 12, 2013.
Hitchcock, c.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press. Seattle, Washington.
Nationa1 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. HCD Stormwater Online Guidance for
Analyzing Stormwater Effects. NOAA Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. March 2003.
Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British
Colwnbia, and Alaska (Revised). Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, B.C.
Schu1z, e.G. 2013. Wetland Determination: Reserve at Tiffany Park. Preliminary Plat, City of
Renton, Washington.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 2013. Fina1 Tree Protection Plan: Reserve at Tiffany Park.
Prepared for Barbara Yarington, Henley USA.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual, Lacey, W A. Ecology Publication # 96-94.
Washington State Department of Transportation. 2013. Biological Assessment Preparation:
Advanced Training Manual, Version 02-2013.
Zu1auf, A.S. 1979. Soil Survey of Pierce County, Washington. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of
Natura1 Resources, and Washington State University, Agricu1ture Research Center. Washington,
D.C.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Resen-e
Fisb and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study 11
Sound .... -:iew Consultants I.LC
January 9, 2014
Appendix A -Action Area
1219.0UU1 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study
SounJview Consultants lLC
January 9, 2014
Appendix B -Background Information
Thi s Appendix inclu des a USRXJS "a riona l Wetl and In ve ntory map (B1 ), Priority H abitat and
Species Map (B2 ), an N RCS Soil Survey map (83), and a li st of plants prese nt o n th e site (84).
12 19 .0001 Tiffan~· Par k Rcscrn
Fi~h and \,"ildli fo;;: I la bl t:lt A ss essment Study 2
Sound \"iew Consultams JJ.C
Ja llua~ 9,2014
Appendix Bl . National Wetlands Inventory Map
1 219.(H)0 1 T iffa n y P a rk Resen-c Sound view Cons ultants u r.
rish :a nd \'\'ildlife Hahitat A~~~~nlem Study Ja nuar~ 9,2014
Appendix B2. WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map
i I
1 1
f ! I ! • • II H H
it 0
r W
7 . 7 'I
I In 0 § ~ s hr < < ~ ~ ~ f w •• LL ~ :::; , 0 0 i ...J
== .... l I r 1
0 0:: L 2 I ~~ Q !
i :I;W
r'll l
VlO::
-Vl
LLW :
LL -g i ~ OU ~~ flu ~~ J; l UJVl
~o I
o::~ ~ ~ 9
oe(Vl :; ~ ~ Cl. .... g w oe(
ot:: Ih ~ h ~~ l§ 1111 ~J B ~~~ " ' -::~ (!)i:: Lo
;?;a: ~~ £ Dio oe(-a(l Sf ~
==g: .. t
U II I r I
12 19J)OO I T iffan y Par k Reser\e
Fi sh and \\'i ldh fe Ha b ita t Assessme nt Stud y 4
II ! 2~f
(!sl
!Hr
t i ,I I.f • I II
"IH I . I .1
~: I in: ~p r r h,
i H ! zHt
lUI ~Jlt I!~I
t 21 ~'" r' iff! tl~1
"1 1, ~ (1 I ." :;i ,. i It,;1 ~ pI ~ ; i [.;
1~lil ~ .l ,;;
a
SOllnd\·iew C o nsuhaOi s I H
J anu ary 9, 2014
12 19.0001 Tiffan:" Park Rescn"c
Fis h and W"ildh ic I-b bu:l.t ;\S5CSS m Cnt Stud y 5
::
o
Soundvic w <:onsuiraTl ts ILC
J an u:t ry 9,20 14
Appendix B3. NRCS Soil Survey Map
t
\
King County Area, Washington (WA633)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres inAOI
Alderwood grave ll y
AgC sandy loam, 6 to 15 23.0
p ercent slopes
Are n ts, Alcl erwood
ArnC material, 6 to 15 3.7
perce nt slopes
Totals for Area ofInterest 26.7
1211J.()()Ql Tiffany Park Rcsen"c
fish and \X 'iJJhfc Habit at r\~~t:ssme nt Study 6
, , ,
Percent of AOI
86.2
13.8
100%
Sound\"i",w Consu ltants u .c
January 9, 20 14
Appendix B4. Observed Plant Species
Tab! B 4 e -PI h ant species eXiStIng on t e prOject slie.
Species Name 1 Common Name
Acer arana/Jim vine maple
/Jeer macroph}-IJuHI biglcaf maple
Alnus mbra red alder
Atlr,·rium filix-(emina vat. ruc/osorum lady-fern
Cort/us seritea rcd osier dogv..·ood
Cory/us cornu/a \\? estern hazelnut
C}'tisus scoparius Scotch broom
Gaultheria sbaUon salal
Hedera heli:x English j"ry
flex sp. holly
Lonicera inwillcrate black tv,rinberrv
I ~YJicbitum americanum skunk cabbage
Mabonia nmwa Oregon grape
Afalus (usca Oreeon crabapple
Oemfena cerasifbrmis Indian plum
Poi}'Stichum munitum var. tlJunitum common sword-fern
Popullls baJsamikra black cottonwood
Prunru emarx.inata vat. mol/is bitter chern'
PmidotsJlJ!,a men::jnii Douglas fir
PteridimN aquilinulll bracken fern
IVinUl1CU/US repem creeping buttercup
Rubus antJeniams Himalayan blackberry
RPbus spectabilis salmonberry
&bus ursinus trailing blackberry
Salix Jcoll/mana scouler ',I,rillow
SambucIIs racemosa var. pubens red elderberry
Spiraea douJ!./mii Douglas' spirea
S ymphoricarpos a/btu snowberrv
T ara:x:acum ojficinak dandelion
Thuia plicata \"(' estern red cedar
Tobniea men~iesii piggy-back plant
TsuJ!.a he/trophy/fa western hemlock
Vacciflium Pamfofium red huckleberry , , , , Scientlfic name~ and specIes JdentIficatIon taken from Flora oj the I adjic I\Orl!JZHfSI (Hltchcock, 1973), \'( etland Plants of \'(: estern \\ asrungton &
Northwestern Oregon (Cooke, 1997), and Plants 0/ the Pacific Nol1bwesl (pojar and '\1ackinnon 2(04).
1219.1}OOl Tiffany Park Reservt
Fish and \~7i1dlife Habitat Assessment Study 7
Suundyiew Consultants lie
January 9, 2014
Appendix C -Site Photographs
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve Sound dew Consultams LLr.
f"ish and \Xlijdlifc Habitar Assessment Study 8 January 9, 2014
4 . \Vctland a rea on the eastern sit e .
~~
Appendix D -Biologist Qualifications
Railin Peterson
Railin Peterson is a professional Environmental Scientist with background in botb fresbwater and marine
ecology. She has experience in fisheries management, assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland
systems, conducting biological evaluations, documentation and coordination of ESA, MSA, and NEPA
compliance efforts, NPDES compliance, GIS mapping and analysis, and regulatory coordination and
pennitting.
Railin earned a Bacbelor of Science degree from the Evergreen State College -Olympia and a Master's in
Marine and Environmental Affairs from the University of Washingron -Seattle. In addition, she has receivcd
formal training in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for Fisheries and Wildlife Biology Applications
through the Northwest Environmental Training Center, and various NPDES Phase I and II stormwater
monitoring, stream habitat restoration and data analysis and regulatory subjects. For a list of representative
projects, please contact her at Soundview Consultants LLC.
Racheal Villa
Racheal Villa is a professional fisheries biologist with a diverse background in botb freshwater and marine
ecology with emphasis in sahnonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing marine,
shoreline, stream, and wedand systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments.
Racheal earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheties Biology from the University of Washington, Seartle,
with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life hisrory; restoration of fish communities
and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution; and biomonitoring and
assessment.
In addition, she has received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in
Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark, the revised
Washington State Werland Rating System, Selecting Wetland lvfitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach,
and Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the Washington State Department
of Transportation. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries Biologist.
Bill House
Bill House is a Staff Scientist with training and experience in fisheries, 'W-ildlife, and stream habitat
assessments and has extensive background in data management, analysis, and interpretation using Microsoft
applications and ArcGIS. Bill has training in Biological Assessments, NEPA reports, and Joint Aquatic
Resources Permit Applications OARP A).
Bill earned a Bachelor of Science in Zoology from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale and a Master of
Science in Biological Sciences from Emporia State University. He has received formal training in Columbia
Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) and has submitted and presented numerous publications and
professional scientific presentations. His previous experience at Tetra Tech, Inc. and Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife allowed him to gain strong fisheries field research techniques that include data collection,
data management, and data analysis and interpretation. He is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries and
Wildlife Biologist.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fi~h and \'\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 9
Soundvlew Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
Jeremy Downs
All field inspections, Jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, OH\'i/l\f determinations, habitat
assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
prepared for Novastar Development, Inc. were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs of
Soundview Consultants LLC.
Jeremy Downs is a Senior Biologist and Environmental Planner with professional training and extensive
experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, marine
and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream
assessments, underwater and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987.
Jeremy earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis. In
addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian Institute of
I\1arine Science. He also holds graduate-level professional certifications in various advanced wetland science
and management programs from both Portland State University and San Francisco State University, and he
has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the University of California Extension.
Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been
formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High
Water Mark, Designing Compensatory l\fitigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland
Mitigation and Monitoting Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department
of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the Washington Department of Transportation,.
He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar
qualifications from other jurisdictions.
--Jeremy Downs
Soundview Consultants LLC
2907 Harborvicw Drive
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(253) 514-8952 Office
(253) 514-8954 Fax
jeremy@soundviewconsultants.com
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
rish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Study
Date
10
Soundview Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
JANUARY 2014
l-:SounJ.17£ew {!on~uttant~_1
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
JANUARY 16, 2014
PROJECT LOCATION
EAST OF INTERSECTION OF SE 18TH STREET AND MONROE A VEl-WE SE
RENTON, WA 98058
(K!KG COUNTY)
PREPARED FOR
BARBARA YARINGTON
LAND ACQUISITION 1;L~NAGER
HENLEY USA
11100 M,\IN STREET, SUITE 100
BELLEVUE, W A 98004
PREPARED BY
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
GIG HARBOR, WASHlt\GTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
Executive Summary
Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop the Reserve at Tiffany Park (Project). The proposed project will
involve subdividing a 22.4-acre site (subject property) into 98 single-family residential lots and providing all
necessary infrastructure. The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and
Monroe Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast V.
of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M., within the city limits of Renton, WA. and consists of
four tax parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9154, and 212305-9061).
The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat
and/ or priority species in December 2013 and J anuaty 2014. The site was previously assessed for wetlands by
Grette Associates (2008) and recently reconfirmed by Schulz (2013). The previous site assessments identified
four wetlands (Wetlands A -D) located within the subject propetty boundaries. No other water bodies or
other potentially regulated habitat features have been previously identified on site. The wetlands are likely
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Depattment of Ecology
(Ecology), and the City of Renton, Washington.
The subject property is undeveloped land currently owned by the Renton School District. A majority of the
site is covered with second-growth mixed-canopy forest dominated by Douglas fIr, western hemlock, western
red cedar, big-leaf maple, red alder, and black cottonwood. The forest's understoty is dominated by
salmonberry, vine maple, western hazelnut, snowberry, red elderberry, red huckleberry, and Indian plum. The
gtoundcover includes sword fern, bracken fern, trailing blackberry, salal, Oregon gtape, and bleeding heatt.
The Cedar River water pipeline right of way borders the subject property's south boundary and the Mercer
Island water pipeline right of way borders the subject propetty's east boundary. High-density, single-family
residential developments are located adjacent to, or near, the subject property to the north, east, and south.
The subject propetty is situated ncar the top of a plateau that borders the Cedar River Valley to the north and
cast_
The proposed project will contain three designated critical areas for protection of the four existing wetlands
and associated buffers. \'(ietland A is located in Tract B, Wetlands B and C arc located in TractJ, and Wetland
D is located in Tract E. The wetland tracrs total an area of 120,505 square feet (2.77 acres). No additional
potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat or priority species were identified on the site beyond the four
identified wetlands and associated buffers; however, the Cedar River mainstem and associated habitat
corridor is located approximately 1,600 feet to the northeast of the site and another sensitive area, Ginger
Creek, to the northwest, is the receiving water body for the local stormwater system, existing and proposed.
With the wetland protections and careful project design proposed, along ,,~th best management practices to
meet current construction standards, no adverse project effects to sensitive habitats and species arc
anticipated.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \\'ildlife Ibbitat Assessment Study
Sound\'jew Consultants LLL
January 9, 2014
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Action l\rea .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline ................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Potentially Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Priority Species ........................................................... 6
4.2 Landscape/Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 5. Potential Effects Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Habitat Effects ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Species Effects ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Conservation l\fcasurcs and Management Recommendations .. , ...................... "., ......................... , .. , .. , ........... 9
Chapter 6. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Graph ..................................................................................... 4
Tables
Table 1. Sensitive Species and Determination of Project Effects ............................................................... I
Table 2. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations .................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Priority Species ............................................................ 9
Appendix A -Action Area
Appendix B -Background Information
Appendix C -Site Photographs
Appendix D -Biologist Qualifications
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \,\iilJlifc Hahitat Assessment Study
Appendices
Soundview Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
Chapter 1. Introduction
Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop the Reserve at Tiffany Park (project). The proposed project will
involve subdivision of a 22.4-acre site (subject property) into 98 single-family residential lots and all necessary
infrastructure. The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and Monroe
Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast '/, of Section
21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M., within the city limits of Renton, W.A. and consists of four tax
parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9154, and 212305-9061).
Access to the proposed project will be provided by existing streets, provide necessary traffic circulation, and
avoid impacts to wetlands, beyond minor wetland buffer averaging (Schulz, 2013). Surface water runoff from
the project will be collected in a stormwater detention pond located on the western portion of the subject
property i n Tract A.
A previous site investigation identified four wetlands on site (Schulz, 2013). Of the four wetlands, three were
identified as Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and D) and one (1) was identified as a Category III wetland
(\'Vetland B). The wetlands were rated using the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4-3-050, Part
M. Classification System. Wetlands A, C, and D are proposed to have minor reductions in buffer width.
Wetland B is within the 50-foot buffer of Wetland C. These wetlands were identified as isolated features and
no surface water connections or associated water bodies were identified onsite during the previous wetland
delineations or during the recent fisb and wildlife habitat assessment performed by Soundview Consultants
LLC (SVC) staff.
This fish and wildlife habitat assessment is intended to identify potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat,
and/ or priority species on or near the proposed project per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4-3-050,
Crirical Areas Regulations, and to assess any potential impacts to State and/or Federally-listed species from
the proposed project. The remainder of this document contains project details such as project description,
location, discussion and analysis of the project and potential effects to priority species and critical habitat
identified in the project vicinity. Recommended effect determinations associated with the proposed actions
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Sensitive Species and Determination of Project Effects.
Common name and location Scientific Name Listing Status* Potential for
Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii
Grizzly Bear, U rSUJ arctos hom"bilis
Bull Trout 5 aive/intls conf/uentus
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshmvytscha
Bald Eagle Hafiaeetus leucocephalus
Great Blue Heron Ardea Hemdias
Marbled Murrelet Bracf?yramphus ma17Jloratus
Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidental is
Pileatcd Woodpecker Drycopus pi/,atus
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
* SE -State Endangered, ST -State Threatened, 55 --State Sen~lt!'lre, SC -State Candldate, PE
+ + AJso protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle protection Act
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Asscs"mcnt Study
Impacts
SC Unlikely
SE None
FT None
FT None
SS++ None
SS Unlikely
ST None
FT None
FT None
SC Unlikely
FE None
Federal Endangered, FT -Federal Threatened,
Soundview Consultants Ilr
January 9, 2014
Chapter 2. Proposed Project
2.1 Project Location
The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and Monroe Avenue
Southeast, Renton, WA 98058 (King County) and is situated in the Southeast '/. of Section 21, Township 23
North, Range 5 East W.M., within the city limits of Renton, WA The property contains four tax parcels
(212305-9044,212305-9051,212305-9154, and 212305-9061).
To access the site from Interstate 405 -North, take Exit 3 and go south on WA -515. Turn left (east) onto
South Puget Drive and follow it for about 1 mile. Turn left (northeast) onto Royal Hills Drive Southeast and
rake the first right onto Lake Youngs Way Southeast. After approximately 0.5 miles turn left (southeast) onto
SE 18,h Street. Southeast 18,h Street dead ends at the subjecr ptoperty.
.'" " , . Tiffany Park
, \ I , ,
.J'~.. ' ~) \ .S"~hPI\ ..... . ~4-.. .
q' :
\
•
SE 1601h SI··
"
SE lolsr St
-
(GoogJe Maps, 2(l14)
1219.0()01 Tiffany Park Rt'~erve
fish and \,('ildlife Habitat Assessment StuJr
~.
$',
:SE 16151 St·
. SE162r>d SI'
2
S<!'" I 59;" 51;
Sf I 591hPI
Suuncivicw Consultants r.u:
January 9,2014
2.2 Project Description
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional single-family residences and associated
infrastructure within the City of Renton. The proposed project will include site clearing and establishment of
new impervious surfaces such as roadways, driveways, and roof areas. In addition, landscaped pervious areas,
open space, parks, and drainage facilities are all a part of the proposed project. However, the project has been
designed to fully avoid impacts to on site wetlands and associated buffers with dedicated critical areas tracts
to contain these protected features. Additionally, a tree preservation plan is proposed to retain a minimum of
all significant trees (those trees with a diameter at breast height of 6 inches or greater) or to mitigate
unavoidable loss of significant trees by replanting (Wasbingron Forestry Consultants, 2013)
A stormwater detention pond and associated StormFilter treatment system are proposed for surface water
treatment and detention and will be located in the western portion of the subject property and sized for Level
2 Flow Control meeting Basic Treatment, according to 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The
pond volume will be at least 308,779 cubic feet (Barghausen, 2013). The stormwater detention pond is meant
to improve water quality and flow control of water leaving the site. A riser overflow) a jail house grate, and
emergency overflow structure to a proposed 18 inch pipe will discharge runoff into the existing storm drain
conveyance system at the intersection of Lake Youngs \Xlay SE and 18 th Street SE. The treated stormwater
discharge will flow to an existing storm drain conveyance system and evenrually to Ginger Creek located to
the northwest of the site. The project is located in the mains tern subarea of the Lower Cedar River Basin.
2.3 Action Area
An action area has been identified for this assessment which encompasses the locations '.vhere direct impacts
from project activities vlill occur (the project area) as well as all areas that may be directly or indirectly
affected by the proposed project either tbrough physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms. The
geographic limits of the action area were defined by considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms
that may lead to impacts on priority species and associated habitat (further defined in Chapter 4). Two
mechanisms have been identified as having potential for impacting the potentially regulated fish and wildlife
species and/or associated habitat. These potencial impact mechanisms include temporary impacts from noise
of the construction actions and equipment and the long-term effects of increased impervious surfaces which
may alter stormwater runoff, in hydrologic regime and pollutants to downstream areas.
Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health-related
consequences (WSDOT, 2013). Terrestrial noise (transmitted through air) is measured in decibels (dB), on a
logarithmic scalc. The threshold for human bearing begins at 0 dBA and the level at which a human would
experience irreversible hearing loss is 180 dBA. Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Biological Assessment guidance document (WSDOT, 2010) provides a value for ambient noise levels in
residential suburban areas with moderate population density, such as the City of Renton, as 55 dBA during
the daytime. Numerical values for noise generated by typical construction machinery, such as land~clearing
equipment, road construction equipment and trucks are also given in the WSDOT guidance manual, some of
the loudest of which would generate 81 dBA of noise. The project proposes to use construction equipment
including an excavator, loader and a dump truck which may produce noise levels as high as 81dB at fifty (50)
feet from the activity. Calculating the terrestrial project action area due to the higher noise levels during
project actions, a radius of approximately 1,007 feet surrounding the project area will experience higher than
ambient noise levels during the proposed actions. Please see Table 2 and Figure 2 for the calculations and
Appendix A for the visual representation of this action area.
Stormwater impacts from the project may include altered hydrology and pollutant loading within the Cedar
River watershed basin due to the increase in impervious surfaces. Pollutant loading of copper and zinc from
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \'';/ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 3
Soundview Consultants !.I.e
January 9, 2014
increased use and increases in impervious surface are likely. The proposed stormwater treatment system has
been designed per King County SWDM, to slow peak flows using Level 2 flow control and to implement
Basic Treatment of runoff using an engineered StormFilter system (Barghausen, 2013). It is expected that
this treatment system will remove eighty (80) percent of the plat's total suspended solids (King County
SWDM, 2009). The proposed stormwater infrastructure, stormwater detention and treatment will discharge
to existing stonnwater facilities prior to entering Ginger Creek. W'ith proper stormwater system design and
maintenance, all long-term or short-term pollution loading impacts potentially associated with this project are
anticipated to be effectively managed and no offsite extension of the action area is anticipated for stormwater
impacts.
Pi re 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Gra h.
Terrestrial Attenuation
90 ~."."" ... '" _..... ;: i i:TT .. ,-------, ----;-+-+-L:-++_.-:.-
~ 50 .. ... 40 ..,
c ..
j! 30 ,
VI
.' . r
Ii
-:T' .
. ...
• Construction Noise
.Ambient Noise
20
. ". : .... t -__ :__ I_: __ ~_
10
0 :
50
----
500 5000
Distance (ft)
Table 2. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations.
Terrestrial Attenuation Table
Distance from Soutce Construction Ambient Sound Noise
(Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA)
50 0.00947 81 55
100 0.018939 75 55
200 0.037879 69 55
400 0.075758 63 55
800 0.151515 57 55
1600 0.30303 51 55
3200 0.606061 45 55
6400 1.212121 39 55
12800 2.424242 33 55
25600 4.848485 27 55
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Stud~· 4
50000
Measuted Noise Pressute
(Micro-Pascals) (atm)
224403.6909
112468.265
56367.65863
28250.75089
14158.91569
7096.267785
3556.55882
1782.501876
893.3671843
447.7442277
2.27E-08
1.14E-08
5.71E-09
2.86E-09
1.43E-09
7.19E-l0
3.6E-1O
1.81E-1O
9.05E-ll
4.54E-ll
Soundviev.' Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
Chapter 3. Methods
This chapter summarizes the methods used in this fish and wildlife habitat assessment, as pertaining to the
goals and requirements set forth by the City of Renton, per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Critical Areas
Ordinance, Title 4-03-050.
Prior to the recent site investigations, a thorough review of background data and pertinent documentation
was conducted, including the previous wetland delineation report (Schulz, 2013), Final Tree Protection Plan
by Washington Forestry Consultants Inc. (2013), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland
Inventory, the USGS Soil Survey data maps, and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS).
The site assessment was conducted by three qualified fish and \llildlife biologists as defmed in RMC 4-11-170
(Qualified Professional) (refer to Appendix F for biologists qualifications). A thorough investigation that
included an assessment of vegetative structure and composition of dominant species, any special habitat
features, presence and evidence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife species, and level of human
disturbance along with a verification of wetland presence and habitat quality was performed on December 19,
2013 by two fish and wildlife biologists. A separate critical areas assessment was conducted on January 2,
2014 to verify identification of select onsite features. Visual observations using stationary and walking survey
methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Any special habitat features or signs of wildlife
activity were photographed for documentation and noted for further examination. All field assessments used
the best available science pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 365-195·905 and definitions
contained in Rl'v!C 4-03-050.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Rcsct\'c
Fish and \Vildlife Habitat Assessment Study 5
Soundyiew Consultants LtC
January 9,2014
Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.1 Potentially Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Priority Species
Several potentially regulated fish and ,,;ldlifc hahitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the
project. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
lists contain those species and habitats protected by Pederal and State laws. According to \li7DF\",
SalmonScape and PHS online services, no priority habitats and! or species are identified on the subject
property; however, a more densely forested area within the action area (Appendix B2) is located to the
northeast, adjacent to the Cedar River, and is identified by PHS as a biodiversity habitat area and corridor.
The Cedar River contains listed salmonid priority species of coastal resident cutthroat, Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, bull trout, sockeye, and steelhead. As the site is located within the Cedar River watershed, the project
site has potential to impact the in stream habitat of the Cedar River. In addition, PHS data lists a Bald Eagle
management area to the east of the subject property in an unidentified location \vithin the aerial map
generated via PHS online services (see Appendix B for the PHS data map). No eagle nests were directly
observed during field assessments conducted by Sound,~ew Consultants, LLC
Grizzly bears and gray wolves are not ukely to use the action area. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos honibilis) preferred
habitat is semi-open country usually in mountainous areas. These animals are found in the Selkirk Mountains
or the Cascade Range, and will not be found within the action area. No habitat is found in the action area for
this species, and it is highly unlikely that one would be present in the action area. Gray wolf (Canir lupus)
preferred habitat type is found in forests, open meadows, rocky rides, lakes and rivers, locally within Selkirk
Mountains, or the Cascade Range, and ,,-ill not be found within vicinity of the action area. USF\",S (web site
2012) indicates that there might be gtay wolf presence in Snohomish County but not King County. No
habitat is found in the action area for this species.
In addition, the site contains habitat features identified during the assessment, such as standing snags and
mature trees and dense shrub cover in most places, notable for use by priority avian and mammal species.
Several tree snags of various conifer and deciduous species and ages that could provide forage areas and
shelter for various woodpeckers (e.g. Pileated Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Downey Woodpecker) were
identified onsite in addition to the delineated wetlands (Schulz, 2013). However, these species were not
identified as being present during the recent site investigations. Small passerine nests and Douglas squirrel
(Tamiasciurus douglash) nests were identified throughout the subject property along with direct observations of
black-capped chickadees (PoeCli, alricapillus), dark-eyed juncos (junco by,malis), and evidence of black-tailed deer
(Odocoileur hemionus). Considering the subject property borders an existing residential community, it is also
likely habitat for more opportunistic species such as coyotes (Canir latrans), raccon (Proryon Iotoi), and opossum
(Didelphis virginiana) among others. However, these species lack Federal and State protections, and are not
included on priority species lists or discussion of effects (Chapter 5.2).
Pileated Woodpeckers most often nest in old-gtowth forest and mature tree stands, prm~ded large snags are
present. The subject property contains a few potential foraging elements in the wetlands and associated
buffers. Snags in the subject area show signs of woodpecker foraging activities, but few trees will likely
provide nesting sites for many years. Pileated Woodpeckers are found in urban forests and are listed on
WDFW's PHS list; however PHS does not indicate the species presence in the ~cinity of the subject
property. Bat roosting sites are also likely to be available onsite in the larger evergteen trees, and used
seasonally. Project effects to priority species are discussed further in Chapter 5.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve Sound~·jew Consultants LLJ..:
Fish and \Y/ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 6 January 9, 2014
4.2 Landscape/Existing Conditions
Topography I Setting
The subject property is located within the Cedar River watershed and is positioned on a valley plateau. The
topography of the site consists of moderate elevation changes throughout. Schulz (2013) determined no
surface flows of water are present on the subject property; this fact was confIrmed by Soundview Consultants
LLC's site visits conducted in December 2013 and January 2014.
A WDFW PHS biodiversity area and habitat corridor is located in the project action area, and the Cedar River
is located approximately 1,600 feet from the subject property. \X'DFW's interactive data map (Salmons cape)
identifIes no streams with fIsh presence within the subject property's boundaries or of sufficient proximity so
as to have buffers extend onsite. No priority habitats or Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant or animal
species were observed during Soundview Consultant's surveys.
The Cedar River water pipeline runs along the subject property's south boundary and the Mercer Island water
pipeline runs along the subject property's east boundary. Both pipelines are fully enclosed, subsurface
facilities and the right-of-ways are maintained by the City of Renton, W A. Residential developments are
located adjacent to or near the subject property to the north, east, south, and west. The subject property is
situated near the top of a plateau that borders the Cedar River Valley to the north and east. A subject
property vicinity map is provided in Figure 1.
Soilsl Vegetation
The NRCS Soil Survey of King County, Washington identified two soil series. A majority of the site contains
the soil series Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (86 percent of the subject property) and a small portion along
the south end of the project that is classifIed as Arents, Alderwood material (14 percent of the subject
property). Appendix C Map C6 contains the NRCS soils map.
The entire subject property is forested and was subject to previous logging and dearing activities. Forested
areas are primarily characterized by coniferous and deciduous trees. Coniferous tree cover is predominantly
Douglas fIr, Western hemlock, and Western red cedar. The deciduous tree cover is predominantly big leaf
maple, black cortonwood, bitter cherry and red alder. The understory is mostly composed of salmonberry,
vine maple, sala!, Oregon grape, western hazelnut, snowberry, red elderberry, red huckleberry, and Indian
plum. The ground cover includes sword fern, bleeding heart, and bracken fern. Non-native vegetation found
on the subject property includes English ivy, Scotch broom, and holly. Appendix B5; Table B-1, provides a
detailed list of plant species observed during the site investigation on the subject property.
Hydrology IWetlands
No stormwater structures or man-made aquatic features were identifIed on the subject property. In addition,
no naturally occurring streams drainages were identified onsite or adjacent to the subject property. \\' etland
hydrology appears to have a high influence from rainfall, a shallow groundwater table, and surface sbeet flow.
Because the wetlands appear to be closed depressions and not connected to any downstream aguatic features
or habitats, they may be fully isolated wetlands.
Schulz (2013) identified a total of four (4) onsite wetlands identified as Wetlands A-D. Three wetlands
(\Vetlands A, C, D) were rated as Category II wetlands; one wetland (\Vetland B) was rated as a Category III
wetland. There are three (3) Critical Area tracts are being established for wetlands and wetland buffers (B, E,
and K) that total 120,505 square feet (2.77-acres). Each critical area will be identified using necessary signs as
required by King County (public Rule 21A-24).
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and W'ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 7
Soundview Consultants I I r
January 9, 2014
Chapter 5. Potential Impacts Analysis
An analysis of potential impacts on regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species from the proposed
project is detailed below.
5.1 Habitat Impacts
Onsite habitat impacts will include loss of standing snags, mature trees and dense shrub cover in most places;
however, these impacts are being mitigated via a \vetland preservation and significant tree conservation plan
(Washington Forestry Consultants, 2013). Project actions of site clearing and establishment of new
impervious surfaces such as roadways, driveways, and roof areas will remove at least seventy percent of
significant trees and surrounding upland understory vegetation. Other habitat features on site, such as snags
in tbe wetland areas will be preserved as wildlife habitat (2.77-acres).
W'ater quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients and other inputs from subject
property runoff/stormwater are a potential source for direct effects on listed species; however, the
stormwater system will detain and treat funoff to minimize downstream impacts to the Cedar River basin.
The project does propose stonnwater treatment facilities and B.;\,IPs. An increase in impervious surfaces can
change hydrologic dynamics and cause a decline in evapotranspiration and a decrease in infiltration (NOAA,
2003). On a watershed scale, accumulative actions which increase impervious surfaces may have an overall
negative impact on hydrology. Changes in hydrology, from increases in impervious surfaces and loss of
forested areas, can reduce infiltration and dilution. Urban runoff and storm water discharge can increase
loading of nutrients, bacteria, metals, pesticides, and otber toxicants to streams (NOAA, 2003). In adrlition,
changes in hydrology can increase frequency and severity of flooding, accelerate channel erosion and
streambed substrate disturbance (NOAA, 2003). Because of this, a stormwater detention pond will be utilized
to slow peak flows and regulate storm water discharge rates. The proposed project does not propose to
impact any ESA or State listed species.
Offsite habitat impacts due to increased noise levels from construction activities could potentially create
temporary negative impacts on the use of offsite habitat features in a small portion of the outer action area.
The offsite habitat features include the more densely forested sloped area adjacent to the Cedar River habitat
corridor within the outer limit of the action area. Construction equipment will likely produce noise at levels
higher than ambient levels as discussed in Chapter 2.4 regarrling noise action area calculations. The estimated
threshold of harassment/injury for marbled murrelets and spotted owls is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites;
therefore, if northern spotted owl, bald eagle, or marbled murrelet nests are in the action area, the temporary
project effects arc not anticipated to harass or injure nesting indi,iduals. For example, the disturbance
threshold at marbled murrelet nesting sites is an estimated 70dBA (WSDOT, 2013). It is unlikely nesting sites
are located \vitbin tbe action area as this area is located in a suburban area previously impacted by logging
activities and there are no suitable nesting habitats v.1.thin or near the proposed project site. Any anticipated
habitat impacts to offsite areas are anticipated to be temporary and minor due to the existing level of
development.
5.2 Species Impacts
Priority species potentially impacted by onsite project actions include Pileated woodpecker and Townsend
bats. Evidence of woodpecker presence was observed in standing snags in and around onsite wetlands;
however, no PiIeated woodpeckers were observed and the forage signs were incunclusive for Pileated
woodpecker presence. Preservation of wetlands will provide protection of these habitat features. Townsend
bats may use significant trees as roosting areas. The significant tree preservation plan will provide additional
habitat availability for these species.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 8
Soundview Consultant~ LLC
January 9, 2014
Offsite priorit), aguatic spccics associated ,,~th the Cedar River in water habitat are not anticipated to be
negatively affected by the project due to conservation measures discussed in Chapter 5.1. Terrestrial priority
species associatcd with the Cedar River habitat corridor may be affected by terrestrial noise if they are within
a small footprint of the 1,007 foot action area surrounding the project during project actions. As the action
area is limited to areas adjacent to residential development and temporary in nature, no lasting negative effects
are anticipated ro priority species (Table 3).
Table 3. Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Priority Species.
Common name and location Scientific Name Listing Status* Potential for
Impacts
Townsend's Big-cared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii SC Unlikely
Grizzlv Bear, Urslls arc/os hombilis SE None
Bull Trout Salvelinus con!luentus FT None
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawv/scha FT None
Bald Ea"le Halia,etus I,acoe,vhalus SS++ None
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias SS Unlikely
Marbled Murrelet Brachvramvhus marmora/us ST None
Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss FT None
Northern Soottcd Owl S trix oeeiden/altS FT None
Pileated Woodnecker Drvcovus vileatus SC Unlikely
Grav Wolf Canis luvus FE None
'" SE -State Endangered; ST -State Threatened; 5S -State SenslUve; SC -State CandJdatc; t E-tcdcral Endangered; FT -Federal Threatened;
+ + Also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle protection Act
5.3 Conservation Measures and Management Recommendations
Avoidance and minimization measures in the project plan include TESC measures consisting of silt fencing,
seeding of disturbed soils, and brush barriers installed using BMF's. Outlined in the project's Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (S\VPPP) and TESC Plan prepared by the Project Engineer and approved by the
responsible \Xletland Scientist prior to clearing and grading acti'vities. Once TESC measures are in place, the
site will be selectively logged and site development ~ll proceed.
Equipment will be kept in good working order free of leaks. All eguipment staging and materials stockpiles
will be kept out of preserved wetlands, drainages, and the respective buffers, and the areas will be kept free of
spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material ,,;11 bc sourced from areas onsite or from approved
suppliers, and will bc free of pollutants and hazardous materials.
RMC Title 4-4-130 reguires that a minimum of 30°/" of all healthy significant trees be retained on the project
(W A Forestry, 2013). Significant trees were defined in the forestry report (Washington Forestry Consultants,
Ine., 2013) as ranging in diameter from 6 to 36 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and classified as
sound, healthy, long-term trees. Code compliance for the project requires retention of at least 168 of the 559
significant trees identified in the project area or mitigation for removal of any of these significant trees.
According to the forestry report, 102 existing significant trees are proposcd to be retained and an additional
planting of 396 native trees on the subject property. The forestry report also discusses proposed actions for
retaining existing significant trees.
Management recommendations for preserving hydrologic features on the subject property include using high
visibility fencing to protect critical areas, implementing a contingency plan if necessary. All wetland and buffer
areas associated v,rith the conservation actions will be protected by installation of construction fencing to
discourage intrusion and improper use of these areas.
1219.0001 Tiffanv Park Reserve
Fish and W'ildlife' I Iabitat Assessment Study
Soundview Consultants I.I.~
January 9, 2014
As the wetlands were the only critical habitat areas identified onsitc, implementation of the following
management measures will help ensure that sensitive fish and wildlife species located on the subject property
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development.
• Appropriate sign.ge will be installed along the outer petimeter of the wetland buffers, that are
likely to be intruded upon by humans, indicating the sensitive nature of the habitat;
• Activities within the critical areas should be limited to passive recreational activities (e.g. wildlife
viewing);
• Pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers should not be used or stored within the 50 foot
buffer of each wetland;
• Temporary silt fencing should be installed between the proposed residences anJ the wetland
buffers during construction;
• Stormwatcr runoff from new impervlOus surfaces should be infiltrated or treated prior to
dispersion into wetlands and! or off-property drainage systems, and
• Careful site planning and construction methods should be implemented to ensure no negative
impacts will be made to the critical areas identified in this habitat assessment.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserye Soundvicw Consultants !l.t:
Fish and W"ildilfe Habitat Assessment Study 10 January 9, 2014
Chapter 6. References
Barghausen Engineering, Land Planning, Surveying. 2013. Preliminary Technical Information
Report: Reserve at Tiffany Park. Prepared for Henley USA, LLC; November 12, 2013.
Hitchcock, c.L. and A Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press. Seattle, Washington.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. HCD Stormwater Online Guidance for
Analyzing Stormwater Effects. NOAA Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. March 2003.
Pojar, J. and A MacKinnon. 2004. Plants of tbe Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British
Columbia, and Alaska (Revised). Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, B.C.
Schulz, CG. 2013. Wetland Determination: Reserve at Tiffany Park. Preliminary Plat, City of
Renton, Washington.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 2013. Final Tree Protection Plan: Reserve at Tiffany Park.
Prepared for Barbara Yarington, Henley USA.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual, Lacey, Wi\. Ecology Publication # 96-94.
Washington State Department of Transportation. 2013. Biological Assessment Preparation:
Advanced Training Manual, Version 02-2013.
Zulauf, AS. 1979. Soil Survey of Pierce County, Washington. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, and Washington State University, Agriculture Research Center. Washington,
D.C
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \~;ildlife Habitat Assessment StuJy 11
Soundvicw Consultants L-U~
Janua!}· 9, 2014
Appendix A -Action Area
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and ~!ildlife Habitat Assessment Study
Suund\·iew Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
Appendix B -Background Information
Thi s Appe n dix includes a USF\VS Na ti o n al W e d and I nve ntory m a p (13 1), P r io ri ry H a bitat a nd
Species M ap (13 2), a n N RCS Soi l Surve y map (83), an d a li st of p lants present on the site (84).
1219.0001 T iffllny Par k Rcserw
Fi sh and \X "iJdli fc Habit:ll As~cssrnenr Srudy 2
Sou nd vicw Consulran ts LI e
January 9,201 4
Appendix B1 . National Wetlands Inventory Map
12 19.0001 Tiffan y Park R('scn'c
Fis h a nd K ild lifc I-Ia b irm ASM:ssment Stlld~' 3
Sou nd\'icw Consull:mts IH
J anua ry 9, 20 14
~~
~§
:::=:.-
:.:-1
g: ~:
ft' .~
t ~
>(;;
~ S
~ ,.;
~
" ~
[
'<
~
g
~ < ~n = 0 § ;;
.~ B--= ~;;
~ ~
.,
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT
~t OA T A.S£T ~)4.5~iP'vtIk: 'u.ty () P I 40lIO ItQe44!
REPORT OA TE O'''eI2OIC 11 01 All
--.. -----------.... -=----~lU"Ll ""~----"PL
.~ ..... '.»f/oI're C ~-It~YAU.!'Y~",r~"UI'!IUI l" ..... rQu'W ... ."""-.""" W', .~ .......
JC)YJ"fI .~I!"I C CII»"4»Sf'CI....ox::J ~\.mtO ........ CtOM M"!JII W!-nA"~
_ .......
t.IoI .. ~ HA
--~~ "" WA
oc:w
~.ntw. tc'J n "'tQ t.e1tO
---.... -_ ....
• w .... CorfIt .!'WI .... .",...
~\I.APPlO .......
, WA~.".,,"WM;.!t -.:-.......
0I:.c\.NVC " rNa ~~ ~ .... ,..w~~tI,..,. tr\tWd!!t~"""""II!,c.en ~ ~ '''I'l0l ~ ~~pt'WIIM~ .. ~ 0!!'dJI1~~
_Ii)N~~,..,.eOl'ltM.r.oo...,. '"M~.J'!tiIII;tII"t~fW~~tIIIIlto'Idll'tSl'lfMCUl'l:lMl> ..... t:ltt.I~ •• "j~~"".~.""'e.II
re ~ ~ .. ..., OCDII' W .... NIl:CMI'7If!'ft lJIOIf'I Wt wt:nw..,.,... 01 ..... b'~ acw: ... .,.~ IkI'Wy\ u. ... ,. ~~ !nt ~.,.,." ... ~.........""IO""" at
~tlfII'IO'1)"""'" ~tI~II'IO~""~"kqfCll>.r..,~~~ ~ ........ jt'd ..... Jt"lII ... ~ 'III':)II"W$Ofot"~",,,~",,1\Mi
"'-'"' 0 11 10.'3)'4 l' 07 ....
~
'"0
(1)
::l
~ X·
t:Q
N
~
~
'tI
::I . o
::I.
~
::t
~
!!. ...
~ ...
~
::l
~
CFJ
'"0
(1)
(")
~.
(1)
Vl
s::
..§
§
o
12 19.0001 T Iffany P ark Re ~ern Sound,·jnv Consu ltan ts L!J:
ri sh an d \'\'ildlifc H abitat i\sscssmcm Study 5 Jalluary 9 ,2014
Appendix B3. NRCS Soil Survey Map
• , ,
..... ~
f
1
!
f
l
.... ~
• • ,
King County Area, Washington (WA633)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres inAOI
A lderwood g r av elly
AgC sand y loam , 6 to 15 23 .0
pe r cent slopes
Arents, Alderwood
A rnC materi al, 6 to 15 3.7
p e rcent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 26.7
1219.0001 Tiffanr Park Rescryc
Fis h a nd \'\'ildli fe Habitat Assessment Studr 6
• , ,
• • ,
I Jl
ad
~
6 ~ I
! ~
§~
#
! ~ ~
l!
I •
I I ~I
§
• at jj ! ,
•• f .. i Iv
Percent of AOI
86.2
13.8
100%
Sound\'icw (:onsulta nts I.l i
January 9, 201 4
Appendix B4. Observed Plant Species
Tabl B 4 e -PI ant specIes eXlSt1n~ on th e proJect sIte.
Species Name 1 Common Name
Acer aranafllm vine maple
Acer mt/crophyl/tIJfJ bigleaf maple
Alnus mbra red alder
A/hynum /ilix-(emina var. mc/oJortfm lady-fern
Comus sen"cea red osier dOg'>vood
Cory/us cornu/a \Xlestern hazelnut
CytiJUs scoparius Scotch broom
Gaultheria shallon salal
Hedera helix Englishh'y
!lex sp. holly
Lonicera i'lI'oiJlcrate black t\.vinberrv
Lysichitum americanllm skunk cabbage
Afahonia nen'OSfl Oregon grape
Maius (usea Oregon crabapple
Oem/ena rerasiformis Indian plum
Po/ystichum mUl1it!lm var. mum/um common sworcl-fern
Populus baLraHlifera black cottonwood
Prof/US emaryjnata var. moffit bitter chern'
Pseudo/tUfa men:nesii Douglas fir
Ptm'dium aqllih,Jl/m bracken fern
Romiflcu/JIJ repens creeping buttercup
IVlbus armeni(1alJ Himalavan blackberry
RubllJ spedabiliJ salmonberry
Rubus ursinus trailing blackherry
Salix scou/enana scouler willow
Sambucus racemosa var. puhens red elderberry
Spiraea dfJuJ!./asij Douglas' spirea
5 Y"IPhoncarpos a/bus snowberrv
Taraxacum officinale dandelion
Thuja piicata \V'estern red cedar
Tolmiea men:{iesii piggy-back plant
1'SJI.2,O heterophylla western hemlock
Vacciniut/1 pan'i(Olium red huckleberry , " " Scientlfic names and speoes IdentJfkatlOn taken tram I lora of tbe Pacific j',orthwest (HItchcock, 1973), \\etland Plants of \'{estern 'X-ashington &
Northwestern Uregon (Cooke, t 997), and Piants of the Pacific 1Vorthll-'eJt (pojar and Mackinnon 2004).
t 219.0001 FEffany Park Reserve
Fish anJ W'ildlife Habitat Assessment Study 7
Soundviev., Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
Appendix C -Site Photographs
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and W'i1dlife Habitat Assessment Study 8
Soundview Consultants u.e
January 9, 2014
Appendix D -Biologist Qualifications
Railin Peterson
Railin Peterson is a professional Environmental Scientist with background in both fresh\vater and marine
ecology. She has experience in fisheries management, assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland
systems, conducting biological evaluations, documentation and coordination of ESA, MSA, and NEPA
compliance efforts, NPDES compliance, GIS mapping and analysis, and regulatory coordination and
permitting.
Railin earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the Evergreen State College -Olympia and a Master's in
Marine and Em~ronmental Affairs from the University of Washington -Seattle. In addition, she has received
formal training in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPl\) from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for Fisheries and Wildlife Biology Applications
through the Northwest Environmental Training Center, and various NPDES Phase I and II stottowater
monitoring, stream habitat restoration and data analysis and regulatory subjects. For a list of representative
projects, please contact her at Soundview Consultants LLC.
Racheal Villa
Racheal Villa is a professional fisheries biologist with a diverse background in both fresh\vater and marine
ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing marine,
shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments.
Racheal earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the University of Washington, Seattle,
with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life history; restoration of fish communities
and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution; and biomonitoring and
assessment.
In addition, she has received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in
Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, Determining the Ordinary High \,\iater Mark, the revised
Washington State Wetland Rating System, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach,
and Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the \Xlashington State Department
of Transportation. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries Biologist.
Bill House
Bill House is a Staff Scientist with training and experience in fisheries, wildlife, and stream habitat
assessments and has extensive background in data management, analysis, and interpretation using l\.1icrosoft
applications and ArcGIS. Hill has training in Biological Assessments, NEPA reports, and Joint Aquatic
Resources Permit Applications OARPA).
Bill earned a Bachelor of Science in Zoology from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale and a 1V1aster of
Science in Biological Sciences from Emporia State University. He has received formal training in Columbia
Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) and has submitted and presented numerous publications and
professional scientific presentations. His previous experience at Tetra Tech, Inc. and Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife allowed him to gain strong fisheries field research techniques that include data collection,
data management, and data analysis and interpretation. He is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries and
Wildlife Biologist.
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \'\iildlife Habitat Assessment Study 9
Soundvie\v ConsuJtants LLC
January 9, 2014
Ieremy Downs
All field inspections, Jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, OHWM determinations, habitat
assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
prepared for Novastar Development, Inc. were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs of
Soundview Consultants LLC.
Jeremy Downs is a Senior Biologist and Environmental Planner with professional training and extensive
experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, marine
and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream
assessments, underwater and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987.
Jeremy earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis. In
addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian Institute of
Marine Science. He also holds graduate-level professional certifications in various advanced wetland science
and management programs from both Portland State University and San Francisco State University, and he
has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the University of California Extension.
Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been
formally trained in the use of the Washingron State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High
Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland
Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washingron State Department
of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the Washington Department of Transportation,.
He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar
qualifications from other jurisdictions.
Jeremy Downs
Soundview Consultants ILC
2907 Harborview Drive
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(253) 514-8952 Office
(253) 514-8954 Fax
;eremy@soundviewconsultants.com
1219.0001 Tiffany Park Reserve
Fish and \X"ildlifc Habitat Assessment Study
Date
10
Soundvicw Consultants LLC
January 9, 2014
PRELIMINARY
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
Reserve at Tiffany Park
S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E.
Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Henley USA, LLC
11100 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
November 12, 2013
Revised February 24,2014
Our Job No. 16055
MAR 0 32014
CMl ENGINEERING, lAND PLANNING, SURVEYING
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES. TUMWATER. WA. LONG BEACH. CA • WALNUT CREEK. CA. SAN DIEGO. CA
www.barghausen.com
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Figure 1 -Site Location
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 2 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics
Figure 3 -Soils
2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements
2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements
3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A. Existing Site Hydrology
B. Developed Site Hydrology
C. Performance Standards
D. Flow Control System
E. Water Quality System
5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
7.0 OTHER PERMITS
8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPPP) ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
11.0 APPENDIX A -Lower Cedar River Basin And Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan
16055.003.doc
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN YlANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER
Project Owner Henley USA, LLC
Phone (425) 709-6527
; Address 11100 Main Street
Bellevue, WA 98004
Project Engineer Barrv J. Talkington P.E.
Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers
Phone (425) 251-6222
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION
Ciil Landuse Services
Subdivison , Short Subd. , UPD
o Building Services
MlF 'Commerical , SFR
III Clearing and Grading
~ Right-of-Way Use o Other
Part 5 PLAN,'\ND REPORT INFORMATION
Technical Information Report
Type of Drainage Review ~, Targeted
(circle): arge Site
Date (include revision February 12, 2014
dates):
Date of Final:
Part6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS
.
,
'.'
Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Name Reserve at Tiffany Park
DOES Parmit # _________ _
Location Township --"'23:<:N-'-__ _
Range _-,5",E~ ___ _
Section _~2,,"1,--___ _
Site Address East of Intersection of S.E. 18th Street
and Monroe Avenue S.E. Renton, WA
Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
0 DFWHPA o Shoreline
0 COE404 Management
0 DOE Dam Safety [I Structural
RockeryNaultf __ 0 FEMA Floodplain o ESA Section 7 0 COE Wetlands
1
0 Other
Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans)
Type (circle one): I ~ulIl' Modified I
mall Site
Date (include revision January 28, 2014
dates):
Date of Final:
..
Type (circle one): Standard , Complex I Preapplication I Experimental' Blanket
Description: (include condftfons in TIR Section 2)
Date of AiJiJroval:
2009 Surface Water Design Manual
1
119/2009
KI"IG COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: Yes I No Describe: I
I
Start Date:
Completion Date:
,-------------------------------------------------~-------------
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRA.INAGE BASIN
Community Plan:
Special District Ov-er7IaC:-y-'-s-: -----------
Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River Basin
Stormwater Requirements:
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
DRiver/Stream 0 Steep Slope ________ _ o Lake 0 Erosion Hazard _______ _ o Wetlands 0 Landslide Hazard ______ _ o Closed Depression 0 Coal Mine Hazard ------o Floodplain 0 Seismic Hazard --------------o Other 0 Habitat Protection ______ _
0 _________ __
Part 10 SOILS ..........•....
Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential
AgC 6-15 E!ercent High
AmC 6-15 E!ercent High
o High Groundwater Table (wnhin 5 feet) o Sole Source Aquifer o Other o Seeps/Springs
o Additional Sheets Attached
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/912009
2
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE LIMITATION I SITE CONSTRAINT
o Core 2 -Offsite Analysis
o Sensitive/Critical Areas
o SEPA
o Other
0 __________ _
o Additional Sheets Attached
--
Part 12 TlR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area)
Threshold DIscharge Area:
(name or description) Discharge to existing conveyance system at S.E. 18th Street and Lake Youngs Way S.E
Core Requirements (all 8 apply)
[---Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural DischarjJe Locations: 1 -
Olfsite Analysis Level: CDI 2 1 3 dated:
Flow Control Level: 1 ~Ws~ 3 or Exemption Number
(incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BM s
Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A
Erosion and Sediment Control ESC·Site Supervisor: TBD
Contact Phone: TBD
After Hours Phone: TBD
Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private I <!:'ubliC;>
If Private. Maintenance Log ReQuired: Yes INo
Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes I No
Liability
Water Quality Type: (Basi':)l Sens. Lake 1 EnhanCed Basicm I Bog
(include facility summary sheet) or ExemptiCll'r"ml.
Landscape ManaQement Plan: Yes I/No)
Special Requirements (as applicable)
Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA 1 SDO I MDP 1 BP I LMP I Shared Fac. ~
Requirements Name:
Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major I Minor 1 Exemption 18
1 DO-year Base Flood Elevation (or range):
Datum:
Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A
Source Control Describe landuse: N/A
(comm.!industriallanduse) Describe any structural controls:
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/912009
3
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / (f\!0)
Treatment BMP: ___ '--"' __________ _
Maintenance Agreement: Yes / rf\iO\
with whom? ~
Other Drainage Structures
Describe:
L-______________ . __ ....... ___ . ____________ . .....J
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ....
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
I:EI Clearing Limits I:EI Stabilize Exposed Surfaces
I!I Cover Measures I:EI Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
I!I Perimeter Protection I:EI Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure
o Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities
I:EI Sediment Retention I!I Flag Limits of SAO and open space
III Surface Water Collection
preservation areas
o Other ~ o Dewatering Control
I:EI Dust Control
LI:EIXlow Control
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch)
Flow Control Type/Description Water Qualitv Type/Description
IE] Detention Vault o Biofiltration
o Infiltration o Wetpool
o Regional Facility UiJ Media Filtration StormFilter
o Shared Facility o Oil Control
o Flow Control o Spill Control
BMPs o Flow Control BMPs o Other o Other I
i
i
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009
4
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
.... . ..
Part15 EASEMENTSfTRACTS
[iiJ Drainage Easement o Covenant
(E) Native Growth Protection Covenant
~ Tract o Other
o Cast in Place Vault
(E) Retaining Wall
[E) Rockery > 4' High
o Structural on Steep Slope o Other
.
.... ...
I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, hav . ited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet the Technical Information Report. To the best of my
knowledge the Information 1J1~d~h~e1r 2'~~~c=:::---
February 12, 2014
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/912009
5
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park is a single-family residential project consisting of
98 lots zoned R8. The project is 21.66 acres in size containing four tax parcels (212305-9044,
212305-9051,212305-9054, and 212305-9061). The site is located at the dead end of S.E. 18th
Street near the intersection of Monroe Avenue S.E. in a portion of Section 21, Township 23 North,
Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton.
The site is polygonal in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in the
northwest corner of the site at the dead-end of S.E. 18th Street. The second road stub is located
to the southwest of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River Pipeline at the dead-end of
124th Place S.E. These road stubs are to be tied into and will be extended into the site to provide
public access and circulation. This site is undeveloped and is currently zoned R8; with a majority
of the site being composed of second-growth forest. The elevations of the site range from 456 to
398. There are four wetlands located on site; three of them are Category 2, with one Category 3.
For further detail please refer to the Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schultz
within section 6.0 of this report.
The site is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences. Along the east property line
is the Mercer Island Pipe Line RfW. Along the south boundary is the Cedar River Pipeline RfW.
Access to the site from 124th Place S.E will require the developer to obtain right of way or an
easement through the Cedar River Pipeline RfW.
On-site soils are mapped as mostly Alderwood, with a small portion along the southern boundary
mapped as Arents. Please refer to the Soils Map in this section. All drainage calculations were
modeled as till soils.
The project will be constructing roadways consisting of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street
trees. The site will tie into the existing roads at the dead-ends of S.E. 18th Street and 124th
Place S.E. All roads for this project have been designed to be 26 feet wide, with a 7-foot planter
strip at the back of curb and a 5-foot sidewalk (both sides). Overall the proposed public right-of-
way is to be 53 feet in width.
The topography on site is gentle and rolling. The site generally slopes from east to west from
elevation 456 to 398. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced onsite. The
wetland areas will remain undisturbed along with portions of their buffers. Buffer averaging is
proposed. Other portions of the site will remain undisturbed in an effort to preserve as many
existing trees as possible.
The drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface
Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The drainage design shall meet at a minimum the
Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Treatment. The drainage facility located in
Tract A is a detention pond sized for Level 2 Flow Control. Water quality will be met by the use of
a StormFilter for this project. The project will be discharging the drainage from the pond to the
existing drainage system within S.E. 18th Street. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage
calculations.
16055.003.doc
_ ~. ~ u
R EFE R EN C E: T homas Guide (2 006 )
Scale:
Horizon/al: N. T.S . Vertical: Nf A
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUT H
K ENT, WA 980 32
(4 25) 2 5 1-62 22
(4 25) 2 5 1-878 2
CIVI L ENG IN EE RING , LAND PLANNIN G ,
SUR VEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SER VIC ES
P:I 16oo0s\ f 6055\e xflibif\graphics\ 16055 vm ap.cdr
"
Fo r :
Titl e :
....
" • m
aom -
Reserve at Tiffany Park
Renton , Wash ington
VICINITY MAP
Jo b Number
16055
DATE: 11/04/13
,
REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Dec. 2011)
Scale:
Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NJA
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(425) 251-6222
(425) 251-8782
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING,
SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:I 160005\ 16055lexhibitlgraphics\ 16055 amsp. cdr
For:
Title:
\ , ,
'.
\
"
'. ' " , , :. " ... , '. ,
\
\
'.
Reserve at Tiffany Park
Renton, Washington
ASSESSOR MAP
\ ,
Job Number
16055
DATE: 11104113
SOuDl:::ASI
JEJ=fTRSO~ C)URT
/SOU 7l"J ,ASI
/
/ KIRKLAND COURT
ZONE X
21
SOUTHL;AS r
SOUTHEAST
"" 20TH CQURT m z
C
m
SOUTHE,4S [
,6TH PUKF..------....
SOUTHEAST 18TH
COURT
19TH COURT
SE
CITY OF R NTON
"123RD PLACE
SOUTHEAST
SOUTHEAST
530088
STREET
128TH PLACE-
SOUTHEAST
LEGEND
OTHER A,RE:"S
CORPOR.
ZONE X .-1"-.,, d,·! .. "n,,,~d In !.><.. ,,,~,i(k "I~J,_\~."
tl,~,dl'l.,in
REFERENCE: Federal Emergency ManagemenlAgency (Portion of Map 53033C0983 F, May 1995)
Scale:
Horizontal: N. T..S .. Vertical: N1A
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(425) 251-6222
(425) 251-8782
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING,
SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:\ 16OOOs\ 160SS\exhibit\graphics\ 16055 fema .. cdr
For:
Title:
Reserve at Tiffany Park
Renton, Washington
FEMAMAP
Job Number
16055
DATE: 11104113
JnlVd' ANV.UI.L.LV :ilJUl~Smr
H04
NlS'fS CEldOl3A3(J3I:ld
.' ,.
"
"
"
...... •.
,
'"
170096 'fM '3I1A3Il38
001 3lJns '1331::1.lS NI'ffl OOIU
Oll 'fsn A3lN3H
mwn-0\00
.",-.......
lMl··· ~00If:l
...--"-=--
SY.lWJJS -r.'OOI'INOWJG '~v.wns
'()NINNVld Otlfl '~~I:)NJ 1WJ
XV.:! l"gL9-lo;;l"(o;;l"V)
l"l"Z9-(o;;Z(o;;l"t)
Z£Oe6 'riM 'IN3)!
Hlf)OS 3nN3A" GNU S (Zel
~",OHlI ~~/.( ~~ ~ >?
.I!> .. ~' ~,. of> .iC ~~ \ -~ ,.,,~Q7 SS09I
0$01)",,,, ~.,)
~-
"\ I \ ..... /. / {! ! -----!
-"
.'
",
,,,
;
"1'.;!v:·;:<~·
'.::-~::.. '"
, ,
..........
I
\
\ --\ ---,-
\
\ ,-I -.... -... -\ ..... ---
--' 1'" \
. __ -:::.-::.~~_..l,\
, , (-------1
) :
.,../ j----------j
'r ,
L-------J I '
I ' I I
I I r--------\
r ,
I ____ -1,
\-----
\ ------\ \---\
\ \
\ \
,
~
(~
I
I ,
~--
I ,
\---, ,
I , ,
f--,
\ , ,
\ ,-
I
\ ,
---\-/
\
\
\
\ \ ------", \----\
\ \
, ,
\
\ , --.... --\-// -\
\ \ ,.-\
\ \ \
\ ----I -,
\ \
I \
\ ----\ \ ,.------\
\"-\
----\ \
\
\
\
---I
\
\
\
\ .... ----\ ,
~"
\
\
\ --\ \---' \ I .... ".
\
\
.... .-........ -A I --\ --\
\ \
\ I
\ ---I
\ .... ----\
\ --,--
\
\
\
\
\ -,-
\
\
\
I
\ ,-
'f'
\ .... \
'f' \
\ \ ,
\
I
\
\ I _ ..--
\
\
\
\
---I
--.
\
\
I
I
\
---I ,
I
\
\
\
\
l-
I
\ ..... --I
\ , \
\
\
\ \ .... --
I
\
----I --\ \
I
\ ------
\ -----\--
\
\
\
\
~
:::!!
z
Cf) « (Da:
00
WLL g
~
W o
JlHVcl ANV.I.lIL LV:iliUl:i/'Smr
HO.l
d~ NIS\f8 03d013A3a
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
, , , , , , ,
/'
,
\
\
I
I
/
!
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
I
/
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
{
I
/
I
'I ,~
VOO96 '1M '3nA3Tl38
~ 3lJns '133W.S NI'tt'i oom
011 '1sn A31N3H
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
w
IL
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
I
/
(
/
I
/
/
/
!
/
/
/
!
/
/
/
!
/
I
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
, , , ,
I
I
/
,--, ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1/ ---.\ ,
\..-.-~
\
\
--I
;.
, ' , ,
,
XV.:! Z8Lg-~SZ(SZt)
ZZZ9-~SZ(<';;Zt)
Z~O'il6 '11M 'IN])I
Hlnos ]nN]/IV GNU g~Zg~
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
,
\
\
I
\
\
\
\ ,
\
\ ,
\
\ ,
\
\
\
\
\ , , ,
,
\
\
\
, ,
,
\
\
1
\
\
\
\ ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ --,
\
\ ,
\ ,
~
r---jmw.~n;'a"i.ANAi~v.~'.l4::L;l,lJ;:L~J,r:1Vf,:iL1il:~H:l~g;sSiRn,---r---~··""'·~w~"~.o~-'~'~-'~''''''~'~''~'''''''''"",~,.~."""",,,,"~,,,,,,w~~l'I''"-'~··=':'-:~'~'~""-l!'l--F~'~'~"""""'F"'-'~'ll'~' --"w''i'~''--,,-,-~.~.~,"--,,w~'n,,",",,",,,,-'''w'''',,,"l....!·~·~'~w~'~-,,,,~"g''~'w~'~.''~''~"'F'" ~~~' --~~
\>0086 '1M '3M3l138
COl 3.JJns '133I:US NIVY'l 00IIl
OTl van A31N3H
ff.7Wr!'1"(l S3Otll!l3S lVlNJlINOS1r\N3 '~~ns ,j' 'SNINN't1d rut1 '~I~N~ 1AI:l
•. ~"//
/ ,
" \\
\\
\~,<
H04
d'ffl NISV8 VW3l:U.Sdfl
I
(
IO~'"
.~-_I
,,..,.~
:o,wg
.,.---
.,.,-~-
....--"~ ----
--
, , ,
--
, , ,
--
XV.:l l8L9-~Sl(~lt)
lll9-L C2C;(SZt)
Z:£096 "1M 'lN3)1 S909~
Hlnos 3flN3/1" aN'll o;;LliH
'I! ! "~;----f
,,"'<"'"'11, I
'[! _, [' ____ i
)
I
:.J. ',.,' --__ ~
i 1
I """I ...
: I i 1
1 .... 1-I i "'./" I ~-+-'------j
1 I I
i L-------J
:,' 1 , 00",.,.. I
" I :', I ,I I
I: .. I I \: .... +\ ________ -1
1, \ i,i \ ,w,
...... ~ ... 1 I
': \ II~ _____ --~
I I "", \ \ I ;. \ :: \
" 1 \ \ \
" --\ :', --------\
ii' \ '1 \ ii\\ \\ 'W, _j •
j \ '''''+ ------\, '"
\ \ <" \ \ \ \
\ \ ~ \ ..... + \
\ \ \ ...... _-\ ,"I'
\ \ \ --\
1
\ .. ---
, "
\ '
I ,
\--, ,
I
I ,
---
--
\ \ --\ \ \.:> .,..
\ \
....... \ ... \' "" .....-J. ...... ~
t-
,
•
,
\ \ --\
\ \ ,.. \
\ \,t' "''''... \
\ \ .....--'.
\ \ --..-\ !
,
\
\-/ ,
I , , ...... --\.\. \ <0,,, ...
\ \ .......... \
, ,.
\ "
\ '
\ \ \
\ \ ....... -;. --..-\"
\
\ ,-\ \ _ ....
\ \ .-'.... \ . . ,
\ \ \ \ ".
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ -..-\,
\
\
\ \ \ ---\ \ \ \ .... -.... -;;;,.. \
,
\ \ \'""" ... \
\ \ \ \
\
\
'<\ \\------'\ \\ -\
\ \ fI'T.. \ \ \ -;. \ , , •• \ \ .... " ........ --\ \ _ ....
I' \
\
\
\
\
\
,
\ ,
.' " " " • I \\ /\-------
.\\.. \
\\ ~
\\ 3;",', -',
\
\~"''<
\
\
\
)
I
I
I
\~---'" -\ \ .-" '. \ ",.. , \ -.-.....
\,,)..--::"\ .... -, \ .... / \ .
\ \ \ i \
\ \\ / \
\ \ i • \ , , , , ,
\ \'
\ " ... \.\
I' .,
" \ rt'
,
•
•
\
1"-
I \ "'"'-;.
I
\'("-.-
I , , ,
I \---
\
REFERENCE: USDA, Natural Reso urces Conservation Service
Scale :
Hon"zonra l: N. T.S. Vertical: NlA
18215 72ND AVENU E SOU TH
KENT, WA 98032
(425) 251-6222
(425) 251-8782
CIVIL ENGI NEERING. LAND PLANNING,
SURVEY ING, ENVIRONMENTA L SE RVICES
P:I 1600051 16055\6 Xhibitlgraphics\ 16055 soil. cdr
LEGEND '
AgC = Alderwood gravelly sandy loam , 6-15% slopes
AmC = Arents, Alderwood material , 6-15% slopes
Fo r:
Titl e:
Reserve at Tiffany Park
Renton , Washington
SOIL SURVEY MAP
Job Number
16055
DATE 11 /04 /13
-~
16055 _.
~,_1_
16 ........ \06U55\l>i.om:ti(iij
GH4V.s-~">' ~ QI ~ ..
o ~f o ~ ....
""oIl 't4~ I. ~" .....
", ~IIt Q !N G\,,~t;
18215 72NO AVEN UE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(425)25 1-6222
(~2 5)25 1-8782 fAX
eM. (NGIH[UI:ING. IN'() F\,.IHW;,
SOR\{"t1NC, DMRONW£NTAl SDMCES
~Joil.' .....
tn .ft~ ~~,
~~~ ,'-00'
_..JIlL ""'. ./. _ .llL>Ll)
;~pm~ua"'9 (jij,<,"'" , .... • ,-, '¥"'"' """ tl"".",,lQo <J.~.
For-
':i"-~l-a,,,,,,,,,,,d'9
HENLEY USA LLC
moo MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
~ >~ ~~ Q ~to.i 0 ~ ~ """ 0 ~"" ~ :::E ~~ .... Z ~~ ~ ~ ~~., ::0 ~" ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~::o~ i~ ~ ~
2';; ~ ~ r~ ~ ~~
~
: i ~~
..... 1 Dote I., ICIo ... I_. --DOWNSTREAM BASIN MAP
FOR
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
2.1 Analysis ofthe Core Requirements
Core Requirement No.1: Discharge at the Natural Location.
Response: The storm drainage from the project will be conveyed to a detention vault
that will outlet to the existing downstream drainage system in S.E. 18th Street per the
City of Renton's request. This will serve as our project discharge location. A portion of
the lots along the existing wetlands (Wetland A, Weiland B and Wetland C) will discharge
their roof drains into the wetland areas to maintain wetland hydrology. Runoff from these
wetlands will be collected and routed to the on site drainage facility.
Core Requirement No.2: Off-Site Analysis.
Response: A Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis is provided in Section 3.0 of this
Technical Information Report.
Core Requirement NO.3: Flow Control.
Response: The project is providing a detention facility which is designed for
Conservation Flow Control (Level 2).
Core Requirement No.4: Conveyance System.
Response: The conveyance and backwater analysis will be provided in final
engineering.
Core Requirement No.5: Erosion and Sediment Control.
Response: Temporary erosion control measures will be provided in final engineering.
Core Requirement No.6: Maintenance and Operations.
Response: A Maintenance and Operations Manual will be provided in final engineering.
Core Requirement No.7: Financial Guarantees and Uability.
Response: The project will provide a S~e Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet to
establish a bond amount for drainage facility restoration and site stabilization financial
guarantee prior to construction.
Core Requirement No.8: Water Quality.
Response: This project utilizes a Storm Filter sized for Basic Water Quality Treatment.
Sizing will be completed during final engineering.
2.2 AnalysiS of the Special Requirements
Special Requirement No.1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements.
Response: The proposed project is not located in a designated Critical Drainage Area.
16055.003.doc
Special Requirement No.2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation.
Response: As indicated by the FEMA Map included in this report (portion of Map
53033C0983 F, May 1995), the proposed site does not lie within a floodplain or floodway
or a stream, so this special requirement does not apply.
Special Requirement No.3: Flood Protection Facilities.
Response: This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility or propose to
modify or construct a new flood protection facility, so this special requirement does not
apply.
Special Requirement No.4: Source Control.
Response: The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site
development permit, so this special requirement does not apply.
Special Requirement No.5: Oil Control.
Response: This site is not classified as a High Use Site given the criteria in the 2009
KCSWDM, so this special requirement does not apply and no special control treatment is
necessary.
Special Requirement No.6: Aquifer Protection Area
Response: The project site is located within a Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Area. Per the
City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the only
requirements are to provide liners to open water drainage facilities and conveyance
systems. This project proposes to provide a closed detention facility (underground vault)
and closed conveyance system; therefore, this Special Requirement is not applicable.
16055.003.doc
3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
Task 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS
The proposed Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park is a single-family residential project consisting of 98 lots
zoned R8. The project is 21.66 acres in size containing four tax parcels (212305-9044, 212305-9051,
212305-9054, and 212305-9061). The site is located at the dead end of S.E. 18th Street near the
intersection of Monroe Avenue S.E. in a portion of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,
in the City of Renton.
The site is polygonal in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in the northwest
comer of Ihe site at the dead-end of S.E. 18th Street. The second road stub is located to the southwest
of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River Pipeline at the dead-end of 124th Place S.E. These
road stubs are to be tied into and will be extended into the site 10 provide public access and circulation.
This site is undeveloped and is currently zoned R8; with a majority of the site being composed of second-
growth forest. The elevations of the site range from 456 to 398. There are four wetlands located on site;
three of them are Category 2, with one Category 3. For further detail please refer to the Wetland
Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schultz within section 6.0 of this report.
The site is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences. Along the east property line is the
Mercer Island Pipe Line RfW. Along the south boundary is the Cedar River Pipeline RfW. Access to the
site from 124th Place S.E will require the developer to obtain right of way or an easement through the
Cedar River Pipeline RfW.
On-site soils are mapped as mostly Alderwood, with a small portion along the southern boundary mapped
as Arents. Please refer to the Soils Map in this section. All drainage calculations were modeled as till
soils.
The project will be constructing roadways consisting of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The
site will tie into the existing roads at the dead-ends of S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E. All roads for
this project have been designed to be 26 feet wide, with a 7-foot planter strip at the back of curb and a 5-
foot sidewalk (both sides). Overall the proposed public right-of-way is to be 53 feet in width.
The topography on site is gentle and rolling. The site generally slopes from east to west from elevation
456 to 398. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced onsite. The wetland areas will
remain undisturbed along with portions of their buffers. Buffer averaging is proposed. Other portions of
the site will remain undisturbed in an effort to preserve as many existing trees as possible.
The drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM). The drainage design shall meet at a minimum the Conservation Flow
Control and Basic Water Quality Treatment. The drainage facility located in Tract A is a detention vault
sized for Level 2 Flow Control. Water quality will be met by the use of a StorrnFilter for this project. In
order to provide the necessary depth within the detention facility a new conveyance system will be
constructed within S.E. 18th Street and connect to the existing storm line at the intersection of S.E. Lake
Youngs Way. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage calculations.
UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS:
Upstream of the site to the northeast is the existing Mercer Island Pipeline. This pipeline is approximately
60 feet wide. The pipeline is fully cleared with grass overgrowth and is slightly crowned along the center
of the right-of-way for its full length adjacent to the project site. Due to the inability to efficiently bypass
the 30-foot-wide portion that flows onto the project site, it is proposed that this region of runoff be
collected and routed to the on-site drainage facility. As such, this area is being considered as part of the
pre-developed site and is not part of the upstream basin.
16055.003.doc
There is also an upstream basin to the east of the Mercer Island Pipe Line RIW that will be bypassed
through the site and around the onsite drainage facilities. This basin consists of runoff from a portion of
129th Place S.E. and the 19th Court S.E. cui de sac along with the surrounding homes. Runoff from this
basin is collected and routed by a series of catch basins and storm pipes to an existing ditch along the
east side of the pipeline RIW. A twelve-inch culvert crosses the pipeline and discharges runoff into the
on site Wetland "D". Runoff from this upstream basin and from Wetland "D" will be collected in a separate
conveyance system and routed through the site. For further detail please refer to the Upstream Basin
Map in Section 1.0.
16055.003.doc
TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW
• Adopted Basin Plans: The site is located within the Mainstem subarea of the Cedar River
Basin. The Mainstem subarea is included in the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution
Action Plan. Refer to Appendix A for the portions of the basin that applies to this project.
• Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable.
• Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is located in the Mainstem subarea of the
Lower Cedar River Basin, which is covered by the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint
Pollution Action Plan dated July 1997 (included in Appendix A).
• Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will not discharge to any critical areas or wetlands as
it is to tie into an existing storm drain conveyance system downstream of the detention and water
quality system. As a result no critical areas are to be affected.
• Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0)
utilized for this analysis. As indicated on the map the site is located in Zone X and is outside of
the SOD-year flood plain.
• Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this
Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils
Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Figure 3 -Soils Map in Section 1.0.
• Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on a review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, the
site does not contain any On-Site Wetlands, Erosion Sensitive Areas, Land Slide Areas, or any
Known Drainage Complaints. However, through field survey and analysis it has been determined
that there are four wetlands on site. As a result a formal wetland study is included in Section 6.0.
• Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable.
• United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map
(see Figure 3 -Soils Map Section 1.0) for this area, the majority of the site is located in the soils
configuration known as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, and there is a small portion along the
south end of the project that is classified as Arents, Alderwood material.
• Wetland Inventory Map: Using the COR Maps and NWMaps applications on the City of Renton
website there is no known documentation or inventory of wetlands for the project site. However,
through field survey and analysis it has been determined that there are four wetlands on site. As
a result a formal wetland study is included in Section 6.0.
• Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable.
• City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zones: Per the City of Renton's GIS Map the project site is
located within a Zone 2 Aquifer Recharge Area.
16055.003.doc
TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION
The field reconnaissance for this Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis was conducted on August 16, 2013
and November 5, 2013 for the purpose of analyzing the proposed project site and its upstream and
downstream corridors. The site visit on August 16, 2013 was sunny and dry with no evidence of standing
water or ponding along the ditch line north of the Mercer Island Pipeline. The visit on November 5, 2013
was cloudy with rain, with evidence of mild runoff from the cul-de-sac of S.E. 19th Court to its designated
collection system. It should be noted that there was some evidence of flowing or standing runoff along
the ditch line north of the Mercer Island Pipeline, but at the locations inspected depths did not exceed
more than 1 inch. The off-site drainage system was inspected one-quarter mile downstream following the
existing closed conveyance system to Tiffany Park Elementary School where the runoff is collected by a
60-inch trunk line and ultimately conveyed northwest to Ginger Creek.
3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1)
Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems
that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has
become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional
attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a
conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection.
There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the August 16, 2013 site
visit. Furthermore, based on a review of the drainage complaints received from the City of
Renton, there is no evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring in the
direct downstream drainage course, as there is a record of none having been submitted.
This site will have a Level 2 Flow Control, which will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to
50 percent of the pre-developed site and will provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future
drainage complaints as a result of this proposed site development.
3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2)
Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the concentration of
runoff into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional
attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private
property.
Based on our site visit there and the lack of drainage complaints, there was no evidence of or
potential for erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the
limits of the study. There are no defined drainage channels or ditches leaving the site. All runoff
is either infiltrated on site or sheet flows off site where it is collected by the storm drain
conveyance systems of the downstream suburban area. Stormwater runoff from the proposed
roads will be collected and conveyed to a detention and water quality facility where it will then be
discharged by tying into the existing stormwater conveyance system within S.E. 18th Street. As a
result no future erosion problems should occur because of this development downstream.
3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3)
Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water
surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined
as follows:
• Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to
the 100-year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and
commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electricallheating systems and
16055.003.doc
components in the crawlspace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as
"severe building flooding problems."
• Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for
runoff events less than or equal to the 1 DO-year event. Such problems are referred to as
"severe roadway flooding problems."
Based on a review of the FEMA Map (Section 1.0) the proposed site is outside of the 500-
year floodplain, and there is no evidence of severe flooding problems encountered during our
visit.
16055.003.doc
TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS
DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS:
In the pre-developed condition all downstream drainage currently flows off site onto the properties
immediately adjacent to the west or onto S.E. 18th Street where it is collected by the existing stormwater
conveyance system.
In the developed condition stormwater being discharged from the site will be conveyed to any existing
catch basin at the intersection of Lake Youngs Way S.E. and S.E. 18th Street, approximately 590 feet
northwest of the site. A new conveyance system will be constructed within S.E.18th Street in order to
provide adequate depth within the onsite detention facility. Upon discharging to the existing storm system
at Lake Youngs Way S.E. the existing 18-inch concrete pipe turns south and conveys stormwater to the
entrance of Tiffany Park. Our field investigation found that the existing stormpipe turns north and enters
the parking lot. At this point we were unable to follow the exact route of the existing storm as the remodel
of Tiffany Park Elementary added additional storm utilities within the parking lot. We requested as-builts
of the storm within Tiffany Park from the City of Renton but were unable to obtain the information. We
were able to obtain as-built information that shows a 60-inch CMP stormpipe runs along the west property
line of the school. This 60-inch storm pipe continues along the rear yards of the properties on the west
side of Index Court S.E. A review of the City's GIS map shows that the storm system within Lake Youngs
Way S.E. ties into the 60-inch trunk line at the southwest corner of the school property. The trunk line
runs northerly for approximately 1,100 feet before turning east to Lake Youngs Way S.E., approximately
150 feet west of the intersection with Index Court S.E. The 60-inch trunk line continues to flow in a
northerly direction within Lake Youngs Way S.E. for approximately 1,000 feet to the intersection of Royal
Hills Drive. The trunk line discharges to the headwaters of Ginger Creek at the southeast corner of this
intersection. At this point we are well beyond the quarter mile downstream point from the project.
Because the project will be providing Level 2 Flow Control and there is no evidence of flooding or erosion
within the downstream system we do not anticipate any significant impacts due to the project.
16055.003.doc
!
:1
.I
'!
i
:1 ,
[
. . :r , .. ~
I' i~ t.J~
I;' r
c-_c .' ,_I .
1-1
i
.,
,
+ , : ~~_ I .
__ , __ ... ..,.-__ i
.--+~ ..
... :
~-itH+-----~""""
, ,
I,
"'~
___ J
_._(()
, "'I-~'"
n,,'_tl __ -t~~~=lL"'":"·~~~t~d-..•• ~.~._._l __ ~:
.. +----
\
(
/
/
~
/
~ ~
,.
.r--
/
\-
~
Qj
.\
I , ,
"-"t
,'>
" " HI
,
~.
;:
'-, ,
'1
0 , , ,
'. ~
..
,
I,
I'
\\
I'
I' I'
I',
1\
I
\
I'
,\, .,
"
-I ,..
~
'0
0::,
LL
o
,0)
~
..J
~ o
iD::
•
;
,
-::T
, , "-".. . ... . . iT 1 i..: i, i, I_c-J 1 , ~---;-'-, ,I" :': ',j, -: !~ci4': ... ··l '"i:--+c ;-' r i~r--,-~~ ,tl:;~ ~u", 1 ' 1 '_," e
u
--'~~'" r'-' 'IW--. " 'll, .. "'.fC,".:-r
i
:'-:",---', .,=f:-'.-":i~§-·:·,:::=c: ", -"cr-:' -, :Fe ".~~~"--<~ ~:,A '.'so ... ; ,_. + ; __ , +--I!l 'I t ----+ -_--L~ r -:I~ I 1; .., ]1 --=j-j --.. -. !. ,-=--.=" -~, ... ~--==-.:"--~ t=. f' + I 8;: ~ ~ .. "'II~ ~ ~ ~ ::!~ ~ ~ I I:~ i : .L t'
' '~'t '~:"':,' .,' ~'I;' ...... " '. ~ i: . '.' i 1~~L.:t "I jp~ Ji ; 1 ! ~ L -1 . _', . __ ._.
1 ', l~_L '0' '".Ii';:: "M" -, :-t-'"r' :-.. t· .; c.' '=F" :c:=Co:::,I:,,~:. +,,,-:,=: -'--'i,'-' ~r'---+1-,I =,'. !fJ;',$l i' , ;,' l,,,.hl-i--< I: !_. • ; , " , , ',~t-,-r--~-f--. ". . , ' :i 1\ ~ , "' , l. I I ~ i (j'~:;' __ ~h.' ... ~~c;----:----i---I --.! -I _____ I + ;;;. __ v:~' t', _ I 1"-NO"'l,..!'I C IVl ;RAD .
' • ,'Y': , ,-'~'n" J. '..L. : 1 1 1 ~ .' : ' I ~'T' i" ,~.:..-t--' _-'_, __ .,_,L~~~-'~' 2':: .,' ,ii jl,' Jli:-~ +', __ ,J_ I-f-'~. ~:t-,f-'I :,~ !"jl vV : I~', ,~,: ~._:_ ~ i 1 . 1 ,!t! ~ !~ :0· " .. ' ~.' .~ ~;; .. --1·:0 .f±!?"-'!. 'IQ ;:....,. ..... i:;-.:."f. ·~"_·I .;).1 ; I",!" j
I; . : '~'" ~' i" : ..lJ~!' ",,,,"-,_,;~ ___ 'r' -' --~r. ~ : :...<r: • I "'i"':;V :Id! ; • J:i'.i,' tt',:
I • s ~--i ~ I ~ "r':.----.1':~Ir·':'~: --. I ' ,-I' !, ~: c:! '--.-I~ I _-~:--;. ,:: '~~iil! ~i! iJb----,"" ! ~~: ; " , • .. ----~--.j-~ 1 ',' i 'f
M
,,", , .... ,._. --" .~ '" " r: ~_, "... J'~ E'J:""" ~,' _----+---',_+--'_ ,.:~. 1 f11' ,0.·· 1· . i\i;.;>' , 1:./ :.----. Ii. ,.r-. ., -"j\ If;trl j' 1 LJ _ ;~ , ," ,0. '0· ,,', '.' ,-, -, .. ·.f' ""'-Lettd I> ...... ~ I"-....,! . I ' ::~ .,' I 'F'-' .,l ,:~ .-/'i ' '2.d -+-",n,« s·, '-; .-y.' .' ~ ;,2-, r-u:-" :,{)'l, ill
r --t--• ...LI ~'-' __ .J~;"> 'T:~~t-i!Jj;y ~I -~ ._---T -j' -;-r-+r--t-_-::.::. ,-t;t,~;;-~~--~c~ Ii ' ~~;j . v _ Ldir ,,_,;~,~~ J~~i" ~_+-i.-+---.~, '80: ' , . .~,~ I:;!~/ .. 7: : /i~ ", 'JU. i· . , .. '-.Ii-"-.• t: -.~~ L~ : #_ ~:L r1t~'9 rfoTiftH
i
I I
1 I -.-. .-,,!i;. Y ···-1··.. :. • '~I"! ;!~ T 1 L--i _ '3, ,.~ " "r '" . I ,t ,.----!C -~;f". J.it"%'"...... . I: ~ ,-'i!,~---,,,'" 1/:", . """'-"', I. :,.;:~I ':!£ j",,~;l ,"--r'-., ;;>: •• ~ .";'f~.>+----/ __ ", ''i'!o---I*~+-'----+~-'l-;;I r :1 "~' --".,: '~,~l .,1 "'''-''r, i'~'~~', ',.-' , ":':-;--: ,t, u"" _~-~ ::: , ' <,/,' ,_,_',VA' '",.c,_"" '"""I "" , , ~ ,. '.,.....~ ,. ,oNJ._~ ",. , ..
"::, '1 l:r_~' I' .r~-.~i~:" .-'1.. I· i __ . . . o· .. ' ·~-o,.-,; .. s_ I .~ ~m':"2--l-~--q-i JoUTHCUFf G~jo.&.'E1 i"'1 l I I---,~-:;:r,¥,-.' -~ I'~ I",," ,J, 1>90, '('r --,~, ",1 I,.".,.". , J$~" r"",;'" ~ _ ~ <JT~ : ~ ~,_.' ! I' F 1 "V ,~~L I. 'I!~ ~d2" 1,,_ .: I .' [I I !. ," . .otl , 'U--" ~ LT 'I ' , ;'l.UI 380 ,"1-' ii, . l-i'" i . . 1 1 18~_ .--:,,_ i 1>& ~... 1 ~ J ~ .: .I .. ·!<Irtf· ."ll'-. _1· -;-.-. _·-t !. : tl~Pq.'. ~ .L_.~...... '" j I I I • ...:.
'-..--+--;, .~" r. --.---". I~ ; i / !',.. j .. -t-~}.' I.epf-'".' nw.1.!':!':'. ""', ", ,i .; J~:, _ ~ _. ' j_ I __ , +-_ -:-, ~ -.-, 'th-, ," , I:r.,!" ,.--,,'. '", • H::b---1 ;', 1-,-'---·
i
~-
."
\,
"
,_ ..
o
-, -.
j ;;;.1" : . Li-, ·t~:", ., ''', I~' r-'" : _!. ~,:::~-I . I i'~ j ~-c---t--r 'I I 1 tr:+ H~: ~~ -&!i ....... 1 v _L=;_~ -~ --tl ... ' , l..l j . ~.'
L '1' : L~,,--+-,~-""1-[ -i i Or , I" '-t-~ , ' "1;---_ ; I. .. . '. i ' -I~: ~ --I r-I.--t:---! '; 1 --'-.~
• • i • 1\ .~.,L -t-~-~-' .3 ---~!----4·· --. 5 . ~.----3aa-,-----0 I -~ --_. -3 4 --II---~~--=F
" -"
>
">/,., .;,
I
2 SCA .... CS: ,;.c ~PK • .,. ~;A.
.J ,,;"--1S.JJ··
e'II.,·
L'M.S.t.I'
.!..:::.:....~.:'.:'J ::.....':~:
.J .•.• ;!f( .....
\ ?~"",.
1
3
.. -.---.
---------,:
'::~I .Y':L.?-#0..
.2
"t.
"
"
.' "
" ~\
,IIQ.eIZ ,1"~4o'
WeT .I"~
4
.ff!:..~_ ,#8 L1#T4
4'/~-N·*-
,e • .Nh'
L' 7~./.r
;3
N~Y" CJ«'8 ~TA
.<I, 7-~·,:;or
.eo, ~"4·
" 3'!'.511
N,{J'CiM'l5'~T'#
.4-7'='.97-
R'~94'
.t·3-J.~·
2 5# S1l461" 1 BLOCK
\' BLOCK TWO =4"= \ \ ~~4~_~U
""" ~ 4, 1N"J'7'{},r 1 ~4 1t?R~.9~~O
\
... . ,e. ~S" .c-, J5'
... ~ ~ ,-.~?:",! ~, L ",.;-35'
'10.... .. I
\ -.' . .
. '-, ~ ~
R-141608
"/ ;,
'"
,....,'
:~l
~ O'l-
~ ~ ~
......... -_/ \~":';', ..I '~·'~·8·"·r·
".. Yo· ~--------~ ~ , of'" "\ --'t. ~ ... f . .....-1~-#.-~,
'1:1 i or.r \'~/I.~ ..; ~ ~ ,,'';~ i __ " ~ , -.; j{Tr--.~. _ _ .. #: .{'1:.
..
'" ...
~
" ~ .... " ... ~
-'-
Q ....
~
">.
~
/
\
". '-
\
\
:5JItef Ii!
s"
?
_".~s . oc:/.t;',y 0"-'-'"
""j. ,$,.T°./?·<?3" ~
~' 3-1·
, oJ.;;.,·
BoOCK I'
C \
)
TWO
"
. ~
';':"'B._1J"'.!~ __
J. ,?-,..t o ~7'''?J, -'"' ,' . .,3 :>t:o.
'---
>:: tt.' . ./ l'jI' J ~ .,.'~~'z.' '/ (0' 'JI
II ~
I
s ........ S-s.;.:-.er 6
5
.5(f CUl'"D a4t;4
4;:;;":;".e,,;~
Ji'. zed'
.:>H.':'.J'
BLOCK ,
~c~~~A "]
.4'/.fW~-_~
p. 3.9/:1'
'<;';7i',»'
8
, ,
~ ,
FOUR
, 0
. .
"
A~ i'Ptr DRAw/~ AA£ &:sa>
CJ1.J J#~MAT&oI ~ ~r
DC.!.! ~R;xJIt,14c .... I.~
~o7-7'
3 Sb' CtlRB IMTA £f..~.!' £MDt ASBUILT =,:~
!l4#'~~ KKT mil JIM:'.
In.Nftt) . ./IU!
A,,-,·~·#K <1' J!'-.:>.f-JO-
'1:.t~:N' :::;:.",,,, . __ .. . ___ _
/ " I TIFFANY PAKK N~ e
SE /7'" COI/RT S£ 18~ STREET",. V'llw. i S~~:"'i~~~~
I ' " ,~,,, k';"::L_ 4-kfS, . Sl. CSh'EUS OF /3 Sh'EETS ", n'b·~1 . ~DJ\lL"211J3"'" " ,,/M;i<-liO/{,'J",. __ .m • l§
• ROLL 190 ·FR'O·08~ i··-·~ .,-.'
•
)
)
a
•
w z
, ,
.....I
-
I~
W Oz
z::>
t-'a: -gl-
Cf)
J
3S Id 41H
4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A. Existing Site Hydrology
The site is polygonal in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in
the northwest comer of the site at the dead-end of S.E. 18th Street. The second road
stub is located to the southwest of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River
Pipeline at the dead end of 124th Place S.E. This site is undeveloped and is currently
zoned R8; with a majority of the site being composed of second-growth forest. The
elevations of the site range from 456 to 398. There are four wetlands located on site;
three of them are Category 2, with one Category 3.
The site is bordered by two pipelines. Along the entire length of the site to the south is
the Cedar River Pipeline. Similarly the northeastern boundary of the site is bordered by
the Mercer Island Pipeline along its entirety. The western and northern edges of the site
are surrounded by single-family homes on medium-sized lots. On-site soils are mapped
as mostly Alderwood, and a small portion of Arents. In the undeveloped condition runoff
flows off site onto the properties immediately adjacent to the west or onto S.E. 18th
Street where it is collected by the existing stormwater conveyance system. Please
reference the Pre-developed Basin Map in Section 1.0 for further detail.
B. Developed Site Hydrology
The completed project will create 98 lots. The total developed area will be 21.66 acres in
size and contain four tax parcels (212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9054, and
212305-9061). New impervious surfaces will include roadways, driveways, and roof
areas. The project will be providing landscaped pervious areas, open space/park areas,
and a drainage facility.
A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipe will be constructed in the
roadways to collect drainage from impervious surfaces and lots and conveyed to the new
drainage facility.
A detention vault and Storm Filter vault will be constructed in Tract A to provide water
quality and flow control for the project. The vault will contain a control structure fitted with
a riser overflow. Runoff will be conveyed to a proposed 18-inch pipe which will discharge
runoff into the existing storm drain conveyance system at the intersection of Lake Youngs
Way S.E. and S.E. 18th Street. For further detail please reference the Developed Basin
Map in Section 1.0.
C. Performance Standards
The KCRTS Runoff Time Series Program was used to size the detention facility. The
Detention vault was sized for Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) based on the
requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the King
County Surface Water Design Manual. Please refer to the KCRTS computations
attached in this section. Based on Level 2 detention vault sizing calculations, the vault
volume required is 245,850 cubic feet
16055.003.doc
D. Flow Control System
Flow Control System details will be submitted during final engineering.
E. Water Quality System
A Storm Filter will be utilized for water quality. Sizing of the StormFilter will be prepared
during final engineering.
16055.003.doc
Retention/Detention Facility
Type of Facility:
Facility Length:
Facility Width:
Facility Area:
Effective Storage D@pth:
Stage 0 Elevation:
Storage Volume:
Riser Head:
Riser Diameter:
Number of orifices:
Detention Vault
l49.00 ft
150.00 ft
22350.
11.00
398.00
245850.
11.00
18.00
2
sq. ft
ft
ft
cu. ft
ft
inches
Orifice # Height
(ft)
0.00
7.10
Diameter
(in)
1.97
4.00
Full Head
Discharge
(eFS)
0.349
0.857
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
1
2
Top Notch Weir: None
Outflow Rating Curve: None
Elevation Storage Stage
(ft)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.35
0.54
0.72
0.91
1.10
1.28
1.47
1. 66
1.84
2.03
2.22
2.40
2.59
2.77
2.95
3.15
3.33
3.52
3.71
3.89
4.08
4.27
4.45
4.54
4.83
5.01
5 .• 0
5.38
5.57
(ft)
396.00
396.02
398.04
398.06
398.08
398.10
398.12
398.14
398.16
398.35
398.54
398.?:!
398.91
399.10
399.28
399.47
399.65
399.84
400.03
400 .••
400.40
400.59
400.77
400.95
401.15
401.33
401.52
401. 71
401.89
40 •. 08
402.27
40 •. 45
402.64
402.83
403.01
403.20
403.38
403.57
(cu. ft) (ac-ft)
o.
447.
894.
1341.
1788.
2235.
2582.
3129.
3576.
7823.
12069.
16092.
20339.
24585.
28606.
32655.
37101.
41124.
45371.
49617.
53540.
57887.
61910.
66156.
70403.
74426.
78672.
82919.
8694 •.
91168.
95435.
99457.
103704.
107951.
111974.
116220.
120243.
124490.
0.000
0.010
0.021
0.031
0.041
0.051
0.062
0.072
0.082
0.180
0.277
0.369
0.467
0.554
0.657
0.754
0.65.
0.944
1. 042
1.139
1 .• 31
1. 329
1.421
1. 519
1. 616
1. 709
1. 806
1. 904
1.996
2.093
2.191
2.283
2.381
2.478
2.571
2.558
2.750
2.858
5.0
Discharge
(cfs)
0.000
0.015
0.021
0.025
0.030
0.034
0.037
0.040
0.043
0.062
0.077
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.119
0.128
0.135
0.143
0.150
0.157
0.163
0.169
0.175
0.181
0.187
0.192
0.198
0.203
0.206
0.213
0.217
0.222
0.227
0.231
0.236
0.240
0.244
0.248
Percolation
(cfs)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.76
5.94
6.13
6.32
6.50
6.69
6.88
7.06
7.10
7.14
7.18
7.22
7.27
7.31
7.35
7.39
7.43
7.47
7.66
7.85
8.03
8.22
8.41
8.59
8.78
8.97
9.15
9.34
9.53
9.71
9.90
10.09
10.27
10.46
10.64
10.83
11.00
11.10
11.20
11.30
11.40
11.50
11.60
11.70
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
Hyd Inflow
1 7.51
2 3.76
3 4.88
4 4.49
403.76
403.94
404.13
404.32
404.50
404.69
404.88
405.06
405.10
405.14
405.18
405.22
405.27
405.31
405.35
405.39
405.43
405.47
405.66
405.85
406.03
406.22
406.41
406.59
406.78
406.97
407.15
407.34
407.53
407.71
407.90
408.09
408.27
408.46
408.64
408.83
409.00
409.10
409.20
409.30
409.40
409.50
409.60
409.70
409.80
409.90
410.00
410.10
410.20
410.30
410.40
410.50
410.60
410.70
410.80
410.90
Outflow
4.77
1.45
0.99
1. 01
128736.
132759.
137006.
141252.
l45275.
149522.
153768.
157791.
158685.
159579.
160473.
161367.
162485.
163379.
164273.
165167.
166061.
166955.
171201.
175448.
179471.
183717.
187964.
191987.
196233.
200480.
204502.
208749.
212996 .
217019.
221265.
225512.
229535.
233781.
237804.
242051.
245850.
248085.
250320.
252555.
254790.
257025.
259260.
261495.
263730.
265965.
268200.
270435.
272670.
274905.
277140.
279375.
281610.
283845.
286080.
288315.
2.955 0.253
3.048 0.257
3.145 0.261
3.243 0.265
3.335 0.268
3.433 0.272
3.530 0.276
3.622 0.280
3.643 0.280
3.663 0.285
3.684 0.298
3.704 0.319
3.730 0.347
3.751 0.382
3.771 0.421
3.792 0.521
3.812 0.538
3.833 0.554
3.930 0.617
4.028 0.670
4.120 0.718
4.218 0.761
4.315 0.801
4.407 0.839
4.505 0.874
4.602 0.908
4.695 0.940
4.792 0.971
4.890 1.000
4.982 1.030
5.080 1.060
5.177 1.080
5.269 1.110
5.367 1.140
5.459 1.160
5.557 1.180
5.644 1.210
5.695 1. 680
5.747 2.540
5.798 3.640
5.849 4.950
5.900 6.430
5.952 7.870
6.003 8.410
6.054 8.910
6.106 9.390
6.157 9.830
6.208 10.260
6.260 10.670
6.311 11.060
6.362 11.440
6.414 11. 800
6.465 12.160
6.516 12.500
6.567 12.830
6.619 13.150
Storage
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Peak
Stage Blev
11. 39 409.39
11.05 409.05
9.47 407.47
9.56 407.56
(Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft)
254487. 5.B42
246968. 5.670
211658.
213749.
4.859
4.907
5 4.00 0.68 7.88 405.88 176206.
6 2.61 0.28 7.05 405.05 157577.
7 3.08 0.27 6.43 404.43 143604.
8 3.36 0.22 4.39 402.39 98121.
Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow
Outflow Inflow Inflow
1 4.77 0.15 ********
2 1.45 0.08 ********
3 0.99 0.10 ""***""***
4 1. 01 0.09 ********
5 0.68 0.08 ********
6 0.28 0.05 ********
7 0.27 0.06 * ... ******
8 0.22 0.07 :a,*******
----------------------------------
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File:160S5dev.tsf
Outflow Time Series File:160SSout
POC Time Series File!16055dso
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge: 7.51 CFS
Peak Outflow Discharge: 4.77 CFS
Peak Reservoir Stage: 11.39 Ft
Peak Reservoir Elev: 409.39 Ft
Target
*******
1. 35
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
'*******
at 6,00
at 10,00
Peak Reservoir Storage: 254487. Cu-Ft
5.842 Ac-Ft
Add Time Series,16055by.tsf
Calc
4.83
1.46
1.01
1. 02
0.69
0.30
0.29
0.27
on Jan
on Jan
4.045
3.617
3.297
2.253
9 in Year 8
9 in Year 8
Peak Summed Discharge: 4.83 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year B
Point of Compliance File:16055dso.tsf
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:1605Sout.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -
Peaks --Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period
1.45 2 2/09/01 20,00 4.77 11. 39 1 100.00 0.990
0.267 7 1/07/02 4,00 1.45 11.05 2 25.00 0.960
1. 01 3 3/06/03 22,00 1.01 9.56 3 10.00 0.900
0.220 8 8/26/04 7,00 0.99l 9.47 4 5.00 0.800
0.280 6 1/08/05 5,00 0.679 7.88 5 3.00 0.667
0.679 5 1/19/06 0,00 0.280 7.05 6 2.00 0.500
0.991 4 11/24/06 8,00 0.267 6.43 7 1. 30 0.231
4.77 1 1/09/08 10,00 0.220 4.39 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 3.66 11.30 50.00 0.980
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:16055dso.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
--Peaks Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (eFS) Period
1. 47 2 2/09/01 20,00 4.83 1 100.00 0.990
0.286 7 1/06/02 3,00 1.47 2 25.00 0.960
1. 02 3 3/06/03 21,00 1.02 3 10.00 0.900
0.269 8 8/26/04 2,00 1. 01 4 5.00 0.800
0.296 6 1/07/05 23,00 0.689 5 3.00 0.667
0.689 5 1/18/06 23,00 0.296 6 2.00 0.500
1.01 4 11/24/06 7,00 0.286 7 1. 30 0.231
4.83 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.269 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 3.71 50.00 0.980
Flow Duration from Time Series File:160550ut.tsf
CUtoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability
CPS % % %
0.021 30469 49.689 49.689 50.311 0.503E+00
0.061 8355 13.625 63.314 36.686 0.367E+00
0.101 7228 11.787 75.101 24.899 0.249E+00
0.142 5989 9.767 84.868 15.132 O.lSlE+OO
0.182 4414 7.198 92.066 7.934 0.793E-01
0.223 2245 3.661 95.727 4.273 o .427E-01
0.263 1695 2.764 98.492 1. 508 0.151E-Ol
0.304 607 0.990 99.481 0.519 0.519E-02
0.344 36 0.059 99.540 0.460 0.4608-02
0.385 21 0.034 99.574 0.426 0.426E-02
0.425 16 0.026 99.600 0.400 0.400E-02
0.466 4 0.007 99.607 0.393 0.393E-02
0.506 7 0.011 99.618 0.382 0.382E-02
0.547 17 0.028 99.646 0.354 0.354E-02
0.587 25 0.041 99.687 0.313 0.3138-02
0.628 31 0.051 99.737 0.263 0.2638-02
0.668 23 0.038 99.775 0.225 0.2258-02
0.708 20 0.033 99.808 0.192 o . 1921l-02
0.749 15 0.024 99.832 0.168 0.168E-02
0.789 8 0.013 99.845 0.155 0.155E-02
0.830 14 0.023 99.868 0.132 0.132E-02
0.870 9 0.015 99.883 0.117 0.1178-02
0.911 11 0.018 99.901 0.099 0.9958-03
0.951 11 0.018 99.918 0.082 0.81SE-03
0.992 17 0.028 99.946 0.054 0.5388-03
1.03 13 0.021 99.967 0.033 0.3268-03
1.07 3 0.005 99.972 0.028 o .277E-03
loll 4 0.007 99.979 0.021 0.2128-03
1.15 3 0.005 99.984 0.016 0.1638-03
1.19 6 0.010 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04
1.23 2 0.003 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04
1.28 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04
1.32 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1638-04
1. 36 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 o .163E-04
1.40 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04
1.44 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1631l-04
Flow Duration from Time Series File:16055dso.tsf
Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability
CFS -I; % %
0.021 30464 49.680 49.680 50.320 0.503E+00
0.062 8350 13.617 63.297 36.703 0.367E+00
0.103 7234 11.797 75.095 24.905 0.249E+00
0.144 6046 9.860 84.954 15.046 O.lSOB+OO
0.185 4253 6.936 91. 890 8.110 0.SllE-01
0.226 2275 3.710 95.600 4.400 0.4401l-01
0.267 1733 2.826 98.426 1.574 0.157E-01
0.308 632 1. 031 99.457 0.543 0.543E-02
0.350 50 0.082 99.538 0.462 0.4628-02
0.391 22 0.036 99.574 0.426 0.4268-02
0.432 14 0.023 99.597 0.403 0.403E-02
0.473 6 0.010 99.607 0.393 0.3931l-02
0.514 7 0.011 99.616 0.382 0.382E-02
0.555 15 0.024 99.643 0.357 0.3578-02
0.596 28 0.046 99.689 0.311 0.3111l-02
0.637 30 0.049 99.737 0.263 0.2638-02
0.678 19 0.031 99.768 0.232 0.232E-02
0.719
0.760
0.801
0.843
0.884
0.925
0.966
1. 01
1. 05
1. 09
1.13
1.17
1.21
1.25
1.29
1.34
1.38
1.42
1.46
23
14
11
12
10
10
10
17
14
4
3
5
4
3
1
o
o
o
o
0.038
0.023
0.018
0.020
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.028
0.023
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Duration Comparison Anaylsis
Base File: 16055pre.tsf
99.806
99.829
99.847
99.866
99.883
99.899
99.915
99.943
99.966
99.972
99.977
99.985
99.992
99.997
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.998
New File: 160S5dso.tsf
Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS
0.194
0.171
0.153
0.134
0.117
0.101
0.085
0.057
0.034
0.028
0.023
0.015
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.194E-02
0.171E-02
0.153E-02
0.134E-02
o .1l7E-02
0.101E-02
0.848E-03
0.571E-03
0.342E-03
0.277E-OJ
0.228E-03
0.147E-03
0.815E-04
0.326E-04
0.163E-04
0.163E-04
0.163E-04
0.163E-04
0.163E-04
-----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance-------
CUtoff
0.298
0.379
0.460
0.541
0.622
0.703
0.784
0.865
0.946
1.03
1.11
1.19
1.27
1.35
Base
0.94E-02
0.63E-02
0.49E-02
0.37E-02
0.298-02
0.22E-02
0.15E-02
0.10E-02
0.62E-03
0.34E-03
0.21E-03
0.16E-03
0.l1E-03
0.16E-04
New
0.578-02
0.44E-02
0.40E-02
0.37E-02
0.28B-02
0.21E-02
0.16E-02
0.12E-02
0.91E-03
0.448-03
0.26E-03
o . llE-03
0.33E-04
o .16E-04
%Change Probability
-39.7 I 0.94E-02
-30.2 I 0.638-02
-19.2 I 0.49E-02
-0.9 I 0.378-02
-1.7 I 0.291l-02
-6.6 I 0.228-02
10.0 II 0.158-02
22.6 0.108-02
47.4 I 0.62E-03
28.6 I 0.34E-03
23.1 I 0.21E-03
-JO.O I 0.16E-OJ
-71.4 I 0.11E-03
0.0 I 0.16E-04
Maximum positive excursion = 0.086 cfs ( 9.7%)
occurring at 0.882 cfs on the Base Data:16055pre.tsf
and at 0.968 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf
Maximum negative excursion = 0.126 cfs (-2B.2\)
occurring at 0.447 cfs on the BaBe Data:1605Spre.tsf
and at 0.321 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf
Base
0.298
0.379
0.460
0.541
0.622
0.703
0.784
0.865
0.946
1. 03
1.11
1.19
1. 27
1. 35
New tChange
0.278 -6.7
0.291
0.332
0.537
0.618
0.688
0.819
0.923
1. 00
1. 05
1.15
1.17
1.19
1.47
-23.2
-27.7
-O.B
-0.6
-2.2
4.5
6.7
6.1
2.5
3.4
-1.5
-6.0
8.6
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:16055pre.tsf
project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of peak
(CFS)
1. 35 2 2/09/01 18:00
0.367 7 1/06/02 3:00
1.00 4 2/28/03 3:00
0.036 8 3/24/04 20:00
0.595 6 1/0S/0S 8:00
1.04 3 1/18/06 20:00
0.876 5 11/24/06 4:00
1. 73 1 1/09/08 9:00
computed Peaks
16055pre.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
--peaks Rank Return Prob
(CFS) Period
1. 73 1 100.00 0.990
1. 35 2 25.00 0.960
1.04 3 10.00 0.900
1.00 4 5.00 0.800
0.876 5 3.00 0.667
0.595 6 2.00 0.500
0.367 7 1. 30 0.231
0.036 8 1.10 0.091
1.60 50.00 0.980
page 1
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time series File:16055dev.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
3.68 6 2/09/01 2:00
3.03 8 1/05/02 16:00
4.37 3 2/27/03 7:00
3.33 7 8/26/04 2:00
3.98 4 10/28/04 16:00
3.92 5 1/18/06 16:00
4.85 2 10/26/06 0:00
7.30 1 1/09/08 6:00
computed Peaks
16055dev.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- -Peaks - -Rank Return prob
(CFS) period
7.30 1 100.00 0.990
4.85 2 25.00 0.960
4.37 3 10.00 0.900
3.98 4 5.00 0.800
3.92 5 3.00 0.667
3.68 6 2.00 0.500
3.33 7 1.30 0.231
3.03 8 1.10 0.091
6.48 50.00 0.980
Page 1
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time series File:16055by.tsf
project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual
Flow Rate
(CFS)
0.076
0.064
0.091
0.071
0.086
0.081
0.104
0.151
Peak Flow Rates---
Rank Time of peak
6
8
3
7
4
5
2
1
2/09/01 2:00
1/05/02 16:00
2/27/03 7:00
8/26/04 2:00
10/28/04 16:00
1/18/06 16:00
10/26/06 0:00
1/09/08 6:00
Computed Peaks
16055by.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
--peaks --Rank Return Prob
(CFS) peri ad
0.151 1 100.00
0.104 2 25.00
0.091 3 10.00
0.086 4 5.00
0.081 5 3.00
0.076 6 2.00
0.071 7 1.30
0.064 8 1.10
0.135 50.00
page 1
0.990
0.960
0.900
0.800
0.667
0.500
0.231
0.091
0.980
Duration comparison Anaylsis
Base File: 16055pre.tsf
New File: 16055dso.tsf
l6055com.prn
cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS
Cutoff
0.298
0.379
0.460
0.541
0.622
0.703
0.784
0.865
0.946
1.03
1.11
1.19
1.27
1.35
-----Fraction of Time--------------check of Tolerance-------
Base New %Change probability Base New %Change
0.94E-02 0.57E-02 -39.7 I 0.94E-02 0.298 0.278 -6.7
0.63E-02 0.44E-02 -30.2 I 0.63E-02 0.379 0.291 -23.2
0.49E-02 0.40E-02 -19.2 I 0.49E-02 0.460 0.332 -27.7
0.37E-02 0.37E-02 -0.9 I 0.37E-02 0.541 0.537 -0.8
0.29E-02 0.28E-02 -1.7 I 0.29E-02 0.622 0.618 -0.6
0.22E-02 0.21E-02 -6.6 0.22E-02 0.703 0.688 -2.2
0.15E-02 0.16E-02 10.0 I 0.15E-02 0.784 0.819 4.5
0.10E-02 0.12E-02 22.6 0.10E-02 0.865 0.923 6.7
0.62E-03 0.91E-03 47.4 I 0.62E-03 0.946 1.00 6.1
0.34E-03 0.44E-03 28.6 I 0.34E-03 1.03 1.05 2.5
0.21E-03 0.26E-03 23.1 I 0.21E-03 1.11 1.15 3.4
0.16E-03 0.llE-03 -30.0 I 0.16E-03 1.19 1.17 -1.5
0.llE-03 0.33E-04 -71.4 0.11E-03 1.27 1.19 -6.0
0.16E-04 0.16E-04 0.0 0.16E-04 1.35 1.47 8.6
Maximum positive excursion ~ 0.086 cfs ( 9.7%)
occurring at 0.882 cfs on the Base Data:16055pre.tsf
and at 0.968 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf
Maximum negative excursion ~ 0.126 cfs (-28.2%)
occurring at 0.447 cfs on the Base Data:16055~re.tsf
and at 0.321 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf
Page 1
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time series File:160550ut.tsf
project Location:sea-Tac
---Annual peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of peak
(CFS)
1.45 2 2/09/01 20:00
0.267 7 1/07/02 4:00
1.01 3 3/06/03 22:00
0.220 8 8/26/04 7:00
0.280 6 1/08/05 5:00
0.679 5 1/19/06 0:00
0.991 4 11/24/06 8:00
4.77 1 1/09/08 10:00
computed peaks
160550ut.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- -Peaks - -Rank Return prob
(CFS) (ft) period
4.77 11.39 1 100.00 0.990
1.45 11.05 2 25.00 0.960
1.01 9.56 3 10.00 0.900
0.991 9.47 4 5.00 0.800
0.679 7.88 5 3.00 0.667
0.280 7.05 6 2.00 0.500
0.267 6.43 7 1. 30 0.231
0.220 4.39 8 1.10 0.091
3.66 11.30 50.00 0.980
page 1
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:160S5dso.tsf
project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of peak
(CFS)
1.47 2 2/09/01 20:00
0.286 7 1/06/02 3:00
1.02 3 3/06/03 21:00
0.269 8 8/26/04 2:00
0.296 6 1/07/05 23:00
0.689 5 1/18/06 23:00
1.01 4 11/24/06 7:00
4.83 1 1/09/08 10:00
computed peaks
16055dso.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- -Peaks - -Rank Return prob
(CFS) Period
4.83 1 100.00 0.990
1.47 2 25.00 0.960
1.02 3 10.00 0.900
1.01 4 5.00 0.800
0.689 5 3.00 0.667
0.296 6 2.00 0.500
0.286 7 1. 30 0.231
0.269 8 1.10 0.091
3.71 50.00 0.980
Page 1
5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Conveyance system analysis and backwater calculations will be provided in final engineering.
16055.003.doc
6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
The following special reports have been prepared and have been submitted under separate
cover.
• Wetland Determination prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 22,2014
• Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report
prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012
16055.003.doc
7.0 OTHER PERMITS
This section will be completed in Final Engineering.
I
16055.003.doc
8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPP) ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
This section will be completed in Final Engineering.
16055.003.doc
9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
This section will be provided in Final Engineering.
16055.003.doc
10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
This section will be provided in Final Engineering.
16055.003.doc
11.0 APPENDIX A
Appendix A
-r
(
(
• ....
-
.J ..
-
I
~
= .... ---------~-,r· ~~.,.__~~-~~---~~~~~~~~~-.',~----~--
RENTON ;~
-----7--. ~ I
1--:,~o
'--~'.:
_ ..
o
~
-~--~---.----~ --=--~~~-"~--~-~-~--------~"-l ~-=------
~
I L _____________ ,l .r.......
'-. ~ :,".':: '
(
I
/
\"vol~, LO~6
SubbaSIIl
,
•
Rock Creek
Subarea
.-.'"" ..,--1.1.
I
I
,
I
I
I
I I
i
I
I
I !
I !
I I ! I t -
I
I
L
Figure 3-J
Subarea Boundaries
Cedar River Basin Planning Area
___ Stream
.... Lake/Rive,
..".,.. Basin Plan Boundary
•• -•• Subarea Boundary
••• ·'0 Subbosin Boundary
[".-"::1 Incorporated Area (as of 6/98)
Urban Growth Area Boundary
(0. of 6/98)
N
* o 2 MI~s o ,
~ ~."~' .. ®ii}
..... ul',..
Molp pr(Nju(l!d by:
VillIl! (ommuniution &-GIS Unil,
Publi( Oulruch Swion
9INrHalIPwbhl;n,l-' w,
-
-
...
p
Watershed Management Committee
Lower Cedar River Basin
and Nonpoint Pollution Action plan
.,
" . ~\:' ,
'I' '\ '" \ . . ~ t,· .
\
KrNGCOUNTY DEPARTMENT Of •• ® " IllWAIHINBTOH STAT! e * Department of Natural Resources E COL 0 G Y :ft
• •
.J
L
L .,
I
I
•
Watershed Management Committee
Lower Cedar River Basin and
Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan
Adopted by Metropolitan King County ColDlCil
July 1997
July 1998 Printing
Klas CoIOIty Depm-t of Natural ResellftfAI
Wilier aDd Luld Rca_ Division
Cedll'River Watersbed Mauagement Committee
City ofReDton
700 Fifth A-e
Sui. 2200
Sealtle, WIlhiDgtoo 98104
(206) 2!XM1S1!l
KiDg CoaIervation District
KiDg County
Mucldclhool Indian Tribe .
SeoIth: Pub1ie Ulilitica DepaabDimt
Trout UaJimitcd
UDiteo! S1ates Army Corps ofBagiDeen
W .... ingtrm Depatmmt ofFish and WlldHfe
WasbinJloa Department ofNatunl Resources
Wa&binpa Depar\DIeIIt ofTlliiMpOi tali.... .
WISbiJI&totl FUD\ Forestry II MM>eiatioD
Fu"tkd i" pcrtby 1M Warhlngto" State lNptJrtntul of Ecology Centen"",l Qean Wilier FUlld
KlIII County Eseelltlve
Gary Locke
MetropoUtan KiIIIl CDUllty CouDell
Maggi Pimia, Dis1rict I
Cynthia Sullivan, DIIIrid 2
Lolliso Miller, District 3
Lmy Phillips, District 4
Ron Sims, District 5
Rob MclCeIma, District 6
Pete von Relcbbancr, Dilltrlct 1
Greg Nickels, DisIril:t8
Kent PUUen, District 9
Lally Gossett, District 10
Jane Hague, Districtll
Brim Derdowski, District 12
Christopher Vance, District 13
Department 01 Naturd ReiIourCCl
PIUI BissOJDleIle, Director
Water and Land Reiovee& DlvWoa
Nmcy lImsen, Division Manaaer
Debbie Alima, AIsistant Divisioa M .... ger
BiD BckeI, Rcgioaal WaIm'Resource. Services
Manaaer
ContributlDt; Staff
Keith HimnuI, Basin PIIIlIDing Program. Mauger
Roz Glasser, Project Managll
Jean White, Project Manager
John Adams, Plllllller
Derek Booth, Ph.D., Geologist
Olean E-. P.E., Scaiot EngiD=
DiYid Hartley, P.B.. Ph.D., Hydrologist
Gino Lucchetti, Senior Ecolo&ist
Kate Rboads, Senior WaIm' Quality Spccialist
. Ruth Sebaafer, Seaior Ecologid
SupportIJIc Staff
FRd Beutler, Plannina'Support Tecbpiclan
ADm: B.iId6, Buill Steward
Rib CecIl, R.eaoon:e Planner
Km:n Goto, P.E., Scmior Enainter
MIIy J~ ReIource PI_
Tad lCml8e, PIaoniaa Support TocImicilQl
Mart Lampvd. P A, J!nsineer
Barbara Nelaon, TecImical Writer
Laurel Preston, GnpbIc TedIDicillll
Bm Prieat, Ecological Tec:Jmician
David RiaIoY. BIIgincer
Fran Solomon, Ph.D., Seoior Enaineer
RlIoxI Zbang, Planning Graphic Supervisor
WMC Lower Cedor River BIU/n Plan
Walllinataa Depllrlment of Eeol"IY
Bob ~tfy, Environmental Planner
KittY Gmespie, Project Mmqor
W.tenbed Manle-t CoDUlllttee
Dlvi!S Beedle wi Lealie Groce • Mucldesboot Indian
Tribe
Paul CraI!e -Bocina Company
Nuey Davidson, P.E •• Seattle Public Utilities
lack Davill· Kina ConmvatioaDistrict
Gary Engman wi Bob Gerke • WA Department of
Fish and Wildlife
Keith Hjmnan. Kiag CoDDty WLRD
Kay JoImson. Rcaton Chamber ofCoaunerce
(reIIred), Cedar River CAe
LoujI Kahn -Washington Fum Foreatay AsSQciation
Lin4a Smith -US Army Corps ofRngineen
RoD'Straka, P.B .• City ofRenloa SurfiIcII Wakt Uti1i1y
Relt ThomplOll-WA Dept. of Natural Roaolll'CCS
Frank Urabcc:k, P.E. -Trout UnlimIted
Bob Wintet", P.E. -WA Dept. 01 Tranaportation
CI __ AimDry C_1Itee
Miki: BaIaaa
NoQuBunkowUi
Judith Fillips
RayGritJ'in
~ Habl;llicht
JBDice HDOD (deceased)
Kayl0bns0n
BobKariDen
Laure Iddipgs
BdMatthews
Paul SzcwczykoWlki
Techu1cal AdYIIon '
Carolyn BDlilman-City ofRlmloa
Mite Bonoff, Rand Little,. and George Sclmeider •
Seattle PubJie Utilities DepIrtmenI
Larty Pisher and Hal Michael-WMhiDgtlm
Department ofFisJt and W!ldlifc
JobnathaD Frodge, Ph.D. -Kin& CouatyDepartroeDtof
NaIunII Resoun:ea, Wastewater Treatment Division
. Den Harvey, P.E. -US Army Corps ofEnginean
David Jennings, P.E. -City of Renton
ii .
~ ZcnlneI:. Mucklesboot Indian Tribe
ToW wUI be lIU1IIeawUabl/l11l larg8 print. Brallle, or
: ' 1iudI0IIlp8 Q$ reque:skd.
•
-
I
....
-
,.
•
-
I
I -
r
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures an.d Tables .............................. u .. ;.nu •• 60 ..................... u ....................... h.u ....... u •••••••• v
Bxecutive Summary ..................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Cedar River Basin and NonpointPollutioD Action Plan ....... l.1
The Major Conditions in the Cedar River Basin ................................................................... 1.1
The Major Plan Recommendations ........................................................................................ 1.5
The Basin PII1DDing Area .............................................. : ........................................................ 1.8
About th.e Plm Itself ...................................... u ........................................................................... u ........ l .. 1S
Cbapter2: Goals and Priority Actions ................................................................................... 2.1
IntrOOuction ......... n ..... uu •• ~ ..................................................... n ............. u •••••••••••••••• ~ ......... u •••••••••• 2-1
Flood-Damage Reduction .......... .-....................................................................................... :.2.4
Aquatic Habitat Protection an.d Restoration. ... un ................................................................... n ••• _ .. 2 .. 11
Protection of Water Quality from Nonpoint Source Pollution ........... : .................................. 2·16
Aquifer.Protection .......................... u ...... uu ................... u ...................................................................... 2-20
Cedar River Watershed Management Program .................................................................... .2-23
Relationship ofCbapter 2 to Chapters 3 and 4 ...................................................................... 2-24
Chapter 3: Subarea RccommeJ1dations ........................... n ............. u .......................... u .................. 3-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. u .............. : •••• u ... , ....... 3 .. 1
Cedar-River Mainstetn .............. u ............................................................................................. , •••• 3-S
NOJtbem Tn'bataries ............................................... , ............................................................... 3·17
South.a:n Tributarics. ................ ul ........... u .... "u ••• 'u ........................................ 1 ............................. 3 ... 27
Taylor Creek. ....................... u .................. u .............. u .............. ' .......................................................... 3 .. 37
Peterson Creek tI ....... I.n ........ u ........... u ..... u ....................... u .................... d ........................................... 343
'Middle Tnb'utaries ............... uu ......................................................................................................... 3-49
Rook. Creek. ...... I ......... h ........................................................................................................................... 3-55
Chapter 4: Detailed Descriptions of Recommendations.: ...................................................... 4-1
Introduction ........ u ................................ , .................... II ............................. u ......................................... -4-1
Capital Improvement projects ................................................................................................ 4-3
BuinwideRecOmm:cndatioDS .... I .............. , ................................. I ••• u ........... _.I .......................... 4-31
Subarea. ~81aIMl8tic ~ons ................. u .................................... u ................... .0 •••• 4-83
Chapter s: Intplementation Strateg)r ........... u .......................................................................... 5 ... 1
IrltrodtlCtion ................ 1 ................ u ..... 1 •• U" ....... n ............................................................ ~.u"' ..... u ... S .. l
Priority Setting: Balancing Competing Needs ....................................................................... 5·1
S11ari.ttg Implem.en.ta.tion Rolesu ........... ~ .................................................. , ........... , ......................... 5-5
Implementation Process: Long-Term Watershed Managentent ................................ ; ........... 5·10
iii Table of Contents
Appendix A:. WMC Vision, Goals, and Qbjective& ................................................................... A-l
Plm Vision Statmlent .............................................. "H ........ un •••••• u .......... ~ ..... u •• u •• u ••••• u ....... A-l
Goals and Obj~ves ........... n •• • •••••••• ··u.u ••••• _ ................. h ...................................................... .A-I
Appendix B: Addendum to Bedload Transport Analysis ......................................................... .A-9
Appendix C: Hydrology and Forest Retention ......................................................................... .A·ll
Technical Note 1: Upland Flooding and Channel Stability ................... , .............................. .A-ll
Technical Note 2: Downstream Analysis Peterson, Rock, and Taylor Creek Ravines ....... .A·19
Appendix D: Significant Resource Area Map, Definitiooe, and Liat ....................................... .A·29
Definitions.. ................................................. u ......................................................................................... A ... 29
Sig:n.ifican.t Resource.Areas (SRA.s) ................................................................................................. ..A-30
Appendix E: Estimation ofSalmonid Production Pow.ntial and Costs ofFish Habitat -R.estoratioD Opportunities .......................... r ......... ~~ .............. u ................................................. ..A ... 3S
Ex.ecutive StunJll81'Y' ............... n ..... ···._ ........ ·.n ......... ~n ......... u ....... u ........................... _ ............. ~ •• , • .A .. 3S -
Introduction ............................... u ••• n ....................... u .......... u ••• u ••••••••• nu ••• II .................. II' ...................... .A-38
Backgro\llld ...................... :" .......................................... u ............... t4 ...... h ............................ n ......... .A ... 39 •
Mcthod.s .................. u ................. u ... I.'''''' ., •• U ••••• I ....... -: ................. u ••••• u u ', .................................... .A42
Results ............................. 1 ...................................... :n., ................................ ~ .............. I."'. II t I ....... .A-55
DiBCllSSioD ••• IUI ... u'.n ................................... · •• U ..... 04 •............................... n' ......................... " •• A .. S8
Con.elusions ........ ,' ..... h •• u ............................................. H ................. ••• .. ~· ............................... · •••••• .A-6S
AckrJ.owledgrnmts ..................... n •••••• u .......... u ••••• u~.n ................... uu ................. · ......................... ..A-66
Literaftlre Citec1 ....... u ............................ , ........ ' ......... , ...................................... '~" •• ' ......... n ........ A-66
List of Tables and Figu.res. ... 'uu ...................... ~ ....... :. ................. ~~ ........................... : ................... A-69
Cedar River Habitat ~rhmity ConceJtt Repc>rts ............ ; ................... , ............................... , ••• A-89 III
Bibliogr.aphy .• ~ ............................................................... h .................... ~ .. H .... II.I •••••• I ........................ · ••••••• A-14S •
• List of Acronyms
I
I
..
WMe 1nwer CedDr RIwr B/lSi1/ Phm iv
-
.,
--... -
I
I
-
Cedar River Mainstem
INTRODUcnON
The Mainstem subarea consists of the Cedar River valley floor and its steep walls, and the
surrounding plateau areas that drain small, unnamed tributaries. The valley extends roughly 17
miles from Renton to Landsburg, varying in width from a few hundred to a few thousand feet .
. While the Mainstem subarea represents less than 15% of the 66-square-mile basin planning area,
. it includes the largest and most hazardous flood risk sites and is disproportionately rich in both
current and potential future aquatic rcsoun:es. Therefore, actions in this subarea are given very
high priority.
M~or human alterations to the Cedar River valley began in the late 18008 and have included
logging, railroad construction, agriculturailand conversion, dam construction and water
diversion, rcdircction of the river's outlet, construction oflev~ and revetments, dredging, and
more recently, urbanizatjOIL These activities have had significant impacts both on flood risks and
aquatic habitat. Channelization of the river through Renton and construction of levees and
revetments along 14 of the 21 river miles in the Mainstem subarea have encouraged agricultural,
residential, and commercial development within the floodplain, placing more property at risk of
flood damage. .
F1ood-control projects have provided limited localized flood protection at the cost of aggravating
upstream and dQwnstream tlood damages by removing floodplain storage and increasing.floOd
depths and velocities. To date. the most significant flooding damage has occurred in the City of
Renton (river mile [RM] 0.0-1.6), along lower Jones Road (RM 5.4-6.0). upstream and
downll1Ieam of Cedar Grove Road (RM 10.6-12.0). along lower Bain Road (RM 14.6). and in the
IIfIighborhood ofDonc Don (RM 15.8-16.4).
Aquatic habitats within the Mainstem subarea have been reduced significantly in both quantity
and quality by logging, floodplain development, river engineering, and diversion of river flow.
Large woody debris reet'Ilibnent bas declined, meanders and side channels have been cut off, .
riparian wetlands have been filled, the river bas narrowed, and summer flows have been
depleted. Generally, these changes have tended to reduce the hydraulic complexity that supports
the wide variety of salinonid species and life stages that depend on the river.
The Mainstem subarea recommendations consist of capital improvement projects (CIPs) and
programs that focus mainly on the two primary, and often related. issues of tlood-ilamage
redUCtion and aqull1ie habitat restotatiOD and enhanccrQCDt. These recommendations strive to:
1. Remove or protect occupied &tructures from the most hazardous areas;
2. Modify or remove certain existing levees and revetments, allowing the river access to its
historical floodplains and restoring floodplain storage;
3. Protect. restore, and enhance existing aquatic habitat; and
4. Prevent siting of additional structures within hazardous areas.
3-5 . Clulprer 3: SubaretJ RecommimtltztiollS
These objectives are consistent with the goals and policies of the King County Flood Hazard _
Reduction Plan, which was adopted by the King County Council in 1993. In fact, the Mainstem
subarea recommendations follow many specific sOlutions outlined by the Flood Hazard
Reduclion Plan, and augment them by adding water quality and aquatic habitat restoration and
enhancement components to create a more comprehensive floodplain management progrl!ffi for
basin planning area
As explained in "Mainstem Recommendations," under "Recommendations to Reduce FI90d
Damage" in Chapter 2, properties proposed for acquisition would be acquired only on a
willing-seller basis. Landowners who choose not to sell to the County would not fm:e any penalty
or loas of existing benefit as a result of their decision.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
See Chapter 4 for the complete text of all recommendations, the locations ofwhich are shown on
Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 at the end of this section. _
Capital Improvement Projects
* Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are those recommendations that would
accomplish, at a minimum, the major Plan goals (see Chapter 5).
* RaiDbow BeDd Flood-Damage ReduettoaJF1oodplaln Restoration (CIP 3108):
Approximately 5S mobile homes in the Cedar Grove Mobile Home Park and nine nearby
permanent houses on the right bank between RM 10.8 and RM 11.3, below Cedar Grove Road,
were damaged by fast, deep flood flows, erosion. and deposits of large debris during the
November 1990 flood. The permanent houses are subject to hazardous flows when the Rainbow
Bend levee overtops. The mobile home park, at the downstream, unlevced end of this reach,
experiences hazardous flooding during much smaller, more frequent events. Emergency access
to and egreas from all houses in this reach arc fi:equentiy blocked by flooding. This area is a
high-velocity floodway and presents serious threats to human safety. This recommendation
would purchase and remove all occupied structures fi:om this reach and reestablish the
floodplain's aquatic habitat and flood storage functiOl!& Because the mobile home park provides
affordable housing to low income families, and because King County policy requires relocation
assistance and replacement housing when diaplacemeots fi:om below-market-rate housing are
unavoKlable/ the I'lan recommends offering these services. rather than a simple madtct·vaIue
buyout, to the mobile home residents. A park closure plan would a,lso be developed to include
owners and terumts in the planning, desigo, and implementation of Ibis recommendation. A
potential relocation site is the adjacent Stoncway SaJid and Gravel mine, once it bas been
reclaimed. .
* Dorre DOD Flood-Deage ReduetioDIFIoodplaha Restoration (CIP 3101): Several houses,
a Co\D1ty road, and a County-maintained levee in this neighborhood, located on the right bank of
the Cedar River surrounding the railroad bridge at RM 16.4. have been damaged repeatedly by
• Kina: Qrunly Comprehensive Plea Policy R.108.
WMC Lawer Cedar River Basin Plan 3-6
•
....
I
I
I
-
-
,...
oJ
•
I:
tJ
I
debris and fast, deep floodwaters. The Basin Plan's highest-priority flood-damage reduction
recommendation would purchase and remove the 20 houses in the most hazardous locations,
eliminating the flood threat to these residents. It would also remove the upstream portion of the
Lower DoIre Don levee and restore approximately six acres of floodplain to its historic aquatic
habitat and floodwater Storage functions. In addition, approximately 600 linear feet of Lower
Dorre Don Way would be elevated to continue to provide sole access to the remaining eight,
less-severely threatened houses.
it Elliot Brldgl"lLower Jones Road Flood-Damage RedocdoD (CIP 3111): BeloW Elliot
Bridge (RM 5.4), two left-bank houses were inundated by water over three feet in depth during
.the November 1990 flood. Upstream, to RM 6.0, 22 houses between Jones Road and the Cedar
River experienced erosive, high-velocity flows as is common during large floods. Eighteen
houses on 1 56th Place SB IIRI inaccessible when Jones Road floods, an approximately 2-year
occurrence, and 20 additional houses are exposed to less-hazardous flooding during large events.
This recommendation would purchase and remove the 24 houses in the most hazardous areas,
raise approximately 2,300 linear feet of Jones Road to· ensure access to lS6th Place SE and to
reduce flood damage to the less-severely threatened houses. and restore up to 16 acres of flood
storage and habitat area.
.. Rlcardi Flood-Damage ReduetionlFloodplBln RestoradoD (CIP 3109): Two houses subject
to frequent lmzardous flooding would be purchased and removed. and the area restored as open
space for aquatic babitai and floodwater storage. Nearly one-half of the estimated cost would be·
paid by federal and state matching funds.
• Byer. Bend/Cedar Grove Road Flood-Damage Reducdon (CIP 3107): Frequent and severe
flood damage to an entire neighborllood would be reduced or eliminated by removing up 10 eight
houses, raising an additional eight houseS; improving the Byers Bend levee, and building an
overbank conveyance channel along Byers Road to carry floodwater safely back to the Cedar
River. .
.. Dorre DoD Court FIood-D8JIUI&e RedactionIFloodplafn Restoration (CIP 3103): Three
houses subject to hazardous flooding would be removed and the area would be restored as
floodplain for aquatic habitat and floodwater storage.
• Lower Bam Road and Royal Arch Flood-Damage ReduedonlFloodplain RestoradoD (CIP
3104): Between three and nine houses, typically flooded at about the IO-year event and damaged
by hllZlttdous flows during the November 1990 flood, would be removed and Ooodplain storage
and habitat would be reestablished •
• Maplewood Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 3112): Approximately 60 houses in the
Maplewood. subdivision that are threatened with severe damage during the l00.year flood would
be protected by the construction of a 1,200·foot-Iong levee (to a maximum height of
approximately four feet). As mitigation for this activity, a suitable project should be selected and
implemented from the maiD stem enhancement and restoration projects listed in basinwide
recommendation (BW) 6 and Mainstem recommendation (MS) 4 of this Plan.
• Jan Road Flood-Damage ReduetiouJlIabltat Restoration (CIP 3106): Frequent damage to
roads and houses would be reduced and emergency access to t 4 houses would be ensured by
3·7 .
!XInstructing a stable overbank conveyance channel to safely direct floodwaters overtopping the
Jan Road levee back to the Cedar River.
• Riverbend Mobile Home Park Revetment ModifieadoD (CIP 3110): The rock revetment on
the left bank of this constricted reach oftbe Cedar River would be recontoured using
bioengineering techniques to provide stability and additional ccmveyanee and aquatic habitat.' Up
to 19 mobile homes nearest the river would be moved or purchased and replaced.
• Dorre DOD Way SE Elevadon (Orcbard Grove) (CIP 3101): Approximately 650 linear feet
ofDorre Don Way SB would be raised an average of two feet.to ensure access to 15 houses in
-the Orchard Grove neighborllood currently cut offby floodwater at about the IO-year flood
event
I
• Getehman Levee ModIt1eatloD5 (CIP 3105): Frequent damage to the Rhode levee, which
protects nearly 20 houses, would be reduced by moving the Getcbman levee back ftom the cedar
River and strengthening the faces of both structures using bioengineering techniques. One or two
house& at the downstream end oftheRhodc levee would be removed.
• Penon RevetmeDt ModlDcatioDs (elP 3113): A private revetment would be recontoured and
strengthened using bioengineering techniques to prevent continued release of large quantities of
sediment. In addition, a gravel mine-site and landslide scar would be stabilized with vegetaDon.
• Aread~oble Flood and Erosion Damqe RedDedoD (CIP 3100): One house. at the
downstream end oftbis frequently damaged revetment would be removed and up to 1,600 linear
feet of revetment would be modified using bioengineering tecJuiiqucs.
Prognmmatic Recommend.doDs .
* Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are diose recommeodations that would
accomplisb, at a minimmn, the major Plan goals (_ ChaPter 5).
* OpeD Space AcquisitioD (BW 4): Sites in the Cedar River floodplain have been ideotified and
prioritized fur acquisition as open space to allow protection or restoration of their aquatic habitat
. value. See TabtllS 4-1 and 4-2 in Chapter 4. .
* Aq_atle Resource MltlzaUou Bank Sites (BW 6): This recommendation would allow public
agencies to fu1fiIl their mainstem mitigation obliga.tions iD bigh-quality mitigation bank sites
away from project sites, where such mitigation may be less effeCtive.
* RoadlUrbau Ruoff Water Quality Reco~e.datlou. (BW 9): The drainage facilities of
1-405 and numerous County roads would be m~ and retrofitted with water quality .
controls to reduce the impacts of contaminated road runoff. . -
* Water QuaUty TreatmeDt Standards (BW 11): Sphagnum bog water quality treatment
standards would be applied to all development in catchment MS 16 that drainS to Wetland 38 to
• BJoeaaiDeerillg.tecbniqu.,. use materials such II rock, timbOn, Boil, plaDts, aDd naturallibrics to reduce erlllion
ami stabilize IIccp s1opes.
WMC Lower Cedar RI\Ier &lJin Plan
• -
•
I
• -
I
I
maintain the health of this wetland. Regionally significant resource area (RSRA) stream
protection standards would reduce concentrations of toxic metals in catclunents draining to river
-reaches atRM 9.6-10.7, RM 15.7-15.9, and wall base tributaries atRM 11.5 and RM 14.9.
•
•
I
r
I
!
* Basin Piau Evaluation (BW 13): Evaluate implementation and effectiveness of Plan
recommendations.
* Forest Incentive Program (BW 23): An incentive program to encourage landowners to retain
their forest in the l\U'81 areas of the basin will be implemented in order to ensure that the Cedar
River has clean, stable streams. Incentives will include tax relief, direct teclmical assistance,
forest stewardship claases, a small-scale forestry demonstration site, and individUal recognition
of good forest stewards .
.. Masonry Dam Operations Study (MS 1): Masomy Dam operations would be analyzed in
cooperation with the Seattle Water Department and affected parties for the purpose of
developing flood season operating guidelines that enhance flood control. assure power
generation, and improve water supply availability for both instream and consumptive uses.
.. Renton Reach Capacity (MS Z): The ongoing City ofRentonl Anny Corps of Engineers study
of flood-damage reduction alternatives in the lower Cedar River channel should be supported.
Neighboring jurisdictions, tribes, and resource and permitting agencies would be encouraged to
participate.
* Seek State aDd Federal Funding for FIood-Hazard Reduction Measares (MS ;l): King
County, acting as "local sponsor," will continue to request state and federal aid to help reduce
flood damage along the Cedar River.
... Mamltem Babltat Restoration and Enhancement Program (MS 4): Where consistent with
state and tribal goats. aquatic habitat and tloodpl8in areas would be restored or enhanced. Types
ofprojecta may include construction of ponds and channels IIt1d removal or recOnfiguration of
levees and revetments. Many such sites are listed in Chapter 4, and they will be more fully
dCllQl'lbcd in a separate technical document.
.. Channel MIgration Hazard Areas ~ 6): The risk of severe hazards to human life would be
reduced by the limitation of new development in areas where the Cedar RNa-channel is most
likely to migr8tc in the next 100 years.
* Floodplain Mappln& Analysis, Revision, aDd Distribution (M8 7): Existing County and
federal floodplain maps should be revised to reflect the latest floodplain infonnation, and gages
along the Cedar River should be rep1aeed, augmented, or recalibrated to aid in future map
revisions .
.. Flood Education (MS 8): Reduce flood damage by making floodplain residents more aware of
safe evacuation routes and the extent of the floodplain, and by teaching them flood protection
and damage reduction techniques. This recommendation would expand existing county and City
of Renton public education programs in these areas.
3-9 .
'.
* Debris Flow ProtectiOD for MobUe Home Park (MS 11): Owners of a mobile home park on
Tributary 0313, which is at risk ofsevcrc damage from debris flows, would be provided with a
list of alternative private actions that could be taken to reduce their risk .
• Sabnonid Productivity (BW. 7 and 8*): These recommendations would support an ongoing
study to determine the causes of salmon decline, and would continuo to support a temporary
sockeye hatchery at Landsburg, and reserve the option to use County open space at RM 9.0 for
possible future development as a spawning channel. A final decision to construct a spawning
channel at this site will depend on results of the Lake Washington Ecological Studies and
additional evaluation of the environmental impact of a spaWJiing channel at this site relative to
-others, and comparison to other production methods that could produce the desired sockeye fry
production with less co. and environmental impact. The final decision will be made by the
Ccdsr River Sockeye Spawning Channel Policy Committee, or its designee.
• StOrDIwater Quality (MS 9, 10*, 11): Extensive source control strategies for cleanup efforts
and elimination of stormwater pollutants are recommended for industrial and commercial areas
(MS 10). Stormwater discharges from major bighways and the Renton Municipal Ahport would
be addressed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System industrial stormwater
pollution prevention plans (MS 9, MS 11) and the Washington State Department of Ecology
liighway Runoff Program.
• Remove QaallfylDg Structures from Hazardous Areas (BW 1): Occupied stIUcturcs at high
risk of hazardous flooding, and not included in the CIPs above, would be removed from the -
floodplain on a willing-seller basis as theY are identi6!ld and as fimding is available.
• Reduce Lest-lIazIrdous Flood D81bage (BW 1): Occopied structures at risk of
Iess-bazardous flooding, many of which arc·identified in the full text of this m:ommendation
found in Chapter 4, may be eligible for teclmical and limited financial assistance for removal or
other f100dpr00fing. .
• Modify Levees and Revetments (MS 5): Selected County-maintsined levees and revetments
would be modified, relocated, or removed to reestablish aquatic habitat and increase the storage
volume of the floodplain.' . .
• Aquifer p."teetiOD (BW 17): Aquifer recbarge and groundwater quality would be protected as
l potable drinking water sou:rce.
,. "
• Urban Stonnwater. Maaagemeat (BW 18): To promote more efficient usc ofland in the
Renton Urban Growth Area. pubiicJprivate parJneuhips wou1d be encouraged to build regional .
stormwater quality and quantity treatment facilities. .
3-10
•
•
. I
•
I
•
•
•
•
-•
• -
I
I
-I) , ,-----, , ,
I
r .-------1 Ii , ,
; -1_,
I .---" , .... _-. i , __ .I
I
I • • I
I • I
I
I
I
I • I • •
'"
I
I
I
I
I , .... -....... " •
MSO
• • • • • .... .....
i • • • • • • • i --1
1 . ,
i ,-------, • • •
I Y'"-,
I
.. ("I.. '\ i ---, ........ -..... ,
.. -----___ ...1
locotion Mop
I-~~
• I
I • • • • • •
••••••••••••
''##
• ~ • • • • • ~
I Cedar River Mainstem Reach 1
I Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations
, ~ ~:.. Sireorn & Stream Number
.-: lake/River
'r. RiY~r Mile (RMj
Wetland
........ Subbosin Boundary
1 ...... -Catchment Boundary
L-=--=--=-j Incorporaled Area los d 6/98}
1 MSO Catchmenl Number I~~.~_~. _~~~~ __ . ~_ .. __ ~.
Programmaric Recommendations
ttW6
a'I'/?
alN 9
BW)2
BW 13
,W 14
B~V 1S
,WI"
BW 18
BW 19
NoS I
Il52
I{S7
M58
,\015 9
M510
Atilt
AI~:r!
;;~.:Jur:.~ 1~~5-HazQI.:k· • .J' f,'c.>:.J e'..;;r,oge
A~~~!;c Relowc~ A'~:I:gQ"Of' e·or.( Silts
Af,~ru::d SoIIT',QIlid Prod.~;:tif:;, ,V;"a!1Jro?~
fmp!'OI1!rrreni cI \'Vater \)..01;,." ~CJ:n f~ccod [)t':::M9~,;
olld U.bofl Ne.o~
~\'ol.!l Ou;:;M,. T,eolmer,1 Sblido,ds. Basic Trt'Cimer.1
Beuin Plott &~1icfI
Wa!el ~eJO.'..ll(t5 tcluco~ end PI,hlk Imavemffl
Celhr R/I'r!r CC<.J,~eiI
ea~ffl 5!e.vord Ptogtorr,
Urban Sllrm .... NoOOO9Ii!mefll :r.I:'o~,\e
re~~O'I/De!er.JiC'1 5btd:;rds !e,-ef 0
N.J;'!()f,~ £>om ~O~Of".5 StvcIy
~ SbJe Of'.d Fedtra) Fundir.g to' >'!,-,<-'>d Hu • .-ord
r~r'v!eOAAe5
FI~oltl N4'Finglu.Ii,.Sis .il'ftVl,iC(l. & o.istribtolioo
Rood fkohCi1
NPOES 1ndus.it:J SIolrm\~ P~rmirs
5b-mwaler Gldly ofi/r,dus'fiol!Ccmmerl."oI Ato!Q~
rreo1m6l/ol ~05 ad $R-/69 5bm!v.o1ef
'l
Figure 3-2 I
I
i
I
1
o lf4 , 12 Milt
~' ........ =5' .... ...,==' I
®e ............ ' ;..a.; ~ Whull COtMIIAIkItion I GH 1nI1. I
.• IJ ruIIIIfluvNcbS,cthtI ", .< _ ..... n·' .. ~.~-~-~~~~.~ __ ~~~"J
•
I
-
... -• •
I
Programmatic Recommendations
BWI
:1 BW2
. BW4
BW6
BWl
8W8
aWlo
aW11
BWI]
•. BWI3
{i 8w r4
SWI5
;. BWI6
SWI8
BWI9
BW)D
8Wn
8W:3
,\'.5 I
!/.5 j
,~ .. :.s 5
.v .. ~o
·\-;57
.\::58
P.'ffOO.-e GvaI,~tir.g Sln.rClJr'" from MoM'dOliS Area5
9.dut. r655+1azar~ Flood Chroge
P'i(!til!ts lOt Opero Spoce .l\cquJ$#Icm
A,~rIC ie5CxJtet Miligolial BOn~ 5M5
Attif.:ooI Sah;or:id Pr~1icn N4(mr.~$
!db! Wcshir..gbl SA.d'.oes
()n.~. SoP'< S",.., /'oM ..
uVf1sW-Knping I'l(x/ices
Wa$er Q,gtjly Tr.almenl Srondard5, Boslc TI~JI'r,enr
&sin Fb. Evohr.I6on
WOlf( Ruowcu fdoco/ioii Q'ic1 Pubi'C n~fN!'lll
CMlot River Covr"J
&Hin SIewotd Pro:.w,;l'(In;
U,6an S/ormIoV;1/e1 MQ~IIrl!ti!lrr.l.!'
RelMlicn/Dtler.f.oo Sb'Ic:kvc&. AN C~/ltl
IMIO, Vchy FI= Wit D,,,, 0;""", ..
le~1 I. Wi&llou, Dired lhsdJorg6
ro-';r" i'r,*c~ SlOndcrd
&01101 ;;md 5edim.tr.tJ"or CY:~\J,I SICr,cht..:h
rOl.!',t/r.ce.-,/;,,, FrcgrCo-::
Io-'aK"f'.r;, Oor.. Sa..d,
~~l $I,)~ and Feckm/ f. .• ,d.~fl h FbxJ H..l;:ard ~",;".v.
, ... ~lt.JU!~
o\Om.s~"I1 Hob.i!O.' i'tt~~ .. o!ior1 0'Jd tllf,C,'I('Qlr,ilrl
\·~'1)·l:!".ff'> iT.d Re't!I'rt;~r.~
CtCP."aI ...... :.:g; ..... cr. ~d .~$
fr.:..:..tb!" Mopping Ar.dl!ji. P.e.,.j~iDn. CYld tJ,sfrhlt,c,,-.
FfdE.::Nc,JI . .:J(I
.'/$ '.: NPf)fS ,ld.r5";ol.s~.Yl!m·.;:w Pe-m;tJ .... .s 10 5"'''T/'11~lJter Q';O-I,r-y-,r, 1~'s~loI Con-""'eled :"~5
:'1-:5 I i irt"C~~! of :"-405 ai"l," 5~-: OQ Sor!I'h'.,(:~
,~:S .'~' Debr,s-.·b ..... Prc~&r.or. for .'.;.,1: •• :1.> H..Y"li! ~.J..}
r I
=
,
i
I ,
I
~
I, I
I
i
t ; , !
i
! I l ,
I
i
! ' . I ~ I
i
Figure 3-3
Cedar River
Mainstem Reach 2
Cedar River Basin Planning Area
Recommendations
..2~ ~ Slream & Stream Number
.~~~" Unclassified Stream
__ lake/River
". River Mile (RM)
30 _ Wetland & Wetland Number
@ ... Cia" I We~and IS. Weiland Number
......... Subbasin Boundary
... _ -Catchmenr Boundary
MS 1 Catchment Number
--Urban Growth Area Boundary (0. of 6/98)
c.:::J Incorporated Area (a. of 6/98)
3122 CQpitallmprovementProjectLocotion & Number
Progrommali<: Ro<ommendalions:
'-:Z:::-) MS 6: Channel Migration Hazard Areos
iii MS 12: Debr~ Flow Protedion lor Mobil.
Home Park
N
-*
0 '12 , ....
I I I
..
-
.. -
•
\<. . .. I •
I
MAPLE
VAllEY
.')' .. .,.
!
~ f-~-,-----·-·-·--·--, >
1:'.---~ -0------·
I Cedar River Mainstem Reach 3
Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations
.O.;.l .. 9 ....... Stream & Stream Number
Unda"ifi.d Stream
.. Lake/River u. River M;I. IRM)
• ~ -Catchment Boundary
B 1 Calchment Number
3122 (i) Capilollmprovement Project location
C-:::-J Incorporated Area la. of 6/98)
Programmatic Recommendations
BW f r6mOl't! O:.vMying )JfudIJ..'esitvm ,YoZOfl:hv~ ";re05
8W 2 r~u.:e le!i-Ho:ardo..'J flood Damage aw J PI;(Xilie5 fOf C'Jp!!n [~AcqJiJI#ci.s
BW 6 At1'UOlic .\'e5Ot1ft'e A1if,gorion Bar.k $i/es
6~V 7 Altllt!iaf SoI'TlCI"oid Produd/co 'I.eawtes
BW } 2 Wo,w Oudity TrflOlrNnl SJoodardJ. Bellle Tr ... >almt!fll
;W 13 a... /b, [""""""
SW 14 Water it!5CUCdS Echca~on (r,d I\.bIFC /r,~oI· ... rr.e"l
SW 15 Cedar iiYer Coonei/
8W 16 BClSm 5.1tword Progan aw 18 V.ban Stulmo,o8( NIooogem.!r.1 r,iliafi~e
8W 19 rtJenOOn!De~1iDn StJMbrds, All Coldm"~"fl
I .... O· Vol.y fica .v,1> 1);,,,, DiKi",,,.
1...,/ I, ~W'o", 0;", D""",9'
oW 20 I""" _ 5la>&rd
MS I ." "-"""Y Dom Opo.aJioN SWj.
M5 3 s..I 5.,. ... Fed.<01 r...I''ll "" Flood Hazard
! IvIS J
N!55
MSa
1167
1158
1.dudIoo-.
!k;r.$~ Habilat Rl!sIomfion and cr.hon<:el!'tl!J:nl Progtom
A''cdIy leve&s and II!''o'Itmenb
C"""'-I "''''-Ha=J A"", (s.. Mop ~~)
RocdpIom N.oppif".g Ar.alysis. te,f~, aNi Di51ribvticr.
F!ooi &I.roIioo
o
I
.... ~
U lO ---..
~~
~,
~,~ ....
MS17
LocaHon
Map
F;9ure3-~
'" I
1UII.
t
.. ' .,,-.:, Wetland & Wetland Number
@_ Cia" I Wetland & Weiland No.
Urban Growth Area Boundary 1o. of 6/98) i
! Programmatic Recommendations:
\Z:::=) MS 6: Channel Migration Hazard Areas ........ Subba'in Boundary
_prNlI''''",,;
VI-'~Uon 'i15 'nil.
hbiJOtlrachs.dtta
_II'lI..w...doJN~
I ----,--= ==-----=-=----==-