Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Misc
T ' ' ' All31\V·O!J·008· ( woo·AJaAe"MMM r )v,idn-dOd pJoqaJ di Jal~h~J +uawa6Je4:i ap suas j ap UJ!e aJmpe4 e1 ~ za,1daH T EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION ._ __ _ EXHIBIT _______ _ LUA ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT LUA DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT LUA DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION f w.1a6p3 dn-dod asodxa : o:i. au,1 6uo1e puag ' ' @09(5 @All31\V l!Jeqe6 a1 zas!l!rn ,a1ad ~ sa1pe~ sananb!t~ ' ' ' EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA _______ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA, ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT LUA DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT LUA DATE: CITV OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA--------- DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION I' @09l5 a:i.e1dwa1 ®AJaA't.J asn s1aqe1 0 1aad Ase3 ' ' ' EXHI.BIT ______ _ '.LUA._.-------- \DAT£: f;ITYOF IENTON PlANNING D~SION :~. ,EXHl;lllf_,_ _____ _ Lil\.,..·~------- DATJ: cCITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION ro ... sE~IT L~ ,. " < ,... lb - ·DATJ: ;tlTYOF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION •EXKIBIT LUA DATE: CIT'tOFRENTON PIANNING DIVISION . EX~ll •LUA ·DATE: :CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION . . EXHIBIT · ~ .LUA, DATJ: CITY Of RENTON PIANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ ·LUA ,,_ ________ _ 0 -~· DAlj: ,.;QTY OF'RENTON PlANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ LUA. _______ _ DATE: DATE: CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. _______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: DATE: CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. _______ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. _______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: DATE: 0TY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: DATE: CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: DATE: CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PIANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ LUA ________ _ DATE: DATE: crrv OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: EXHIBIT ______ _ LUA. ________ _ DATE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION -- Storage One on 4th Expansion Public Hearing February 17, 2015 rt µirr r (\ t t 0 -.... ...,,,, __ .,,,,':..,,,/ __ ~ l,nm1nunit)' and l·.conomi( l)i,;"\·dnpmenl Introduction Storage One on 4th Expansion A 3-story mixed-use retail and storage building in Renton Ea st Plateau, across the street from Highlands Market Place. ---------lZ EN TON Approvals Requested • Th e appli cant has requested Hearing Exam i ner Site Pla n Re view, Hea ring Exa miner Conditiona l Use Permit an d a refuse an d recycli ng modification. • Th e p roject required an environmental determ i nation by the Enviro nmenta l Review Co mmittee (ER(). • A mod ification from the RMC has been reques t ed that would al low the proj ect to reduce the size of the req ui red deposit and col lectio n area. ------RENTON ---...... RE~TON ·-------------'-----,, Location in Renton 2/17/2015 1 -- ~ RENTON hf,TH~'*Er la 1~7:.:--;· ':. l_ ·~ _,.. -- Site Plan and Site Map _ ,4T~ Topography Map srrr·· l = 11 I ----..... ~ ---------1:ZE NTO N R~ ------RENTO:--J ::.::;- Existing Site Conditions Map _-::::,_ .::J J NI; 4"' St '{ e"· 'M6~1 wJod 51TJ: --r ~ "~·-~ ~. _. ·-·-··· " -~;'lo •• !-'.;'a(egory 3 Weiiana mm:mm:: Site Map 30 Sign,J,cant Trees Retained 2 /17/2015 2 Project Review Timeline • The land u se appl ication was sub mitted on De c. 22, 20 14 and deemed compl et e on Dec . 30, 20 14 . • The City ordi nance s govern the development of la nd u p to and incl u ding adopted Ordi nance No . 5739 . • On Ja n. 26, 20 15, the ERC issued a DNS-M i nc l uded 1 mit igatio n measure -Project co nstruction sha ll be req ui red to co mply with t h e recomme n dations found in the Geotechni ca l Stu d y conducte d by GEOTECH Con sulta nts, Inc . {dated May 29, 20 14). • T he 14-day appea l p eri od commen ced on Jan uary 30, 2015 an d en ded on Fe br uary 13, 2015. No appeals of the threshold deter mination have be e n filed. -----..___ RENTON Review Analysis Comprehensiv e Pla n Compliance and Consistency • The proposal complies with the City's Comprehensive Pl an object ives and policies if all condit ions of approval are met. ------.--,-----L -- 1 - ------RENTON ...... -- -'"-."!'"-. \, --·.# ., .... " " ... . ·~-.. ~ ------....._ RE NTON t .r;: ;:;;.;::--11 J! . "'-ii""! . t ,~-···1-.- Site Plan Review Analysis Zon ing Developm e nt Standard Compli11nce a nd Consistency • The proposal ha s d emonstra ted com pliance with the CA zoning cla ssif ication if all recommended conditions of approval are complied with. -----..___ JZ I:: N TON 2/17/2015 3 Review Analysis Cr itical Ar ea Com pliance and Con si st ency • The proposal is compl i ant with t he Critical Area Regu lat ions i fall recommended conditions of approval are complied wi t h. Review Analysis Design Re gulatio n Compliance and Co nsistency • The proposa l is compliant w ith the Des ign Regulation if all recommended condit ions of approval are complied with. LJl ~ R ENTON 0 .(" ~: .... ........... ~ Review Analysis Desi gn Regu l ation Compliance and Consi stency • The proposa l is compliant with the Design Regulat ion if all reco mmended co nditions o f approval are complied with. Community Asset Compliance and Con si stency • The proposa l is compliant w ith the Commu nity Asset regulation s. Review Analysis Refuse and Recyclable Deposi t Area M odification Criteria Co nsistency • Staff supports t he refuse and recycl ing modificat ion. L ~ R E NTON 2/17/2015 4 Review Analysis Availab i lity and Impa ct on Public Services ) I • Parks , Po lice, Fir e Pr even tion and Tra nsportation have indicated that sufficient res ources exis t to furnish services to t he proposed deve l opment, if req uir ed i mprovements and fees ar e provided. • The site i s se r ve d by t he City of Renton for water and sewer util ities. • A Technical Information Report, has been submitted, in accordance w ith the 2009 KC SWM . Conditional Use Permit Con s istent wit h pliln!i ilnd Meguliltions l J • OiK:ussion unde r Findings o f Fact, Sit e Plan Re'-"ewCriteria 20 .a. Appropr i;r,te Lociltion l. J • A self-storage demand analysis est 1milles th,11 there 1s iln unmet demand in t he market area (3.0 m ile radius) Qf 217,031 squue feet (fxh1b1t 12 ). The new facili ty would provk::le roug hl\l 45,000 sqmue feet ilnd an estimated 4SO units £Hect on Ad jacent Properties, Compatibility, Parkinc, and Traffic l J • Tnnsition t o Sunounding Development unde r findin1s of Fact, Sit e Pla n Re vie w Crit e ria •20.c.i.3 . • surface Parking under Findings of Fact , Site Plan Review Critemi #20 c 1i.l . • Tnns port at ion unde r findini.:s of Fact, Site Plan Review Crit eria #20.c.iv.k. r I Noise, Li1ht and Glare; landscapina J • bistina noise within the vi cin ity of the subjec t site ,s prim.irily composed of vehic~son the abYttint: st reet. • L,ndscaping disc union t.ind e r Findings of Fact. Sect mn 20.b . l t F NTON i) . . -' ------RE NT O N Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan , Conditional Use Permit, and Modification of Sto rage One on 4th Expansion, File No. LUA14-001641, ECF, SA-H, CU-H , MOD as depicted in the Exhibits, subject to 11 conditions. 2/17/2015 5 WETLAND DELINEATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AsSESSMENT REPORT STORAGE ONE ON 4TH SEPTEMBER 2014 WETLAND DELINEATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT STORAGE ONE ON 4TH SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 PROJECT LOCATION 13839 SE 128"' STREET RENTON, W.\SHINGTON 98059 PREPARED FOR Renton J\1ini LLC 918 South Horton St. #1000 Seattle, WA 98134 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULT.\NTS LLC 2907 H.\RBORVJEW DRIVE GIG H.\RBOR, W\SIUNGTON 98335 (253) 514~8952 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC was hired by Renton Mini LLC to re-delineate and assess potentially regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other aquatic features within and adjacent to an approximately 1.68-acre site that had been partially developed and located approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of Northeast 4'h Street and Duvall Avenue Northeast in the City of Renton, Washington. The proposed project includes a self-storage commercial structure and associated infrastructure. The subject property is situated in the Northwest % of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (King County Parcel Number 1523059002 and 1523059178). The subject property is in an urban residential area in the Maplewood Heights area of Renton, Washington. The subject property is surrounded by urbanized neighborhoods with commercial and multi-family developments. The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands and drainage features on April 2"", 23"' and 29'", 2014. One (1) onsite wetland (Wetlands A) was identified on the subject property which abuts the south property boundary, extending off site to the south. One drainage channel was identified along the eastern property boundary. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife PHS (WSDFW PHS, 2014) does not recognize this drainage channel as fish-bearing waters. Aside from the drainage channel, another hydrologic feature was identified as a storrnwater discharge culvert associated with an offsite commercial development. North of NE 4'h Street, an offsite Category II wetland (City of Renton, 2014) drains through a culvert that had been placed under the street and into the drainage channel then into Wetland A. An existing conditions site map is provided on the following page. The project proposes construction of a commercial self-storage and associated infrastructure in 1.68 acres (73,181sq.ft.) property. Direct impacts to wetland and drainage features will be entirely avoided. The onsite and adjacent wetland is likely regulated under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4.3.050 -Critical Areas regulation the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No wetland fill or buffer impacts are proposed with this development acnon. 1247.(XJOl Renton I Iighlands Wetlaml Delineation and Fish & Wildlife l fabitat Assessment Report SoundYicw Consultants Ll ,C Scptnnb1.:r 4, 2014 J---- o;;.5 ~- ., sp GRAPHIC SCALE , ..... ·----- ,- \ NBB 0 06'15"W 100.03' 1247.0001 Renton Highland~ ~--------..------, --. I/ ' I i ! / i' (\, ) I "-) / ., / i \ I / I i .• / I , ,/,... I Site Ma ,u -----.!) ' APPROXIMA~E ---~J DRAJNAGE tjENTERLINE ' -~ c~iWATER --~ ENDS AT WETLAl'JD Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife I fabitat Assessment Report H :81 N Soundvicw Consultants LLC Septcrnber 4, 2014 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................ 2 Chapter 3. Methods ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 5 4.1 Existing Site Conditions ............................................................................................... 5 4.2 Topography ................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................... 6 4.4 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 6 4.5 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 6 4.7 Priority Habitats and Species ........................................................................................ 7 4.8 Precipitation .................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 5. Results .................................................................................................................. 8 5.1 Wetland ......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Wetland A Summary ................................................................................................ 9 5 .2 Wetland Functions ...................................................................................................... I 0 Table 3. Functions and Values ofOnsite Wetland ............................................................... 10 5. 3 Drainages .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. I 0 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations and Recommendations ........................................... 12 6.1 Regulatory Considerations .......................................................................................... 12 6.2 Construction Sequencing and Best Management Practices ........................................ 12 6.3 Critical Areas and Habitat Management Recommendations ...................................... 12 Chapter 7. Closure ................................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 8. References .......................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A-Methods and Tools .......................................................................................... 1 Appendix B -Background Information ................................................................................. 3 Appendix C -Site Map and Plans .......................................................................................... 9 Appendix D -Data Sheets ......................................•..•..•.....•....•..•..•....•..•..•..•....•..................... 10 Appendix E -Qualifications ................................................................................................ 11 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Aerial Map .............................................................................................................. 5 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary ............................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Wetland A Summary ................................................................................................ 9 Table 3. Functions and Values ofOnsite Wetland .............................................................. 10 Table 4. Drainage Channel Summary ................................................................................. 11 1247.0001 Renton I lighLlflds Wetland Delineation and Jlish & Wildlife I labitat A.sscssment Report m Soumkit,..•,v Curu;u\tants LLC September 4, 2014 Appendices Appendix A -Methods and Tools Appendix B -Background Information Appendix C -Site Map and Plans Appendix D -Data Sheets Appendix E -Qualifications 1247.()(){)1 Renton J lighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & WildUfe I fabitat Assessment Rc.-port SmmdYicw C:omultants LLC Septtmbcr 4, 2014 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC was hired by Renton Mini LLC to re-delineate and assess potentially regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other aquatic features within and adjacent to an approximately 1.68-acre site that had been partially developed and located approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of Northeast 4'h Street and Duvall Avenue Northeast in the City of Renton, Washington. The proposed project includes a self-storage commercial structure and associated infrastructure. The subject property is situated in the Northwest 1/• of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (King County Parcel Number 1523059002 and 1523059178). The purpose of this assessment is to identify the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other aquatic features on or near the subject property and assess potential impacts to any such critical areas associated with the proposed project. This report includes conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated wetlands, drainages, and associated fish and wildlife habitat within the vicinity of the proposed project; • Identification, delineation, and assessment of potentially regulated wetlands and water bodies; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/ or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations; • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers; • Documentation of wetland avoidance and minimization measures, and • Supplemental information necessary for local regulatory review. 1247.0001 Renton Highland;; Sound\·iew Consultants ] ,J J: Wetland Delineation and Jlish & Wildlife I Iabitat Assessment Report September 4, 2014 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Location The proposed project is located approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of Northeast 4tl' Street and Duvall Avenue Northeast in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The subject property is situated on two parcels in the Northwest 1/. of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (King County Parcel Number 1523059002 and 1523059178). To access the site from Renton City Hall, travel north on South Grady Way and continue north on Main Avenue South, then northeast on Bronson Way South, then north on Sunset Boulevard North, then east on Northeast 3rd Street. Continue east on NE 3rd Street (becomes NE 4th Street), approximately 2.0 miles to Duvall Avenue NE. The subject property is approximately 0.1 mile east of the intersection of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE and on the south side of NE 4th Street. 11 I• I Ii I I -==----=-------Hi&:14TH ST---__ Nlllll)UI 1247.0001 llrnton I Ii,ghlands ----. SUBJECT PROPERTY Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 2 / -.,R,-e_n_t_o_n_..J \ I• ( '\. L_.... ,... . .,..--._.'··1 ... ___ ...... / \ \,, \,',,, .. ffHPI. ------- ' f I Soundvie\v Consultants I .LC September 4, 2014 Chapter 3. Methods The methods used to comply with local assessment requirements are detailed below. Please see Appendix A for further details of the typical methods and tools used to prepare this report. Wetlands, stormwater features, natural drainages, and other potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat features were delineated and assessed by qualified Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Specialists. All potentially regulated areas were inspected on multiple occasions with special emphasis given to the boundaries of wetlands and hydrologic features. Wetland determinations were made using observable vegetation, soils, and hydrology in conjunction with data from the National Wetland Inventory, King County i,\{AP, maps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the NRCS Soil Survey of King County, and aerial photographs. See Appendix B for maps detailing background data such as soils, topography, and resource inventories. Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) as modified by the Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Methods described in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual was not used since this document has been retired by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in favor of the updated USACE methods. Ordinary High Water (OHW) determinations were conducted using Ecology's method as detailed in determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Olson, 2008); definitions provided in RCW 77.55.011 (11) and WAC 220.110.020 (69); and USACE's Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (USACE, 2005). Wetlands were rated according to the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) classification system presented in RMC Title IV, Chapter 3-4-3-050.M. l.a. A complete description of the wetland categories as found in the RMC are presented below: M. WETLANDS: 1. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as described below. Category 3 wetlands, le.rs 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: Thefollowing da.rsi.fication ,ystem 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 ,YStem: i. Category 1: Category 1 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more ~f the fallowing criteria: (a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat far those species; and/ or (b) Wetlands having.forty penwt (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/ or (t) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (1 OJ acres in size and having three (3) or more vegetation da.rses, one of whi,h is open water; and/ or 1247.0001 RL:nton l Iighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife I Iabitat Assessment Report 3 SoundYicw Consultants LI ,C September 4, 2014 (d) The presence ofplant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the .(e1J,graphic limits of their occurrence; and/ or ii Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the followin,g criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/ or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/ or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters ofa 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 diking, ditching or channeliZfition; and/ or iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more ~f the Jo/lowing critena: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrolo,gic alterations such as dzkin,g, ditching, channelization and/ or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence ojji/1, soil removal and/ or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlandr that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent V((etation, low plant spe<ies richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally jound in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. {I) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. All potentially regulated areas were inspected in April, 2014. The wetland and drainage boundaries and stormwater features were inspected, delineated, and surveyed over several dates in April 2014. The field delineation of wetlands and drainages was performed by Jim Carsner, Senior Wetland Scientist, and Parshuram Acharya, Wetland Specialist, for Soundview Consultants LLC. To mark the boundary between wetlands and uplands, orange surveyor's flagging was labeled alpha- numerically and tied to vegetation or wood lath along the wetland boundary. To mark the points where data was collected, pink surveyor's flagging was labeled alpha numerically and tied at each sampling location. The centerline of the drainage ditch was also flagged with blue flagging. The location of each wetland boundary flag, data plot, and drainage channel was surveyed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. The locations and features of the wetlands and drainages are described in Chapter 5 (Appendix C). 1247.0001 Renton llighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife lfabitat Asses~mcnt Report 4 Sound\-it'w Consultants LIL September 4, 2014 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions 4.1 Existing Site Conditions The subject property is located in an urban r esidential/ commercial ar ea of the Renton highlands in the Ci ty o f Renton. The Subj ect property is bounded on the east by multi-family residences, o n the north by E 4'h s treet, on the south by vacant parcel containing the r eminder of the wetland a storm.water detention pond, and o n the west b y commer cial properties . T h e property is a partially dev eloped fill with a fenced asphalt area o n the n orth portion o f the site. T he remainder of the fill is d o minated b y h erbaceou s s p ecies with d eciduous trees along t he ea st side of the property and m oderat e to dense growth of Himala yan blackberry through o ut t he site. A drainage channel, located along the eastern property bo undary, all ows \\la ter to fl ow into a wetland that abuts the southeastern portion of the property. Source: Google Ma p 2014 4 .2 Topography C urrent USGS site topography data (King County iMA P ) sh ows the property is primarily flat with littl e topographic variation (A ppendix B 1 ). 1247.000 1 Renton I lil(hla nds Wetland Delineation and Fish & \Y/ildli fe J labitat . \ssess ment Report 5 ::-o undncw C o nsulta nts J ,J ,C September 4. 20 14 4.3 Soils Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey identifies Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6-15 percent slopes, and Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes soils are present on subject property (Appendix B2). Both onsite soil series are listed as non-hydric on the King County Area Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2012). According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB), 6 to 15 percent slopes are developed in glacial till under conifers forest. A typical pedon for the Alderwood series from O to 2 inches is composed of a very dark brown (lOYR 2/2) gravelly sandy loam; 2 to 12 inches is a dark brown (lOYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam; 12 to 27 inches is a grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) gravelly sandy loam with many distinct mottles (2.5Y 5/6); and 27 to 60 inches is a grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) or yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) gravelly sandy loam with common distinct mottles (2.5Y 5/6). According to the survey, Everett gravelly sandy loam (EvB) with O to 5 percent slopes consists of very deep excessively drained soils that formed in glacial outwash or alluvium on a north-facing slope of 3 percent at 150 meters elevation in forest. A typical pedon for the Everett series from Oto 1.5 inches is composed of a black (lOYR 2/1) sandy loam; 1.5 to 17 inches is a dark brown (7.SYR 3/4) gravelly sandy loam; 17 to 32 inches is a brown (lOYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam; and 32 to 60 inches is a black and dark grayish-brown (lOYR 2/1 and 4/2) very gravelly coarse sand. 4.4 Vegetation Vegetation onsite is dominated by dense patches of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) along the perimeter of the fill. The wetland canopy is dominated by red alder (A/nus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus !atifo!ia) and willow (Salix spp.). The understory is dominated by spiraea (Spiraea douglasi,) and salmonberry (Rubus ,pectabili,). Grass species, such as soft rush (Juncus effuses), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), fescue (restuca spp.) and bentgrass (Agrostis capil!aris) are dominant the species in groundcover. Other prominent species includes creeping buttercup (Ranuncu!us repens), rib plantain (P!antago !anceo!ata) and dandelion (Tara:xacum ofji,inale) 4.5 Hydrology Hydrologic source for the site includes from surface runoff, direct precipitation and drainage channel coming from an offsite wetland. King County ~!AP does not identify any other onsite hydrology features. 4.6 National and local Wetland Inventories The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (USFWS NWT) map identifies no wetlands present on the subject property. However, King County ~AP and City of Renton GIS shows a category II offsite wetland outside the northern property boundary abuts the NE 4•h street and category II onsite wetland in southern portion of the property (Appendix B3). 1247.0001 Renton 1 Iighlands Wet.land Delineation and Fish & \VildUfe I labitat Assessment Report 6 Soumkic:w Consultants I .I ,C September 4, 2014 4.7 Priority Habitats and Species The WDFW (PHS) maps and data do not show any hsted species or habitat on or in the vicinity of the subject property. WDFW SalmonScape maps do not show any salmon species/ habitats on or near the sites. No priority habitats or species were observed onsite during site investigations (Appendix 5). 4.8 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at SeaTac Airport for precipitation in the days, weeks, and month leading up to the site visits (April, 2014). A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. T bl I P . 't f S a e . rec1p1 a 100 umma11 Date Day of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2Weeks Month1 Water o/o of Prior Year' Normal3 4/2/14 0.0 0.0 1.57 1.75 0.0 26.71 112/84 4/23/14 0.35 0.56 2.46 2.48 3.29 30.02 121/95 4/29/14 0.0 0.0 1.80 3.72 4.18 30.89 127/97 1. Month to date preetp1tation. \X/atcr Yr:ar is precipitation from October 1, '.!013. ~ Percent of normal is shmvn as for the month/water year. The precipitation data shows that approximately 1 /2 inch of rain fell the day of the site visit and precipitation levels were approximately 127 percent of normal for the month of April. The precipitation levels were taken into account when determining wetland hydrology criteria. 1247.0001 Renton I lighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & WildUfc Habitat Assessment Report 7 Sound\·icw Consultants LLC September 4, 2014 Chapter 5. Results The site investigation identified one onsite wetland (Wetland A) and a drainage channel on the subject property. No other regulated water bodies were observed onsite during our site visits on the subject property. An offsite stortnwater discharge culvert was observed along the western portion of Wetland A. The identified wetlands contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. The following sections detail these features. A map of all identified features is provided in Appendix C. 5.1 Wetland Wetland A is Palustrine, Forested, Scrub Shrub, Seasonally Flooded (PFOC/PSSC) depressional wetland located near the south property boundary and extends further offsite to the south. Wetland A has a moderately open over story dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinus !atifo!ia) and Black cottonwood (Popu!us ba!samifera) with an understory dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabi!is) and spiraea (Spiraea doug!asti). 'lbe ground cover is dominated by lady fern (At~yrium filixfimina) and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). 'lbe perimeter of wetland as well as most of the property boundary is dominated by Himalayan blackberry which indicates the high level of anthropogenic disturbance. Completed data forms are provided in Appendix D. Hydric soil was confirmed by the presence of a thick dark surface and redoxirnorphic features. The wetland contains gravelly sandy loams soil which is typical of the Alderwood and Everett series. The wetland hydrology primarily comes from offsite water sources, seasonal high water table, surface water runoff and precipitation. Wetland hydrology indicators observed within the wetland included surface water, high water table, and saturation. The hydroperiod was determined to be seasonally flooded with seasonal inundation of the depression. Wetland A has been rated as Category 3 in accordance with Rl'v!C Title JV, Chapter 3-4-3-050.M.1.a (see Chapter 3 for complete descriptions of wetland categories). Category 3 wetlands require a standard 25-foot wide buffer (RMC Title IV, Chapter 3-4-3-050.M.6.c.i) 1247.()()(]1 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 8 Suundview Consultants LLC September 4, 2014 Table 2. Wetland A Summa . WETLAND A-INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Onsite portion of Wetland A. Local Jurisdiction WRIA Ecology Rating City Of Renton Rating Cowardin Classification HGM Classification City of Renton Buffer Width Estimated Wetland Size (onsite only) Wetland Data Sheet(s) Upland Data Sheet (s) Boundary Flag color City of Renton 8 N,\ 3 PFO/SSC Depressional 25 feet 1)85 sq.ft. DP-1 DP-2 Orange The wetland is dominated by red alder (A/nus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifo!ia) and Black cottonwood (Popu!us baLramifera) as canopy whereas sub-canopy is consists Dominant Vegetation of the salmonberry (Rubus spectabi!is), and spiraea (Spiraea doug!asi1). Herbaceous ground cover is dominated by lady fem (Athyrium jilixftmina), tall fescuc (Festuc arundinacea), soft rush (Junms ejfusus), Carex obnupta and bentgrass ('1gmslis capi!laris). NRCS shows soils on-site as Aldcrwood gravelly sandy loam, 6-15 percent slopes, Soils and Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. The site investigation shows ravell , or silt loam soils ,vith redox dark surface matrix. Hydrology High water table. Areas of well-defined surface inundation and saturation, hydropbytic vegetation and Rationale for Delineation redox dark surface matrix. Upland areas were determined by slight topographic rise and lack of hydric soils. etland Functions Summary Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Buffer Condition 1247.0001 Renton Highlands Wetland A has a potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to its depressional nature and dense herbaceous vegetation. Due to its relative size and storage capacity, the wetland provides relatively high hydrologic functions. Infiltration function is moderate due to the well-draining soils within the wetland. Habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small mammal forage and cover, bird foraging and nesting, and amphibian breeding sites. Buffer is heavily disturbed and fragmented due to proximity to roads and residentia developments. Under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4.3.050. M.6.c; Category 3 wetlands requires 25-foot buffer. Wetland Delineation and hsh & Wildlife I labitat Asses8ment Report 9 Smm<lYicw Consultants LLC September 4, 2014 5.2 Wetland Functions The onsite wetlands may provide several water quality and hydrologic functions, such as limited stormwater retention and infiltration, water quality enhancement, and wil<llife habitat, but these functions are limited due to size, storage capacity, landscape position, and disturbances. The dense and persistent emergent vegetation helps to improve water quality and provide breeding ground for amphibian and micro invertebrates. Hydrologic function is limited to reductions of surface flows during storm events and retention of stormwater runoff associated with adjacent roads and commercial structures. The fragmented wetland buffer indicates that the wetland provides moderate habitat functions including small mammal forage and cover, bird foraging and nesting, and amphibian breeding sites. Table 3 provides a summary of the assessed on-site wetland functions. Table 3. Functions and Values ofOnsite Wetland Function/Value Wetland A Sediment Removal + Nutrient and Toxicant Removal + Flood Flow Alteration X Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization X Production & Export of Organic Matter X General Habitat Suitability X Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates X Habitat for Amphibians + Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals - Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds X General Fish I labitat - Native Plant Richness X Educational or Scientific Value X Uniqueness and Heritage - A " -" means that the function ts not present; "x" means that the function ts present and ts oflower quality; and "+" means the function is present and is of higher quality. 5.3 Drainages The site investigation during April 2014 identified one drainage channel that enters the property from the northeastern corner through culvert under the NE 4'h street and parallels the eastern property boundary, discharging water in the onsite wetland. The drainage channel is rated as Class 4 water body by City of Renton. The Class 4 waters are non-fish bearing intermittent waters during normal rainfall years. 1247 .0001 Renton I lighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 10 Soundvicw Consultants LLC September 4, 2014 Table 4. Drainage Channel Summary RAINAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY Location of Feature Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows from/to) Riparian/Buffer Condition 5.4 Wetland and Stream Buffers Feature Name WRIA Loe al Jurisdiction DNR Stream Type Local Stream Rating Buffer Width Documented Fish Use Drainage channel 8 City of Renton NA Class 4 35 feet none The onsite segment of drainage channel is approximately 224 feet long and 10 feet -w-ide alon the eastern ro er , boundarv. Drainage channel flows south along eastern property boundary, draining stormwater from offsite wetland to the onsite wetland, it then enters stormwater detention pond through a culvert and continues offsite as a drainage channel and ultimately drains into the Green River. Buffer ts relatively undisturbed forested/shrub area. Under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4.3.050. L.5.a(i).c) Class 4 water re uires 35-foot buffer. According to the RMC Title 4.3.050. M.1.a(iii), the subject property contains one Category 3 depressional wetland, which requires a standard 25-foot buffer (Rl\.fC 4.3.050. M.6.a(iii) and c(i). According to RMC stream classification system, the drainage channel is a Class 4 water that requires a standard 35-foot-wide buffer (RMC 4.3.050. L.1.a(iv) & 4.3.050. L.5.a(i).c). 1247.0CXl1 Renton l lighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildbfc l Iabitat Assessment Report 11 SoundYiew Consultants I J l: September 4, 2014 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations and Recommendations 6.1 Regulatory Considerations The site investigation identified one potentially regulated wetland and one regulated drainage channel onsite. Due to the presence of wetland and drainages on or near the site, this report has been prepared pursuant to RMC Title 4.3.050. Descriptions of wetland and associated plant communities, classification of wetland, and an evaluation of the existing or potential functions and values of the wetlands can be found in Chapter 5 of this report. No direct negative impacts are proposed to the identified wetland or drainage features. Under RMC 4.3.050.M., Wetland A is a category III wetland that is regulated by City of Renton and requires a standard 25-foot buffer. The onsitc drainage channel is classified as Class 4 water by City of Renton requiring a standard 35-foot-wide buffer (RMC 4.3.050. L.5.a(i).c). The project does not propose any filling of Wetland A, the drainage channel or associated buffers. In addition, best management practices (BMPs) arc proposed to ensure protection of the wetlands to avoid State and Federal permitting requirements. 6.2 Construction Sequencing and Best Management Practices Direct impacts to the wetland should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be implemented that consist of silt fencing between the construction area and critical areas, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. A concrete wash water collection basin should also be installed away from the critical areas prior to commencement of construction activities. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the wetland and drainage features, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/ or hazardous materials. All fill material should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces if possible and kept out of the building setback area. Following completion of the residence, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools; and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment features will need to be implemented as designed by the project engineer. 6.3 Critical Areas and Habitat Management Recommendations Though no impacts are proposed, the following management recommendations are provided: • Confine new work to areas that do not contain wetland, stream and associated buffers; • Keep heavy equipment and vehicles out of critical areas to the maximum extent possible; 1247.0001 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation an<l Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 12 SoundYiew Coru;ultant~ LLC September 4, 2014 • Do not place clearing debris, yard waste, or trash within the critical areas or associated buffers; • Stormwater runoff from paved impervious surface and landscape areas will need to be properly treated prior to release into wetland; stream or associated buffers; • Use of chemicals and herbicides should be avoided in upland areas adjacent to critical areas • Direct exterior lights away from tbe wetland and stream whenever possible, and • Place activity that generates excessive noise (i.e. generators and air conditioning equipment) away from the critical areas. • Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures should be installed prior to site development, including installation of silt fencing construction activities prior to and maintained throughout tbe construction period; 1247 .0001 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 13 Soundview Consultana; J J .C September 4, 2014 Chapter 7. Closure 'lhe findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for the future development of the subject property. The findings have been developed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Wetland determinations are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries or findings of no wetlands are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the wetland boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. As wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. I ,ocal agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of 5 years after completion of a wetland delineation report. Development activities on a site 5 years after the completion of this wetland delineation report may require revision of the wetland delineation. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Qualifications of Soundview Consultants LLC staff responsible for the site investigation and preparation of this report are presented in Appendix E. 1247.0001 Renton Ilighlands Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 14 September 4, 2014 Chapter 8. References Brinson, M. M. 1993. "A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands," Technical Report WRP-DE- 4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Carsner, James H. 2008. Wetland delineation Rffport, Minkler Property, King County. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Kent, Washington. City of Renton, 2014. http://www.rentonwa.gov/home.htm, Accessed in August 2014. Cooke, S.S. 1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps ofEngineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington-Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-15. King County. 2014. http://www.kingcount;y.gov/operations/GIS/:\Iaps/L\L-\P. Assessed in August 2014. Lichvar, Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NW, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List. 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoncuron 2013-49: 1- 241. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001a. Hydric Soils of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001b. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. htt;p: //websoilsun·ey.nrcs.usda.gov /app/ Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Sumey of King County Area, 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. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.· Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ER.DC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 201 la. PHS on the Web, Website: htt;p: / /fortress.wa.gov / dfw /gispublic /prodphsontheweb / viewer.aspx Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2011 b. SalmonScape on the Web, Website: htt;p: / /fortress.wa.gov / <lfw /gispublic / apps /salmonscape / default.htm 1247.0001 Renton 1-lighlands Wetland Ddineation and Fish & Wildlife Jfabitat Assessment Report 15 SoundYie,v Consultants LLC September 4, 2014 Appendix A -Methods and Tools Parameter Method or Tool Website Wetland CSACE 1987 ht!j2:/ icl.crdc.usace.arm Delineation Wetland v .mill cl,1ubs ipdf l wlma Delineation 1187.pdf Manual Western htt,1: [ [v,,·ww. usace.armi·· Mountains, mill cw l cecwo iregiinte Valleys, and aridwest su12.J2df Coast Region Interim Regional Supplement Wetland USFWS / htlj2: i i,vww.fws.goy in Classificatio Cowardin wii'.Pubs Reportsi'.Class n Classification :\lanualiclass titlepg.ht System m Hydrogeomorphi ht!j2: l l cl.crdc.usacc.arm c Classification v.mil l wetlands ipdfsi wr (HGl\1) System pde4.pdf Wetland Washington State ht!j2:iiwww.ccy.wa.gov Rating Wetland Rating ibiblioi0406025.html System Auburn htlj2: l l code,1ublishing.c Municipal Code omiwaiauburni Wetland North American htt;ps: i /wetland ,1lants. Indicator Digital Flora: usace.army.mil Status National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 Plant Names USDA Plant ht!:!2: l lplants.us<la.gov l Database Soils Data NRCS Soil ht!:!2: l l websoilsurver.nr Survey cs. usda.gov iappiW ebS oilSurvey.aspx 1247.0001 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Reference Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, ;\1ississippi. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Brinson, M. M. (1993). "A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands," Technical Report WRP-DE-4, C.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hruby. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington -Revised. Publication # 04-06-025. Uses State Rating System under Auburn Municipal Code Chapter 16.10.080 LichYar, Robert \Xi. and John T. Karte~z. 2009. i'\;orth Ameniun D{rjla! Unm: I\atirma! Wetland Nin! U.a. iu.iion 2.-1-JJ. L.S .. \rmy Corps of Engineen;, Engineer Research and Denfopmmt Crntcr, Cold Regions Research and Engineering L'lboratory, f [anon:r, ;\JW, and BON:\!', Chapel H,11, NC. Website (see Appendix A) Website GIS data based upon: Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of king County, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and Washin<>ton State SoundYiew Coru;ultant:; LLC September 4, 2014 Parameter Method or Tool Website H ydric Soils King County No longer available Data Hydric Soils List Threatened Washington ht!:p: (_ (_ www.dnr.wa.gov and Natural Heritage illli!lL Endangered Program and Species htl:j2: (_ (_ wwwl .dnr.wa.go v /_nh12/.rcfdcsk/_<latascar ch/_ wnh12wctlan<ls.12<lf Washington htl:j2: /_/_wdfw.wa.gov /_ha Priority Habitats b /.12hs12age.htm and Species Species of WDFWGIS ht!;j2:/_ /_wdfw.wa.gov /_ma Local Data 12l!ing /_ salmonsca12e /_ Importance Report Renton Municipal htl:j2: / I'. code12ublishing.c Preparation Code om/_ wa i'.renton /_ 1247J)()()1 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife I labitat Assessment Report Reference Cniversity, Agriculture Research Center. Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Hydric Soils List: Pierce County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program. Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Website Renton Municipal Code Chapter 4.3 SoundYicw Cumultants J,J,C September 4, 2014 Appendix B -Background Information This appendix includes a King County Topographic Map (Bl), NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2), USFWS National Wetland Inventory map (B3), City of Renton Wetland Map (B4), and WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Map (BS). 1247.0001 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation and Fi~h & Wildlife Habitat :\ssessment Report Soundview Consultants LLC September 4, 2014 A endix Bl. -I County Boundary I_ x Mountain Peaks Contours (1 00ft light) Hip-ay• Strllets (contJ 1247 .0001 Rento n I lighlands Legend ·~ ~ LOCIII 0 L Lakea •nd Large Rivers Sn•m• Parcels \Vctland D el in eation and Fis h & Wi ldlife I !abital .\sscssment Repo rt 2Ufl SoundY iew Consultants J .I ,C Scp1m1 b cr 4, 2014 A endix B2. NRCS Soi l Surve • ~ Sol MaJ>---Ks>o COOnty Area. Washington . ~ •r -awi.i I I! ~ I ; I j ~ i @ § SI ~ ,w4J Mlpsat.. liSlBfpttadcnA ......,_.(11.•&S') ..... N 10 "' 40 .. A o ~ ~ ~ m Mlppojl(bor,I Wllt>Mln:Jito' Cotw~ WGS&t ~ ilai U™.ar.1CNWOS84 Map Unit Legen d K i n g County~. W.wsh ington (WA633t Map Unit Symbol M• Unit Mame Acres i n AOI AgC Alderwood gra'lle9y sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent s lopes EvS Ev<Netl gra'lleay sandy loam , 0 to 5 p«,cent slopes Tota Is for Area of Interest 1247.0001 Ren ton I !igh la nJs We tland D clinc:ation anJ l'is h & Wildlife I labitat . \ssessment Repo rt """" 0 .3 2 .1 2 .4 ,ir JJ V'M 1$ § ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ @ ~ I ~ ~ I ..,.. :a, ..... ..,,.. """° ,.,,., ,.,,.. ~ . ~ Percent of AOI 1 1.7% 88 .3 % 100.0% Sound,·itw Cons ultants 1.1 ,C Septembe r 4, 20 14 USFWS National Wetland Invento Wetlands .. Freshwater Emergen t .. Freshwat er Forested/Shrub .. Estuanne and Manne Deepwater Estu an ne and Manne Fre1hw11e< Pond 1111 Lake 1111 RIV9nne 1111 Ottw Riparian L-Heroaceous c_ Fores ted/Shru b 1247.000I Renton I lig hlands Wetland Delin eati o n and Fish & \Vil<l lifc· I la bitat :\sscssment Report SoundYicw Consultants Ll.C September 4, 2014 None 0 256 Q 128 ikFH< WGS_ 1964_ Web_Ml!t'calar _Aud31y_ Sphere ~ Fi nnn c & TT Division 1247.()()0 1 Renton I lighlands Ltg.nd Addresses Parcels Rooms/Buildng Sections Buidings Sites o...r lolunq,ol Gow,-, Fildir)' Cornrrur>1y I R..,,.illlon C..., Un,y Mu..... lnJonn.lM>n T~ -GIS R..-.~R.nlDnw~.goy 8119/201 4 W etland D e li n eation and Fish & Wildlife l labitat . \sscssmcnt Report _,..........,, Undowiopo<I P>r\ • P~Lo<Slno.n t C...00 Slope City of Renlon >1 5'1; & ,c,,25'1, • >25'1; & ""40"i. 1s.ns: ... , • >411'1',' -(Pn>lo<wd) .>ilO'X.(-) This tl\aP " a 1,,1...,-~ ltallC OU1P1A tom ln lntffl'lilC "'lf)CWll8 u:• JnC Sb'~ only 0..i ~ fl• JIP9"• Of\ d\.'S map IN'/ OI ml')' not bl- ~ a,,n. or~~.-- THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USEO FOR NAVIGATION Sound,·icw Consultants I.LC September 4. 2014 Appendix BS . WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Map N "' ;,; :!: ;; ~ ...,. a: g ~ Q) ::, 0 E ~ O> m 0 m Q) I... <( >, "'O 0 :::J ,-.. ..... ;s; (/) N 1B 't ~ 0, ~ '7 6 ~ ,-.. 0 N 0 (0 o; "' § ~ '7 ~ X a, o E co ~ ~~ ~ ~ :::, .Q ot co- 1247.0(X)l Renton 1 h ghlands W etland D elin(.'ation and Fis h & \Vildlifr I la bi tat . \ssessmcnt Rcpun N :lE Cl. N "' N ...,. ;; ~ '2 c!; Sound,·icw Cons ultants LLC Septe m ber 4, 2014 Appendix C -Site Map and Plans This Appendix includes the site map with the locations of existing and proposed physical features of the site (delineated wetlands, hydrologic features, existing and proposed topography, stormwater infrastructure, et cetera). 1247.0001 Renton Highlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report SoundviLw Consultants I J .C September 4, 2014 ____ j I ! I I ; 1,1. RENTON HIGHLANDS -EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ----------,. ----~ ----.,-----~------'l,--------,.- z ---· ----, ~ ,;----~~_... ~~-~ ,l·=-:__ ! ---=-=-~T--== ~~-=-----=--=-""~ -~ ~--~ . ~ -__ .,-·-1 -~---. ·-.;z. ' -----·--,--•----.~· --· • ,:I ~-·/ i . ---· -~ ,/ ~-,---' /,. ·I • ·- -/, .. r}-. _ · \·~-J ~~ ~NE~ ~TH STRE5I__._::_ ~_,,/ ---~ ~--~------~~\: '(,M>o-~~._..__:.1._ --1-~~~ ... S88'02'59"E 100.03' .1.i;; __ --I I ·-Y.Je •-, i ___ ----- N88°06'15"W 100.03' ~ I I ,u b " ~ "' 0 0 z DP-S. --~',~ .. --- 11 / "\, -~. ,. i \ '· / I DP-7• DP-4e ' . ' .. \~J). -)'<I'-- .. _,_.__ /i,· ~ -~ ----------~2~ •DP-1 --I 'V -.....---..,;;;;;-·--./ I' "' ..,,.._.,, "-' • ·,~ I /' . <"' ,, ' ' • ' • • • ' .. ' f ( I I ' ·, ----------_,;.e ___ .=J ---f; -~ (-----:__ .~----/ t·· "' <ri "'' N ~ 0 " f' i' ,~ i \ \ 1 1 8 • • • "~, I ~ I "' \ t 0 I APPROXIMATE DRAINAGE CENTERLINE CLASS 4 WATER ENDS AT WETLAND i 0 0 0 "' "' 0 "' ..... t:! <::! "-:::l :::! "' t:! ~ ts "l .... ~ ~ :::! ~ Cf, --· Q ~ '-' "'i ~l ~ : ('] tj'- -:::; ,r, Lr') ~ :::--. X: X C .,_ .,_ ,r, en ':. , ..... ,~. tr, ,r, -('J ('j ~ 0 C u -,-.:: .,: ;::: -:: --- C ' C ::., ,,.., ;. , ..... .:: ,,-. ,,.., X; ~ ,=-, 7 ~; --2 j C ..::: :::J c ;: ~ ~ ,, ~ - C' '.!:! 3S ~z u ..-r1 :' ~ ,- " 'I:' ~ ~ :--' ~ ~....., 'f. :--en ,....,_ ::r:: ;:c G z~ YU ~z ::=' 6:: :-'......., ~~ ~:::C;..:..;7: '-....,' -z -, -v..-': z ;~ :,:- ,:.-,~r' _7 ::cu("";Z :.L! ;-: . --- ~ :-' ;::; °' :J ~ ~ "- 0::: D.\"J'F: 8/25/2014 l<lll: 1247.0001 BY: JR SL.\l.l•:: 1"=50' Slll-'.l;T 1 ( ll' ~ ,--- I l __ _ ------~--J -.)(>3- L~-:=_:-:::_ \--------- .Q_ ( •• _., -~-·, S88°02'59"E 100.03' I I j , I I 1 I I ' _\... __ io I / o I. ·1----~ . 'I I f-- UJ t' --b I \ ~ : / -\ ;;; / / I ~ I I / 0 I I I 0 I / / / z / /: ,/ r,;·. / 1 1 1 / ~-w ,1 J //do'\/?-/ ,:f~/ 'II 11/ .,1 I l .. • j -----.NEATH STREET ------·- ~88°0~59"E 230.[!7' BUILDING A (3,210 SF) / ', ' \ 1 \ (' '-._) -tlm[l)flin,a'A• (9,179SF) f ' ' r,-c-/,-;7:: -~/.:L2i.___, ("- STORAGE (8,839 SF) -·---- N88°06'15"W 100.03' -~ {.~ . ,. I / < ' \' _-¢' I I r--_j / _ __j c-· ·--.0- ,!8.:~2. -"" -,.."' 1/YET~ND , , EXT~ND~ OFF,SITE • RENTON HIGHLANDS -PROPOSED CHANGES 4 -__ :__-:7------:::::::i,t :::::, .;,,~--- ---~-- '\__ ---; 7, r ., r'" .// --~ tD \', c~) ' I I \, =-.::::::----- -~~""'~.:::-1-):z: APPROXIMATE DRAINAGE CENTERLINE CLASS 4 WATER ENOS AT WETLAND 0 0 ~ '-' ~ll "' ll '-'' 5:,. ~ ,n I • "' N 0 <I ..... ::! <:3 s::::l ::I <I ::! ~ a .... co.,, Lf', or. ::;-. =---X ~ ::: "T ..,f -,r. ,.r. er:,....: ,r; ,r. "I ~·I " " :E ~ :,:: ; ~ ;;:: ,~ :::: t ._, ~ t --., 7 ·::: ~ ::! ::I ~ ~11 ~ I=~ \-::;-. ,;:: " - ---, - c- '.!:: 55 c- C/J .. , 0 ~z V ..-r' , ~ ~ ~6 ," ::r; :i; :: u~ ..... ~:-' :._, V ~z ?.r. 1--1 -::;::: _./ :r: ;..:..: :;:: z 'JC-..... z $; b ii O ;>' :z ~ :-" --_: :::i z ,-~~: ~ -~ iZ - ~ ~ =: ~- ;r fi :--< ,r: :,,: - :2 ~ r::; ~ '~ /. . ....,, :.. 7, /.. 2 ,,; '- D.\'J'l': 8/25/2014 _l(HI: 1 '.'47.[)001 In: JR :,;<: \LI ... : 111 = SO' SIWFT2 lll-' ~ Appendix D -Data Sheets • 1247.(KIOl Renton l lighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & Wildlife l labitat Assessment Report Sourn.h•iew Consultants IJL September 4, 2014 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: Urban Storage City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:04/2312014 Applicant/Owner: ~A~m~e~ch~e~T~ra~v~is~--------------------State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point :D~P~-0~1~-- lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharya Section, Township, Range: =S~. ~15~T~. =23=N=R~·~5=E~------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~F.,,lae_t ___________ Local relief(concave, convex, none): ~C~on~ca=ve~----Slope(%): _<_1 __ Subregion (lRR): ~A _____________ lat: 47.487636. long: -122.154266. Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N~/A~------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No 181 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are UNonnal Circumstances" present? Yes [8] 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? Yes0 NoD Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 NoD within a WeUand? Yes0 NoD Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoD Remarks: Approximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. All three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: W % Cover S12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 40 Yes FACW That Are 0Bl, FACW, or FAG: 6 (A) 2. Alnus rubra 20 Yes Ee&__ Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 60 = Total Cover That Are 0Bl, FACW, or FAG: 100 (A/B) SaQling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 12) 1. Rubus Sl;!ectabilis 60 Yes Ee&__ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. ---Total% Cover of: MultiQly by: 3. OBL species X 1: --- 4. ---FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= --- 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: §) UPL species x5= 1. Ranunculus re~ns 5 Yes Ee&__ Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Athyrium filix-femina 5 Yes Ee&__ 3. EQilobium ciliatum 5 Yes Ee&__ Prevalence Index = BIA= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: --- 5. D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation --- 6. 0 Dominance Test is >50% --- 7. D Prevalence Index is :s.3.0 1 --- 8. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. ---1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 15 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wood~ Vin§! §tri\tum (Plot size: 12) 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes0 NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation dominance test criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· DP 01 - Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color (moist} ____?6_ Color (moist} ~ ~ -1QL Texture Remarks 0-14 1 OYR 2/1 ~ 10YR 314 2 C _M __ GL Gravelly loam 14-16 10YR 313 1QQ__ ---Sil Silty Loam ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: Pl=Pore Unin!l, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surtace (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surtace (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surtace (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surtace (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surtace (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes[ZJ NoD Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F6 observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aQQI~} Secondact Indicators (2 or more reguired} 0 Surtace Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 0 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Depostts (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D?) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace (B8) Field Obseivations: Surface Water Present? YesD No[ZJ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _1 _ Saturation Present? Yes[ZJ NoO Depth (inches): Q__ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[ZJ NoO (includes caaillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface water present. Primary wetland hydrology indicators A 1, A2 ansd A3 observed. US Amiy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Urban Storage City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:04/23/2014 Applicant/Owner: ~A~m~e~c~he~T~ra~v~is~--------------------State: ~w~A~---Sampling Point: ~D~P~-0~2~-- lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharya Section, Township, Range: ~S~-~15~T~. =23~N=R~-~5~E~------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~Fl=a~t ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): =C=on=ca=ve~----Slope(%): _o __ Subregion (LRR): ~A~-------------Lat: 47.487667" Long: -122.154333 · Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Oto 6 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N~/A~------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [2] (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No signif1Cantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [8] 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? Yes ISi NoD Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No ISi within a Wetiand? YesD No ISi Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ISi NoD Remarks: Approximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ;Jill % Cover Sr1ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 40 = Total Cover That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: 60 (NB) Sar1ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. CO!Ylus cornuta 50 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus sr1ectabilis 30 Yes ~ Total% Cover of: Multiglj'. bj'.: 3. Acer circinatum 10 No ~ OBL species X 1 = 4. FACW species x2= --- 5. ---FAC species x3= 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: fil UPL species x5= 1. Pol1stichum munitum 20 Yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ath)':rium filix-femina 5 Yes FAC 3. Prevalence Index = BIA= --- 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: --- 5. D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation --- 6. ISi Dominance Test is >50% --- 7. D Prevalence Index is :$:3.0 1 --- 8. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. ---1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 25 = Total Cover Woodj'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1fil be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. --- 2. Hydrophytic ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ISi NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 Remarks: Hydrohytic vegetation dominance test criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-02 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color {moist) ~~ ---1mt_ Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 2/2 1QQ__ ---GL Gravell1 Loam 9-16 10YR 2/2 §Q__ 2.5Y 4/8 40 ---Sil Sil~ loam ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvrw:,,: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininn, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydrie Soil Present? YesD No [21 Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima(Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that ai;;!i;;!ll'.} Seconda(l'. Indicators (2 or more reguired} D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 0 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 46) 0 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Depos~s (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches): NIA Water Table Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _8_ Saturation Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): 6 __ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoO (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspect.ions), if available: Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators A2 ansd A3 observed. 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: Urban Storage City/County: ~R=•=nt=o~n/~K=in=g~-------Sampling Date:04/23/2014 ApplicanUOwner: c,A"-m"e"'chcoe"-'T"ra,.,v.,is'---------------------State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point ~D~P~-0~3'--- lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharya Section, Township, Range: ~S~. ~15=T~.~2=3=N~R~.~5~E~------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~F=la~t ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~N=on=•~-----Slope(%): _o __ Subregion (LRR): c,A ______________ Lat 47.487748 · Long:-122.154245. Datum: WG S84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N"-/A~------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [8] (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Nonnal 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. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YesD No ISi Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No ISi within a Wetland? YesD No [Z] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [Z] NoD Remarks: pproximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tre~ Stratum (Plot size: 30) 0/o Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 4 (8) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/8) Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: .1fil 1. Alnus rubra 10 Yes Ei\k___ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus ursinus 5 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: MultiQly by: 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. FACW species x2= --- 5. ---FAC species 70 X 3 = 210 15 = Total Cover FACU species 45 X 4 = 180 Herb Stratum (Plot size: §) UPL species x5= 1. Agrostis cai;i:illaris. 40 Yes Ei\k___ Column Totals: 115 (A) 390 (B) 2. Taraxacum si;i:~. 25 Yes FACU 3. Festuca arundinacea 10 No Ei\k___ Prevalence Index = BIA = 3.39 4. oamlis glomerata 10 NQ FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Heracleum SQE;!. 5 No FACU D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Vicia cracca 5 No FAC D Dominance Test is >50% 7. Tellima grandiflora 5 No FAC D Prevalence Index is :S:3.0 1 8. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: .1fil 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation = Total Cover Present? YesD No ISi % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation did not meet prevalence index or dominance test criteria. US Anmy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· DP~03 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) _ji_ Color (moist} __'.&_ _illL ~ Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/1 1.QQ__ ---GS Gravell}! Sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvru:,.: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL -Pore Linina, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A 10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Malrix (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) 0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesO No 12J Remarks: Compact fill. No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY WeUand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators {minimum of one reguired· check all that a1;1:l:!:I~} Secondary Indicators {2 or more rnguired) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, l2l High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) l2l Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Depostts (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesO No l2J Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes l2l NoO Depth (inches): L_ Saturation Present? Yes l2l NoO Depth (inches): Q__ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes l2l NoO (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators A2 ansd A3 observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project1Site: Urban Storage City/County: ,,R,,ec,,nt,,,oc,,nl.cKecin,,,g'--------Sampling Date:04/23/2014 ApplicanVOwner: ~A~m~e"'c~he~T~ra~v"'is _____________________ State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point =D,_P~-0~4'--- lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner, Parshu Acharaya Section, Township, Range: =S~. ~15~T~·=2=3N=R~.~5=E _______ _ Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ,_F,.la"'t-,_F,,,rn __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~F=la~t ______ Slope(%): _o __ Subregion (LRR): ~A'-------------Lat 47.487797" Long: -122.154367" Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Oto 6 percent slopes NWI classification: =N~IA~------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [SJ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [8J 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 ISi NoD Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No ISi within a Wetland? YesD No ISi Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ISi NoD Remarks: Approximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ;iQ) % Cover S12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 2 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 67 (AIB) Sa12ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. Rubus ursinus 5 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. ---Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. ---FACW species x2 = 5. ---FAG species x3= 5 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Htd2 ~Jrii!J!dm (Plot size: fil UPL species x5= 1. Juncus effusus 40 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Agrostis s~~-30 Yes EM;__ 3. Veronica americana 10 No EM;__ Prevalence Index = BIA= 4. T5i!ri!X5!s;;'=,!m SI;!. 10 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Tellima grandiflora 5 No EM;__ D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Da~lis glomerata 5 No FACU ISi Dominance Test is >50% 7. D Prevalence Index is :s.3.0 1 --- 8. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---0 Problematic HydrophyticVegetation1 (Explain) 11. ---1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100 = Total Cover Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1fil be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ISi NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation dominance test criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 I SOIL Sampling Point· DP-04 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} ___jL_ Color (moist} ~ _illL --1QL Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 311 1QQ__ ---GS Gravelll£ sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D-Deoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solls3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No IS] Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary: Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aggly} Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired} D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ISi High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and4B) ISi Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Depostts (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquttard (D3) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD No IS] Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ISi NoD Depth (inches): _3_ Saturation Present? Yes ISi NoD Depth (inches): _o_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [81 NoD (includes caoillarv frinael Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators A2. ansd A3 observed. 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: Urban Storage City/County: ~R~e~nt~o~nl~K~in~g~-------Sampling Date:04/23/2014 Applicant/Owner: cAe,m,see,c,.,hee...JTc.ra,,:v,.cis,_ ____________________ State: .,_We:A,_ ___ Sampling Point: ,aD,:P.:,-0.,5,_ __ lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharaya Section, Township, Range: ~Sc_. _,_15"'-'Tc.._.2,:3c,N'-'R".~5,.E~------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ,_F.,la._t ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): "N~on~e~-----Slope(%): _o __ Subregion (LRR): cA'--------------Lat: 47.487855 · Long: -122.154731' Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam oto 5 percent slopes NWI classification: ,,N.,IA,._ ______ _ Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No 0 (If no. explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Nom,al Circumstances" present? Yes [8J No D Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No 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? YesD No 12] Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 12] within a Wetland? YesD No 12] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 12] NoD Remarks: Approximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ;iQ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: 1 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species a = Total Cover That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: 50 (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. Prevalence Index work.sheet: --- 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: --- 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. FACW species x2= --- 5. ---FAC species 45 X 3 = 135 0 = Total Cover FACU species 55 x4 = 220 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2) UPL species x5= 1. Dactylis glomerata 30 Yes FAGU Column Totals: 100 (A) 355 (B) 2. Festuca arundinacea 30 Yes .EAf;_ 3. Achillea millefolium 10 No FAGU Prevalence Index =BIA= 3.55 4. Agrostis SQQ. 10 No .EAf;_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Holcus lanatus 5 No .EAf;_ D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 5 No FAGU D Dominance Test is >50% 7. 5 No FAGU D Prevalence Index is S3.01 8. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 95 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? YesD No 12] % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation indicators criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· DP-05 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color {moist) ~ Color (moist} ~~ --6QL Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/1 ------GS Gravell::l sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tul'\A: C=Concentration, O-Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL:•=Pore UninQ, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Matenal (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soll Present? YesD No [8l Remarks: Compact fill at 14 inches. No hydric soil indicators obseived. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima!Y Indicators {minimum of one reguired· check all that ag12l1l Seconda!Y Indicators {2 or mQre r~uired) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (BS) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (BS) (MLRA 1, 2, D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B 1 O) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Depostts (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks} D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): 11- Saturation Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _8_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoO (includes caoillarv frinne, Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators A2. ansd A3 observed. US Amiy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Urban Storage City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:04/23/2014 Applicant/Owner: ~A~m~e"'ch"'e~T~ra~v"'is~--------------------State: ~w~A~---Sampling Point: ,D~P~-0~6~-- lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharaya Section, Township, Range: ,,s~. "'15"'-.!T~.,a2,e3Neh..!R.,a.~5eaE _______ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 0n"'on,,,e~ __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none):-------Slope(%): _o __ Subregion (LRR): ~A~-------------Lat: 47.487896. Long: -122.154540" Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N!!!IA:,_ ______ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 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? Yes[ZI NoO Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesO No[ZI within a Wetland? Yes[ZI No0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[ZI NoO Remarks: Approximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 0 • Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/8) Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. Pogulu~ bal~~mifera 15 Yes E8L_ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. ---Total % Cover of: Multigl)'. b)'.: 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. ---FACW species X 2;: 5. ---FAC species x3• 15 ;;: Total Cover FACU species X 4;: H~rb Stratum (Plot size: §) UPL species x5• 1. Agrostis S[lg. 40 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. Festuca arundinacea 20 Yes FAC 3. Juncus effusus 20 Yes FACW Prevalence Index -BIA - 4. Carex obnugta 10 No Qfil,__ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Trifolium re[lens 5 No FACW D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Plantago lanceolata 1 No E8L_ 0 Dominance Test is >50% 7. Tarax~c!,!m officinale 1 No FACW D Prevalence Index is S3.0 1 8. D Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non.Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. ---1 1ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 97 :: Total Cover WQO~:t Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1fil be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. --- 2. Hydrophytic ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes[ZI NoO % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ~ Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation dominance test criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· DP 06 - Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) _jL_ Color (moist} ~ _ilQL --1QL Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 3/1 1QQ_ ---GS gravelly sand 5-12 10YR 4/1 filL__ 7.5YR 4/6 1 ---LS loamy sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tune: C-Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL -Pore Linina, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A 10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) 0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 No0 . Remarks: Compact fill. Hydric soil indicators A 11 and F3 observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aQQly) Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 0 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B) 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B 10) 0 Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposrts (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 0 Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) 0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqurtard (D3) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesO No0 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _6_ Saturation Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _3_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoO {includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology primary indicator A2. and A3 observed. 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: Urban Storage City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:04/23/2014 Applicant/Owner: ,,A,.,m,,,e,,c,,,he..__,T-"ra,.,vceis,.._ ____________________ State: ,W,,A,_ ___ Sampling Point: ,,D,,_P.c·0,.,7 __ _ lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharaya Section, Township, Range: ~S~. ~15~T~. ~23~N=R~.~5~E~------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~F,,la..._t ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~N=on=e~-----Slope(%): _O __ Subregion (LRR): ,.,A~-------------Lat 47.487947 · Long: -122.154371 · Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Oto 5 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N"/A~------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [SI (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Nonnal Circumstances" present? Yes [8'J 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? Yes IS] NoD Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No IS] within a Wetland? YesD No IS] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes IS] NoD Remarks: Approximately half inch rain fell on the day of site visit. Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FADN, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. Rubus armeniaC!,!S 20 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: --- 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. FACW species x2= --- 5. ---FAC species x3= 20 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Str:el!Jm (Plot size: §) UPL species x5= 1. Agrostis capillaris 40 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Feiituca arundinacea 15 Yes FAC 3. Dipsacus spp. 10 No FACU Prevalence Index = BIA= 4. Achillea millefolium 10 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Poa annua 10 No E8L_ D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Geranuem sp. 10 No E8L_ IS] Dominance Test is >50% 7. D Prevalence Index is :S3.0 1 --- 8. ---D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic HydrophyticVegetation' (Explain) 11. ---1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 95 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1fil 1. ---Hydrophytic 2 ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes IS] NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum.§. Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation dominance test criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point' DP 07 - Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches} Color (moist} ~ Color (moist} ---1_ .ImL ....bQL Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 311 1QQ_ ---GS gravelly sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No GI Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima!) Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;i12I~} Secondary Indicators {2 or more rnguired) D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, GI High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) GI Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust(B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposrts (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposrts (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Obseivations: Surface Water Present? YesD No GI Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes GI NoD Depth (inches): _2_ Saturation Present? Yes GI NoD Depth (inches): _o_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes GI NoD (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology primary indicator A2 and A3 observed. 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: Urban Storage City/County: ,.,R,,eu,nt,,ou,nl,,K"'in,.g'--------Sampling Date:04/23/2014 Applicant/Owner: ~A'-'m,se,,cc,hee...1T-"ra.,ve;is,_ ____________________ State: ~w~A~---Sampling Point: ,,D,_Pc,-Oe,8c_ __ lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner, Parshu Acharaya Section, Township, Range: ~s~. ~15~T~-~2~3N=R~-~5"'E _______ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ,_F,,,la,_t -----------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,.,Ne,ou,ne,__ _____ Slope(%): _O __ Subregion (LRR): ~A'--------------Lat: 47.487663 · Long: -122.154788' Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N~IA~------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [8J (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Nomial Circumstances~ present? Yes C8l 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? Yes 0 NoO Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesO Noc;.] within a WeUand? YesO Noc;.] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yesc;.J NoO Remarks: Almost 1/2 inch rain fell on the day of site visit. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.) % Cover Si;i:ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species o = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (AIB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft.I 1. Rubus am,eniacus 10 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multii;i:l:t b!,'.: --- 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. ---FACW species 30 x2 = §0 5. ---FAC species 20 X 3 = 60 10 = Total CoveL FACU species 30 X 4 -120 Herb Stratum (Plot size: §J!J UPL species x5= 1. Juncus effusus 30 Yes FACW Column Totals: 80 (A) 240 (Bl 2. Achillea millefolium 20 Yes FACU 3. Festuca arundinacea 20 Yes E8Q__ Prevalence Index = BIA= 3.00 4. T5!r5!xs1,um officinale < NQ FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 5 No FAC 0 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 0 Dominance Test is >50% --- 7. 0 Prevalence Index is :53.0 1 --- 8. 0 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 80 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wood:i Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft.) 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation o = Total Cover Present? Yesc;.J NoO % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation prevalence index test criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· DP 08 - Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} ---1_ Color (moist} ~~ J:QL Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 212 1QQ__ ---Loamy sand 4-14 10YT 312 ~ 10YR 414 1 ---Gravelly sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininn, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) :.Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No0 Remarks: Compact fill at 11 inches. No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primar:y: Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aggly) Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired} D Surtace Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 0 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) 0 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Depostts (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Posttion (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD No[a Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): _7 _ Saturation Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): _3_ Wetland Hydrology Pnesent? Yes0 NoD (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology primary indicator A2. & A3 observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 • WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: Urban Storage City/County: ~R~e"'nt~o~nl~K=in~g~-------Sampling Date:04/23/2014 ApplicanUOwner: ~A=m~e~c~he~T~ra=v"'is _____________________ State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point: =D~P~-0~9~-- lnvestigator(s): Jim Carsner Parshu Acharaya Section, Township, Range: =S~. ~15~T~·=2=3N=R=·~5=E _______ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~F~la~t ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): "C"'o"'nc,,,aecvee._ ____ Slope(%): _O __ Subregion (LRR): ~A~-------------Lat: 47.487899" Long: -122.154889 · Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: ~N=/A~------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No~ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [SI 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? YesD No c;.:I Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No c;.:I within a Wetland? YesD Noc;.] Wetland Hydrology Present? YesQ NoD Remarks: Almost 1/2 inch rain fell on the day of site visit VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ~ % Cover S~ies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. ---Total% Cover of: Multigly by: 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. ---FACW species x2= 5. ---FAG species 50 X 3 = 150 10 = Total Cover FACU species 10 X 4 = 40 Herb Stratum (Plot size: §) UPL species x5= 1. Festuca arundinacea 50 Yes FAC Column Totals: 60 (A) 190 (B) 2. Agrostis Si;!:!;!:. 15 No FAC 3. Vicia americana 10 No FACU Prevalence Index = BIA= 3.17 4. Plantago lanceolata 10 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Tellima grandiflora 10 No FAC D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU D Dominance Test is >50% 7. D Prevalence Index is s;3.0 1 --- 8. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ---D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1§) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. --- 2. Hydrophytlc ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? YesD Noc;.] % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Q Remarks: Vegetation does not meet dominance test or prevalence index criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 • SOIL • Sampling Point: DP-09 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) _li_ Color (moist) ~~ --1QL Texture Remarks 1-4 10YR 212 1QQ__ ---Gravell:i sand 4-10 10YR 312 1QQ__ ---Gravell:i sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix. Hydric ·Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otheiwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils': D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dar1< Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dar1< Surface (A 12) D Redox Dar1< Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 12J Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;i:i;i:ly} Secondaey: Indicators (2 or more reguired} D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, l2l High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) l2l Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (B 10) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (DS) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remar1<s) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD No l2J Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes l2l NoD Depth (inches): _8_ Saturation Present? Yes l2l NoO Depth (inches):§__ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 12J NoO (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remar1<s: Wetland hydrology primary indicator A2 and A3 observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 • Appendix E -Qualifications All field inspections, wetland boundary delineations, hydrologic conditions assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife habitat Assessment Report prepared for Renton Highland were prepared by, or under the direction of James Carsner and Parshuram Acharya, of Soundview Consultants LLC. The qualifications of each scientist are detailed on the following pages. Tames H. Carsner, Senior Scientist Jim Carsner, a certified Professional Wetland Scientist (#1461) with professional training and extensive experience in planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, aquatic and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, and mitigation planning and monitoring since 1979. Jim earned a Bachelor's of Science degree from the University of Washington, College of Fisheries and undertook post-graduate studies in wetland ecology at Portland State University. He has served on the Board of Directors of the \Xlashington State \'X-'eed Association and instructed courses on pesticide laws, regulations, and uses. Jim has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Jv!itigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland lv!itigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. es H. Carsner, PWS Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax jim(Wsoundvie-wconsultants.com 1247.()001 Renton Highlands Wetland Dchncation and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 9/4/2014 Souncfricw Consultant~ l.l.C September 4, 2014 , . .. Parshuram Achai:ya. Wetland Specialist Parshuram Acharya is a \Xletland Specialist with professional training and experience in wetland ecology and natural resource management. Parshuram has experience in wetland delineation, plant ecology and taxonomy, vegetation and forest resource inventories, biological assessments, wetland restoration, and mitigation planning. Parshuram has international experience with wetland manage1nent, regulations, and permitting in countries including Canada, the Netherlands, and Nepal. Parshuram eamed a Master of Science in Botany from Tribhuvan University, Nepal 'with a Certificate in Wetland Science and Management from the University of Washington, Seattle. In addition, he holds additional training in Environmental Technology from the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Canada and in Wetlands Identification, Classification, and Management from RIZA/WATC, the Netherlands. Parshuram has worked as an ecologist for the City of Surrey, BC, Canada completing biological assessments, wetland delineations, habitat restoration projects, wetland mitigation, environmental impact analysis, and other vegetation management activities. Parshuram has also worked as a Botanist and Ecologist in Kathmandu, Nepal and as a Restoration and Native Plant Nursery Technician for the Golden Gate National Recreational ..Area in San Francisco, CA. (1 i ) (', ~~k~/l Parshuram Achya Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax parshuram(Wsoundviewconsultants.com 1247.0001 Renton I Iighlands Wetland Delineation and Fish & \\'i\dlifr Habitat Assessment Report 9/4/2014 Date SoundYicw Cumultants LI ,C September 4, 2014 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Storage One -Renton Highlands N.E. 4th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: Stricker Cato Murphy Architects, P.S. 3111stAvenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 December 9, 2014 Our Job No. 12740 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-11782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Vicinity Map Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Six 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 F. Pump System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 12740.003.doc Tab 1.0 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Storage One project is a 1.83 acre site located within a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located approximately 500 feet east of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE in Renton, Washington. The enclosed Figure 2 -Vicinity Map, depicts the approximate location of the proposed site. The site is currently partially developed. There is a concrete driveway and small gravel lot on site. The remainder of the site is grass and trees. The existing topography tends to slope to the east side of the site. There are no existing buildings on the site. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be located in near the southwest corner of the project site such that the site will discharge in the same location it does under existing conditions. There is an isolated Class 3 Wetland (9,529 square feet) located on this project as well as a Class 4 Stream that runs along the east boundary of the site. The flow control calculations are for the development and do not include the stream or buffer. The existing row is currently paved and runoff is collected in existing catch basins along the project frontage. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by NE 4th Street. Existing commercial developments are to west and residential developments are to the east and south. The proposal for this development is to construct an expansion of the adjacent Storage One facility. This will include new driveways and parking, a new storage building and a new retail/office building with restrooms. In addition, public road improvements will be constructed along NE 4th Street. Elevations on the site are 398 for the majority of the site, down to 395 at the west and east boundaries of the project site. Infiltration is not feasible for this site as the on-site soils do not percolate well enough. A Flow Control BMP is required for this site. This project is a non-subdivision project on an individual lot that meets the requirements for a large lot, high impervious BMP. An area of the impervious site equal to 40 percent of the site impervious area will be treated with a flow control BMP. An on-site rain garden and modular grid pavement will be used before runoff is sent to the detention pond and water quality system. 12740.003.doc Figure 1 TIR Worksheet KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner llrhM ~If Sl-or~G, /'1C. Phone (~)322 -~8 ,C /0 Address q,a ~fh l:lorbin St-.Sft (CO I :fill!, . wA qf /3c/ Project Engineer :Ta.Son 6-ffi,~btll. f. t. Company f!A,rJh,_lWS(/1 CX,.,,5vtltry btJ· Phone ,S I 232. Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivison / Short Subd. / UPD ~ Building Services M/F / Commerical / SFR ~ Clearing and Grading Jil' Right-of-Way Use D Other Parts PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review~ Targeted I (circle): arge Site Date (include revision 11.l't L201~ dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Shi>'~! One. DOES Permit# --------- Location Township Range Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety 0 FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other __ _ 0 Shoreline Management D Structural RockeryNaulV __ D ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): ~ Modified I Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type ( circle one): Standard / Complex I Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) tJA Date of Annroval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes@ Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan:--------~---- Special District Overlays: -------a----,------------------ Drainage Basin: ldWU' f!u:1fl/ /;vtr / IYI-Nl.ll wocd Stormwater Requirements: &,bo,,µ,,J fu si/:wC Du,ah;tn StJ. flllJ; tuiJro I Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS 0 River/Stream --------- 0 Lake ~ Wetlands __________ _ 0 Closed Depression ______ _ 0 Floodplain---------- 0 other ___________ _ Part 10 SOILS 0 Steep Slope --------- 0 Erosion Hazard ______ _ 0 Landslide Hazard ______ _ 0 Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ 0 Seismic Hazard ______ _ 0 Habitat Protection ______ _ o __________ _ Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential £vuut 0 -57,. 0 High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) 0 Sole Source Aquifer 0 Other 0 Seeps/Springs 0 Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual l/9/2009 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT ~ Core 2 -Offsite Anal~sis ~ Sensitive/Critical Areas 0. d t{J. ,h NtK Wflt{ t,.,rtl D SEPA WJ D Other D 0 Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET lnrovide one TIR Summarv Sheet oar Threshold Discharne Areal Threshold Discharge Area: St-··.,, Ot1~ (name or descriotionl Core Requirements (all 8 apply) I DischarQe at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharoe Locations: A Offsite Analysis Level: OJI 2 / 3 dated: lvllf I •••d ' Flow Control Level: 1 :J,fs' 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facilitv summarv sheetl Small Site BM s Conveyance System Spill containment located at: "Al\ n-"•I ,, Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: T8D Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: (PrivatA..I Public If Private, Maintenance Loa Reauired: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes I No Liability Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens, Lake / <Fnhanced '/ Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption Na. Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements (as aooflcablel Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA I SDO I MOP/ BP/ LMP / Shared Fac,(7 None 1 Reauirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption ~ 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: t,IA Source Control Describe landuse: CA'rtl "1 t1 C,l'tA) (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: ~ooe,( h&(.~l"J 2009 Surface Water Design Manual l/9/2009 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURl'ACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / (!:!si/ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes I No with whom? Other Drainaae Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ls:j' Clearing Limits ~ Stabilize Exposed Surfaces Q( Cover Measures 13 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Ji:f Perimeter Protection ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure : Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities ~ Flag Limits of SAO and open space Sediment Retention Qi(' Surface Water Collection preservation areas 0 other 0 Dewatering Control Ci Dust Control if Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS /Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch) Flow Control Tvoe/Description Water Qualitv Tvoe/Description ~ Detention Po11d D Biofiltration D Infiltration D Wetpool 0 Regional Facility M Media Filtration mauAu wtJl4AJ 0 Shared Facility D Oil Control ~ Flow Control e.o.;" (,a., t)vi D Spill Control BMPs b!I' Other Pt.rv(611!> e (µI ~ Flow Control BMPs fli.u11 Wd UI la Other e«vrws p4JI~ 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 4 KING COUNTY, WASH[NGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT {TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault 0 Covenant D Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery > 4' High D Tract D Structural on Steep Slope D Other D Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. /:2 Si nod/Dalo 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 5 Figure 2 Vicinity Map (~+:~~,=--~~r--1r==\Jvrf1 rc~I~ NI~ TY~M~A~P~======;::::------_ 't''?--c/-S \ \ t~~-=: q N.T.S. w z w ~ z 0 z =:, w :z: _J _J :;; =:, 0 r--c----+---~N~E 4TH STREET SITE w z w ~ w _J z Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics 0 t>0186 VM '3"\ll\/36 000 "1116 '3'N3h V .ISi IIC 1rd 'Sl03.aOr,' Alldln1 OlVO IBlCll1S ~ :i)'91::K)18 3NO 38Vl:l0.1S ""' SNOISIA3~ 8 0 8 . t}JcJ l M..OF.Lf.OS --.JaJ( ',ldd\111" J•Jt '.:,11;1!:fll'H~ IIOUdlll:'.IS30 ·~ = .l·~IO"'S VI~ tU·OI I .i11us ~• 60 Cl § .. } " ~ ' • I ' ,.... I 11 • -0 ! I ,.... ~~ ox W(i ~z a::!: OE I-m (/) a. ! lLZ ; oo ~ 1-->-z 0 ~ >:::::w , (.) [t'. Is. 0 ~ t m ' I < £ i 2@ q i ;, ~!! ' ~ I g a.JJ'l/a1uu 6~~ NO:.JXJ-OtU l \•\J""!Ll"l"'d\01>U I \SQQOl I\ d:al!! ~LLI 1/ainc ""P"NO}X3-0HZ I \h.,ou,wpJd\o~a l \sDOOZ l \'d'Jl'i <[ <[ z z z z I <[ I I ! LlJ z 0 LlJ ~ a: ~ ] ~ ~~ §o .. Oo -e::'.-e::'. .. ,, ~:::< .. ' ' 'ZE_ li ¥i ~~ ~~ '' [§ c:--f ~ :? ~! 3' a ~s ~~ l3i Iii,;:~ 1'-30' 0 " ~ ,. ,, STOP SIGN~ ---------- LIG>IT J-BOX TEL. J-BOX ce-s~'- ... :.~.: .. ::.:;,~.,: .... -, .. ., .. ,.,,.., .... , .... ,;!z;;;lii?;;"·,• _llD~K ,. ,,,,,,,, .. '""" rn-, .. Si S6 { ~· ~' .. JL SCOT '" flRt-· WATER .. ETER & VAi.\'£ FOU"1 5/B" REBAR & c,,,p ST-'MPED "f'ft!ING lS 11,ns· EXISTING BUILDF~G 1E 1rms~.1g4.35 EXISTING BOILDl~G i, ~ -f l I ~ .;.::':.::::v, - -'I> -~---'S!NGIE WHITE-S """'l> ra_;_ • • MAllBCHC --... ----.--.-•... _ POW[R POL[ W/LUI.IINAJRE CB-B WATER l,IETER W/CB CRATE POMR/: POL( ' · FOU~ 5/B" REB'-R & C..)/ ST>MP£D "tlNG LS f11926'. --ixrs.~G 1 ~_J ----~, EXISTING Ii BLDG If ~-=-1: FOUND 5/8" REBAR & OJ' STMIP[D "f'ft!ING lS f119]6" 0.1':tE X O.l'±S Of PllOP[lm" COR~ER SSFOli'ts; ,00.0.,' ,.. / rn-o~ SDMH-R* sD -+---S:---4ji ,-----, EXISTING El.DG SD~H-1 "'"'"" .,.. / W[TLANI) SIGN LUl,.iP,j,\JR[ _ ~llGHT J-BOX I[ 18' CNC~J9458 T[l. RISER G.161.E VAA.ILl CA&E VAIJLT •---•---.., JBOX SDMH-G flR[ ''tl/JtB"!lf!OP""--r" 6"-vrRnCAL CURS & GUTTER • • ce-r = /"'"-' ;-'~"-, ................. :.~~.;-;;,f"'-~····---·,········~··:;.··, ............. ~."-" ,,,, / ,'-1."-_- q,-e -·- E. 4'Jrj SIBEET ; ;.DP-7 •'~;.,'\{;,:-,;:,O OP-f SSMH7B . r 1 I .\-·!~ 1~~~ ... ~---..r' - / A-17 A-18 ,~ ;··ro·= I _ >111~i8 roUNO ~-8 s 111926" /v STAlol'ED 0 f.±~X D.1"±S Of -"" " :t_ ~ ~ ~ ; ...___._ ff: ,I) C -q,,,,-' 0 >IH" ---S!, ,S --....--S1JRro1CE MON. ·--·~1:is. '" -~ :::::: RISER ~ "'""''" C.o.BtNET WOO(] FENCE IE 18" CNC-392B4 ~ --• ~ a:! ~ ·- DEVELOPED AREA • 1.33 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA • 0.84 ac PERVIOUS AREA • 0.49 ac LANDSCAPE • 385 SF RAIN GARDEN • 4,892 SF POND • 4800 SF io· DRAII-IAGE EASEMENT ArN 86112~1008 l"•XI' ~~ .. CITY OF STORAGE ONE Permit NO. XXX (/) z 0 vi > w cc ~c;.HAu,s. ~"~· ,--~ i f. . ' ,s.~(;,-t.~r,,· 1"1G EN.G\'1i'E;. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (42!i)251-8782 FAX CM. EIGl£ERtt;G, 1.N<D PL»allNG. SlfM:"ffiG. E~[l(I"-S(F'.1C£$ ~;:!;; i~g~; ~i~ii ~ i ~ • 12/09/20H Projec! I. 12740 arns 12740-0EVCON d,.g nx ~xx RENTOI;. WA DBaClPED CONllOONS MAP •raw,ng No· 1 of 3 go HI I NO I "''"''0 " I BY I C I I I ·---I -I I I"'' • I I I ;R ~ -ROC/KEH RENTON -I ,:;:; •• I "'" Plonning/Building/Publie Works Dept. ATE I APPR I -..... I --I -~ AI-ININININIAIA Figure 4 Soils Map • . . • • •' I ... .... ••I . . :-, .... II I I • ·• • . . I : : " ... .. ., I .. --1 I I - I ~• .. ~~ I •I ., . -I • ~ ~ • .,. I ; -' - ':' -. I _, - .. ,_. ·---~:~ \~ I r. 1 I ' ·• ' • r . . 1 1.1t I ---I .. u J -I --L ,. ,. -- : : ,. ------ ~ : : " : ••I . . ·• .... ... ... , .. :, It • . I ·• ·• • . . , • a .. r. . • . , . • e.:-r. • . ~ I I I . , . , I ., I 11::. .. Cl::. ti" I&: I ..... . -I • • ., ·" ..... , . . . . . . . ' • . I . . . • .. . • . ..... ' Soil Map-King County Area, Washington MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) D Soihi C -• Area of Interest (AOI) Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Umt Points Special Point Features ~ 181 • 0 X 0 A ..is. ~ 0 0 "' + .. 0 0 ~ fJ USDA Natural Resources iiiiliiiiii Conservation Service Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sadie Spot la Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot ID Very Stony Spot 7 'vVet Spot {', Other .. Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Ratls --Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background • Aerial Photography Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. ,---- Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection. which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal.area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA·NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 10, Sep 30, 2014 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 8, 2014-Jul 15, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 12/9/2014 Page 2 of3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol AgC EvB Totals for Area of Interest -·-· USDA Natural Resources alii Conservation Service i King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name Acres In AOI Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. 8 to 15 percent slopes --- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey --- I 0.0 1.8 I 1.a I Percent of AOI 0.1% 99.9% 100.0% 12/9/2014 Page 3 of3 Tab 2.0 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This project site will discharge to the existing Class IV stream, the same as current conditions. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: This project has prepared an off-site analysis that is located in Section 3.0 of this Technical Information Report. Please refer to that document for the off-site analysis. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: This project will provide flow control in the form of a detention pond located in the southwest corner of the project site discharging to the same location as ii does under existing conditions. Level 2 (Duration standard) flow control was used to size the facility. A Flow Control BMP is also required. A rain garden is proposed in the southeast portion of the site. The emergency access road will be comprised of a grassed modular grid pavement. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this project site was sized according to the 2009 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Since the project site is less than 10 acres in size, the pipe conveyance system was sized based on the Rational method utilizing an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n" value of 0.014. The 100-year event was analyzed. A backwater calculation will be added to the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project site will follow the erosion and sediment control measures as delineated in City of Renton Core Requirement 5, section 8.0 of this report and the Demolition and TESC Plan included in the construction plans. Clearing limits will be specified, cover measures will be instituted, perimeter protection will be installed in the form of silt fences, a rock construction entrance will be installed, and the streets will be swept clean of sediment after construction at the end of each day. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements as delineated in the 2009 KCSWDM for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response This project will concur with all financial guarantees and liability requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM as delineated for projects of this nature. 12740.003.doc Core Requirement No. B.· Water Quality. Response: The Water Quality Menu followed for this project site requires that the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu be followed for this development due to its commercial nature. This project is proposing the use of a modular wetland which has DOE approval for enhanced treatment. This system uses media and plantings to treat stormwater runoff. There will also be two BMPs, a rain-garden in the southeast corner of the site to further treat roof runoff, as well as an emergency access road paved with a grassed modular grid pavement. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: To the best of our knowledge, the site is not located in an Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirement area; therefore, Special Requirement No. 1 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project does not contain, nor is it adjacent to a flood hazard area for a river, stream, lake, wetland, closed depression, marine shoreline, or a King County mapped channel migration zone. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This proposed project will not rely on an existing flood protection facility, nor does it propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. Special Requirement No. 4.· Source Control. Response: This project is a commercial site development; therefore, source control is required. Sources controls on this project include covering dumpster areas as well as routing the roof drainage through an appropriate treatment facility prior to discharge. Special Requirement No. 5.· Oil Control. Response: This site does not qualify as a high-use site. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. Special Requirement No. 6: Aquifer Protection Area. Response: This site is not located in an aquifer protection area. The onsite soils are not conducive to infiltration. The only runoff to the proposed rain garden is from the building roof and emergency access road, both of which are non-pollution generating impervious surface. 12740.003.doc Tab 3.0 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis has been prepared for this project site. That document is attached herewith in its entirety. This document should meet all of the requirements of the City of Renton for off-site analysis for this development. 12740.003.doc LEVEL 1 OFF-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Storage One -Renton Highlands N.E. 4th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: Stricker Cato Murphy Architects, P.S. 311 1st Avenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 December 9, 2014 Our Job No. 12740 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES t TUMWATER, WA t LONG BEACH, CA t ROSEVILLE, CA t SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TASK 1 TASK2 TASK3 TASK4 TABLE OF CONTENTS STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBITC Vicinity Map Downstream Drainage Map Upstream Basin Map RESOURCE REVIEW EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I FEMA Map Sensitive Areas Map SGS Soils Map Assessor's Map Wetland Inventory Map Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report FIELD INSPECTION EXHIBIT J Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS EXHIBIT K Drainage Complaints 15432.003.doc TASK1 TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Storage One project is a 1.83 acre site located within a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located approximately 500 feet east of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE in Renton, Washington. The enclosed Exhibit A -Vicinity Map, depicts the approximate location of the proposed site. The site is currently partially developed. There is a concrete driveway and small gravel lot on site. The remainder of the site is grass and trees. The existing topography tends to slope to the east side of the site. There are no existing buildings on the site. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be located in near the southwest corner of the project site such that the site will discharge in the same location it does under existing conditions. There is an isolated Class 3 Wetland (9,529 square feet) located on this project as well as a Class 4 Stream that runs along the east boundary of the site. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by NE 4th Street. Existing commercial developments are to west and residential developments are to the east and south. The proposal for this development is to construct an expansion of the adjacent Storage One facility. This will include new access drives and parking, a new storage building and a new retail/office building with restrooms. In addition, public road improvements will be constructed along 4th Street. Elevations on the site are 398 for the majority of the site, down to 395 at the west and east boundaries of the project site. Infiltration is not feasible for this site as the on-site soils do not percolate well enough. A Flow Control BMP is required for this site. This project is a non-subdivision project on an individual lot that meets the requirements for a large lot, high impervious BMP. An area of the impervious site equal to 40 percent of the impervious site area will be directed to an on-site rain garden or will be constructed on Grassed Modular Grid Pavement before being sent to the detention pond. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Based on review of the project survey and our site visit, there is no offsite runoff contributing to the project site. The site has been filled and raised relative to the surrounding properties. 15432.005.doc Exhibit A Vicinity Map \ \ \ N.T.S. VICINITY MAP w z w ~ z 0 z =:, w z w ~ NE 4TH STREET ,,----------+------+~ 169 SITE w z w _J z Exhibit B Downstream Drainage Map KC Oc,p !!r t meehl o r Tr.,n;,,p or., fon KC 8. Sf ";J"1-,,V) Notes None 1891 / City of Renton Downstream Drainage Path ., , (:..-~ s . L-1: ::: ~ -,, f L, .,<-":t,.fi ~~ ..?R[ <.:: ~ " ~ A } ;:Y .. , 1~;~1.·~ .. ,. ' - ( . ---:"'.-:,:~- I'"~~ ~•~ ... t~/"""' 1 l J~-~··. ~ l ~ '...J.c::: tJ ,_) ~ ~ _, . -~ ~ --,. "'1 -~ _. ~: ~ -. ~ ',:GJ f . '" "· -' : ---l ~ -..-L.-1 ~ ~ .-'- St' ,-l /.-;. 0 ' ;., ~: i-.~-\''':,'l'l ;~·· t ~ ¥4 .. ·:.,' .. ~----r --~ ';. \, \' ,, !/ .... ::, ., n -cr. J Ll \ '"-·-·---·-·-· .. II . -~ !~ r.>i ":"'~ . -. ~. -. -. -_ _,../"./.-~....;.,- ~ -~ ---...... :. ~ (" I "- \'1· 4 .. •1 ,·n .:, • 1.1, •/. ,L :£ // ,, It i, ., ,, I( 11 •II r, JI ,, 1:1 ll H " 1:1 II 11 " ,, II II • ~,,.I ' /.-:7 . ' /~' \.~/ ~ ~~ /// .. =-- _,,.-.::;---... --~ /' /' .IJ ---= ~ .... "/ II I ~ H ·-. --. _...._ 11 R -· --h:111·• r 'x-11 "Di on -• -;'>--'~1!'~Y ~ ~1 ·---·-.. --.... { . -j J [ .,;r- ~ ~·· \ ~~~~-~ ~ t J' e:· .-,..,,.:.< • • ~ ; IA.1plewood Pll1< ~'i 'j ·:- ;-£ :: I.... ,, c: ::. , ,_ ~ • .:::.f" l ..:(~IU ;_:.!.. .jj ~.I';, ~ .:, ,.. '-'" .,c , ~' '·~<,-~ -/ .. ,., .:.:-,~~ '; IJ h 1'010 11 . -• -. _. -..._ 1:;C -.z.J :H ~;; ~ ~~v; - .... ·' .t ,\• •'-., l./ ~ r--,,_..,,.,,~:--. l_ ~,.,,,_ I ,, ' -. \ 'C . •~{._ -IM"J!i:r'f .~ -·e. -,, ~ ~ C.orr!s.,u r ye r '· "--:'1's . ' .... .. -..... \ \ _,·i~0'. .. 'S,:-,·--' ~ ~\ :: "' ( -~". "~ ... ~ /~ . "": .,, ·,:-;..,....,..,_~-....... .... :, ·-J,._ ~ ... :~~ \ ., ,>'" ---~/)~ 'c'~ar:::--~ ., ' -.,, .. ' . ,, ' , -. --"--. ~ . ' !. ~,. ·S.,.. !/ ~ ... -. Ron Re,al~.' Piwk Jr4';(. ., I'-..· .·./. ___ -"~-,~ .. :r " · " ;, River l ~'c-<.---,~--~ , rr-; o ~ !' 1 , --""'~..:..;: _. ~ •.• ,,. I ..., -----~ ,. ,. ,, . ~ -~'-<',,;..~,.._._,~ .,.~,s, ,' C S ' ' '~, -=,~:~=-·~ -0 ,_,, ' • ' ' > ..• ·--~~--'' ' C < O < ,-1:-.. <:--__:--1~ -':__:.f -_. -• -. ' ::· :c ,.·, ~ ~---.;: .... ·""-.::.~. •-'-$-~---· --~' ' ·;. ~, ,-;-y -'· 'Sc _, ._, ·""" • .: ·~ e ' . ' ~ ~ § s /, ·--,~)5 .. Jo ..... .., 11'· -·· ~ -:".-' ' ·~ 0 1: 11 ,345 0 945 1891 Feet Legend mJ Pu mp Statio n Co nveyan ce (All ) Pipe Culven Pipe Culven Pipe Cuven Channel Ditch Faci lity Outline (Renton Ma in tained) 0 Pond 12] Vault f2 Sioswa:e [] Infiltration T rench ~ FilterStrip .... -:: :, [ill Vault Gl Bioswale [;] Infiltration Trench ~ Filter Strip Ga Rain Garden ~ -Stormwater Wetland ~ Natural Wetla nd D Ott1er D Unknown 2' Primary 2' Intermediate NAD_ 1983_HARN_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_ 4601 ~ Rain Garden Information Technology _ GIS This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only . Data layers tha1 appear on this map may or may not be accurate , RentonMapSupport@Re ntonw a .gov current. or otherwise reliable . Finance & IT Division 9/19/2012 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION o n Downstream Convey a nce Legend Streams (Cl assified) 1 = 2 t i l 3 = 4 -, :S"t D 8 ~ e n d P t o'-r} NE: I s~[ I,,. . . I:= .,n-'!'l f' I ~ 256 0 128 256 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 10/02/2014 .0. Q. 0,o N E 3rd St r--. ~ \~, =e 888888 2 nd=r'"-: c,, 8 8 88888988 I.LI z 4' <t C II u... Ntin~ ,- z '1:) ,. ~ 0 ~ v c; ~'=- This map is a user genera ted static output from an Intern et mapping site and is for refere nce only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accu rate, current, or otherwise relia ble . THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE U SED FOR NAV IGATION El Wetlands 100' Primary 100' Intermediate 20' Primary 20' Intermediate 11= 5' Primary 5' Intermediate 2' Primary 2' Intermediate Network Structures 1:1 Inlet 0 Manhole D Utility V ault L Unknown S tructure 0 Control Structure Pump Station Discharge Point Water Quality Detention Facilities 'd Pond 0 Tank J Vault ', Wetland -i!... Pipe =:> Culvert = Open Drains • Facility Outline Notes None 0 ~on0 Finance & IT Division TASK2 TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: The site is part of the Lower Cedar River drainage basin, and is in the Maplewood Sub Basin. • Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report. Once again, the site is located in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin and is in the Maplewood Sub Basin. • Critical Drainage Area Maps: According to the city of Renton, Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment is required. Also, Level 2 (Duration standard) flow control is required for this site. • Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please the enclosed Exhibit D -FEMA Map utilized for this analysis. Panel No. 982 of 1,725, Map No. 53033C0982 F, revised May 16, 1995, indicates that the proposed project site does not lie within a floodplain or fioodway of a stream. • Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A review of Exhibit I -Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report and the site investigation work conducted in the preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Analysis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service (SCS) soils map is also provided (see Exhibit F -SCS Soils Map). • Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on a review of the sensitive areas as shown on the City of Renton GIS maps, it was found that there is a wetland on subject site. A Wetland Delineation Report was done for the site there is a 9,529ft Category Ill wetland on site as well as a Category II wetland by the south boundary. The Category Ill wetland is believed to be the result of filling the site and as such should be exempt from regulation. The Category II wetland shall require a 25-foot buffer. There is also a surveyed Class 4 stream which runs along the east property boundary that shall require a 35' buffer. There are no landslide, flood, seismic or coal mine hazards, etc., associated with this project site. • Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. • United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on our review of the soils map for this area, the entire site is 95% EvB (Everett gravelly sandy loam) and 5% AgC (Alderwood gravelly sandy loam). • Wetland Inventory Map: There is a Category Ill wetland on site as well as a Category II wetland. The Category Ill wetland is due to prior filling of the property and as such should be exempt from regulation requirements. The Category II wetland shall require a 25-foot buffer. • Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. 15432.005.doc Exhibit D FEMA Map ii ..., w ~ 0.' \\?I 0 ~ ·~ SOUTHEAST 126TH STREET _J I ~ w :I: ~ :, 0 "' w :, z ~ 1- "'I ~ SOUTHEAST ~Ii'.: ..... ,z z :;:, w " w u :5 a. r ~ 0 :, '--Project Site 136TH ,:, ~ :< I ---.....__sol.l1~~"5l STREET 128TH STREET SOUTHEAST t29TH PLACE I ~ w ~I~ 500 • APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 500 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTE.D) NUMBER PANEL SUFFc,; ---- MAP NUMBER 53033C0982 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16, 1995 This ts~ official copy ota portion of the abcNe referenced ftood m.ip. It was extracted using F-MIT On.Une. lhia map doM net reflect changes or amendment$ Which may haw been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest proctuct information about National Flood Insurance Program 1ood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov Exhibit E Sensitive Areas Map City of Renton Print map Storage One 12 8 0 6 4 128 WGS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Auxillary_S phere F eet Information Technology -GIS Re nton MapSupp ort@ Re ntonwa.gov 12/09/2014 This ma p is a user generated static output from a n Internet mappin g site and i s for reference on ly . Da ta layers that appea r on th is map may or may not be accurate. cu rrent. or o therwise reliable . TH IS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FO R NAVI GAT ION Legend City a nd County Bound ary Other [:1 City of Renton Addresses P arcels 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor Other Bu ild i ngs Bu ildings S lo pe C ity of Renton >15% & <=25% L >25% & <=40% (Sensitive ) • >40% & <=90'% (P rotected) • >90% (Protected) En v ironment Desig nations D Natural D Shoreline High I ntensity D Shoreline Isolated High ln le ns,ty D Shoreline Re s1d e nt 1al D Urban Conservancy Jurisd icti ons 0 C ity o f TI ~ron (;) ..ftell ~y Finan c e & IT Division Exhibit F Soils Map . • •• . . . . ·• .... '' I .... .. I I ., •I • . . • :' :' A.I • I ' :-... ! .. . ' • •• Ul.l 1 i - ff.'' I I • ~ "' I -I I I • .,_. -• ,--- ':' w·--' ,~ 1 -·• • -1 t..1 t \ ,. l!'.l.l I --• --L " -- " I . : : " :' : :' " : ••I ... , '' I • ,:t . ... .. I I • . , • .. . I a .. : I I I . , . , I c-:::• ., . . • •••• ,e.: I . :.. c-:::' ~ . • ele I I ., .. •• t I :OHi .. I • I I . • . . I ... -• . . . -• = Soil Map-King County Area, Washington MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) LJ Area of Interest (AOI) Soils ;_J Soil Map Unit Polygons .---Soil Map Unit lines • Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features ~ Blowout 181 • () ;x; 0 A • ~ 0 0 V + .. 0 <> ~ tJ Natural Resources Conservation Service Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sadie Spot I;! Spoil Area /j Stony Spot ll:I Very Stony Spot ~ Wet Spot t.1 Other .. Special Line Features Wate.-Features Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails --Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background • Aerial Photography Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey The soil surveys that comprise your ADI were mapped at 1 :24,000 Frning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. i I Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause · misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line , placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting I soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. · Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area. such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 10, Sep 30, 2014 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 8, 2014-Jul 15, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 12/9/2014 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol 1 AgC ----- EvB Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service - -.. - King County Area, W8shington (WA633) Map Unit Name AcresinAOI Aldeiwood gravelly sandy loam, 0.0 8 to 15 percent slopes ----------- Everett gravelly sandy loam, O I -- to 5 percent slopes Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1.8 1.8 ! Percent of AOI 0.1% I 99.9% 100.0% 12/912014 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit G Assessor's Map U("'"'c-,, D9l>t of AsseSsments :l l ·--- .i:r.-' -·----~ --·---- -···· lal ------------- -•!.!."!!J / / \ CJ---- "' ij·,·/l.' . --.... ~1 ~ • • •.•• :-\ '1 • i J.~... \fr -~ .. '" ...... . ACRE ,,.._ .. _ ...... ____ ., ... -----~-----------.. -~ =====:.:.-=..-=:..-:;::::.::.. ... .:::.::::""' ... ,::.-:::::----:-:.;:-;~~?~~~ ::.-... "::;"""..:::---.. + ~-: ! NW 15-23-05 lll><.h•IOOMI DaM:&'U,101' ~-.. ·: ,.~-~-~?::---:-· ,,...:·;... ·----------· --·---~-~--. ~-'-'""'"! --_u,,....,_, -- I ,: -:if .... tt)!\11/ 1: ·I· . I l · l'il ,11.' ll .. A . I' ~~,---l.l ... ·. .. . .. . ~ JI , I . • ~....... .. . J: --· -. .. .J' i ~ r,rc -- , J .o :! -,m,. _ . Ii--· i .(fl'..~ ' ? --·-·-'!" . . -·~7;;';;"----~---: j, ~~ #.#. .. -t I \ T:A~TS UNREC-. ..; • .· <' \\l , _,,"7'6t j'J}' ,·\ \ S dJ 1111 11 ---· ~ "~ I ... i,.-,Y..,Jif.· ·.[_-~--g !, ,, • ' ,._ )1o/>J>'' '"' il,Jl'\~----"'-~•,f1-1.·.·•·. • b.J-·[]t:JI~ ,/ . :. ¥ . , ·. I l·f-:;::~\ kl J:\ \;J;J,J-t!TllJSL •· . ~ll I I . f I I I t I ~ 'Jlff[fu ·~---,--·-.··t·m·· .................. --,--. -•-"·!"-"-- ffCH -} I I I I I I/ !I, ----· ··---. :!:!i: Ii-,. i I ···----, I · I t 1' 1 ····· J .. -lj( ,, 11 Exhibit H Wetland Inventory Map City of Renton Print map Storage One 128 0 64 128 WGS _ 1984 _ Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_ Sphere Feet lnfom,ation Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa .gov 12/09/2014 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference o nly . Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate . current. or oth erwise reliable. THIS M A P IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAV IGATION Legend .. City and County Boundary Other r:i City of Renton Addresses Parcels 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor Other Buildings Buildings Environment Designations D Natural O Shoreline High Intensity O Shoreline Isolated High Intensity O Shoreline Residential O Urban Conservancy D Jurisdictions Streams (Classified ) 2 3 4 Q Wetlands Notes None 0 City of D ~Qfl !::·:. ~Jll ~,,_. Finance & IT Division WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Minkler Property King County, Washington Prepared for: Robert Minkler 443 -10th Avenue West Kirkland, WA 98033 May 8, 2007 Our Job No. 12740 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA + SACRAMENTO, CA + TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Minkler Property King County, Washington Prepared for: Robert Minkler 443 -10th Avenue West Kirkland, WA 98033 May 8, 2007 Our Job No. 12740 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LANO PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES + 0L YMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA + SACRAMENTO, CA + TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on an interpretation of information cunently available to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. This summary is for introductory purposes and should be used only with the full text of this report. A wetland delineation was completed at the Minkler property, located approximately 400 feet southeast of the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Duvall Avenue N.E. in Renton, Washington on February 2, 2007. The wetland delineation was based on the On-Site Determination Method described in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). The Minkler comprises two parcels, which have had fill imported to create a nearly level property. According to Mr. Minkler, the fill was permitted. The north portion of the property has been paved, while the remainder is undeveloped. A wetland is found north of N.E. 4th Street and drains, via a culvert, into a ditch that parallels the east side of the property. Water drains from this ditch and into another wetland that abuts the south property boundary and identified on the King County !map web page. The buffer from the north wetland is impacted by N.E. 4th Street. The south wetland was rated as a Category II, which requires a standard 50- foot wide buffer. Wetland conditions were observed on the area of fill. The fill area wetland was delineated and rated as a Category III. Although delineated and rated, this wetland appears to meet the City of Renton exemption from regulation by being a wetland perched on fill. No other critical areas were observed on or within 100 feet of the subject property. 12740.001.doc] TABLE OF CONTENTS l.O INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ I l. l Scope of Services ................................................................................................................... l 1.2 Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 1 l.3 Site Description ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS ...................................................................................... 2 2.1 Preliminary Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................. 2 2.2 Field Methodology ................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Survey Methodology .............................................................................................................. 2 2.4 Wetland Rating ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Aerial Photograph Review ..................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 3 3.4 Local Wetland Inventory ........................................................................................................ 3 3.5 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species Review .............................................................. 3 3.6 Precipitation Data ................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 4. l Wetland A ............................................................................................................................ .4 4.2 Off-Site Wetland .................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Drainages ................................................................................................................................ 4 5.0 CONCLUSJONS ............................................................................................................................. 5 6.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................ 5 7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 6 TABLE 1 TABLE2 LIST OF TABLES Precipitation data for the Minkler Property -City of Renton Wetland Area, Category, and Buffer Width -ii-12740.001.doc] LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map FIGURE 2 Tax Parcel and Aerial Map SHEET l of l Site Topographic and Wetland Map FIGURE 3 L WI Map LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Photographs APPENDIX B: Wetland Delineation Methodology APPENDIX C: Definition of Plant Indicator Status APPENDIX D: Soil Descriptions APPENDIX E: Routine Wetland Delineation Data Forms APPENDIX F Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Forms -iii-12740.001.doc] 1.0 INTRODUCTION Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. has completed a wetland delineation and stream boundary study on the Minkler parcels (subject property) and a surrounding 300-foot radius, both of which comprise the study area. According to Mr. Minkler, permitted fill was placed on the property many years ago. The purpose of this study was to identify and flag on-site wetland and stream boundaries, determine the wetland classification, stream type, and establish the buffer width for each wetland and stream channel. Jim Carsner, a Natural Resource Ecologist with Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., performed a site investigation on February 22, 2007. This report details the methods used and findings of this study. 1.1 Scope of Services The scope of work for this study was limited to the following tasks: • A review of documents readily available, including national and county wetland inventory maps, the Soil Survey of King County Area (Snyder 1979), and a site topographic map. , Methods defined in the Washington State Wetland ldentiftcation and Delineation Manual (1997), a manual consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), were used to determine the presence and extent of on- site wetlands. • Review federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the wetlands identified on the site. The review was used to classify and rate the on-site wetlands. • Wetlands were rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington revised rating forms (Washington Department of Ecology 2004). 1.2 Site Location The subject property is located east of the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Duvall Avenue N.E. in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The subject property is contained within Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059002 and 1523059178 (Figure 2). The entrance to the subject property is located at longitude N122°09' 15" and latitude W47°29' 18". Access to the subject parcel is achieved by traveling east from Renton on N.E. 3rd Street, which becomes N.E. 4th Street, to Duvall Avenue N.E. The subject property abuts the south side of N .E. 4th Street and is approximately 400 feet east of the intersection (Figure I). 1.3 Site Description The subject parcel is a partially developed fill adjacent to the south side of N.E. 4th Street. An asphalt pad, approximately 200 feet square is adjacent to N.E. 4th Street (Figure 2). A chain-link fence surrounds the asphalt pad. An excavated drainage channel is located along the eastern property boundary (Appendix A, Photo I). The remainder of the property, a level rectangular shaped portion, is undeveloped (Appendix A, Photo 2). -1-12740.001.doc A wetland, north of N.E. 4th Street, drains under the street and into the drainage channel, then continues into a Category II wetland abutting the south property boundary (Figure 3). The perimeter of the rectangular portion of the property is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. The remainder of the property is dominated by various herbaceous species, including soft rush. The surrounding properties include commercial and multi-family developments as well as and vacant parcels (Figure 2). 2,0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS The general methods used to delineate wetlands are presented in Appendix B. The following section identifies the documents reviewed before visiting the site visit and the specific methods used in performing the on-site and off-site wetland determination. 2.1 Preliminary Data Collection and Analysis Prior to fieldwork, Barghauscn scientists identified probable wetlands within the study area using a aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps; the Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NW!) Maps; the local wetland inventory, as well as a preliminary review of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species list and Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species that may occur within the area. In order to provide additional information on the hydrologic conditions at the time of the site visit and to assist in making a wetland determination, precipitation data for the days of, days before, and two weeks prior to the field visits were acquired from the NOAA weather station at Sea-Tac airport. 2.2 Field Methodology The area south of the asphalt pad was investigated. Several areas of ponded water were observed and data plots were established in and adjacent to the areas of ponded water. In addition, numerous soil test pits were excavated to assess the presence of near surface water and soil color to further determine the presence and extent of on-site wetlands. Wetland boundaries were established based on changes in vegetation, water levels at or near the surface or areas of inundation, topographic changes, and best professional judgment. Plants were determined to be more or less associated with wetlands based on their wetland indicator (FAC) status and dominance using the 50-20 rule (Appendix C). Paired data plots were established in and adjacent to each wetland. Photo points were established to document wetland and abutting upland vegetative cover. 2.3 Survey Methodology The topographic survey, survey of site boundaries, wetlands, and data plot locations was completed by Barghausen surveyors using standard survey methodologies. The accuracy of this survey is approximately 0.01 feet. 2.4 Wetland Rating Wetlands and streams were rated according to the City of Renton critical areas ordinance which incorporates the use of Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (WDOE 2004 -revised) for rating wetlands. -2-12740.001.doc 3.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW The preparation of this report included review of available documents discussed above and review of agency databases. The review of existing information includes, but was not limited lo, the following documents and information sources: 3.1 Aerial Photograph Review In a 2005 aerial photograph, the site is shown as previously described (Figure 2). 3.2 Topography The Barghausen topographic and wetland survey shows the property to be relatively flat with a ditch abutting the east property boundary (Sheet 1 of!). 3.3 Soils The U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington (Snyder 1973) was reviewed to determine the general nature of soils on the subject site. The site is mapped as containing non-hydric Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 6 - 15% slope (AgC) (Appendix D). The soil map and soil descriptions are provided in Appendix 0. 3.4 Local Wetland Inventory The Local Wetland Inventory map shows two wetlands and a drainage corridor, at locations similar to those previously described (Figure 3). 3.5 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species Review A preliminary review of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Natural Heritage Information System suggests that no rare plants or high quality ecosystems are located in the vicinity of the proposed project (DNR, 2006). 3.6 Precipitation Data Precipitation data from the Sea-Tac weather station was obtained from the NOAA Weather website (Appendix E). Table 1 shows the precipitation data for the two weeks prior to each site visit. Precipitation at the time of the February 2, 2007 site visit was approximately 160 percent of normal for the water year (October 1 -February 2). Table l. Precipitation data for the Poe Property. King County Actual Actual Actual Percent of Date of Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Normal Water Site Visit on Day of one Day Prior Two weeks Year Visit (Inches) to Visit Prior to Visit (October 1 to (inches) (inches) Site Visit) 1/8/2007 0.13 0.05 1.96 160 -3-12740.00 I.doc 4.0 RESULTS Based on the use of the three-parameter approach and current site conditions, one on-site and one off-site wetland as well as a drainage corridor, was identified within the study area (Sheet 1 of 1). Plant species were identified and classified with a Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) assigned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( 1997), soils were characterized and recorded, and observations of hydrologic conditions were made al two data points on the site (Appendix E). In addition, numerous test pits were excavated along the wetland boundaries to ensure the boundary location. The test pits were not surveyed nor included on the wetland map. The wetlands were classified using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al, 1979). A summary of wetlands identified within the study area is presented in Table 2. Table 2-Wetland Area, Category, and Buffer Width Wetland Size* Category Buffer width (feet) (Square feet) A 9,529 III 25 Off-Site (South) Not surveyed II 50 4.1 Wetland A All on-site wetland appears to be an isolated palustrine emergent wetland that is seasonally saturated (Appendix A, Photo 3 and 4 ). This wetland appears to be perched on fill, with the fill being supported by Mr. Minkler. The wetland is dominated by tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea, FAC-), redtop (Agrostis alba, FACW), and soft rush (Juncus effuses, FACW). The perimeter of the wetland is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU). The boundary of the on-site wetland was determined to be along the edge of the Himalayan blackberry and professional judgment. Based on statements of fill being permitted and placed on the property and field observations of soils, which suggested they were not native, support a conclusion that this wetland meets the exemption criteria for wetlands on fill, and would not be regulated. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Renton reserve final authority in making such a jurisdictional determination. This wetland would be rated as Category III and, if regulated, would require a standard 25-foot buffer (Appendix F). 4.2 Off-Site Wetland The off-site wetland is located south of the subject property and would be considered a palustrine forested/scrub-shrub wetland. This wetland has been rated as Category II, which would require a standard 50-foot buffer (Appendix F). 4.3 Drainages The drainage channel with intermittent flow abuts and parallels the east property boundary allows water to flow to the south wetland (Appendix A, Photo 5). Based on field observations during a January 10, 2007 site reconnaissance, no water was observed within this ditch. As such, water within this channel has a preliminary rating as Class 4 waters. Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of -4-12740.001.doc normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, Class 4 waters require a standard buffer width of 35 feet. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Although the on-site wetland has been rated as a Category III and appears to meet the city criteria of being exempt from regulation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Renton will make the final jurisdictional determination. The off-site wetland was rated as a Category II wetland, requiring a 50-foot standard buffer. The drainage corridor was determined to contain Class 4 water, which requires a standard 35-foot-wide buffer. Except of a wetland north of N.E. 4th Street, no other critical areas were observed within the study area. 6.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Wetland boundaries identified by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit, and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of 5 years after completion of a wetland delineation report. Development activities on a site 5 years after the completion of this wetland delineation report may require revision of the wetland delineation. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. atural Resource Ecologist -5-12740.00l.doc 7.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FSW /OSB-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Register. 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Washington, D.C. Hitchcock, C. and Cronquist, Arthur. 1990. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Munsell Soil Color Chart. 2000. M"nsell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth, New Windsor, New York. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1998. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 4.0, Hurt, G.W., P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle (eds.). USDA, NRCS, Ft. Worth, TX. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. l-fydric Soils of Washington. 19 pp. Snyder. 1979. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. A draft revision of: Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National Lisi of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). Washington, D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington Stale Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of &ology, Publication No. 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 04-06- 025. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Washington Natural Heritage Information, Marysville area. -6-12740.001.doc FIGURES ,.. •. / •. ·-., '~ l ,d,.t:' .. ,.d~flff)(/fQ(/ ,, tT,I n ' ·,1 .. ' u .; • ·, ., ""'" :.1 'I 'l" ~ .. J " ( (~ • 1. '. ,,,1,1 -.r ' , 3 ··~ •, ,, ,, ~L -.Jt ti r'. I ,,.·-.~ Source: King County !map (2007) .- ,. ' ,, ; ' " ~ II , " ,, r::t1 )',,._t,1111>, rr ').,r~~ .".J ,. ' ·~· \ .~ , . ..;: .,; I'. I" :,1 FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map • ' ,+'·1.· I.. ::· ., •· ! Sourer: King County !map (2007) FIGURE 2: Aerial and Tax Parcel Map NOJ.ONIHSV M 'NO.LN31:1 .:10 A.LIO 'l'f M '391:1 'NC~.L '91 ':l3S .:10 'l' /IMN '1> /13N 'l' /13N 3H.L .:10 NOI.Ll:!Od V NI 11e1Hx3 aNv1 31eva11ne :ep1J. - SSOll6 VM 'aNV1>11:11>1 .LS3M 3nN31\ V H.LOI • Stl' 1:131>1NIW V13WV d ONV SOS ~ z-{f;'-=.C/) ...... :.,/ a=, ' i • !,/,. ' ! • I ,1, - ~ 0 ~ ' g Ii .J e • 0 • 0 ------XV.:! l8L8-(gz(!rlir) m,-,,z(m) lrQ86 VM 'lN3>t HJ.JlOS 3ntGf,,V GNU <.rn:a1 uu. •.• < 1 ~ ~ ,, ,, .. y 11,;' .....! .... .._ •. ' r; -:; . ~---1 . . . .. ~ ,,r··' , Lr' I lt"II' :;. .~;.~1 ..• , . . ,.-. ' •• .~ ·~' I .1 i .i 10', ~ '; ! . • '.... • ••. ( t J...1.}1 , ....... •. -~~- 1.1-1•1 " '· < tJ l.H· :t~,. ,1,,, ,. •• s "" "" * •11, Jfh 1 \{',j •. . ; . ;- t, i,'' Y.C - ~ ,·. I -.. • "'. ., ~1 -n•: ~ ., .. ,1,•1 .... , .. .,_l\,' i -~• I'. k !rt. .,· Source: King County !map (2007) ., • (. ;: f-~ ,1•,,I H 1-11-1· ,. -i I·~ . I t;; 11,1) ,. > ,; ~-_.:-~ -'·'-'- J~~r )-·• .-, - V •111,, ~-.. i·, ,II '' 1·11 I . " -~ :;.:,. . " . ·-. l,'11 !.~ "! " Q '-'~-] :;:;;:, ..... ~ ,,;,, J["-i .1(1)11 ,V.H .IIAO . ..,., ~ " II ' • ~ :-.: ., ' ,;, j ~ ~ .• '·' ..... ' . I ! T • .. -... ; ... _,_. ~1,,, ,. .. ~-·,r ,•II•· , ...... •1:1 ·~· ,. :.~. FIGURE 3: LWI MAP ,..;, ,1 .. , IHt l~'!',1_ :.t.. ;.-;.::- Li.'t'. · .., ....... _. :r:: 11,·, .. APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS Photo I : Looking southeast, showing asphaJt pad on north portion of site. Photo 2: PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIXB WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY The triple parameter approach of the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) and the US. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (l 987) was used to delineate the extent of wetlands on the site. Under this methodology, vegetation, soils, and hydrology are each evaluated to determine the presence or absence of wetlands. Based on the use of this method, an area is considered to be a wetland if each of the following is met: (1) dominant hydrophytic vegetation is present in the area, (2) the soils in the area are hydric, and (3) the necessary hydrologic conditions within the area are met. The Routine On-Site Determination Method was used for the evaluation of triple parameter criteria for this project. This methodology was selected because differences in vegetation types were easily observed, aiding in the identification of areas likely to meet the hydrology and soils criteria of this approach. Wetland boundaries were determined by conducting a walking inspection of the property. As part of this inspection, species of vegetation, soil conditions, and hydrologic conditions were noted at several data plots to more accurately determine the boundaries of on-site wetlands. Wetland Vegetation Hydrophytic plants are plants specially adapted for saturated and/or anaerobic conditions. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has assigned an indicator status to many plant species that is based upon the estimated probability of the species existing under wetland conditions. Plants are categorized as Obligate (OBL), Facultativc Wetland (FACW), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Upland (FACU), and Upland (UPL). Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered to be adapted to saturated and/or anaerobic (i.e., wetland) conditions and are referred to as hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix B). Trees and shrubs within a 30-foot-radius and herbs within a 5-foot-radius of each data point were identified and noted. The approximate percentage of cover for each of the different plant species occurring within the tree, shrub, and herb strata was determined. Dominant plant species are considered to be those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of abundance, exceed 50 percent of the area cover for each vegetative stratum. Any additional species individually representing 20 percent or greater of the total areal cover for each vegetative stratum are also considered dominant. The indicator status of the dominant plant species within each of the vegetative strata is used to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation near each data plot. A data plot was considered to have hydrophytic vegetation if greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species within the area had an indicator status ofOBL, FACW, or FAC. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. As a result of anaerobic conditions, hydric soils exhibit characteristics directly observable in the field, including high organic matter content, greenish or bluish gray color (gley formation), accumulation of sulfidic material, spots of orange or yellow color (mottling), and dark soil colors (low chromas). Throughout a large portion of the area delineated as wetland, identification of hydric soils was aided through observation of surface hydrologic characteristics and indicators of wetland hydrology B-1 wetland report.doc (ACG/dm] (i.e., drainage patterns). The areal extent of hydric soils was defined through direct soil observation within several data plots placed both inside and outside the wetland. Soil observations were completed within soil data plots dug with a shovel to a depth of at least 16 inches below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were examined for the presence of hydric indicators. Soil organic content was estimated visually and textually. The presence of sulfidic material was determined by the presence of sulfide gases (i.e., a "rotten egg" odor). Soil colors were recorded after being determined through use of the three aspects of color in the Munsell Soil Color Chart: hue, value, and chroma (e.g., a soil designated as IOYR 6/2 has a hue of IOYR, a value of 6, a chroma of 2, and a soil color name of light brownish gray). A soil chroma of two in combination with soil mottling or a soil chroma of one without soil mottling typically indicates a hydric soil. Wetland Hydrology Hydrologic conditions identifying wetland characteristics occur during those periods when the soils are inundated pennanently or periodically, or the soil is continuously saturated to the surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically adapted for life in periodically anaerobic conditions. Research has indicated that the duration of soil saturation and inundation during the growing season is more influential on the plant community than the frequency of soil saturation and inundation during the growing season. For the purposes of this wetland delineation, the wetland hydrology criterion was considered to be satisfied if it appeared that wetland hydrology was present for at least 5 to 12 percent (12 to 29 days) of the growing season. The growing season begins when the soil reaches a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit in the zone of root penetration. The hydrology was evaluated by direct visual observation of surface inundation or soil saturation within 16 inches below the existing ground surface in data plots. According the 1987 Manual, ':for soil saturation to impact vegetation, it must occur within a major portion of the root zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface) of the prevalent vegetation." Therefore, if saturated soils or indicators were observed within 12 inches of the surface, positive indicators of wetland hydrology were noted. The area near each data plot was also examined for indicators of wetland hydrology. These indicators include dried watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, oxidized rhizoshperes, local soil survey data, and drainage patterns. It was not possible to observe conditions during the entire growing season. Areas where several positive indicators of hydrology were observed, and other indicators of wetland conditions were observed, it is assumed that wetland hydrology occurs for a sufficient period of the growing season to meet the wetland criteria, as described by Ecology (1997). B-2 wetland report.doc [ACG/dm] APPENDIXC DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS and 50/20 RULE Indicator Category OBL FACW FAC FACU DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS Definitions Obligate Wetland. Occurs almost always (estimated probability> 99 percent) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland. Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67-99 percent), but occasionally found in uplands. Facultative. Equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands (estimated probability 34-66 percent). Facultative Upland. 67-99 percent), but is 1-33 percent). Usually occurs in uplands ( estimated probability occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability UPL Obligate Upland. Occurs in wetlands in other regions ( as defined in the National List of Scientific Plant Names), but occurs almost always ( estimated probability > 99 percent) under natural conditions in uplands in the region specified. NI No Indicator. These species have not been given an indicator status. They are assumed to be upland. Source: National List of Plants That Occur In Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. 50/20 Rule The "50/20 rule" states that for each stratum in the plant community, dominant species are the most abundant plant species (when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled) that immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species that individually comprise 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species that individually comprise 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum. The list of dominant species is then combined across the strata. Source: Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. C-l wetland report.doc [ACG/dm] APPENDIXD SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ·+ USDA Nanni R-= aiiiii r.om•natioa Senko SOIL SURVEY OF KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON -•-===:::J•••••Mete rs 0 45 90 180 Web Soil Survey I , I Narional Coope ralivc Soil Survey M M Feet 0 100 200 400 600 800 5151200 7 Page I of3 USDA--... .._,___ SOIL SURVEY OF KING COUNTY AREA. WASHINGTON MAP LEGEND ScUMapUrm O Cities c:::J ~Cou- t=:J llet8ilod SUles -lntarstate Htenways ----~Rals -· --Hydiography 0co ... , A' A YA Y Af Escarpment, ~ Vf'Vf,.V,",,\A Escarpment, r'IQ!'l-beclrock -, --. -,_ ~--·-Guley IHIOHNIIIIII Levee Slope "' -0 Borrow Pit • Clay Spot • Qef:lression, closed E<o"'d Spot >. Graw! Po Grawlly Spot Guley ,\ l.a1III Flew G l.ancfflll .... Marsh or Swamp @ Miscellsleous wate, V Rode Outaop Safine Spot Sandy Spot ~ Sllde OI" Sip 0 Sinkhole " So<ficSpot • SpoiAr9a 0 Slony Spell \161 r Stu.•r !po e Perenrial Water ' Wet Spot MAP INFORMATION Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoHsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10 Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Spatial Version of Data: 1 Soil Map CompHatlon Scale: 1 :24000 Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates: 7/10/1990; 7/18/1990 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digttized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. h a resull,~~mlnor shifting of ~map untt boundaries may be evident Web Soil Survey I.I Nalional Cooperative Soil Survey 5/5/2007 Page 2 of 3 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Summary King County Area, Washington Map Unit Symbol AgC EvB lJSDA Nattmd R.ewune,; '"" --Couunation SHTicc- Map Unit Name Acres inAOI Alderwood gravelly sandy 98.5 loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 18.9 to 5 percent slopes Web Soil Survey I.I National Coo!)crative Soil Survey Percent of AO! 83.9 16.1 5/5/2007 Page 3 of3 DESCRIP'I'IONS OF THE SOILS This section describes the soil series and mapping units in the King County Area. Each soil series is described and then each mapping unit in that series. Unless it is specifically mentioned otherwise, it is to be assumed that what is stated about the soil series holds true for the mapping units in that series. Thus, to get full information about any one mapping unit, it is necessary to read both the description of the mapping unit and the descript.i.on of the soil series to which it belongs. An important part of the description of each soil series l5 the soil profile, that is, the sequence of layers from the surface downward to rock or other underlying material. Each series contains two descriptions of this profile. The first is brief and in terms familiar to the layman. The second, detailed and in technical terms, is for scientists, engineers, and others who need to make thorough and precise studies of soils. Unless it is otherwise stated, the colors given in the descriptions are those of a moist soil. As mentioned in the section "How This Survey Was Made," not all mapping units are members of a soil series. Urban land, for example, does not belong to a soil series, but nevertheless, is listed in alphabetic order along with the soil series. Following the name of each mapping unit is a 5Ymbol in parentheses. This 5Ymbol identifies the mapping unit on the detailed soil map. Listed at the end of each description of a IDdppi.ng unit is the capability unit and woodland group in which the mapping unit has been placed. The woodland designation and the page for the description of each capability unit can be found by referring to the "Guide to Mapping Units" at. the back of this survey. The acreage and proportionate extent of €ach mapping unit are shown in table 1. Many of the terms used in describing soils can be found in the Glossary at the end of this survey, and more detailed information about the terminology and methods of soil mapping can be obtained from the Soil Survey Manual (19). Alderwood Series The Alderwood series is made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. These soils are on uplands. They formed under conifers, in glacial deposits. Slopes ar:e Oto 70 percent. The annual precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, most of which is rainfall, between October and May. The mean annual air temperature is about so· F. The frost-free season is 150 to 200 days. Elevation ranges from 100 to 800 feet. In a representative profile, the surface layer and subsoil are very dark brown, dark-bro~,n, and grayish- brown gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches thick, The substratum is grayish-brown, weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated glacial till that extends to a depth of 60 inches and more. Alderwood soils are used for timber, pasture, berries, row crops, and urban development. They are the most extensive soils in the survey area. Alden-mod gravelly sandy loam, .§ to ~ percent slopes (AgC). --This soil is rolling. Areas are irregular in shape and range from 10 to about 600 acres in size. Representative profile of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, in woodland, 450 feet east and 1,300 feet south of the north quarter corner of sec. 1~, T. 24 N., R. 6 ~-= Al--0 to 2 inches, very dark brown {lOYR 2/2) gravelly sandy loam, dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) dry; weak, fine, granular structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; strongly acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 1 to 3 inches thick. B2--2 to 12 inches, dark-brown (lOYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam, brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; strongly acid; clear, wavy boundary. 9 to 14 inches thick. 83--12 to 27 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) gravelly sandy loam, light gray (2.5Y 7/2) dry; many, medium, distinct mottles of light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6); hard, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; medium acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 12 to 23 inches thick. IIC--27 to 60 inches, grayish-brown (2.SY 5/2), weakly to 5trongly consolidated till, light gray (2.5Y 7/2) dry; common, medium, distinct mottles of light olive brown and yellowish brown {2.5Y 5/6 and lOYR 5/6); massive; no roots; medium acid. Many feet thick. The A horizon ranges from very dark brown to dark brown. The B horizon is dark brown, grayish brm ... n, and dark yellowish brown. The consolidated C horizon, at a depth of 24 to 40 inches, is mostly grayish brown mottled with yellowish brown. Some layers in the C horizon slake in water. In a few areas, there is a thin, gray or grayish-brown A2 horizon. In mosl areas, this hori,,on has been destroyed through logging operations. Soils included with this soil in mapping make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. Some areas are up to 3 percent the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila, and Shalcar soils; some are up to 5 percent the very gravelly Everett and Neilton soils; and some are up to 15 percent Alderwood soils that have slopes more gentle or steeper than 6 to 15 percent. Some areas in Newcastle Hills are 25 percent Beausite soils, some northeast of Duvall are as much as 25 percent Ovall soils, and some in the vicinity of Dash Point are 10 percent Indianola and Kitsap soils. Also included. are small areas of Alderwoad soils that have a gravelly loam surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is rnoderalely rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Roots penetrate easily to the consolidated substratum where they tend to mat on the surface, Some roots enter the substratum through cracks. Water moves on top of the substratum in winter. Avail.able water capacity is low. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of erosion .1_5 moderate. This soil i5 used for timber, pasture, berries, and row crops, and for urban development. Capability uni.t IVe-2; woodland group 3dl. Alderwood gravelly Bandy loam, Q to & percent slopes {AgB) .--This soil is nearly level and undulating. It is similar to Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, but in places its surface layer is 2 to 3 inches thicker. Areas are i ri:-egular in shape and range from 10 acres to slightly more than 600 acres in size. Some areas are as much as 15 percent included Normd, Bellingham, Tukwild, and Shalcar soils, all of which are poorly drained; and some areas in the vicinity of E.nwuclaw are as much as 10 percent Buckley soils. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. This Alderwood soil is used for timber, pasture, berries, and row crops, and for urban development. Capability unit IVe-2; woodland group 3d2. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, .!2 to 1Q percent slopes {AgD} .--Depth to the substratum in this soil varies within short distances, but is conunonly about 40 inches. Areas are elongated and range from 7 to about 250 acres in size, Soils included with this soil in mapping make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. Some areas are up to 25 percent ~verett soils that have slopes of 15 to 30 percent, and some areas are up to 2 percent Bellingham, Norma, and Seattle soils, which are in depressions. Some areas, especially on Squak Mountain, in Newcastle Hills, and north of Tiger Mountain, are 25 percent Beausite and Ovall soils. Beausite soils arc underlain by sandstone, and Ovall soils by andesite. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is severe. The slippage potential is moderate. This Alderwood soil is used mostly for timber.-. Some areas on the lower parts of slopes are used for pasture. Capability unit VIe-2; woodland group 3dl. 1\lderwood and Kit~ soils, very steep (Akf) . -This mapping unit is about 50 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and 25 percent Kitsap silt loam. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. Distribution of the soils varies greatly within short distances. About 15 percent of some mapped areas is an included, unnamed, very deep, moderately coarse textured soil; and about 10 percent of some areas is a very deep, coarse-textured Indianola soil. Drainage and permeability vary. Runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe to very severe. The slippage potential is severe. These soils are used for timber. Capability unit VIIe-1; woodland group 2dl. ~rents, Alderwood Material Arents, Alderwood material consists of Alderwood soils that have been so disturbed through urbanization that they no longer can be classified wilh tbe Aldcrwood series. These soils, however, have many similur features. The upper part of the soil, to a depth of 20 to 40 inches, is brown to darkbrown gravelly sandy loam. Below this is a grayishbrown, consolidated and impervious substratwn. Slopes generally range from D to 15 percent. These soils are used for urban development. Arents, Alderwood material, 2 to§. percent slopes (funB) .--In many areas this soil is level, as a result of shaping during construction for urban facilities. Areas are rectangular in shape and range from S acres to about 400 acres in size. Representative profile of Arents, Alderwood material, Oto 6 percent slopes, in an urban area, 1,300 feet west and 350 feet south of the northeast corner of sec. 23, T. 25 N., R. 5 E.: 0 to 26 inches, dark-brown (lOYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam, pale brown {lOYR 6/3) dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; medium acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. 23 to 29 inches thick. 26 to 60 inches, grayish-brown {2.5Y 5/2) weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated glacial till, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry' collUll.On, medium, prominent mottles of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) moist; massive; no roots; medium acid. Many feet thick. The upper, ver:y friable part of the soil extends to a depth of 20 to 40 inches and ranges from dark grayish brown to dark yellowish brown. Some areas are up to 30 percent included soils that are similar to this soil material, but either shallower or deeper over the compact substratum; and some areas are 5 to 10 percent very gravelly Everett soils and sandy Indianola soils. This Arents, Alderwood soil is moderately well drained. Permeability in the upper, disturbed soil material is moderately rapid to moderately slow, depending on its compaction during construction. The substratum is very slowly permeable. Roots penetrate to and tend to mat on the surface of the consolidated substratum. Some roots enter. the substratum through cracks. Water moves on top of the substratum in winter. Available water capacity is low. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used for urban development. Ca- pability unit IVe-2; woodland group 3d2. Arents, Alderwood material,£ to 15 percent~ (AmCJ .--This soil has convex slopes. Areas are rectangular in shape and range from 10 acres to about 450 acres in size. APPENDIXE ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS ROUTINE WETLAND FIELD DATA FORM (1987 WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL, MODIFIED) Project#: Minkler: BCE # Client/Owner: 0M;,1~·n::,k:.::le::.r _____________ _ Investigator: J. Carsner Date: 2/22/2007 State,-----w,.,,;.a::.s::.h"'in"g"to""n----- Do norm-"'a-i'I "c;:;ir.::cu.;;mc:.:.s'"ta_n_c_e_s_e_x"°'i-st'"o-n-,,th,:-e:-s""it-e"?'N"o __ _ County:_~=~=.,,,;K.;;i;.,;n"-...,,,--,~~- Township, Range, Section: T23N, ROSE, Sec. 23, W.M. ----'---=:=:-:~~---Is it an atypical situation? ..cN..:;o'--- ls the area a potential problem area? -'N"'-o'--- PI ant Community:. _____ ;.,;P..,;E::.M""------- Sample Plot: ______ D_P_-_1 ____ _ VEGETATION h-: . " -~ ;' ' < •;_---::--;--,~, 1 ~-' T • --~ f -C ~;--~---i -, r::~_:;- 0 ~--; cJ ,, ' ',,' t :-1,k:•"•4 ~ I ', ~ ~ ~ ,°-[0'~ ·,,/' ,-~~1('.)fil1l~~,/ "'~·~Xf!nfr ~" _...,,-~;Jt] . ' ' ';,. r,>,' ha " >r/ ,.'1,.0 ., '''«· , · ' ' _;_ ,' _j, ' ,~-,, ..\9\1'"•'(, r <,~, ,,.,,.,,,·l~,""f7 b-·· ··"-·--"_,,~ ,JL • -,=Jo:; -_/.,~-a:i/"".t..t.~-....._,~Jr:.:. 1.:!.c.L.--.J , .,£i.'_,.,..._-,,;.,,..,,,"4..,,~.~~=~,,=~-li~;;c=~~:.i ~~;:,,-~.,,~-.sS:-hJ,;,:t.,.., ~ .... IIIEl!Jlll .. ll.i.1iDI Juncus effusus H 20 X FACW Festuca arundinacea H 40 X FAC- . % of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 2 of 3 = I 67% Comments: SOILS Mapped Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sancy loam Taxonomy: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Vitrandic Durochrep~ Matches Profile? No 1---Histol ,_ __ Hlstlc epipedon 1---Sulfldic odor ,_ __ Probable aquic moisture regime Depth of surface water: __ _ Depth to free water in pit: surface Depth to saturated soil: surface Drainage Class: moderate! well drained Reducing cond1t1ons (test) ___ High organic content surface layer x Mottled (w/in 10") Concretions (w/in 3", >2mm) X Water marks Drift lines Sediment deposits Draina e patterns In wetlands ____ Gleyed ____ Organic streaking ____ Organic pan ____ on hydrlc soils list Water-stained leaves Local soll surve data FAC neutral test Other Comments: Saturation within upper 12 inches. Water appeared perched on fill. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation? __ _ Hydric Soils? __ _ Wetland Hydrology? __ _ Is this sample plot within a wetland? _____ _ Comments: Data plot on apparent fill material. Water appears to be perched on fill. All three wetland criteria observed. ROUTINE WETLAND FIELD DATA FORM (1987 WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL, MODIFIED) Project#: Minkler: BCE # Client/Owner: 0M=in:;;kc,le::.r _____________ _ Investigator: 0J::.,..::C"a::.r,csn.::e:::r.,.... __ ---,----,--~---,-,,,.,..--- Do normal circumstances exist on the site?,,_, N.:;o:...._ __ Is it an atypical situation? _,N.:.,o:...._ __ Is the area a potential problem area? _,N.:;o:..... __ % of dominant species that are OBL, FACW. or FAC (excluding FAC-): __ ....:.. ____ :;;o;..f ___ _::3;._ __ = _ _._--=3-=3.c%=-----~ Comments: Not dominated by FAC or wetter vegetation. SOILS Mapped Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sancy loam Taxonomy: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Vitrandlc Durochrept; ___ Reducing conditions (test) Matches Profile? No Drainage Class: moderate! well drained ,_ __ Histol 1----Histic epipedon ,_ __ Su/fidlc odor High organic content surface layer ___ Gleyed ___ Organic streaking ___ Organic pan ___ On hydric soils list 1----Probable aquic moisture regime x Mottled (w/in 10") Concretions (w/in 3", >2mm) Hard packed below 8", Depth of surface water: __ _ Depth to free water in pit: surface Depth to saturated soil: surface Comments: Saturation within upper 128" inches. WETLAND DETERMINATION Water.stained leaves local soil surve data FAC neulral test Other Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes Is this sample plot within a wetland? No ------ Comments: Data plot on apparent fill material. Water appears to be perched on fill. Not all three wetland criteria observed. APPENDIXF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS Wetland name or number _!J__ WETLAND RA TING FORM -WESTERN WASHING TON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland ( if known): ___ _,_;f.,__----'e;,"'--',t"'-----=.:s_,,_7___:l=:___ ___ Date of site visit: 2 · ~ -o i' Trained by Ecology? Yes./No_ Date oftraining,E "f· o7 SEC: I> TWNSHP: ;;iJPRNGE: <.>5 e Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ No .,.-- Map of wetland unit: Figure~/ Estimated size __ _ ~/ SUMMARY OF RA TING Categ~ry based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III / IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply / /c:7 F;nal Category (,o.,., <h, "hig>e,t" a""'" from"""' 0 Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Estuarine Natural Herita e Wetland Bo. Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HOM classes resent August 2004 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plallt species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the a ro riate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orized as Cate o I Natural Herita e Wetlands see . 19 of data form. SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part o[the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. / The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 2 August 2004 Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ~ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed ( see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff s of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Fla If your wetland can be classified as a 'F ats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? ~The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ~At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), __ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than I foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 3 August 2004 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HOM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUEStlONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UN!T (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HOM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary De ressional + Lake-frin e Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland De ressional Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HOM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 4 August 2004 Wetland name or number D D D D D I. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet pomts = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently flowing) points= I Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with pennanent surface outflow aud 3 no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (ff ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intennitlently flowing") Provide hoto or drawin S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points= 4 0 ~ o~= D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area {points P Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 S-- Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <l/10 of area points= 0 Ma of Cowardin ve elation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of JO yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > Y, total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is > Y. total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is < Y. total area of wetland ~ points= 2 points= 0 of H dro eriods Figure_ 'f ~----------~------------~=======~--~----0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I I 2...... I ~-·----------------------------------~----0 D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. ~ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 fl of wetland (seep. 44) A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas., _farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging L Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen YES NO multi lier is 1 D Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 5 Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on . I August 2004 Wetland name or number 'lK \·:,lt$i~;!f ~~~~~~~~1~;~1i~w1~~ti~~~e;l~~~:~i:~~f ~~i~{,~,-x ·· __ .:%~fil:~/¢··-· D D D D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) (foints -3:) Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet pomts -2 Unit is a "flaf' depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= l (If ditch is not pennanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or sliQ:htlv constricted, surface outlet <oermanentlv flowinu) ooints = 0 D 3 .2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the swface of permanent water or deepest part (if d1y). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points -7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface6t tra;j:, water 01nts = Marks ofoondin" less than 0.5 ft ooints -0 D 3 .3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit The area of the basin is 10 to l 00 times the area of the unit points= 5 points= 3 The area of the basin is more than l 00 times the area of the unit points = 0 (seep.46) I Entire unit is in the FLA TS class ,ooints = , ./ 1--============'-----------------'--E=;;,..-""'c.... .. ____ _ D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above I / 0 I 1---1-----------------------------------+----· D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? D Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. = Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems --Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems = Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems -Other YES mu, -:1;:-ti;-::pli-er-,:--. s-;2;----; ,r Nc.-;o::::=::=m==u=:l;:-ti:-;-:nli-er-,'.'"'. sc::;1';--- TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 6 August2004 (seep. 49) multiplier I /0 Wetland name or number R R R R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland points= 4 If depressions> Y, of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < I /2 area of wetland points = 2 No de ressions resent oints = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 points= 6 points= 3 points= 0 (see p.52) Figure_ Figure_ ~-~----------------------------------~----R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) R Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier Other ----------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R I by R 2 Add score to table on . 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 7 August 2004 I Wetland name or number R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure_ Estimate the average width of the wetland unit pe1pendicular to the direction of the flow and the widlh of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: ( average width of unit)/( average width of stream hetween banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10-20 points= 6 If the ratio is 5 · < 10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 -<5 points= 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 showin avera e widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure_ large woody debris as "forest or shrub". Choose the poinls appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for> 1 /3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area points= 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial hoto or ma ol ons of different ve elation es ~-~---------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L---- Add the points in the boxes above I R ~~+----------------------------------~----R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? R Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _______________ _ ( Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a rese,voir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I Comments TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 8 August 2004 (see p.57) multiplier I Wetland name or number L L L L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons o/Cowardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33ft (!Om) wide points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points= 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points= l Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points= 0 Ma of Cowardin classes with widths marked L l.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area points = I Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover> 2/3 of the unit points= 0 Figure_ ~--------------~M=a=w~it~h=o~l=o~n~s~o~f~d~iff~e~r~e~n~t~ve=e~t~a~fio~n~=e~s~-~---- Add the points in the boxes above I ~-~----------------------------------+----(seep.61) L L L 2. Docs the wetland have the opportunity to Improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. oflake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake -Other ----------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 Add score to table on . 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 9 August2004 multiplier I Wetland name or number L L L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Distance along shore and average width ofCowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > Y. of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft ( l Om) wide points= 6 > Y. of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points= 4 > Y. distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 0 (see p.62) Figure_ Aerial hoto or ma with Cowardin ve elation classes ~------------=====~=============~--~----Record the points from the box above ~-+----------------------------------+----L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. -There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland ( e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion (seep.63) Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is t L TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 10 August 2004 Wetland name or number S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? s s s S I.I Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl% or less (a !% slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation/or eve1y JOO ft horizontal distance) points= 3 Slope is I%. 2% points= 2 Slope is 2% · 5% points = l Slope is greater than 5% points= 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 oints NO = 0 oints S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil swface (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 1/2 of area points= 3 Dense, woody, vegetation> Y, of area points= 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = I Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 (seep.64) Figure_ Aerial hoto or ma with ve ol ons ~-------------===~~~=~=====~~=~----~----s Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above ' ~-~----------------------------------+----s S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 6 7) s Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualijj; as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland -Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland -Other _______________ _ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S l by S2 Add score to table on . 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 II August 2004 multiplier I Wetland name or number s s S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3. I Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate/or the description that bes/fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1 !8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/4 area More than 114 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is points= 6 points= 3 points= I not ri id oints = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least l 0% of its area. YES points = 2 (see p.68) NO oints = 0 ~----------------------=~-~==~~----~----Add the points in the boxes above I I s ~~~----------------------------------~----S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? s Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other _______________ _ (Answer NO if the major source of waler is controlled by a rese,-voir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 Comments TOTAL · Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 12 August 2004 seep. 70) multiplier Wetland name or number __L}_ H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1. l Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is Y, acre or more than /0% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed .,...-Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (.veep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures l struc re points= 4 points= 2 Check th_e types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than I 0% of the wetland or Y, acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiod,) __ Permanently flooded or inundated __ Seasonally flooded or inundated __ Occasionally flooded or inundated points= 3 oints = 2 oint = ....u::=Saturated only l type present points= 0 __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland _L_ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 • of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. (different patches Do no/ include Eurasian Milfoi/, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: Q -(9 spec-~,e~s--~11-o"";n-=,-,--q- < 5 species points = 0 Figure_ I I Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 13 Total for page '1- August 2004 Wetland name or number H l.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes ( described in H 1. 1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 ~ Low=lpoint Moderate = 2 points ~ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi h". Use ma of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. _:_Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). -=-Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland -=--Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft ( Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (IOm) -=-Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) -At least \> acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structuresfor egg-laying by amphibians) ~nvasive plants cove, less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ I r-----------------------------------~~---- H 1. TOTAL Score -potential for providing habitat 1 3 1 Add the scores rom HI.I, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 J ~--~------------=~=~==~===~====~=~==~----- Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 14 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2. I Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " --too m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively _ undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -I 00 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m ( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -too m (310ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 ~No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. ~ -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= I -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = I Aerial nhoto showinn buffers H 2.2 Co11idors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2. I Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian orupland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). -:---.._ YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) ~to H 2.2J___) H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated comdor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connec.ts to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed comdor as in the question above? YES ~ 2 points (go to H 2. 3) @o = ef® H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 noint MO = 0 nnmts l Figure_ Total for page 2., Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 15 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (lOOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. __ Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old- growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. __ Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha ( 10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. __ Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi- enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function ( e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 16 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within Y, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed ~ The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fn wetland within Y, mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within Y, mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within Y, mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scoresfrom H2.l,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H I from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 17 o. I August 2004 3 ----· I _) I ----· 3 ----· 'i?' Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the annronriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES= Go to SC I.I NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuaty Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Cate1mrv I NO !!o to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Categoty I NO = Categoty II -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than I 0% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than I 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Categoty II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Categoty I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. -At least~ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 18 August 2004 Category Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating 1/11 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need lo contact TYNHPIDNR) S!f/R information from Appendix D _/_ o orr accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO_L SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES -Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 8 7) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field kev to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 (No -go to 0. 2..) 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or P:o~n;::d.;..? ________ _ Yes -go to Q. 3 <J«i"J:£ not a bog for purpose of~ 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. /. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species ( or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No_ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Ifyot, answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fimctions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category l NO hot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO /not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5. l Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least Y. of the landward edge of the wetland has a JOO ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 20 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Wetland name or number SC 6.0 lotcrdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) ls the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO fat an interdunal wetland for rating ff you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR l 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 ls the unit between 0. 1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0. 1 and I acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 21 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III Wetlandnameornumber .?tf"-5-?c WETLAND RA TING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): c({-$1l'c {s..-... K) Dateofsitevisit: ?· 2i!·&"~ Rated by ,T;..., ~ d !i ...,., c'.,1..-Trained by Ecology? Yesffio_ Date of training§,?-c:,7- SEC: /.>TWNSHP: 2)PRNGE: 5 &. ls S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No .,/ Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size __ _ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II /111 IV ---- Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply .,/ ;t, Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) G Summary of basic iuformatiou about the wetland uuit Estuarine Natural Herita e Wetland Bo Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal La oon Interduual None of the above Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 Flats Freshwater Tidal / Check if unit has multiple H GM classes resent August 2004 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered a11imal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the a ro riate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orized as Cate o I Natural Herita e Wetlands see . 19 of data form . SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. / / The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 2 August 2004 Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 1. A~s in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ~ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES-Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO-Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuari11e wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed ( see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Gro ater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 0 -go t 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ~~~A::..t :;least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? (No -~ YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ~ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), __ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Su,face water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually ~ diameter and less than I foot deep). ~ YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 3 August 2004 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _L__ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river _,_ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.------------- NO -go to 6 YES - ~~----r-,----,-----::-6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topograp ic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a deprcssional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary De ressional + Lake-frin e Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland De ressional Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to detennine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 4 August 2004 Wetland name or number D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? D D D l. l Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (pennanently flowing) points= 1 Unit is a ''flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (ff ditch is not pem1anently flowing treat unit as "intennittently flowing") Provide hoto or drawin S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface ( or duff layer) is clay or organic (useNRCS definitions) YES NO points= 4 oints = 0 (seep.38) Figure_ D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation ( emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure __ D D D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= l/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= I/JO of area points= l Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points= 0 Ma of Cowardin v elation classes D l .4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of IO yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > Y, total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is> V. total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is < V. total area of wetland points= 4 points= 2 points -0 Figure_ Ma of H dro eriods 1--------------------------'=:c..;::...:.:..,..;====----i,,---- Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I I ~-~-------------------------------------+----0 D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) D Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other·~------ YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is l TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on . 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 5 August 2004 Wetland name or number Q:•Cl~tpfe~~io9i1.~*~F'l~t~}~~fl•*·~~;) ,./c.·· .. · ... r, ·c······';' .. <.··.···· ......... Point~·.·· \ , lIYDROLOGij; FUNCtIONS :, Iruliciiibrs thatthe. wetland unit Junctions to •·· .. ··. ·· . ·• (ortly t)corr .· :.· ·. \r.;dijce fldo~ilig a.tld siteaib''d~Hitiatiiiri :C '.t, •Y/ < . . • • . . . . • per b<!x} D D D D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface watet flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious uatnral outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 ([J ditch is not pennanently flowing treat unit as "intennittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or slie:htlv constricted, surface outlet I nermanentlv llowino:1 ooints = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface a/permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a Hheadwater" wetland'' points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to< 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = I Marks of oondine less than 0.5 ft ooints = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of unit The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 5 points= 3 points= 0 (seep.46) Entire unit is in the FLA TS class ooints = 5 1--..!ce~=====::..:..===='------------------=="-..:'...--.. ----· Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D I I 1---1-------------------------------------+-----D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicat01:< of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater ofa river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems -Other. _______________ _ YES multiplier is 2 NO multinlier is 1 D TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 6 Add score to table on p. 1 August 2004 (seep. 49) multiplier Wetland name or number R R R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1 Arca of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover> 3/4 area of wetland points= 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points ~ 4 If depressions > Y, of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland point = 2 No de ressions resent R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person:~ Trees or shrubs> 2/3 the area of the unit ~_'R) Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the unit points= 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit points= 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 (seep.52) Figure_ 0 Figure_ Aerial hoto or ma showin of ens of different ve elation t es ~-~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~--------~--- R Add the points in the boxes above I fr I ~-~----------------------------------·----R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide /he sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutant,· coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging __,,,.....Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier Other ES multiplier NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R l by R 2 Add score to table on , I Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 7 August 2004 /(, Wetland name or number R R R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R 3. l Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure_ Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel ( distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: ( average width of unit)/( average width ofstream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10-20 -..a, T,,.,..,..,~ Z> c:fiints =y / If the ratio is 5 -< l O potfits -4 .,..... If the ratio is 1 -<5 points = 2 If the ratio is < I points = I showin avera e widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure_ large woody debris as ''forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes)· Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area Goin ts 'de J} Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area pomts -4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial hoto or ma ol ons of different ve elation es ~-+---------=====~=~================~~----R Add the points in the boxes above I / 3 I ~-+----------------------------------~----R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? R Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditipns apply. -¥ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. -There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding -Other _______________ _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the !/ar,Jt/-i"NJ"d,al · e along the sides of a dike) Comments multi ier is NO multiplier is I TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 8 August 2004 (see p.57) multiplier 2.. Wetland name or number L L L L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (.~ee p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure_ Vegetation is more than 33fl (!Om) wide points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33fl points= 3 Vegetation is more than 6fl (2m) wide and < 16 fl points = I Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Ma of Cowardi n classes with widths marked L l.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant/arm or as an understo1y in a shrub or forest community. These are not Coward in classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = I Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover> 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Figure_ Ma with ol ans of different ve elation es ~---------------=================~-~----Add the points in the boxes above ~-~----------------------------------+----I L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water qnality? L L Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingji'om several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150fl Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 fl. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake -Other ----------------- YES multi lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 TOTAL· Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 Add score to table on . I Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 9 August 2004 (see p.61) multiplier I Wetland name or number L L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Distance along shore and average width ofCowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > Y. of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft ( !Om) wide points= 6 > Y. of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points= 4 > Y. distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide ( any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 (seep.61) Figure_ Aerial hoto or ma with Cowardin ve elation classes ~------------====~~=~=~==~======~--~---- L Record the points from the box above ~-~----------------------------------+----L L 4. Docs the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland ( e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion (seep.63) Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I L TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 10 August 2004 Wetland name or number S S l. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? s s s S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl% or less (a !% slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation/or eve,y JOO ft horizontal distance) points= 3 Slope is I% -2% points= 2 Slope is 2% -5% points= l Slope is greater than 5% points= 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay ororganic (use NRCS definition,) YES = 3 oints NO = 0 oints S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface(> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation> 1/2 of area points= 3 Dense, woody, vegetation> Y, of area points= 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = l Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 (see p.64) Figure_ Aerial hoto or ma with ve ol ons ~-------------=====~==========~----~----s Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above • ~-~----------------------------------+----S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) s Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland -Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland -Other. ________________ _ YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOT AL · Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on . 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 11 August 2004 multiplier I Wetland name or number s s S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > I /8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/4 area More than I /4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is points= 6 points= 3 points= I not ri id oints = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least I 0% of its area. YES points = 2 (seep.68) NO oints = 0 ~----------------------=~-~==~~----~----s Add the points in the boxes above I I ~-~----------------------------------+----S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? s Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other. ________ ~--------- (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multi tier is 2 NO multi lier is l Comments TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 12 August 2004 seep. 70) multiplier Wetland name or number H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H I.I Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is~ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants .....---Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) _____.gorested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if' fihe forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 6ucn:rres 2 structures I structure H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) points= 4 points cJ:> pomts -I oints = 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y. acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __ Permanently flooded or inundated ----"".'.'.Seasonally flooded or inundated Occasionally flooded or inundated /Saturated only I type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __2-seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least IO ft 2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed cana,ygrass, purple looses/rife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species no!n~ = h List species below if you want to: C'i..Jc.;-a..L,;19uisp~ec~i~.;L..._-JJl!O,Q:uin:uL~S~.J...._....__,~ < 5 species points = O Figure_ Figure_ I Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 13 Total for page ~ August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes ( described in H 1.1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 @ None -0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points [ riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have our or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi h". Use map of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. ____0,arge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). _0tanding snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream ( or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown)-o;,....4 t 5 ;v,r,_,;,.,,,..,_. ~ ./At least Y. acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structuresfor egg-laying by amphibians) ..,.-fi{vasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants '5 igure_ 'I NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. ~-------------~~-~~~-----~~---------~~---- H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat I I L I '--------------=..:Ac::d.::d..:.:th.:.:e:...:s:..:c..::o:..;re"'s..,_r:...:o:.::m.:_H:..:..:.lc.:.1.,_, =-=H-=-1:..:. 2"-, .:.;H:...:1.:.:. 3:.:., -'-H'-'l-'-.4'-''-'-H"'lcc.5:._..._ ____ J Comments Wet land Rating Form -western Washington version 2 14 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -I 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points= 5 -100 m (330 ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points= 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (I 70ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% ,..circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 L No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. ___ _ Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. (!oints =_D -Heavy grazing in buffer. l'omts = I -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = I Aerial ohoto showinn buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks-in the corridor~)- YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) = go to H 2.2. H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and un ro en vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? ~-~ YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) ~ H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within l mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = I uoint 1)/(J = 0 7ioint•) Figure_ Total for page 2.--- Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 15 August 2004 I Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft ( l OOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. __ Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that IOO%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old- growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Prairies: Relatively nndisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. __ Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha ( I 0 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. __ Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi- enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than O.Sppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. __ Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function ( e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has l priority habitat = l point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 16 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, and the connections between them arc relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within Y, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between~ disturbed points = The welland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-frmge wetland within Y, mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within Y, mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within Y, mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2. l,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H I from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 17 o. I August 2004 3 ----- I s I ----· 11.. ----· Ir Wetland name or number ,,::,/f-_-.,:5//G CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the annrovriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. NOL YES= Go to SC 1.1 SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Categorv I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than I 0% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. -At least* of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 18 August 2004 Category Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating 1/11 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact Tj'NHPIDNR) Sff/R information from Appendix D _L_ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO_.,!' SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? Cat. I YES= Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3.0Bogs (seep. 87) -,vp z,,,,y-,. ,=,.,.,., ~l's -f:f!'-s,,.," ,,_I!,.,..;.-~ Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below lo identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - ~~Q3 ~-~~Q.2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 -~ .,,., ,,_. ..,,. inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes • go to Q. 3 No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3 )? Y cs -Is a bog for purpose of rating No • go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. lfthe pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann' s spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species ( or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YbS = Category I No /Is not a bog for purpose of rating .,-,,v, e,t(,,.,,__ c ,_,~/,,._. Cat. I Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 19 August 2004 Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have lo have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO /not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NO _..(fiot a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least% of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 20 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Wetland name or number SC 6.0 lnterdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line ( also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO /not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetla11d based 011 its fu11ctions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR I 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 ls the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES= Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 21 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III Exhibit I Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 13 LOWER CEDAR CREEK BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District l Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Pluks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assjs1ant Division Manager Dave Clark 1 Manager, River & Water Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Btll EckeJ~ Managcr 1 Basin Planning Program Resource Sec1ion Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section (',.0ntributiog Sta[[ Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Rand;JJI Parsons, Sr.· Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer I3n,ce Barker, Engineer Arny Stankus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Sla[f Don Spencer, As.sociate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Contnbuting Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologisl & Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda7 Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon, Wellands Biologisl Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Benller, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Supporl Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technica1 Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNully, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY II. INTRODUCTION III. FINDINGS IN LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN IV. V. A. Overview or Basin B. Errects of Urbanization C. Specific Problems 1. 2. 3. Drainage and flooding problems Damage to property Destruction or habitat RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION A. Reduce landslide hazards B. Reduce erosion and flooding C. Prevent future erosion and flooding with appropriate analysis, planning, and policy development D. Stop present (and prevent ruture) damage to habitat by addressing specific problems in stream systems MAP APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPEDDIX C: Estimated Costs Capital Improvement Project Ranking Detailed Findings and Recommendations 1 I 2 2 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 11 A-1 B-1 C-1 I. SUMMARY The Lower Cedar River Basin, in southwest King County, is unique in its development pat- terns and the associated environmental problems that appear throughout the basin. Except for the city of Renton and areas on the Cedar River Valley floor, most of the development in the basin has occurred on the upland plateaus. Most of this development is recent and primarily residential. In addition, the plateau is the site of numerous sand and gravel mining operations and, in the southern uplands, an abandoned coal mine. Peat is also being mined north of Otter Lake. In some areas livestock are being raised on small farms; there are no major crop-related agricultural activities in the basin. The effects of development are most apparent where storm drainage is routed over the valley walls. lmpeNious surfaces on the plateau ha,,e increased the rate and volume of storm runoff, resulting in substantial erosion, siltation, and Oooding below_ In addi- tion, erosion and siltation ba,,e damaged or destroyed habitat in many tributaries, threatening the survival of fish. Habitat and water quality throughout the basin are also threatened by the filling of wetlands and the presence of large amouDIS of domestic trash in some streams. The reconnaissance team noted that the Peterson Creek system has so far remained in its natural, nearly pristine condition. Maintaining this quality should be a high priority in future basin planning capital project programs. Recommendations in the Lower Cedar River Basin include 1) designing and oonstructing appropriately sized R/D and other drainage facilities; 2) establishing stricter land use policies regarding floodplains, wetlands, and gravel mining; 3) oonducting more detailed and comprehensive bydraulic/bydrologic analyses of proposed developments; and 4) preventing damage to the natural drainage system. The field team also recommends 5) restoring the habitat of several tributaries (e.g., cleaning gravels, revegetating stream banks, and diversifying streambeds for spawning and rearing) as well as 6) protecting the nearly pristine quality or Peterson Creek. U. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program P:LC In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Nalural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began "'ith an initial investigation of three basins --Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks --in order to determine existing and polential surface waler problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investiga- tions used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage and problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order 10 transmit information to policymakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion I Lower Cedar River Basin ( continued) problems; insteadi they are to be used as inilial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmenral analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures mighl provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case-by-case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site·spccific basis for any proposal. ill-ANDlNGS lN WWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN P:LC The field reconnaissance of Lower Cedar River Basin was conducted in January 1987 by Robert R. Fuerstenberg, biologist; Bruce L Barker, engineer; and Lee Benda 1 geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A Overview of Lower Cedar River Ba.sin The lower Cedar River Basin is localed in soulhwest King County and is 27 square miles in area. It extends southeast from the mouth of the Cedar River on Lake Washington ro appro~imalcly river mile 14.0. The boundary 10 the northeast is marked by a ridgctop connecting ll1t: dty of Renton to Wchs1er and Franklin Lakes; lhe boundary to rhe southwest runs along Pe1rovi1sky Road to Lake Youngs. Renton is lhe only incorporated area in the basin. Other population centers include Fai1wood, Maplewood Heights, and Maple Valley. Excepl for the city of Renton, most of the residential concentrations are located on lhc upland plateaus overlooking the Cedar River Valley. These upland developments are recent compared to the smaller established c-ommunities on the valley floor. The basin lies within portions of three King County plilnning areas: Ne'>icastle in the northeast (which includes Rcnton)i Tahoma-Raven Heights in lhe east, and Soos Creek (the largest of the three) in the west. Rural areas exist on lhe valley floor on hoth sides of the Lower Cedar River, from approximately river mile 5.50 to 13.00. These ,ire limited 10 paslurcland for horses, cows, and some sheep and several small "u-pick 11 fruit and vegetahle fanns. Similar areas are located on the southern uplands above the reach from river mile 5.50 to 7.00 and in the Lake Desire-Otter Lake area. The plateau is also the site of sand and gravel mining operations and, in the sou1hern uplands, of the abandoned Fire King Coal Mine. Peat deposits exist west of Lake Desire and north and south of Otter Lake, and peat mining is being carried out norlh of Ouer Lake. Present zoning allows for urban and suhurban densities throughout much of lhe basin, pa11icularly on the upland plateaus and in the Ceuar River Valley from its mouth to appoximately river mile 6.50. Population projections for lhe year 2000 in the three pJannign areas containing the Lower Cedar Basin are over 311,000; an increase of 47 2 P:LC )_,.0\\-·er Cedar River Basin (continued) percent from 1he present. Mosl of 1his growth will occur in the Soos Creek Planning Area. Dominant geological and geomorpbic features.. The geology of the Lower Cedar River Basin is diverse. Geological formations exposed along the valley include sedimentary rocks, undifferentiated older glacial dri(1, extensive ground moraine deposits, recent alluvium along the Cedar River, and landslide deposits along the river and its tribu· taries. The sedimentary rocks, composed of moderately dipping sandstones, con- glomerates, mudstones, and shales, are exposed locally along the cliffs of the Cedar River Valley near the mouth of the Cedar River. In addition, the Renton formation, composed of sandstones, mudstones, and shales with periodic deposits of coal, is also exposed along the lower portion of the Lower Cedar River Valley. Undifferentiated glacial deposits found here are composed of three or more till sheets, glacio-fluvial sand and gravel, glacio-lacustrine clay, and sand, and non-glacial sand, clay and thin peat. These lie over the sedimentary rock formations and arc best exposed in cross-section along the cliffs of lhe main valley and major tribuiaries. The morphology of the Lower Cedar River Basin is dominated by tho valley formed by the Cedar River. Valley walls are steep cliffs formed by landslides in glacial sedi- menls. A once extensive and meandering River, which created a wide valley floor as it cut its way westward, the Cedar today is diked for most of its length through the lower valley. A narrow but excensive band of landslide t.lcposits exists along the s1eep cliffs of the main river and its major tributaries. The landslide deposits consist of deformed blocks of glacial sediments and colluvium derived from slides or mass flowage, such as landslides and debris flows. Recent alluvial deposits fill the valley and major tributaries. Small, composite, alluvial debris £ans exisl at the mouths of the largest tributaries. Closed depressions, principally in lhe uplands, have lacustrine and peat deposits. The Lower Cedar River Valley has a high potential for erosion due to sleep slopes and the existence of a clay layer that promotes soil failures. In addition, the confined nature of tributary channels between steep hillslopes promotes bank erosion during high flows. Numerous recent landslides are evident along cliffs of many of the steep tributaries and along the main stem of the Cedar River. These have hcen accelerated by the removal of vegetation and the routing of conccnlratcd storm flows over sleep slopes in areas where development has occurred. Hydrologic and hydrau~c characteristics. The Cedar River Basin is composed of a complex drainage nel\\-·ork consisting of the Cedar River and 17 tributaries. The larger tributaries begin in lakes or wetlands on lhe bluffs and flow through relalively flal! stable channels lo the edge of the Cedar River Valley, then plunge down to the valley floor through steep, erodit>le ravines. Tril:>utaries of this type such as Tributary 0304 (with headwaters at Welland 3111) and Tributary 0328 (which begins al L1ke Desire), arc found on the south side of the Cedar River. Another type of tributary collects surface n,noff from urbanized area~ pastureland~ and wooded areas. Tributaries 0302, 0307, and 0312 are examples of this type of tributary. They are intermittent (depending on rainfall), shorter in length, flow through shallower channels that are steeper al the bluffs and transport more material during times of 3 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (conlinucd) high nows. Some of the worst problems located during field investigation (sec Appendix C for a full listing) occur on this type or tribu1ary. Ca1chments 5, 6, and 12 have very infillra1ive soils. Urban developmenls hvae utilized R/D poinds 10 effectively infiltrate all urban runoff before it reaches the valley hillslopes. The infiltrated runoff then reappears as springs. Two large lakes (Desire and Otter), together with four smaller ones (Shady, Peterson, Webster, and Francis) lie in the southeast lhird of the basin. Numerous large wetland areas exist in this section as well. The field team identified 10 poten1ial wetland sires that had not been previously identified in the Sensitive Areas Map folio (SAMF). The system of lakes and wetlands in this area effectively buffers the high flows draining to these tributaries. Habilat characteristics. Wilh few exceptions, usable fish habilat exists only in peren- nial streams (i.e., Trib. 0302, 0304, 0305, 0328, and possibly 0308). In other streams (e.g., Trib. 0303 and 0310), sleep gradienls preclude fish use. S1ccp gradients also reduce fish use in the perennial sys1ems (except for Trib. 0328). Habi1a1 is in various stages of degradation in these systems; pools are being filled and gr.ivels and debris shi[I regularly. In Tributary 0328 (Pe1erson Creek), however, habital diversily is extensive, and the channel is not seriously degraded. Al this location the field ream observed at least three species of salmonoids. In general, the most diverse and least disturbed habital in a tributary system occurs in the large wetland areas in 1he sou1heas1 third of the basin. Usable habital for anadromous fish is found in the Jov.,·-gradicnl portions of streams where channels cross the Cedar River Valley floor. In 1hesc reaches, ho,,,ever, only spawning habilat is likely to he available, as the pools and woody debris necessary for successful rearing either do not exist or are quite limited. ExceJlenl spawning and rearing areas e~ist where pools and riffles are extensive, instream cover and bank vegetation arc intacl, and diversi1y or habitat types is abundant B. Effects of Utbaoizatioo io the Basin Flooding, erosion, and the degradation of habilat associated with development in the Lower Cedar River Basin are mosl apparent where development has eliminated vege- tation along the edges of the valley and where stormwa1er has been routed down channels and sv.-ales. The removal of vegetation, such as trees, at>ovc and below the edges of valley walls, as well as the discharging or srormwater over the valley wall, has resulted in tension cracks and landslides lhal are endangering some houses. The sedi· ments from these failures are depositing in streams and on valley floors and damaging fish habitat and private property. Discharging stormwaler from increased impervious areas into steep tributary channels and swales is seriously des1abilizing channels and valley walls; this in turn results in channel downcutting, bank erosion, and landslides. The sediments from these problems often degrade fish habital and settle out on pri- vate property along the valley floor. Two serious instances of development-related erosion occurred during the November 1986 storm: l) culverts rerouting the stream were plugged, causing the formation or a new channel that destroyed portions or roads on Tributary 0314; and 2) new, uncom- 4 P:l.C Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) pacted fill adjacent to new residences near collection point 5 was washed partly away during the storm, causing landsliding and gullying. Future problems will l>e similar to these, as commercial and residential developments increase flow rates and volumes by decreasing natural storage and infiltration. This is expected to occur if wetlands on the upper plateau are encroached upon or lost (e.g., on Trib. 0304 at RM 2.30 and on Trib. 0304A at Rm J.60). The preservation of wetlands and streambank vegetation and the atlenuation of storm flows are essential in this basin. C. Specific Problems Identified The steep valley sideslopes through which streams pass and the often dense upland development result in a number of similar problems that repeat themselves throughout the Lower Cedar River Basin. The most significant of these are outlined and discussed below. 1. Drainag,: and flooding problems are often the result of scverdl cooditio1L~: a. Undersized culverts and inadequate entJaocc structures. The most notable area is on Tribu1ary 0306 al river mile .30, where a culvert here was blocked by debris carried downstream by the stream and caused erosion and flooding of Fairwood Golf Course. The blockage was compounded by the fact that the culvert was undersized; the problem will worsen as flows increase from upstream developmcnl. b. Serious instream erosion and subsequent downstream sedimentation. These have been caused by three main factors: I) runoff from residential developments on the bluffs above the valley, 2) compacted pastureland due to livestock, and 3) runoff from impeivious areas originating at gravel pils. These problems will conrinue and worsen until mitigative measures are taken. (See Appendix C for specific examples.) c. Undersized rechannelized streams, Tributaries on the valley floor arc too small to cany the increased flows originating in developed residential areas along the top of the bluffs. For example, Tribu1ary 0302 at river mile .25, the channel along Maplewood Golf Course, overtops and floods during srorms. d. e. Construction in wetland and floodplain areas, Many of the wetlands on the south side of the Cedar River arc peat bogs, and roads built through them continue 10 seule each year, increasing the amount of flooding on the road. For example, the road crossing with Tributary 0328B north of Lake Desire will experience more severe flooding as the road settles. Discharging of stormwater at the top of steep banks. At river mile 2.20 on the Cedar River, a trailer park (constructed on the edge of the cliff) discharges its drainage down the valley wall. Increased flov.-s erode the steep valley, depositing sediments on the valley floor, blocking channels and causing flooding. These problems will eventually stabilize, but only after a large quantity of soil has been eroded. 5 P:LC 2. Damage to property i.s being caused by three factors: Lower Cedar River Basin (conlinued) a. Landslides and potential landslides. L1ndslides arc acceleraled by the removal of vegetation on steep slopes in preparation for residential construction and/or by the routing of storm flows over hillslopes. For example, a large landslide has already occurred in the fronl yard of a resi- dence on the Cedar River al river mile 7.80. b. Sedimentation (from landslides). Sedimentation and channel and bank ero- sion are damaging private property along lhe valley floor (Trib. 0299 and 0310). c. Flooding during storms. Flooding has been brough1 on by the effects of development and associated changes to the natural drainage systems in the basin. (See "B" above.) 3. Destruction or habitat i.s being caused by four conditions: a. Sedimentation or pools and riffles and cementing of g,avcls. These problems, the result of severe erosion and lhe lransport of bedload malerial, have been caused by upland developments in the basin and lhe present.-e of associated impervious surfaces, which increase the rate and quantity of surface runoff. Sedimentmion and cementing of gravels in slreambeds destroy natural spawning and rearing habitat. On Tributary 0307 at river mile .40 and Tributary 0305 at river miles .95, 1.20, and 1.70, recent high nows have eroded the streainbcd at leas1 one foot, contributing to a serious siltation problem downstream. Heavy l;ledload transport is evi- dent in all systems of the basin except Tributary 0328. In Tributary 0303 at river mile .25, fine sediments are accumulaling in gra\'efa 1ha1 may be used by resident fish. In Tributary 0304 between river miles .95 and 1.20, pools are being filled by sands and gravels and rearing habilat is being rapidly lost. b. Cbannclizatioo or stream beds.. Loss of habitat through channelization has occurred in all the major streams of the basin, but most noticeably in those reaches that cross the valley floor. These reaches lack habitat diversity, reducing fish use for spawning and rearing. Channelization has damaged or destroyed habitat in several reaches that were once heavily used by fish; these include Tributary 0302 bet,,rccn river mile .30 and 40, Tributary 0304 between river miles .05 and .18, Tributarv 0305 he1wecn river mile .20 and .75, and Tributary 0328 from river mile 1.10 to l.40. These sys1cms cannot afford a further reduction of habitat and still remain viable fishery resour- ces. c. The accumulation of trash in stream beds. This problem occurs in close proximity to residential areas. Trash degrades water quality and is visually unpleasant. Tire~ appJiances, furniture 1 and other trash have been thrown into Tributary 0302 at river miles 1.00 and 1.10 and in Tributary 0303 at river mile .35. 6 Lo..-;er Cedar River Basin ( continued) d. Wetland encroachment. Encroachment destroys habitat and eliminales natural waler filtra1ion and storage for surface runoff. Examples of this problem were observed on Tributary 0304 at river mile 2.30, Tributary 0308 at .80, and Tribulary 0304A al river mile 1.80. Many wetlands have already been completely losl lhrough filling, for example on Ttibutary 0306A at river mile .55. Suspected violations were forwarded lo Building and Land Development for enforcement. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACl10N P:LC The primary recommendations for action in lhe Lower Cedar River Basin addresses currenl severe problems related to erosion, habitat destruction, and Oooding. Prevenlion of these problems will be accomplished by controlling loca1ions and densities of new development and providing adequate R/D facilities for stormwatcr. A Reduce landslide hazards by: 1. Including scn.sitive areas not previously mapped on the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). See Appendix C for a full !isling of sensitive areas. 2 Establishing building setbacks along cliffs and native growth protection easements along Sleep rnvines. 3, Discouraging or eliminating the routing of stormwater over cliffs, unless adequate tightlinc systems can be constructed to convey Oo\.\"S in a safe1 nonerosive manner to the bottom of cliffs. 4. Decreasing peak nows by conslrncting larger R/D facilities to lessen the landslide and erosion occurrence along tributary slopes. B. Reduce erosion and Oooding in the basin by improving surface water management: 1. Direct the Facilities Management Section of the Surface Water Management Division to evaluate existing storm-detention and conveyance facilities to deter- mine whether 1hey arc properly sized to meet current standards. Evaluation should begin with all single-orifice RID facilities. 2 Con.sider areas other than wetlands as regional slorm-dctention facilities. Tribuiary 0300 al river mile .-12 is the site for a proposed dam, for example. 3. Utilize existing lower quality wetlands (tho,;e rated other than #1) as regional storm-detention facilities. Wetlands 3102 and 3142 could provide more live storage, for example. 4. 5. Review channel and culvert capacity for conveying existing and future runofr, and establish floodplain areas in regions of slight gradient for existing and future runoff conditions. Promote the infiltration or surface water through the use of retention facilities and open channels instead or pipes where the soil and slope conditions permit. Collection points 5, 6, and 12 on plateaus have such soil conditions. 7 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) C. Prevent future problems or erosion and Hooding with appropriate analysis, planning. and policy dt.-velopmcnl related lo surface water management: 1. Conduct a detailed, comprehensive hydraulic/bydrologic analysis or any propo,,cd developmenls lo determine impacts on the drainage courses downstream. This 1s especially critical for areas on the upper bluffs and plateau, which drain over steep, sensitive banks above the Cedar River. 2. Conduct a study or the impact or !orating infiltration ponds utilized near the edge or the bluffs to determine their effect on seepage faces on the lmver face of the bluffs. This might be accomplished with a computer-based numerical model of the groundwater flow. 3. Require the lighllining or storm drainage down steep or sensitive slopes when they cannot be directed away rrom the slopes. This is done by piping the flow down the slope and discharging it at the bol!om with adequate energy dissipation. Many of the intermillent tributaries flowing down the banks should t>e tighllined as urban development increases flow 10 1hem. 4. Construct new R/D pond~ with mter berms to improve water quality and reduce fine sediment loads. New RID ponds should have two cells with gravel-berm fillers and vegetated swales al the inlel and outlet. Consider Tributaries 0304, 0304A, 0302, and 0303 as sites for this type of facility in order enhance water quality. 5. Maintain natural vegetation on streambanb and Hoodplaios. This is especially important for relatively flat channels fkw,·ing on 1he plateau before !hey reach 1he steep bluffs because these channels and their floodplains will attenuate flows during times of heavy runoff. 6. Maintain buffer areas around wetlands.. Many of the tributaries on the south side of the Cedar River headwater a1 wellands. These wetlands ac1 as natural storage areas during slorms. 7. Reevaluate King County policy regarding pennilling for gravel mining on steep, sensitive slopes. 8. Include the city or Rentioo in r-uture interlocal agreemenls for planning and capi- tal improvement projects where city and county interests overlap. D. Eliminate present damage to habitat and prevent future damage by addressing specific problems in the stream systems. The following activities should be coordinated among King County, the Muckleshool Indian Tribe, and State Departments of Fisheries and Game: 1. 2. Reduce damaging storm flows with greater detention volume and lower release rates at upstream developments. Implement restoration projects on Tributaries 0304 (river mile .00-.20), Tributary 0305 (river mile .20-.80), Tributary 0303 (river mile .25-.35), and Tributary 0328 (river mile 1.10 -1.40): 8 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) a. Oo Tnbutary O'.lOI: Clean streambed gravels, add habitat and bed-control weirs, and plant bank vegetation for shade. b. Oo Tnbutary 0305: Construct a new channel and move stream from road- side channel to its new location on adjacent lands. Implement a full restoration project to provide channel meanders, habitat structures, pool/rime enhancement, streambed gravel replacement, and revegetation. c. Oo Tributary 0303: Move stream from present channel to a location further north, away from the roadside. If relocation is not possible, these minimum steps should be taken: Add habitat structure to existing channel with root masses, denectors, boulder clusters, and other features; revegetate channel banks with shrubs and small trees; enhance stream crossings with bottomless pipe arches. d. Oo Tributary 0328 (Peten;on Creek): Add habitat structure by replacing the straight, shortened channel with a more natural, meandering one; place habitat structures (such as root masses, deflectors, cover logs, and boulder clusters) throughout the channel; and revegetate banks "'ith shrubs common to adjacent riparian zones (salmonberry, ninebark, or dogwood, for example). 3. Protect the Peterson Creek system (Trib. 0328) in its present, near-pristine Slate. This will include not only the restoration outlined in section A above, but also the adoption of land use management regulations to prevent future habitat destruction: a. Protect all existing wetlands within the subcatcbments o( Peterson Creek. Employ wetland buffers at least 100 feet wide without exception. b. Restrict development in the critical beadwllter area (drainage, habitat, water quality) bounded by Lake Desire, Otter La.kc, and Peterson Lake to rural densities. c. Designate and protect streamside management woes of at least 100 feet from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) along the main stem of the creek. Use 25 feet from the OHWM on tributaries. d. Preserve floodplains and their forests for dynamic retention of sediments and water. e. r. g. Restrict vegetation removal in streamside/wetland management wnes. Size R/D facilities to store the 100-year storm at a two-to-five-year release rate. Use the two-<:eU type of pond wilh a forcoay, a gravel filter, and a vegetated swale outflow where feasible. Regulate more closely all septic tank aod drain-field inSlallations, as well as maintenance schedules, particularly in the Lake Desire, Otter Lake, and Peterson Lake drainage areas. 9 4. P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) h. Work with the State Department of Ecology to establish m1rumum stream- Oow requirements for Peterson Creek and Lake Desire tributary. Develop and promote public education and involvement programs for basin awareness. Work with schools, environmental groups, and the civic and business comn1unities to conduct educational and restoration programs. 10 f-.. : ' ... ..,. '... ~"'' -" , .. .. '1,l" sx f '•: -· ' ·, ~-:1''':'·! . ' "• -·1:-, r , _. -t , , • ft" 'Z ' \, \ . I I ·. '\-. \ \. ' " ·-.. ··---..... '· •. \ \ ff·•-'-;:·. ~--,_ \ ___ .\ . .'''""'" \~ .. .... ·.·· "'-.. .. ~-..... _.,,.- ,. l_,:,,'.L.... •. .!.:."''-··· ,. \"· \', 'I I \ i .: i i : i '!"''' ·\ 1 r--,-· 1·1" \ L ' .I r/ \ (j .., 1 ; .. - i \ I ...,, ___ ,..-.] ' ' 1 \\, > \I • • "I•' .: " ; ,L-,.,·•o, \ -..: . .:..._,\ ij I ,, ... :/,--i ! . . I .. . , -, .. ,\ -, . \, '1 ,"· -J'Ls;;J, ... 11 I -\ ~ . ~ . ~ . \ ~ ~ .\ "'" \ ; '( ,. C." • -J'=-'"\.. . . < ,~, .~, ' " . >·\ I-' i (:~-. ;< ·--, I 1\-· \i,c+--·-,"~ I i .,.....__ .. _ "'_,.,... , .. ' -....-:,,.,.._ • . OS),;("~ . ) '!:$;.... -,, \ \ \ \. \ \ \ -. --_.. . ··r 1_-·· \,~ 11 : . I \l .. ' . : ;--·--,-4-: . .--'~ ·. · .. /·, . . .. ' I I ,I ;I \ I . tJ 1 -.. l~c•--~~l~----4---· ~~~- :i ,' ' :: "' ,. ' ' "( ,· , ' ···-~--",--... ! \ -•..• !-", ! ir~t-' r ·:·\ J ... :. "'ii ··j·. 7 ''.'·o,_.c .;I M -j n,,\\;.. 1 . 'I \. \. L --- LOWER CEDAR R_IVER BASIN Basin Boundary ~« Subcatchment Boundary )' @ Collection Point (i,\ ... / ___.,,,. Stream ~--' ', '· '-,J 0299 Tributary Number -.._._.----...._-~....\ •3115 Proposed Project 2 Mil•s N + , .. ,--, I' o\i ~ ''-<,~ «, ·c;'II/MG,.,,~·r·· '-· ' I . ~ >~ / ® .-!- Vi Jfff""' ~';,,t:' ,, ,, . \ \ ' '- ·,. ' f""',, ' . '• ,if r,""' . • .-,,,, (;t-;:· '\ ''" . ', ~~-.... ~ ... / , ... ( i { • I, ,, ).•: (' --"''. ' 4" ~-1-l /',. APPEND[X A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAP[TAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ!;CTS LOWER CEDAR CREEK BASIN • lncJicates project was identified by Sur1ace Water Management office prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map induded in this re,2.ort. Project Numher 3105' 3109° !':LC.APA Collect. Point 10 10 Project Description Enhance 2200' of Trih. 0305 from Cedar River to Elliot Bridge. Secure easements to wetland located in Cascade Park and construct a berm at the outlet. Replace existing catch hasins with control structures. Project should he justified by a hasin study. Wetland rated #2. (This wetland will require further biological ~valuation before R/D design and construction.) Prohlem Addres.__sed Mitigates flooding of King County park land. Better utilizes wetland's storage capacity to address peak flows from surrounding urban area. A-I Estimated Costs and Comments $115,000 (NOTE: This project was proposed by Surface Water Management, is in th!i!: design phase, and will be constructed by 1989.) $186,000 Project Number 3111 (Wetland 3136) 3112 (Wet I.ind 3142) 3114' (Wetland 3150) 3115 !':LC.APA Collect. Point 19 18 Project Descripl ion Secure easements to outlet to Francis Lake and J 100' of channel from lake to SE 184th St. Construct a weir to raise lake level J', and enhance 1100' of Trib. 0317. Should be justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated # l. (This wc1l,md will require further liiologkal evaluation hefore R/D c.k!-ilgn and construc1ion.) Secure ca~cmcnt for outlet to wetland and replace existing weir with a concrete-slotted weir. Should be justified by a t,asin plan. Wetland mted #2. (This wetland will require further hiolog:ical evaluation before R/D design and construction. Secure casement to Wetland 3150 and construct a containment berm and control structure rit the outlet. Project should be justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. (This wetland will require further biological evaluation before R/D design and constrnciton.) [nstall detention pond and 1,000' of tightline. Project is indepen- dently justifiable. ProMem Addressed Will provide additional storage to mitigate anticipated future increased flows. Will provide additional storage for anticipated future peak flows. Addresses anticipated increases in flow caused by development. Mitigates sc...>verc erosion and flooding during times of high flows. A-2 Estimated Costs and Comments $175,000 $117,000 $134,000 $361,000 Project Number 311/i 3117 31Jf! 3119 3120 P:LC.APA Collect. Point 21 16 JO 4 15 Project Dcscriprion Raise existing road embankment 2-4'. Project should be indepen- dently justifiable. (Refer to Roads Division.) Install 1,400' of tightline, a sediment trap, and 700' of channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Project is independently justi- fialile. Install 300' of 36" culvert, a new inlet struc1ure, manhole, and catch hasin. Project is independently justifiable. Construct a detention dam and control structure in a deep channelized section of Trib. 0300. Project is independently justifiable. Construct u sedimentation pond am! 1,000' of channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Project is indepen- dently justifiable. Problem Addressed Mitigates seasonal flooding of JA1ke Desire Dr. SE caused by road bed settling in the peat bog. Mitigates severe erosion, sediments deposited on County roads, and flooding during times of high flows. Will prevent blockage of culvert and the accompanying flooding and erosion of Fairwood Golf Course and mobile home park below. Project location is ideal because it addresses flows from a large residential area before they reach the steep, sensitive area next to the Cedar River. Mitigates flooding of residence and sediment deposition on Jones Rd. A-3 Estimated Costs and Comment~ $73,000 $501,000 $87,000 $159,000 $!63,000 Project Collect. Number Point 3121 7 (Wetland 3102) 3122 11 P:LC.APA Project Description Secure easement to we( land and COO a struct a containment berm and concrete weir at outlet. Project should lie justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. Biological asse~inent is needed to assure that this project does not decrease habitat values. Purchase ex1strng ponds on Fairn-·ood Golf Course and expand to provide grc,11er flow deten1ion. Project is independently justifiable. Problem Addressed Addresses increased flows in Trib. 0304 and 0304A r rom residential developments. Mitigates flooding and erosion downstream. A-4 Estimated Costs and Comments $371,000 $342,000 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN Prior 10 the Lower Cedar River Basin field reconnaissance, 12 projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by lhe Surface Wa1er Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, 13 projects remain proposed for this area. They include eight new, previously unidentffied and unrated projects. These displace seven previously selected projects, which were eliminated based on the consensus of the recon- naissance team. Projects were eliminated for several reasons: two sites were annexed by the city of Renton, two projects were found to be unnecessary, two sites were categorized as #l wetlands (and are· ineligible), and one project was determined to be infeasible. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Lower Cedar River Basin had an esli· mated cosl of $2,710,000, while· the revised list increases 10 an estimated cost of $2,784,000. This 3 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due to the addition of projects after the reconnaissance. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the Lower Cedar River Basin. These projecls were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. Projects with scores of 100 or higher can be considered now for merging into lhc "live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 3122 103 $342,000 2 3118 90 87,000 3 3120 75 163,000 4 3109* 67 186,000 5 3121 65 371,000 6 3117 60 501,000 7 3115 60 361,000 8 3116 55 73,000 9 3114* 28 134,000 JO 3111* 25 175,000 II 3112* 17 117,000 12 3119* 15 159,000 13 3105 12 115.000 TOTAL $2,784,000 • Projects proposed prior 10 the Reconnaissance Program P:LC.APB B-1 • All nems listed here are localed on final display maps APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN in the offices of Surtace Water Management, Building and !.iltJ_g Oev~_opment. and Basin Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item' River Mile Point Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems 1 --5 Geology Gullying and landslides in Continued erosion. uncompacted fill in · new development near edge of steep hillslope. 2 .. 18 Geology Small landslide has formed None ( natural failure). debris Oow (11/86). Sedimentation in yard of residence. 3 0299 4 Geology Landslides in sedimentary Natural failure. RM 2.6 rock in cutbanks adjacent to railroad. 4 0299 16 Geology Drainage from residential Increasing erosion. RM 9.65 area is resulting in gullying in swale. P: LC.APC C-1 Recommendations Recompact fill, revegetate, and drain adequately. None. None. Provide adequate R/D to attenuate Oows. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 5 0299 18 Geology Horse farm in uplands has Continued high erosion and Develop R/D at horse farm RM 12.J created extensive imper-sedimentation. to attenuate peak flows. vious surfaces, resulting See Project 3115. in channel scour, bank erosion, landslides, and sedimentation at mouth of basin. Residence overcome with sediment. 6 .. 13 Geology Landslide terrain for sale Sire of future mass erosion. Prohibit development here. by realtors. High risk for Notify Building and Land landslides, flooding (from Development. Add area to springs). SAMF. 7 .. 7 Geology Large-scale landsides Natural process. None . adjacent to Cedar River due to springs and cutting of toeslopes by streams. Appears to be natural. 8 .. 2 Geology Gullying in valley wall, Unknown. None . possibly from natural springs. 9 .. 14 Geology Landslide debris flow from Existing tension cracks Revegetate hillslope with residence on SE 147th Pl., indicate future instability. trees and shrubs. Renton. P: LC.APC C-2 Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point JO 11 12 13 14 0299.JA RM .08 0300 RM .00-.40 0300 0300 RM J.40 ~ RM .50 21 4 4 4 6 15 0302 6 RM .80-1.00 P: LC.APC Existing Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Hydrology 3116 Geology Hydrology 3119 Hydrology 3109 Geology Geology Frequent flooding of county road caused by low road embankment. Extensive channel and bank erosion and numerous landslides due to development-related stormwater. Development-related peak flows have caused sig- nificant bank erosion. Collection point 4 has been nearly completely urbanized. Channel downcutting and bank erosion. Bank e_rosion (medium den- sity) at meanders and obstructions. C-3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Road located on top of peat bog and will continue to settle, aggravating flooding problem. Problems will continue. Increased erosion on hillslopes below. Degradation of Trib. 0300 from RM .42 downstream. This section is very 'steep and susceptible to erosion. Will continue at same level or increase. Increasing erosion with increasing flow from devel- opments. Recommendations Elevate the road 3-4' by filling on top of the present road embankment. Also stabilize embankment. Provide adequate R/D in uplands. (See Project 3119.) Construct detention dam in deep, channelized reach of Trib. 0300. Construct berm and standard control structure at outlet to Wetland 3120 in Cascade Park. Control storm flows from uplands. Provide adequate R/D in uplands as area develops. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 16 17 18 19 20 21 mo2 0302 RM .60-.80 0302 RM.35 0302 RM .45 0302 RM .50 0302 RM.90 P: LC.APC 6 6 6 6 6 6 Existing Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Geology Geology Habitat Hydrology Habitat Habitat Gully erosion from broken culverts. Severe gully erosion creating small valleys from daylight culverts. Stream channeled along golf course road. No overhead cover. No habi- tat diversity. Tributary drains down steep bluffs on north side of Cedar River, carrying debris and flooding Maplewood Golf Course. Water supply dam. Full barier to upstream migration. fmpoundment is filling with sediment. Severe gullying from right bank corregated metal pipe. Heavy sediment delivery to stream. C-4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems None. Culvert has been repaired. Continued erosion. While fish now use this reach, lack of habitat will eventually reduce popula- tions. Problem will worsen as development upstream continues. As impoundment fills, storm- water will flood over bank. Structure may fail. Will continue to erode until reaches till layer. Recommendations None. Tightline flows to main stem. Add habitat diversity (e.g., structures, overhead vegetation). Gain easement to restore mean- ders, if possible. Construct detention dam upstream of golf course. Dredge pond and maintain it as sediment catch. -Tightline downslope. Add velocity attenuator at stream. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 22 23 24 25 26 0302 RM 1.00 0302 RM 1.10 ~ ~ RM .25 0303 RM .35 P: LC.APC 6 6 6 6 6 Existing Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Habitat Habitat Geology Habitat Habitat Trash in stream (auto, tires, appliances). Trash in stream. Water quality problem, unsightly. Extensive bank erosion in upper portions of tribu- tary. Habitat suitable for resi- dent fish. Sediment accu- mulating. Trash and litter in channel affecting water quality, causing erosion. C-5 Anticipated Congitions and J'roblems Area adjacent to corridor, will continue to collect trash and debris. Further worsening of water quality, sedimentation, erosion. Area adjacent to corridor, will continue to collect trash and debris. Further worsening of water qualily. None. Sediments will eventually cover gravels. Habitat will become unsuitable for fish use. Further decreases in water quality. Recommendations Remove trash. Distribute educational materials to streamside residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. Remove trash. Distribute educational materials to streamside residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. Increase R/D volumes, stow release rate to nonerosive Jevels. Control stormwater volumes and discharge rates from developments. Manually clean gravels when necessary. -Remove trash and litter. Distribute educational materials to streamside residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 27 28 29 30 31 0304 RM .40 0304 RM 2.10 0304 RM 2.30 0304 RM 2.40 0304 RM .so P: LC.APC 7 8 8 8 7 Existing Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Habitat Habitat Hydrology Habitat Geology Landslides contributing sediment to channel. Heavy deposition in pools, at obstructions, even in rifOes. Horses have access to stream, causing some bank deterioration and possibly affecting water quality. Aooding caused by failing RID at 176th St. & 146th Ave SE. Encroachment occurring along all boundaries of this headwater wetland. Several gullies due to daylight culvens; a few have recent landslides. C-6 Anticipated Condi1ions and Proble111_s Sediment will continue to enter system until landslide stabilizes. ,Funher decreases in water quality, bank erosion likely. Problem will continue until outlet structure is modified. Wetland likely to be reduced slowly until it is completely destroyed. Loss of storage, filtration, organic production, and wildlife habitat. Problem will continue. Recommendalions Maintain riparian corridor with setbacks at least 50' from tops of banks. Encourage residents to fence channel back 15' from ordinary high-water mark. • Limit access to livestock to one or two points along stream. Problem referred to Main- tenance section of Surface Water Management Division. Require encroaching fills to be removed. Establish specific buffer around this wetland. Enforce sensitive areas ordinances and regula- tions. Tightline drainage. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mite Point 32 33 34 36 37 0304 RM .00 0304 RM.20 0304 RM .62 0304 RM .80 0304A RM 1.30 P: LC.APC 7 7 7 7 7 Existing Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Hahitat Habitat Habitat Habitat J!ydrology 3102 Extensive riffle ( to RM .15. Creek channeled. No woody dehris, little bank vegetation. Steelhead, coho spawners here. Debris jam may be a partial migration barrier. Debris jam. Bed drops 3' over jam and sediment, forming anadromous barrier. Water turbid; oily sheen and odor present. Storm drains empty directly into stream. Existing forested wetland provides detention for Trib. 0304A and 0304 in heavily developed area. C-7 Anticipated Conditions and PrQblems Gravels risk becoming cemented. Few resting areas for upstream migrating fish. Debris will continue to accumulate. Channel will likely divert or jam will fail, releasing accumulated sediment. 'Debris will continue to accumulate. Channel will likely divert or jam will fail, releasing accumulated sediment. Water quality will continue to decline as runoff and waste enter stream. Additional storage could be utilized by constructing berm and weir at outlet. This could be done to atten- uate increased peak flows as upstream area develops. Recommendations Enhance habitat by addi- tion of woody debris m stream. Revegetate bank. Enhance pool/riffle ratio. Selectively remove debris to allow fish passage. Stabilize large woody debris. Selectively remove debris to allow fish passage. Stabilize large woody debris. Educate residents about how to maintain water quality. Mark storm drains with "Dump no oil" signs. Emphasize recycling of oil. Construct a proportional weir and berm at wetland outlet. Project could be used instead of Project 3107 to rpeserve the #1 rated wetland (where project would be built). Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Conc!_itions and Problems_ Recgmmendations 38 ~ 18 Hydrology 3115 Runoff generated on top of flooding will continue as -Construct detention pond RM .40 bluffs on southwest side long as land use remains the at top of bluffs. of Cedar River is causing same on top of bluffs or • Tightline drainage down severe bank erosiont until mitigating measures bluffs, then channelize it flooding and debris flows are taken. Runoff origin-to an existing dilch onto several residences ates from highly compacted alongside SR 169. of valley floor. pastureland on uplands. Prevent similar problems elsewhere with land use regulations, including provisions for preservation of vegetation buffers near tops of cliffs. 39 0305 10 Geology Extensive bank erosion, Susceptible to increases Attenuate high flows. partly due to subsurface with increasing storm flow. clay layer and landslide topography. 40 0305 IO Geology Local severe bank Problem will continue. Existing rock-filled RM l.10 erosion. gabions are deflecting flow. 41 0305 IO Geology Extensive channel down-Continued erosion. Attenuate high flows with RM 2.10. cutting and bank erosion. adequate R/0. (R/0 1.75 currently exists.) 42 0305 10 Geology Several gullies and asso-Erosion will continue. Tightline culvens. RM 2.15· ciated landslides due to 1.75 daylight culverts on steep slopes adjacent to chan- nels. P: LC.APC C-8 Trih. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Categorv Prop. Proj. ~ Conditions and Problems Conditions an_d Problems Recommendations 43 0305 JO Habitat Madsen Creek in ditch along Potential for fuel entry in-Acquire 30' easement away RM .20 SE Jones R<J. Heavy silt; to creek. Further decreases from roadside. Construct road runoff; water quality in water quality can be ex-new stream channel, adversely affected. peered. 44 0305 10 Habitat Creek in ditch along south Further decreases in water Acquire 30' easement away RM .35 side of SR 169. Heavy quality can be expected. from roadside. Construct inputs of oils, anti-Potential for autos to enter new stream channel. freezes, heavy metals, channel. L1ck of habilat. organic pollutants likely. Sand, silt from roadside (of SR 169) enters also. 45 0305 RM .DO-ID Hydrology 3105 Section of Trib. 0305, Flooding will continue, Construct and enhance 2200' of .40 RM .00-.40 is experiencing (See Appendix A, Project channel through undeveloped extensive flooding. 3!05.) King County Park Land. 46 0305 10 Habitat Channelized along dri-Further siltation, water Acquire easement; move RM .50 veway; lacks hahitat quality degradation can be creek from driveway diversity. Driveway scdi-anticipated. Lack of habitat 10-15'. Add meanders and ments enter channel, and precludes optimum salmonid habitat structures to oil. placed on driveway use. increase diversity. enters stream. 47 0305 10 Habitat Channelized tributary •Lillie salmonid use Add structures to increase RM .65 lacks habitat diversity, anticipated. Spawning and diversity in stream. cover for salmonids. rearing success limited Manually clean gravels by Gravels compacted. (unless reach is restored). churning them. P: LC.APC C-9 Trib. & Collect. hem River Mile Point 48 49 50 51 52 0305 RM .90 0305 RM .95 0305 RM 1.20 0305 RM I.70 DJ06 RM .40 P: LCAPC 10 10 JO 10 10 Existing Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems lfotiitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Geology Good spawning riff! es occur here. Y.z.3" gravel~ few fines, not compact. High nows are moving material, however. Severe bank cutting and erosion occurs here. Ilcd scouring evident. Reach subject to high, rapid flows. Much woody debris movement and numerous debris jams. Reach is subjecc co high, rapid flows. Channel erosion, bank failures, downcutting OC· curring. Reach subject to high, rapid flows. Failure of manhole during 11/86 storm has resulted in gully erosion. C-10 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Increased flows may ca\lse gravel har movement. Suitable gravels may be transported downstream to unusable areas for spawning salmon ids. Further erosion/scouring can be expected. Channel deterioration wilt continue. Flows appear 10 he generated at developments. Debris jams will occur with greater frequency as flows increase, Sediments will build up and channel will divert. Further channel deteriora- tion may he expected. Silt, sand transport to mai·nstem will increase. Not applicable. Recommendations Control flows into system from developed areas upstream. If necessary, add bed controls to hold gravels or "vee 11 slruc- tures to recruit them. Control high flows by increasing upper basin R/D facilities, lowering discharge rates to stream. Control upstream flows with greater R/D volume, lower discharge rates. Selectively remove debris. Increase R/D capacity. Decrease discharge rates. Repair manhole. Ite,n 53 54 55 56 57 58 Trib. & Collect. River Mile Point 0306 RM.20 0306 RM .30 0306 RM .25 0306 RM .30-.45 0306 RM .30 0306A RM 1.30 IO IO 11 IO 11 P: LC.APC Categorv Geology Geology Habitat Geology Hydrology Hydrology Prop. Proj. 3)18 3122 Existing Conditions and Problems Channel downcutting, bank erosion and several landslides, due both from increased storm flows and development along edge. Undersized culvert in arti- ficial fill in golf course threatens to build lake and possibly overtop bank. Breach flood possible. Channel subject to high, damaging flows. Erosion evident. Downcutting, bank erosion and landslides. Trib. 0306 connects wilh large trihutary at manhole here. Dcl>ris from 0306 clogs this manhole, causing severe erosion of Fairwood Golf Course. Existing small ponds on 0306A are ovenopped and receive considerable silt during high flows. The ponds are located on Fairwood Golf Course. C-11 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Erosion will increase. Clay layer in valley makes area sensitive to landslides. Possible fill failure: Lake ponded behind culven in in 1981 and threatened the fill. Funher channel damage can be expected. Sediment transpon downstream will continue. Will continue or increase in fucure. Problem will worsen as development upstream continues. Area upstream is developing quickly, thus worsening the problem. Recommendations Further increase in runoff should be attenuated; this is a sensitive channel. Enlarge the corregated metal pipe and/or construct adequate trash rack. Increase R/0 capacity, decrease discharge rate. Attenuate storm flows. Replace existing pipes with larger diameter pipes (if downstream analysis allows for increased flows). Install new inlet struc- tures with trash racks. Acquire easements for ponds and additional area around ponds and construct detention pond. Location is ideal for addressomg peak flows before they reach the sensitive Cedar Reiver hluffs. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prot>lems Conditions and Problems . _ Recomme.ndations 59 0306A 11 Habitat Some usable habitat exists Further habitat deterioration • Increase R/D capacities. RM .25 for resident salmonids. likely. Channel erosion will • Decrease discharge rates. Water quality is poor. increase. • Encourage use or 2-cell Channel subject to high detention ponds, swales. nows. Prohibit filling or existing wetlands, ponds in upper basin. 60 0307 12 Geology Extensive bank erosion at Increased erosion will -Mitigate development· RM .10-.40 all meanders and obstruc-result with increased flows. related high flows. tions {trees, cars) due -Provide adequate R/D. to increm;ed flows from development. 61 0307 12 Geology Stream eroding toes of Increasing erosion with . Mitigate development RM .10-.60 slopes resulting in increasing flows. related high nows. landslide failures. Provide adequate R/D. 62 0307 12 Habitat Stream channel pushed to Erosion will worsen as Increase R/D capacity at RM .30 one side of ravine for stream flows increase. all delivery points. roadway. High energy May threaten road bank at -Reduce release rate below system. Much bank n1tting, toe of slope. channel scour level. sediment transport, debris movc1nent. 63 0307 13 Hydrology Area on top of Muffs near lnfilrrarion sires should Construct retention faci- RM .60 Trib. 0307 has excellent be used whenever possible. lities for new develop- infiltrative capacity. These would provide ground-ments in area at these sites. water recharge. P; LC.APC C-12 Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 64 65 66 67 68 0309 RM .10 0310 RM.60 0310 RM .05 0310 RM 1.50 0310 RM .25 P: LC.APC 15 15 15 JS 15 Existing Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Habitat Geology Geology Geology llabilat 3120 Subject to heavy, rapid flows. Channel erosion, deposition bars migration. Sedimentation upstream from culven due to debris and undersized culvert. New corregated metal pipe con- tinues to pass water through. Severe erosion below culvert, severe sedimen- tation in residence yard. Road drainage forming gully adjacent to road; road bed in danger. Corregated metal pipe is anadromous barrier. C-13 Anticipated Conditions _and Problems Erosion, deposition will increase. Sediments will migrate downstream, creating a water quality problem. Continued sedimentation. Continued erosion and sed i men iat ion. Continued erosion. Problem will continue. Recommendations Control storm flows upstream. Control volume and discharge rates. See 'Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics· section in this repon. Install energy dissipator below corregated metal pipe. Excavate channel through yard where original channel was located. Reroute drainage. Refer problem ro Roads Maintenance. Reinstall corregated metal pipe at or below bed level. Tril>. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 69 70 71 72 73 0310 RM .40 0310 RM .60 0311 RM 1.70 0314A RM.20 0314A/ 0314D RM .10-.40 P: LC.APC 15 15 13 16 16 Existing Categoi;, Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Hydrology 3120 Habitat Geology Hydrology 3117 Geology Existing channel draining off bluffs on north side of Cedar River, causing flooding of residences and debris flows onto Jones Rd. during peak flows. Corre gated metal pi pc oullet approximately 9' above bed level. Complete barrier to fish. Old culverts at bed level are plugged. Gully erosion in drainage swale due to outflow of wetland that partly seems to act as an RID facility. Severe erosion, flooding, damage to County and private roads from increased runoff from gravel pit operations on hillside. Inadequate R/D, plugged culvert caused by exren. sive channel and bank erosion and landslides. Water has cut a new channel. C-14 Anticipated Conditions_ and Problems Frequency and severity of problem will worsen as development on bluffs increases. Problems will continue and worsen as outfall velocities will scour bed and banks. Up.~tream has recent (11/86) deposition up to 4' deep. Continued accelerated ero- sion. Problem will be aggravated as area above develops. Not applicable. Recommendations Construct detention pond on upstream side of Jones Rd. to trap sediments, and enhance 1,000' of creek from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Remove new and old pipes; replace at lower level with oversized pipe with trash rack. If possible, enlarge R/D prior to its outlet in the wetland. • Tightline drainage between detention ponds in gravel pit. Construct detention pond next to Jones Rd. to trap sediments. Construct channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. See hydrology comment above. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated l1em River Mile Point Ca1egory Prop. Proj. Condi1ions and Prohlems Condilions and Problems Recommendations 74 0317 Hydrology 3111 Francis Lake is only Trib. 03 I 7 flows through Construct proportional RM 1.60 hydraulic control for steep area downstream of weir at outlet. Trib. 0317. lake. If area around Francis -Enhance l, 100' from Lake develops, increased Francis Lake to SE 184th St. peak flows could cause severe damage to Trib. 0317 in the steep region. 75 0320 Hydrology 3ll4 Existing fores1ed wetland lf surrounding area urban-Construct containment berm RM 2.40 with large amount of un-izes, lh is would be a good and control structure at utilized storage. Weiland site to a1tenua1e peak outlet of welland (if bio- currently detains flows on flows. logical analysis permits). Trib. 0320. 76 Qlli 19 Habitat Salmonid parr in many Decrease in water quality Establish and maintain RM.10 pools. Large pools up to with increasing develop-adequate buffers, JOO' 1.75' deep. Some deposi-ment. Loss of habitat. from ordinary high-water tion in pools, behind Decrease in fish use. mark or 25' from top fo ol'tstf1,1ctions. slope break, whichever is greater. 77 0382 19 Habitat Salmonid use apparent from System is mostly in natural Maintain adequate stream RM .35 carcasses. Sockeye, condition. As development corridor buffers. Chinook spawners. Some increases, higher flows and • Reduce discharge rates to sedimentation occurring. worse water quality can be pre-development levels. expected. Prevent clearing. grading within buffers. P: LC.APC C-15 Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 78 79 80 81 0328 RM .50 0328 ru:;f.70 0328 RM 1.10 1.40 0328 RM 1.40 P: LC.APC 19 19 19 19 Exi.'iting Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Geology Habitat Habitat Hydrology 3112 Medium-density landslides and high-density bank erosion occurring due to natural causes. This indi- cates channel and valley sensitive to effects of development. (Sensitivity due to clay layer. Basin hosts some of best fish habitat in upper reaches.) Significant salmonid use throughout. Sockeye spawneNii carcas.~s present. Coho, steelhead parr in pools. Excellent habitat for spawning and rearing (a redd site). Much diversity •• most exemplary in basin. Channelized reach. Unifonn channel, no habitat diver~ sity. Heavy sand deposition. Little overhead canopy or bank vegetation. Lake Peterson is small, open-water wellanu with a weir at outlet. C-16 Anticipated Conditions and Pro_blems None. Sedimentation from upstream reach possible. Adjacent development will likely reduce diversity and quality of habitat. May cause thermal problems as water temperatures rise. No useful habitat. Lake provides good peak flow attenuation and will become more important as upstream tributary area develop.c;. Recomm~nd4tions Limit development in the basin. Maintain leave strips adjacent to stream at least 100' from ordinary high-water mark. Restrict use/development within this streamside management zone. Restore stream habitat throughout: add structure, diversity, bank vegetation, and canopy. Cost should be borne by party(ies) who channelized this reach. Replace weir at outlet with a higher weir in order to gain additional storage. TASK3 TASK3 FIELD INSPECTION There were no problems observed during the resource review. Based on a review of the drainage complaints of the downstream drainage course, there were a few minor drainage issues in the Maplewood Creek drainage basin, downstream of the site. 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Conveyance system nuisance problems, in general, are defined as any existing or predicted flooding or erosion that does not constitute a severe flooding or erosion problem. Conveyance system nuisance problems are defined as flooding or erosion that results in the overflow of the constructed conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to a 10-year event. Examples include inundation of a shoulder or lane of a roadway, overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows across driveways, minor flooding in crawlspaces or unheated garages/outbuildings and minor erosion. Based on a review of the drainage complaints, there were complaints of localized flooding approximately 1700 feet downstream of the site where Maplewood Creek crosses NE 2"'. The localized flooding was due to plugged roadside culverts and the drainage ditch and fallen trees blocking the drainage. Other localized flooding of backyards were due to a depression that has since been corrected by the home builder. The Maplewood Creek Sedimentation Pond also has heavy siltation but it is maintained annually as needed. These complaints all occurred prior to 2006 when this area was annexed to the City of Renton. With the improvements of this project site, there is the potential that problems on the downstream drainage course may be helped somewhat by providing onsite detention of storm water. 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems are defined as downstream channels, ravines, or slopes with evidence of or potential for erosion/incision, sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or propose a landslide hazard by undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include roadway or minor ditch erosion. The site visit did not find erosion problems evident anywhere along the downstream drainage course. 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 warrant additional attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property. Neither the review of the drainage complaints nor the site visit noted any severe flooding problems in the downstream drainage course. Portions of the downstream drainage course investigated by the site visit and a review of the soils map indicates that the downstream drainage course occurs through till type soils. The field reconnaissance for this off-site analysis drainage report was conducted on the morning of September 19, 2012. The skies were clear and the temperature on this day was approximately 65 degrees. 15432.005.doc Exhibit J Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table Basin: Cedar River Drainage Component Symbol Type, Name, and Size Type: sheet flow, swale. stream, channel. pipe. pond; size, See Map diameter, surface area I. Sheetflow to the southeast comer of the site 2. Storm Pond 3. Catch Basin 4. Catch Basin 5. 24-inch pipe 6. Vegetated Ditch 7. Catch Basin 8. 12-inch pipe 9. 36-inch pipe IO. Stormwater Manhole II. 36-inch pipe OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Maplewood Creek Distance Drainage Component from Site Existing Potential Description Slope Discharge Problems Problems Constrictions, under capacity, ponding. overtopping, flooding., habitat or organism Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, depth, type of sensitive area, volume % Ft. sedimentation, incision. other erosion Discharges to existing wetland 2 0 -IO None Noted None Noted Flows from Wetland into Pond 0.5 500 None Noted None Noted Pond Outlet Structure 0 550 None Noted None Noted Pond Outlet Structure 0 550 None Noted None Noted Flows from structure to ditch unknown 575 None Noted None Noted (south) Flows from pipe to structure 2 575 None Noted None Noted (south) Flows from ditch to pipe (west) N/a 875 None Noted None Noted Flows from structure to 0.60 875 None Noted None Noted structure (east) Flows from structure to 0.70 550-875 None Noted None Noted structure (south) Flows from structure to 0.22 875 None Noted None Noted structure (south) Flows from structure to 0.70 1320 None Noted None Noted structure (south) Subbasin Number: ---- Observations of Field Inspector, Resource Reviewer, or Resident Tributary area. likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts Solid lid Continues south then cast eventually rejoining Maplewood Creek 12740.005.doc TASK4 TASK4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS Runoff leaves the site by discharging east into Maplewood Creek. Maplewood Creek continues south and eventually joins another branch of Maplewood Creek before it flows through the Maplewood Golf Course and discharges into the Cedar River. The drainage complaints were forwarded to this office by Gary Fink, City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility and are located on the following pages of this report; however, none of them were within Y. mile downstream of the project site. They were placed into this report for reference and there are no anticipated problems associated with the development of this project site. 15432. 005.doc Exhibit K Drainage Complaints Karen Harris From: Colleen Allen Sent: To: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:42 AM Karen Harris Subject: FW: Request for Drainage Complaints/ Storage One Project/ BCE #12740 Attachments: 12740 Storage One -Renton.pd/; 15432 email from Gary.pd/; AreaMap_Complaints.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Gary Fink [mailto:GFink@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:36 AM To: Colleen Allen Cc: Steve Lee Subject: RE: Request for Drainage Complaints/ Storage One Project/ BCE #12740 Good Morning Colleen, Review of subject parcels, 152305-9002 & 9178, do not show any significant drainage issues other than those specified in the 2012 e-mail you referenced. Review of the King County I Map drainage complaints map indicated a 1989 complaint regarding fill on the adjacent parcel 152305-9112, and an unspecified 2011 water quality issue on adjacent lot 152305-9231. Renton Maintenance division notes a history of water overtopping of NE 4th St from the wetland north of NE 4th St, across from the subject parcels, during severe storm events. Please note that the above information provided is sourced from recorded issues logged in City of Renton drainage complaint records, City Maintenance records, & King County I Map drainage complaint maps and cannot be deemed a comprehensive list of all past issues. Best Regards, Gary Fink City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility Phone:(425) 430-7392 I Fax:(425) 430-7241 GFink@RentonWa.gov -----.-.-1t~1It0s1 (~ From: Colleen Allen [mailto:callen@barghausen.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:06 PM To: Gary Fink Cc: Karen Harris Subject: FW: Request for Drainage Complaints/ Storage One Project/ BCE #12740 1 Hi Gary. I'm following up on the email I sent you below. Any progress on researching the drainage complaints? Colleen From: Colleen Allen Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:56 PM To: Gary Fink (GFink@Rentonwa.gov) Cc: Karen Harris (kharris@barghausen.com) Subject: Request for Drainage Complaints/ Storage One Project/ BCE #12740 Hi Gary. We are requesting drainage complaints for two adjacent parcels in Renton: 152305-9002 (no address) 152305-9178 (13839 S.E. 128th Street) This site is roughly 500 feet east of the 4th and Duvall intersection and has the same downstream drainage path as a site for which we requested drainage complaints back in September 2012 (see attached). Hopefully, there haven't been any new drainage complaints. Thanks for your help! Colleen Allen Engineering Assistant Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 -Phone (425) 251-8782 -Fax http://www.barghausen.com 2 Colleen Allen From: Karen Harris Sent: To: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:36 PM Colleen Allen Subject: RE: Drainage Complaints-4th & Duvall, Renton -Question/ BCE #15432 Would you email Gary about the 12740 site, it is roughly 500 feet east of the 4th and Duvall intersection and has the same downstream drainage path? Hopefully there haven't been any new drainage complaints.© Thanks, Karen From: Colleen Allen Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:12 PM To: File Cc: Karen Harris Subject: FW: Drainage Complaints-4th & Duvall, Renton -Question / BCE #15432 Karen, I will also save these in Filing. From: Gary Fink [mailto:GFink@Rentonwa.gov) Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:05 PM To: Colleen Allen Subject: RE: Drainage Complaint Request -4th & Duvall, Renton -Question Good Afternoon Colleen, Per the Renton manual, I've reviewed drainage issues for a distance of one mile downstream of your project at NE 4th Ave & Duvall Ave NE. While the manual requires one mile downstream, I've reviewed to a radius of one mile as the remainder of the course runs through Maplewood Creek channel. The drainage course reviewed is as follows: From parcel #1523059124, east on NE 4th Ave approximately 650' to an outfall contained in a drainage easement. South from NE 4th Ave, approximately 990' via channel to a City-maintained detention facility. South from detention pond via conveyance appr. 910' along Field Avenue undeveloped right-of-way, turning southeast across residential property to NE 1" St. East on NE l't St, South on Hoquiam Ave NE Outfall to tributary of Maplewood Creek, South of SE 2°' St. Maplewood Creek to City of Renton Maplewood sedimentation pond, continuing to Cedar River. We have reports of minor drainage issues at properties located on NE 2°' Ct & NE 1" Ct. All occurred prior to 2006 annexation: NE 2°' Ct -4901, 4907,, 5003: Localized flooding due to plugged roadside culverts and ditch line. 4921: Localized flooding on property due to fallen trees and plugged seasonal stream channel. NE 1" Ct -4904, 4905, 4910, 4913: Localized backyard flooding due to depression. Addressed through builder. Maplewood Creek Sedimentation pond -heavy siltation due to erosion for storm events. Maintained annually as needed. 1 Please feel free to contact me if you need further information. Best Regards, Gary Fink City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility Phone:(425) 430-7392 / Fax (425) 430-7241 GFink@RentonWa.gov From: Colleen Allen [mailto:callen@barghausen.com) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:54 PM To: Gary Fink Cc: Karen Harris; File Subject: RE: Drainage Complaint Request -4th & Duvall, Renton -Question Gary, page 2-10 of the City of Renton Drainage Manual requires a 1-mile radius for the Task 2 Resource Review of a Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis. Thank you. Colleen From: Gary Fink (mailto:GFink@Rentonwa.gov) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:47 PM To: Colleen Allen Subject: Drainage Complaint Request -4th & Duvall, Renton -Question Hi Colleen, I'm pulling the information you're requested together today, my apologies for the delay. Just wanted to confirm that you were looking for drainage issues within a one mile radius of 4'" & Duvall. Typical request in a X-mile radius. Thanks, Gary Fink City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility Phone:(425) 430-7392 / Fax:(425) 430-7241 GFink@RentonWa.gov -------1tJTitt>JJ ® 2 I I ... ••srR. - - " j, I +' , • I ' CCJ-KlngC...,.y ...... NE4fHSL , - NE-CT NIE3'DIN ' I !I! * I - ' .,,, .. .. ' - NE 1STCT iMAP I I I w ll. I 619;1 ~ .. NE4TltA. ' -' \ I I I \ I -..... IIE!RDIN .__. ..... ~.···I'\, • '\. I, , r 11l I 1-f -IIE!RDCT • NE-CT ' Renton -!I t; I NE-ST . - t;~~I ~\ I Numsr .._. ,,,' Ll \, ' \, '' \, •, -r ,: I Ii -,~ C]lr]J 11~· LlclEH 1 Jt8 1 .i ,,~77£%t.1 . ~./-' d4pll&J::il I NIE IIITCT --r~ ,•. , ---flTCT / ·[~··.·.'.".".'.'.>'.~.·.·.-.·. "'.:!" :I /';:,--· ... -.···.~. -, ' "' z "' NEIIITST .. , . // ••· 11 *.•.'.•.•.··1' 1/n.··.,:., .. " 1)/ f• ' ••J/ fLZ.:N :~···.•.•.'·.11'·, 1111-',_ ·~:-i~:-.: 1, ' -. ·-1' ""~~· ~ ,,. ~ ::, C • --.. II "" I •:HIST -! -0 483 10230S931S 1D230.MD31 -1023MEi1303 12144 4513 21l51J51J0010 457S 1523050031 NIIJRDIN 332 1S230S903S 3328300000 -· 310 NER>CT 4508 4518 41105 214 4512 45244800 4812 42196002.«J Nl!ai.,cr .2aO 2S7 2!4 2S1 234 233 228 221 228 221 21e 21s 210 209 I r I .f219MD230 2Q U4 283 '219600290 ,219600220 25&! 25&! 2S7 f21~:l10 250 2S2 2S1 ,219600700 230 !I 219 U 218 213 ,2196001 <{) I 220 214 208 212 207 ,219600150 '219600170 ,M02 481' 4&18 + I I ~"69101RC I 13800 1023059351 15230590!7 iMAP 4818 MT 51S 503 511 4800 1023059041 15230S911 4801 1381S 15230S914S 1523059084 49S 489 •99 19'15100220 498 ·111 483 ./f 411 <t' 41, I M03 M1SM21Ml1 M'2 3<4'(1:114'0~10 M06 S19 Nllmtsr •921 Ml 1 M1 SOT 4921 SOOS M11 9.flS.100160 4Q2 1023059162 1{)230S.9160 --489 473 94157001M '7e 480 - 1D2'JD5TRC r 10230S9161 .e, 410 1023059159 SOOD S012 SOZ4 4918 50005 M 18 SOJO -Nl!"'M A. 9475100430 4()1 "'' 941S100370 SOl3 .!031 /!021 15230S9002 15230S9232 3SO 1523059072 S0.5100030 M4S100010 ,,oo '712 41M 4118 M,5700330 '713 M,5700210 '71115 ,119 4131 '805 4811 4701 '72S M457002flll 5CU510032£1 5045100290 212 218 15230591111523059201 ,102 1S230S9037 NII-BT 51)45100380 211 I I 207 ! \ 1523059221 \ SOIi '5027 '5001 '5019 0100:300230 0100.300fi2{J 2M 0100.300640 0100300130 = '5009 NE2NDCT : 222 \,,, 01003001<{) /!021 /!029 '5035 '501S 0100300170 50457004801 1 15230S'1218 210 2,e \ «124 5002 152'30592'1 208 'i 202 M4S700510 '1 I, ' 273. 4919 '5003 '5009 '501S I 7S iMAP Ill Legend Selected Parcels Parcels ~ R..i • l!Gmaltiol. ,Ill 00 per am . -, '-County Boundary D Parks N8·Ne,gl!ll<Hlw>od8u- X Mou-rtain Peaks Unincorporated KC Zoning II C8·C-y8...,_ Highways A•10•Ai,ioull.nl.-00 per 10aaw R8 • RogioN,18.- 1" FOfilsl Production District D A•l!l·~-oo perl!I.,_ • 0 • Offico Boundary D ,., ....... 1·1nclusbial Agricultural Production M·Minonl • OU.. 1" Disbict Booodary RA·2.5·1lun1Ana,ane00 per5a<n1 ,, Urban Grow1h Area Una RA.S. Runl Ana, ono 00 per 5 a<n1 ,-1 RA-10 -llunl-ano DU per 10-JV lncorporaled Area I ____ Streat& Ull-Urt,a,.._...,_DUper5- ~ IM • --ono DU per Olft ~ ll~ • --4 DU per an ' .. r,,:';1 -......... R.e • -otial. I DU per an l.' Lo. D Lakes and Large Rivers ll.e. -otial. I DU per an ll-12---12DUperacn .r,,., Streams D ll-11·-ilial. 11DU peracn [s] Tribal Landi • ll•:14• --24DU peraon, (cont) Tab 4.0 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology Of the 1.83 acre site, only 1.33 acres will be developed and therefore will be modeled as till forest for pre-developed condition. The flow control facility will be located near the southwest corner of the project site and will discharge to the existing stream along the east site boundary. B. Developed Site Hydrology Under developed conditions, the site has 0.84 acres of impervious and 0.49 acres of landscape. Because this site is using a rain garden as a flow control BMP, 50 percent of the roof area being directed to it is being modeled as pervious landscape area. For the modular grid pavement, that area is modelled as grass. See the detention and water quality sizing criteria on the following pages of this report. C. Performance Standards The Area-Specific Flow Control Standard required for this project site is determined to be Flow Control Duration Standard -Matching Forested. The applicable conveyance system capacity standard was mentioned in the Conditions and Requirements Summary, which is to size the on-site conveyance system by the Rational Method utilizing an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n" value of 0.014 with the 100-year precipitation. The Area-Specific Water Quality Treatments Menu followed for this project was the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu, and the treatment selected is to use a DOE approved modular wetland. D. Flow Control System The Flow Control BMPs for this site will be sized to treat runoff from 40 percent of the site impervious area. This will be accomplished with a rain garden and modular grid pavement. Flow control for this project will be in a detention pond utilizing 4 feet of live storage. Discharge will be through a control structure and then to a modular wetland unit for water quality treatment. Because of the depth of this system, discharge will then be directed to a duplex pump station and then to the existing stream buffer at the south end of the site. The design of the pump station is included in this report. A single pump will be used to pump the 2-year flow rate and both pumps will be utilized to convey the 1 OD- year discharge from the vault. E. Water Quality System The Enhanced Basic Water Quality requirement will be achieved with a modular wetland unit. Sizing calculations for the modular wetland are included. F. Pump System The proposed pump station will be located on site and will be privately owned and maintained. The pump will discharge to a storm pipe on site and will then gravity drain to the onsite stream at the south of the site. Two pumps will be used on this site; one smaller pump for low flows and a larger pump to accommodate less frequent events. The control panel will be located in the retail building with alarms for pump and power failure, as well as several other typical alarms. If these pumps were to fail, the catch basins onsite would overflow and drainage would not enter any buildings. Discharge into the onsite Class IV stream is this site's natural discharge location. 12740.003.doc FLOW CONTROL BMP Site Area = 79,894 sf 20% of site area= 15,979 sf Site Impervious area = 36,543 sf FLOW CONTROL BMP SIZING 40% of the site impervious area= 14,617 sf Therefore 40% of the site impervious area will be used in sizing the Flow Control BMP Rain Garden A portion of the building roof will be sent to the rain garden Impervious area to the rain garden= 11,927 sf Rain Garden volume required = Impervious area x 3 inches= 2982 cf Rain Garden volume provided = 3015 cf Maximum depth= 12 inches Grassed Modular Grid Pavement area = 2690 SF Total treated area= 14,750 SF 15432.001.doc Rain Garden I I elev cell 1 cell 2 cell 3 total area ' volume sum volume ft sf sf sf sf cf cf 397.5 1037 730 496 2263 0 0 398 2392 0 684 3076 1334.75 1334.75 - 398.5 2757 0 889 3646 1680.5 3015.25 2982 cf required DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA Flow Control Duration Standard -Matching Forested Site Conditions Pre-Developed: 1 . 33 acres of till forest Developed: 0.84 acres of on-site impervious 0.49 acres of till grass (on-site landscaping) Total = 1 . 33 Acres Modular grid pavement to be modeled as grass= 0.06 ac Area to rain garden to be modeled as 50% grass, 50% impervious = 0.27 ac =0.14 ac impervious =0.13 ac grass Pond is approximately 0.11 acres, model as impervious for flow control For modeling: 0.76 acres impervious o. 5 7 acres grass The KCRTS calculations are on the following pages. 12740.003.doc Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12740-pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.084 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.023 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.062 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.002 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.037 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.065 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.054 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.107 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.107 1 100.00 0.990 0.084 2 25.00 0.960 0.065 3 10.00 0.900 0.062 4 5.00 0.800 0.054 5 3.00 0.667 0.037 6 2.00 0.500 0.023 7 1.30 0.231 0.002 8 1.10 0.091 0.100 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12740-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank (CFS) 0.235 6 0.188 8 0.284 3 0.200 7 0.242 5 0.250 4 0. 291 2 0 .480 1 Computed Peaks Time of 2/09/01 1/05/02 2/27/03 8/26/04 10/28/04 1/18/06 10/26/06 1/09/08 Peak - 2:00 16:00 7:00 2:00 16:00 16:00 0:00 6:00 (). S7 o.c (> -1 {, /J..c. -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.480 1 100.00 0.990 0.291 2 25.00 0.960 0.284 3 10.00 0.900 0.250 4 5.00 0.800 0 .242 5 3.00 0.667 0.235 6 2.00 0.500 0.200 7 1. 30 0.231 0.188 8 1.10 0.091 0.417 50.00 0.980 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage o Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Orifice# 1 2 Height (ft) 0.00 2.95 Detention Pond 3.00 H:lV 72.00 ft 31. 00 ft 2232. sq. ft 6222. sq. ft 0 .143 acres 4.00 ft 0.00 ft 14640. cu. ft 0.336 ac-ft 4.00 12.00 2 Diameter ( in) 0.63 1.40 ft inches Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0. 022 0.054 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Pipe Diameter (in) 4.0 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 22. 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.02 0.02 45. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.03 0.03 67. 0.002 0. 002 0.00 0.04 0.04 90. 0.002 0.002 0.00 0.05 0.05 112. 0.003 0.002 0.00 0.15 0.15 342. 0.008 0. 004 0.00 0.25 0.25 578. 0. 013 0.005 0.00 0.35 0.35 820. 0.019 0.006 0.00 0 .45 0 .45 1068. 0.025 0.007 0.00 0.55 0.55 1323. 0.030 0.008 0.00 0.65 0.65 1585. 0.036 0.009 0.00 0.75 0.75 1853. 0.043 0.009 0.00 0.85 0.85 2128. 0.049 0.010 0.00 0.95 0.95 2410. 0.055 0. 011 0.00 1. 05 1.05 2698. 0.062 0. 011 0.00 1.15 1.15 2994. 0.069 0.012 0.00 1.25 1. 25 3296. 0.076 0.012 0.00 1.35 1. 35 3606. 0.083 0. 013 0.00 1.45 1.45 3923. 0.090 0.013 0.00 1. 55 1.55 4247. 0.097 0.013 0.00 1.65 1. 65 4578. 0.105 0.014 0.00 1. 75 1. 75 4917. 0 .113 0. 014 0.00 1.85 1. 85 5263. 0.121 0.015 0.00 1. 95 1. 95 5616. 0.129 0.015 0.00 2.05 2.05 5978. 0 .137 0.015 0.00 2.15 2.15 6346. 0 .146 0.016 0.00 2.25 2.25 6723. 0 .154 0.016 0.00 2.35 2.35 7107. 0.163 0.017 0.00 2.45 2.45 7500. 0.172 0.017 0.00 2.55 2.55 7900. 0.181 0.017 0.00 Surf Area (sq. ft) 2232. 2238. 2244. 2251. 2257. 2263. 2326. 2389. 2453. 2517, 2583. 2649. 2716. 2783. 2852. 2921. 2990. 3061. 3132. 3204. 3276. 3350. 3424. 3499. 3574. 3650. 3727. 3805. 3883. 3962. 4042. Hyd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.65 2.75 2.85 2.95 2.96 2.98 2.99 3.01 3. 02 3.04 3.05 3.07 3.17 3.27 3.37 3.47 3.57 3.67 3.77 3.87 3.97 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 5.90 6.00 2.65 2.75 2.85 2.95 2.96 2.98 2.99 3.01 3.02 3.04 3.05 3.07 3.17 3.27 3.37 3.47 3.57 3.67 3.77 3.87 3.97 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 5.90 6.00 Inflow Outflow Target 0.49 0.11 0.24 ******* 0.29 ******* 0.24 ******* 0.25 ******* 0.15 ******* 0.19 ******* 0.20 ******* Cale 0.33 0.08 0.06 8308. 8724. 9149. 9582. 9625. 9713. 9757. 9845. 9889. 9978. 10023. 10112. 10563. 11022. 11490. 11967. 12452. 12947. 13449. 13961. 14482. 14640. 15173. 15714. 16265. 16825. 17395. 17 974. 18562. 19160. 19768. 20385. 21012. 21649. 22296. 22953. 23620. 24297. 24984. 25682. 26390. 27108. Peak Stage 4.08 3.98 3.63 0.06 3.63 0.05 3.20 0. 02 2. 96 0.02 2.58 0.01 1.91 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 12740-pre.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS 0.191 0.200 0.210 0.220 0.221 0.223 0.224 0.226 0.227 0.229 0.230 0.232 0.242 0.253 0.264 0.275 0.286 0.297 0.309 0.321 0.332 0.336 0.348 0.361 0.373 0.386 0.399 0.413 0.426 0 .440 0.454 0.468 0.482 0.497 0.512 0.527 0.542 0.558 0.574 0.590 0.606 0.622 Elev 4.08 3.98 3.63 3.63 3.20 2. 96 2.58 1. 91 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.019 0. 020 0.022 0.025 0.029 0.033 0.036 0.037 0.044 0.049 0.054 0.058 0.062 0.066 0.069 0.072 0.075 0.076 0.387 0.953 1.680 2.480 2.760 3.020 3.260 3.480 3.690 3.880 4.070 4.250 4.420 4.580 4.740 4. 900 5.040 5.190 5.330 5.470 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 (Cu-Ft} (Ac-Ft} 15080. 14543. 12755. 12740. 10702. 9635. 8009. 5482. 0.346 0.334 0.293 0 .292 0.246 0.221 0.184 0.126 4123. 4204. 4286. 4368. 4377. 4393. 4402. 4418. 4427. 4443. 4452. 4469. 4553. 4638. 4724. 4810. 4897. 4985. 5074. 5163. 5253. 5280. 5371. 5463. 5555. 5648. 5742. 5837. 5932. 6028. 6125. 6222. 6320. 6419. 6519. 6619. 6720. 6822. 6924. 7027. 7131. 7236. Cutoff -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.018 0.024 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.049 0.054 0.059 0. 064 0.069 0. 074 0.079 0. 084 0.95E-02 0.63E-02 0.49E-02 0.37E-02 0.29E-02 0.22E-02 0.15E-02 0.96E-03 0.62E-03 0.34E-03 0.21E-03 0.16E-03 0.82E-04 0.16E-04 0.49E-02 0.38E-02 0.34E-02 0.32E-02 0.28E-02 0.22E-02 0.16E-02 0.13E-02 0.95E-03 -48.8 -39.l -29.2 -12.9 -1.1 1.5 10.0 30.5 52.6 0.52E-03 52.4 0.23E-03 7.7 o.a2E-04 -so.a O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.95E-02 0.63E-02 0.49E-02 0.37E-02 0.29E-02 0.22E-02 0.15E-02 0. 96E-03 0.62E-03 0.34E-03 0.21E-03 0.16E-03 0.82E-04 0.16E-04 0.018 0.024 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.049 0.054 0.059 0.064 0.069 0.074 0.079 0.084 Maximum positive excursion= 0.006 cfs 10.1%) occurring at 0.055 cfs on the Base Data:12740-pre.tsf and at 0.060 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.011 cfs (-35.8%) occurring at 0.030 cfs on the Base Data:12740-pre.tsf and at 0.019 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:12740-dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.480 CFS Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.324 CFS Peak Reservoir Stage: 4.08 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev, 4.08 Ft at at Peak Reservoir Storage: 15064. Cu-Ft 0.346 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Ac-Ft 6:00 on 10:00 on Jan Jan 9 9 0.018 0.018 0.019 0.024 0.039 0. 044 0.051 0.058 0.063 0.065 0.070 0. 071 0.074 0.075 in Year in Year -2 . 3 -22.9 -34.8 -27.7 -0.4 0.2 4. 2 8.5 6.6 2.1 1.4 -3.5 -6.0 -10 .4 8 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.075 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.324 4.08 1 100.00 0.990 0.017 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.075 3.97 2 25.00 0.960 0.064 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.064 3.62 3 10.00 0.900 0.015 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.063 3.59 4 5.00 0.800 0.018 6 1/08/05 5:00 0.044 3.17 5 3.00 0.667 0. 044 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.018 2.94 6 2.00 0.500 0.063 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.017 2.58 7 1.30 0.231 0.324 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.015 1. 87 8 1.10 0. 091 Computed Peaks 0. 241 4.05 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.001 32237 52.572 52. 572 47 .428 0.474E+OO 0.003 6335 10.331 62.903 37.097 0.371E+OO 0.005 5233 8.534 71.437 28.563 0.286E+OO 0.007 4283 6.985 78.421 21. 579 0.216E+OO 0.010 4213 6 .871 85.292 14.708 0.147E+OO 0.012 3079 5.021 90. 313 9.687 0.969E-Ol 0.014 2241 3.655 93. 968 6.032 0.603E-01 0.016 1650 2 .691 96.659 3.341 0.334E-01 0.018 1122 1.830 98.488 1. 512 0.151E-01 0.020 627 1.023 99. 511 0.489 0.489E-02 0.022 16 0.026 99.537 0.463 0.463E-02 0.024 25 0.041 99.578 0.422 0.422E-02 0.026 11 0.018 99.596 0.404 0.404E-02 0.028 6 0.010 99.605 0.395 0.395E-02 0.030 10 0.016 99.622 0.378 0.378E-02 0.032 11 0.018 99.640 0.360 0.360E-02 0.035 5 0.008 99.648 0.352 0.352E-02 0.037 15 0.024 99. 672 0.328 0.328E-02 0.039 22 0.036 99.708 0.292 0.292E-02 0.041 25 0 .041 99.749 0.251 0.251E-02 0.043 16 0.026 99. 775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.045 19 0.031 99.806 0.194 0.194E-02 0.047 15 0. 024 99.830 0.170 0.170E-02 0.049 7 0. 011 99.842 0.158 0.158E-02 0.051 8 0.013 99.855 0.145 0.145E-02 0.053 12 0.020 99.874 0.126 0.126E-02 0.055 7 0. 011 99.886 0 .114 0 .114E-02 0.057 8 0.013 99.899 0.101 O.lOlE-02 0.060 8 0. 013 99.912 0.088 0.881E-03 0.062 10 0.016 99.928 0. 072 0.718E-03 0.064 16 0.026 99.954 0.046 0.457E-03 0.066 9 0.015 99.969 0.031 0.310E-03 0.068 3 0.005 99.974 0.026 0.261E-03 0.070 4 0.007 99.980 0.020 0.196E-03 0. 072 3 0.005 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.074 4 0.007 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 Detention Pond l ---- elev cell 1 total area volume sum volume ·- ft sf sf cf cf 391.5 3144 3144 0 0 392 3475 3475 1654.75 1654.75 - 393 4160 4160 3817.5 5472.25 394 4874 4874 4517 9989.25 ~---·-- 395 5617 5617 --L-----5245.5 15234.75 395.S 6389 6389 3001.S 18236.25 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS MODULAR WETLANDS Date: 12-10-2014 Subject: Storage One, Renton, WA To Whom It May Concern, The MWS Linear will be sized in accordance the TAPE GULD approval for the Modular Wetland System, Linear. The system is sized at a loading rate of 0.5 gpm/sq ft (downstream of storage -2 year release rate) and the pre-filters are sized at a loading rate less than 2.1 gpm/sq ft. Design, sizing, loading will be approved by an a Modular Wetland representative before final approval. Below are the calculations: 4th Ave: • Treatment Flow Rate = 0.02 cfs • MWS-Linear-4-6 Treatment Capacity= 0.026 cfs or 11.7 gpm@ 2.5 ft Operating HGL • Pre-Filter Cartridges= 1 Half Size • Surface Area per Cartridge= 25.6 sq ft • Total Surface Area 12.8 • 1 = 12.8 sq ft • Loading Rate = 11. 7 /12.8 = 0.91 gpm/sq ft (less than 2.1 gpm/sq ft target) If you have any questions please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Zachariha J. Kent Stormwater Engineer Modular Wetland System, Inc. , i r· '"·""' wvr.\t modulan ... l'll,1nd\.<:om I SITE SPECIFIC DATA* PROJECT NAME STORAGE ONE PROJECT LOCAnON RENTON. WA I STRUCTURE ID PERFORMANCE DATA I TREATMENT FLOW {CFS} 0.02 TREATMENT HGL (FT) 1.0 I BYPASS FLOW RATE {CFS) O.JJ PROJECT PARAMETERS I PIPE DATA /.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 391.40 PVC 8" I OUTLET PIPE 388.90 PVC 8" RIM ELEVATION 399.50 SURFACE LOAD/NC REQUIREMENT PARKWAY FRAME&: PRETREATMENT B/ORLTRAnON DISCHARGE I COVER JO" CLOSED JO" WET/.ANDMEDIA VOLUME {CY) TBD I MEDIA DELMRED TBD I OR/RCE SIZE (DIA) TBD MAX PICK WEICHT (LBS) TBD I NOTES: •PER ENC/NEER OF RECORD I INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND I INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO omOAD AND INSTALL THE S>'STEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAW/NC AND THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIRCAOONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT. I 2. MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6"I.EVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPEC/RED BY THE PROJECT ENC/NEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIRCAnONS. J. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE. I (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). 4. INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. 5. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECnNC PIPES. 6. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATER ncHT WITH A NON-SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECnON DETAIL AND SHALL MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECnON STANDARDS. 7. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLAnON OF ALL RISERS. MANHOLES. AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH RN/SHED SURFACE UNLESS SPEC/RED OTHERWISE. GENERAL NOTES 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVAOONS, SP[CIRCAnONS AND CAPACtnES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANG£ FOR PROJECT SPEC/RC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS. WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER. T ':,, ~ ;i: ·' !Q ~ "' "' ~ . . . -"' -~~ ~t~;. 1;'~~ $f ·.:.· 1:~-;-~, ~·i :~ :~.lo t,;t i i 0/JTIET PIPf S/Zc NID l0CA1/()// M4Y VAl1Y ,111111m T I :r~~ L.dt" I f /Nl£T PfP£ S/Zc NID l0CA1/()// M4Y VAl1Y PLAN VIEW ===-I I I c.:::=-I I + IIOCK LAYER 1V PREVCNT SCOUfffNG t TOP OF - '<I • I ~.· • .. LGREEN 50/IPTM: BIOFIL TRA T10N MEDIA CAKTRJ[)G[ MEDIA RLTER 7/E PRtXJIJCr DESt:1111/ED lMY 11£ PR01ECIED BY 1111£ OR IKJII£ OF TIE RJUUWIIG US PATENTS: 7.425.262: 7.4~ 1,614,J78; IIXltBtB; REY,7fD FDREJGN PATEJ/ts OIi <mER PATEJ/ts POID/NC ELEVATION VIEW PROPRIETARY ANO CONROENTIAL: 7/E IIF1JIIMA110N CCNTAINE1J II 7lfS IMll'III IS 7/E saE PROPElllY OF JIOIJIUR JIETlAMJS S'l'S1EJIS. Nff REPRODUCTrJN II PART OIi AS A IIIO.E tmlOtlT 7/E W/1/TtEN Pf//JI/SSlal OF IIOOUN1 ll£1LWlS SIS1lJIS IS PROHllf/fD. /1 ' : .' · M O D U L A R -,iJ<, \ IF ····1-i \~'I['(' ~Yi -_/ I 'l J.> • .. "' JK "' C/L LEFT END VIEW BIOFILTRATION CflA/IBKR C/L ;'.:: IIOCK LAYER 1V PREVCNT SCOUfffNG WEIR WALL FLOW CONTROL RJSE11 ,.,_ ~rt u_-r. HIGHT END VIEW PllE'l'REATJIEN'f /DISCIWlGE CllAJIIIER ,.,_ ..'.. MWS UNIT DESIGN DATA TREATMENT CAPACITY (CFS) I 0.026 OPERAnNG HEAD (FT) I 2.5 PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) I 0.9 WETW/0 LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) I 0.50 MWS-L-4-6-V STORM WATER 8/0F/L TRA T/ON SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL PUMP SYSTEM DESIGN STORM PUMP DESIGN Pump Criteria • Design for peak storm flow Flow (2-year)= 0.02 cfs = 9 gal/min Flow ( 10-year)= 0.06 cfs = 27 gal/min Flow ( I 00-year) = 0.33 cfs = 148 gal/min • Provide a explosion proof or continuously submerged, submersible duplex pump system capable of pumping storm water without plugging. One pump shall operate at 9 gpm and one pump shall operate at 130 gpm and operate simultaneously when necessary. • Design flow in the force main = 148 gpm. • Use 3-inch force main o Velocity = l(J48 gpm)/(7.48 gallons I CF)/(60 min/sec)/((TI)(l.5)2 )j 144 = 6.7 fps o 2 fps< 6.7 fps< 8 fps So OK Static Head = Invert at downstream end of force main -Pump Elevation Invert elevation at proposed catch basin downstream of pump I.E.= 394.0 Pump Elevation = 386.9± Static Head = 7 .1 ft Total Dynamic Head = based on pump configuration and force main (to be verified by pump manufacturer) Force Main is 3" HOPE Pipe length= 60 feet+ approx. 41 feet in equivalent pipe length for fittings= 101 ft total TOH= 6.2 feet (approximately) Total Head= Approx. 13.3 feet The Wetwell volume needs to be verified to determine that there is enough volume between pump on and pump off to meet the specified pump cycle time. Adjust manhole size to accommodate the pumps and the required storage volume. Storm Pump Station Control Panel Specification Primary power shall be from the proposed building service. Contractor to verify available power prior to ordering pump station. The control panel for the storm pump station shall include: • Control for a duplex pump system • Enclosure for installation inside the retail building • Visual alarm -flashing light • Display at control panel to monitor station performance • I 2-hour Battery backup for control panel • Manual and remote reset for alarms • Alarms for: 0 Pump failure 0 Seal failure 0 High temperature 0 Low water 0 High water 0 Low battery 0 Power failure • Duplex cycle counter • Duplex elapsed run time meter • Surge protection • Dial up to 8 phone/pager numbers during an alarm condition • Minimum 1 year warranty Tab 5.0 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system for this project is sized to convey the 100-year storm event based on the modified rational method with an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes. This site is approximately 1.33 acres in size, which is significantly less than the 10-acre requirement for using the modified rational method. For this project, we are using the modified rational method. Backwater calculations will be included with the final TIR to show the 0.5 foot of freeboard being provided. 12740.003.doc I I I w ~ w (!:I ~ ~ i n ·-a •• ·;; ]J ~~ ~5 ~~ ;:::-S 55 u H H ~~ ~~ '' •• ,, NN ii ·t ., Ji ~! ii NN ?<. ~~ 1·-001 f-s,Js+( : ltL. VNJI.I ""'"" "" W/UIIOEftGf«lUIIO """'"'""" UGHl J-~ rn. J-f!Ox I, i ""'" """" _ ""'""-i/ -·i•tc••J'1-• ···.,,,,,M,., I!!&" . ~• .. ---;--3~~'.:.~.:::.:.,,~~-~iii·~;'/"" ... : .... , .... ·_ . . ........... ,,,.T ·:l~·~~ss • 1 • •• • ,,, ... · ~ .·· j~ '. I~~ C!J-T ---.---~r.~1.---F:=~~~~~~lif~:;~;1 I_ jj.! .... koll ' I-;; '" WAl(R MCIER &\''-1.'1: FOIJ!ICJ ~/G" REBAR & c,p SIAI.IPlO Til1tW t5 f11nc;• , : OJ'oTII¥, : fltlllOIII(; 1 • : ' ' 1£ 12· ll:IS•J9~.,~-...:. ' ' ·-------l 8 n1STI11(l ...... ·I ' f .I """'"\ l ·---/' ~::t· '2!la!_ Jl'I :~· . ---I> ; tJl!l,_BOI( : F"O.Jlitl ~j9• lltBl,O: & CJ.II STA11Pt(l 1'"11C lS fHt26i i : {Xl;-Ki-, '!!:'.: _J =----==,1 CXIS!f>IG H ~" ~ ~-~ FOOIO 5/t," R£9AR &. r:>P SIAMl'£0 "U,mC LS f119M" 0.1'±[ X 0.1':iS Of PROPtlirr CORl<R ... 'e "·:1 ... :: ,------, SOl.lll-R flQSlllO BLOC '""' NO. f1A[ SOUII-J ,.,,,_, '"' '"" ;~-cl"' --• "<: .. :..~:::: .... ,":""''1''"'\""C''"""" .... ~.: ..... ,,, ... .-... , .. ,........ .. .. '"'::::: .... · •.•• .:.7 ·."'.=:_·,,' :,? ,, .. ,...,~· '·' .,. ··" . . . -~·· f" 11(!EET '!''"'' , · · · 'ik• .,...:~:.;:::• .-~ ,,,. . . ;-~~ _ 1£ IS" llK:•:¥.12.84 -+ .. ll! a:! i .... q ;a~,:. .. , .. ~'"'j l,lll ,1~. re-L (,' /,' • Je()~ /j\ S1Fl£H . ""' a.Z/tM!. ~ <' ~!-!;~;;,~, _c,•:§,'! IITTISION / _ ?'::."' f(lul/0 !,/t," A ~ Sl.lM'tD "EWIC G.f±E i 1 I . "' s 111,;r2e· G.J':iS OF" ~I\ --... i ~ ~ 2(1" ORM~ U.S(U(t(I #It/ 86111~1008 -.. 1/ -,·.30• -"'"°' I .:::. I -"'" .... o,c_ 8Y I DATE I APPR I -JGM -- DEVELOPED AREA • 1.33 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA • 0.84 ac PERVIOUS AREA • 0.49 ac ~~ ® LANDSCAPE • 385 SF RAIN GARDEN • 4,892 SF Conrl~Mct 9R CITY OF RENTON Pfanni119/Buikli119/Publie WOtks o.~. .ll4/J STORAGE ONE Permit NO. XXX (/) z 0 iii G5 "' q.GtlA<,,$1 "' .. ~_ \ -. '~~-.-' . o:~ -_IC§ o~· ~ .-.... ..,, .ill: 11>,_ -~--(,. I t.:"' 11iQ ,ENO.~t.: 18215 72!1D AVENUE SOUTH K[NT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)2!>1-e1s2 r.-.x Oft. DtOlc[lllftG. 1,111D 1'1,/H'tNG, ---"""' ~1:!;a ~§§1~ ~,~=' ~ I • Prqj.c• f: l!UO '"' 12140-0EVtO!i.d"'J XU XIX RCH'IOM, YM oae.ol'8l cotll!llON8 MAP ·g,i;,.g 1 of 3 A[-ININININIA[Aj JOB NAME: JOB#: REVISED: Storage One 12740 12/9/2014 A= Contributing Area (Ac) C= Runoff Coefficient Tc= Time of Concentration (min) I= Intensity at Tc (in/hr) d= Diameter of Pipe (in) L = Length of Pipe (ft) D= Water Depth at Qd (in) FROM CB3 CB2 CB4 CB1 TO CB2 CB1 CB1 Pond A 0.14 0.21 0.39 0.92 s 0.50 0.50 1.47 0.60 12740-conveyance.xls BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS -PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR using the Rational Method & Manning Formula KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING DEFAULTS I c-0.9, n= 0.014 I d= 12 Tc= 6.3 Qd= Design Flow (cfs) Qf= Full Capacity Flow (cfs) Vd= Velocity at Design Flow (fps) Vf= Velocity at Full Flow (fps) s= Slope of pipe(%) n= Manning Roughness Coefficient Tt= Travel Time at Vd (min) L 87 97 90 50 d 12 12 12 12 Tc 6.3 6.9 6.3 6.3 n 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 C 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "lr"-EQUATION STORM Ar ,. 2YR 1.58 10YR 2.44 25YR 2.66 SOYR 2.75 100YR 2.61 SUM A I NC I SUM NC 0.14 0.35 0.39 il.92 . ' 0.13 0.19 0.35 0.83 Page 1 0.13 0.32 0.35 0.83 Br 0.58 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.63 3.27 3.08 3.27 3.27 PRECIP= 4 Ar= 2.61 Br= 0.63 Qd Qf Qd/Qf ====== ------ 0.41 2.34 0.176 0.97 2.34 0.415 1.15 4.01 0.287 2.71 2.56 1.058 Did D Vf Vd Tl ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== 0.281 3.37 2.98 2.24 0.65 0.450 5.40 2.98 2.85 0.57 0.367 4.40 5.11 4.41 0.34 0.884 10.61 3.26 3.69 0.23 Tab 6.0 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this site by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 29, 2014. The report is enclosed. 12740.003.doc GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC 918 South Horton Street #1000 Seattle, Washington 98134 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 May 29, 2014 JN14175 Attention: Travis Ameche via email: travis.ameche@urbanstorage.com Subject Transmittal Letter -Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Storage Facility 13839 Southeast 1281h Street and 4815 Northeast 4th Street Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Ameche: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the. storage facility to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-8891, dated March 28, 2014. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. TRC/DRW:at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~ Thor Christensen, P.E. Senior Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Storage Facility 13839 Southeast 1281h Street and 4815 Northeast 41h Street Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed storage facility to be located in Renton. We have been provided with a site plan by Stricker Cato Murphy Architects dated May 13, 2014. Based on these plans, we understand that the development will consist of a three-story building to be located in the central to southwestern portion of the site. A paved access road and parking area will be located west/southwest of the building and a paved fire lane will be located along a portion of the east side of the building. The site is fairly level, thus we believe the slab grade of the building and the paved areas will be near the existing grade. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site, which is composed of two rectangular-shaped parcels, numbered 1523059178 and 1523059002. Overall, the site is somewhat L-shaped, being long on its east and south sides. The site is bordered to the north by Northeast 4th Street and a commercial property, to the east by a residential development, to the south by a mini-storage facility, and to the west by commercial properties. We understand that a gas station formerly occupied the northern portion of the site, but it and the associated underground storage tanks have been removed. Some asphalt pavement remains in that area, which is mostly surrounded with chain link fencing. The ground surface within the site is nearly flat. Close to the southern property line, the ground surface slopes steeply about 5 vertical feet down toward the south. A small stream has been mapped close to the eastern edge of the site. The site is vegetated with young to mature deciduous trees, brush, field grass, and blackberry vines. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 11 test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was generally based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. However, an environmental firm also reviewed the excavation of several test pits in the area of the former gas station. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN14175 Page 2 The test pits were excavated on May 14, 2014 with a trackhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the trackhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 8. Soil Conditions Test Pits 1 through 6 were excavated in the northern portion of the site where the gas station existed. The test pits there encountered a few inches of asphalt pavement at or near the ground surface. The test pits then revealed medium-dense fill material that generally extended to depths of about 3 to 4 feet, although the fill in Test Pit 5 was looser and extended to 8 feet. The fill in these explorations consisted of sand with gravel. We observed as much as 0.5 feet of topsoil below the fill in four of these test pits. Below the topsoil and the fill in Test Pit 2, we observed about 1 to 2 feet of loose, native, silty sand with gravel. The loose silty sand in Test Pits 1 through 4 and 6, and the fill in Test Pit 5, was underlain by medium-dense sand. The sand extended to the base of the explorations at depths of 5 to 9 feet. Test Pits 7 through 11, excavated where no previous development existed, also encountered fill material. The fill in this area was loose to medium-dense and was about 3.5 to 5.5 feet thick. It consisted of silty sand with gravel and pieces of concrete, asphalt, and other debris. The fill was underlain by about one foot of topsoil. Below the topsoil we observed about one foot of loose silty sand with gravel, which was underlain by layers of medium-dense to dense sand with gravel, silt, and silty sand. These materials extended to the maximum depths of the explorations of 8 to 8.5 feet. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 4 to 8 feet. The test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of test pit backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL JN 14175 Page 3 THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY REL YING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test pits conducted for this study encountered fill, topsoil, and loose native soil that extended to depths of about 4.5 to 8 feet. These materials are not suitable to support the proposed structure without experiencing excessive settlement. The building loads need to be transferred to the underlying medium-dense to dense native sand soils. Due to the relatively deep depth of the loose upper soils, we recommend that the building be supported with deep foundations that will transfer structural loads past the loose soils and into the underlying medium-dense to dense soil. We expect that pipe piles driven to refusal will be an appropriate foundation system. Recommendations for design and installation of piles are presented in the Pipe Piles section of this report. Projects involving small-diameter pipe piles often include the need for lateral resistance from fill placed against the foundations. If this is the case for this project, it is important that the structural engineer indicate this requirement on the plans for the general and earthwork contractor's information. Compaction requirements for this fill are discussed below in Pipe Piles. The building department may require that we verify suitable compaction of this fill prior to completion of the project. The on-site fill soils have variable fines content, and therefore have varying moisture sensitivity. It should be feasible to use the soils with low silt content as structural fill, but use of the silty soils as structural fill will likely not be possible if they become wet. The silty sand fill soils near the ground surface and the native silty sand soil encountered below the fill in the southern portion of the site have very low permeability. Also, groundwater was encountered in the native sand. In our opinion stormwater infiltration into the site soils is not feasible. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Existing pavements, ground cover, and landscaping should be left in place wherever possible to minimize the amount of exposed soil. Rocked staging areas and construction access roads should be provided to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, the access roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. Trucks should not be allowed to drive off of the rock-covered areas. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following clearing or rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. On most construction projects, It is necessary to periodically maintain or modify temporary erosion control measures to address specific site and weather conditions. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 4 seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), the site class within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Site Class Type D (Stiff Site Class). The site soils have a very low potential for seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature and/or the lack of groundwater. PIPE PILES Three-or 4-inch-diameter pipe piles driven with a 650-or 800-or 1, 100-pound hydraulic jackhammer to the following final penetration rates may be assigned the following compressive capacities. I INSmE-l'ILI': T FIN.\L l)l{IVl"IG i FIN \L IJRl\'ING I Fl:'iAL llRl\lN<; -rl .\l,LO\\ ,\BLlc llL\ME'I ER , IUTF R \ n: I RA I Ii COMl'RESSIVI: I (650-pouud (800-pound hammer) 'j (1,11111-pound hammer) CAPAC I l"r I hammer) 1 4 inches 20 sec/inch 15 sec/inch 10 sec/inch 10 tons Note: The refusal criteria indicated In the above table are valid only for pipe piles that are Installed using a hydraulic impact hammer carried on leads that allow the hammer to sit on top of the pile during driving. If piles are Installed by alternative methods, such as a vibratory hammer or a hammer that is hard-mounted to the installation machine, numerous load tests to 200 percent of the design capacity would be necessary to substantiate the allowable pile load. The appropriate number of load tests would need to be determined at the time the contractor and installation method are chosen. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 5 As a minimum, Schedule 40 pipe should be used. The site soils should not be highly corrosive. Considering this, it is our opinion that standard "black" pipe can be used, and corrosion protection, such as galvanizing, is not necessary for the pipe piles. We recommend a minimum pile length of 10 feet to achieve embedment into dense native soils. This is simply a minimum length needed to develop sufficient capacity. Our experience with installation of small-diameter pipe piles indicates that it is likely that they will be longer than this minimum length to reach refusal. Pile caps and grade beams should be used to transmit loads to the piles. Isolated pile caps should include a minimum of two piles to reduce the potential for eccentric loads being applied to the piles. Subsequent sections of pipe can be connected with slip or threaded couplers, or they can be welded together. If slip couplers are used, they should fit snugly into the pipe sections. This may require that shims be used or that beads of welding flux be applied to the outside of the coupler. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For this condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level compacted fill. We recommend using a passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for this resistance. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate passive value. As discussed above in the General section, if lateral resistance from fill placed against the foundations is required for this project, the structural engineer should indicate this requirement on the plans for the general and earthwork contractor's information. Compacted fill placed against the foundations can consist of on-site or imported soil that is tamped into place using the backhoe or is compacted using a jumping jack compactor. It is necessary for the fill to be compacted to a firm condition, but it does not need to reach even 90 percent relative compaction to develop the passive resistance recommended above. Due to their small diameter, the lateral capacity of vertical pipe piles is relatively small. However, if lateral resistance in addition to passive soil resistance is required, we recommend driving battered piles in the same direction as the applied lateral load. The lateral capacity of a battered pile is equal to one-half of the lateral component of the allowable compressive load, with a maximum allowable lateral capacity of 1,000 pounds. The allowable vertical capacity of battered piles does not need to be reduced if the piles are battered steeper than 1 :5 (Horizontal:Vertical). GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS JN 14175 Page 6 Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: I l'ARAMJ<: I J<:l{ V.\Llm -1 Active Earth Pressure * 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (I) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. • For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The values given above are to be used to design only permanent foundation and retaining walls that are to be backfilled, such as conventional walls constructed of reinforced concrete or masonry. It is not appropriate to use the above earth pressures and soil unit weight to back-calculate soil strength parameters for design of other types of retaining walls, such as soldier pile, reinforced earth, modular or soil nail walls. We can assist with design of these types of walls, if desired. The passive pressure given is appropriate only for a shear key poured directly against undisturbed native soil, or for the depth of level, well-compacted fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. Wall Pressures Due to Seismic Forces The surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake can be modeled by adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above-recommended active pressure. The recommended surcharge pressure is ?H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the GEOTE.CH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN14175 Page 7 design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis. Retaining Wall Backfill and Waterproofing Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Also, subsurface drainage systems are not intended to handle large volumes of water from surface runoff. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. Water percolating through pervious surfaces (pavers, gravel, permeable pavement, eel.) must also be prevented from flowing toward walls or into the backfill zone. The compacted subgrade below pervious surfaces and any associated drainage layer should therefore be sloped away. Alternatively, a membrane and subsurface collection system could be provided below a pervious surface. It is critical that the wall backfill be placed in lifts and be properly compacted, in order for the above-recommended design earth pressures to be appropriate. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well-compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains additional recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below-grade walls, or to prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically includes limiting cold-joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls. We recommend that you contact an experienced envelope consultant if detailed recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 8 The General, Slabs-On-Grade, and Drainage Considerations sections should be reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction. SLABS-ON-GRADE The building floors can be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop the existing fill soils, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. This can affect moisture-sensitive flooring, cause imperfections or damage to the slab, or simply allow excessive water vapor into the space above the slab. All interior slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a capillary break drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of clean gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 1 D percent. Pea gravel or crushed rock are typically used for this layer. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on-grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture-sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders such as 6-m1I plastic sheeting have been used in the past, but are now recommending a minimum 10-mil thickness for better durability and long term performance. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where vapor retarders are used under slabs, their edges should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. in the recent past, ACI (Section 4. 1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well-graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8-inch-minus crushed rock pavement base, be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for their protection, and as a "blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before Iha slab is Installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab curl due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC, Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 9 Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blotter material. The General, Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls, and Drainage Considerations sections should be reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction. We recommend placing concrete slabs over at least 1 foot of structural fill to provide more uniform support for the slab where the subgrade is soft or settles more rapidly than the surrounding ground. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints used to control shrinkage cracking should extend through the upper one- fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints depends on the slab shape and the amount of steel placed in it. Reducing the water-to-cement ratio of the concrete and curing the concrete, by preventing the evaporation of free water until cement hydration occurs, will also reduce shrinkage cracking. We recommend proof-rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof-rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES No excavated slopes are anticipated other than for utility trenches. Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1 :1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface runoff be directed away from the top of temporary slope cuts. Cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand or loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement-sensitive utilities are located nearby. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN14175 Page 10 All permanent cuts into the existing fill soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). The surface of any permanent cuts should be compacted to a firm condition. Compacted fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Footing drains should be used where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock that is encircled with non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space. The discharge pipe for subsurface drains should be sloped for flow to the outlet point. Roof and surface water drains must not discharge into the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 9. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. If the structure includes an elevator, it may be necessary to provide special drainage or waterproofing measures for the elevator pit. If no seepage into the elevator pit is acceptable, it will be necessary to provide a footing drain and free-draining wall backfill, and the walls should be waterproofed. If the footing drain will be too low to connect to the storm drainage system, then it will likely be necessary to install a pumped sump to discharge the collected water. Alternatively, the elevator pit could be designed to be entirely waterproof; this would include designing the pit structure to resist hydrostatic uplift pressures. As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs-On-Grade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Crawl space grades are sometimes left near the elevation of the bottom of the footings. As a result, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent an accumulation of any water that may bypass the footing drains. Providing even a few inches of free draining gravel underneath the vapor retarder limits the potential for seepage to build up on top of the vapor retarder. Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 11 where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. A discussion of grading and drainage related to pervious surfaces near walls and structures is contained in the Foundation and Retaining Walls section. PAVEMENT AREAS The pavement section may be supported on the existing fill or on structural fill compacted to a 95 percent density .. In addition, the pavement subgrade must be in a stable, non-yielding condition at the time of paving. Granular structural fill or geotextile fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. To evaluate pavement subgrade strength, we recommend that a proof roll be completed with a loaded dump truck immediately before paving. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, an additional 12 inches of granular structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill beneath pavements are given in the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements Is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. Increased maintenance and more frequent repairs should be expected if thinner pavement sections are used. Water from planter areas and other sources should not be allowed to infiltrate into the pavement subgrade. The pavement section recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. As with any pavements, some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected as the pavement ages. Cracks in the pavement should be sealed as soon as possible after they become evident, in order to reduce the potential for degradation of the subgrade from infiltration of surface water. For the same reason, it is also prudent to seal the surface of the pavement after it has been in use for several years. To provide for a design without the need for any maintenance or repair would be uneconomical. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 12 The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: LOCATION OF J>ILL -~.-.,\ l'IVE l'LACEM E"IT T ION Beneath footings, slabs 95% orwalkwavs Filled slopes and behind 90% retainlna walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557- 91 (Modified Proctor). I Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Renton Mini LLC and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with our understanding of current local standards of practice, and within the scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described In our report for consideration in design. Our services GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LLC May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 13 also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3 -8 Plate 9 Vicinity Map Site Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs Typical Footing Drain Detail GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton Mini LL C May 29, 2014 JN 14175 Page 14 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. Attachments: Plates 1-9 TRC/DRW:at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Thor Christensen, P.E. Senior Engineer D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. GEO'rECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Source: Microsoft Streels and Trips, 2004) VICINITY MAP 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington I Job No: I Date: . 14175 May 2014 ~"" ' l!JW•~9&.-211 : 0" Cl.If' lfCg;iq.1_2J Legend: [;jj Test pit location .. .;; GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington 'Job No: 14175 I Date: May 2014 No Scale 2 I-.. I- - 5 -y - - -- 10 - - - -.. 5 1--y .. I-.. .. 10 - TEST PIT 1 Description 2 inches of asphalt over: Brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL TOPSOIL B Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-gralned,-moist to wet, loose 1<,,0 <i O <> Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense 9,.o., ,00(') Pc:io""<,0 111 "]~~t t} o Q 0 ,\gr a, • Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet on May 14, 2014. • Groundwater seepage was observed at 5.0 feet during excavation . • Cavin observed at 5.0 feet durin g g excavation. TEST PIT 2 Description Gray-brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL :m:r: ---------- Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-grained, moist to wet, loose SM) :; :1):1;1,., 0 <1 0,::, Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-<:lense 9,o., ,c,ot) ot'o0 ~':l ej~~[ ti; o ,.,o"=' .\~%~ 2? o o< • Test Pit terminated at 8.5 feet on May 14, 2014 . • Groundwater seepage was observed at 5.0 feet during excavation . • Caving observed at 5.0 feet during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14175 Ma 2014 TRC 3 .. .... .. .... T 5 -.. .. .. - 10 - .. .. --.Y 5 ----- 10 - TEST PIT 3 Description 2 inches of asphalt over: Gray-brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL TOPSOIL ::~1 Brown, silty SAND, fine -to coarse-grained, wet, loose : SM• •,,,n,;,• 'l." Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense %tJ,, 'b t) ,:,Cl<>,,.. \'f <:, ,e,,~g "~~~I~ ~~ " a~ ~· 0 ~. ' ~ D c, c, ~· <>' • r-, D c, <> * Test Pit terminated at 9.0 feet on May 14, 2014. . * Groundwater seepage was observed at 4.5 feet durmg excavation. * Caving observed at 4.5 feet during excavation. TEST PIT 4 Description Gray-brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL TOPSOI[ !JsMl[ Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose l· . Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense 00"80<0 • Test Pit terminated at 5.0 feet on May 14, 2014. • Groundwater seepage was observed at 4.5 feet during excavation. • Caving observed at 4.5 feet during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14175 Ma 2014 TRC 4 . :\ ~0 fl';;,, TEST PIT 5 ~ , c}•,S l\ 0' R,s, ~o' ,:,1.0'!' ~,§, ,JJ-0 00 Description <::/' 0 o ,<,,'Ii 0s 2 inches of asphalt over: ... FILL Gray, 5/8-inch crushed rock, moist, medium-dense (FILL) --1\2 inches of asphalt __ Gray-brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, wet, loose to medium-dense (FILL) - -.Y FILL 5 - I-... I------{svtJ; Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense ... 10 '-- * Test Pit terminated at 9.0 feet on May 14, 2014. * Groundwater seepage was observed at 4.0 feet during excavation. * Caving observed at 3.0 feet during excavation. ~;\ '..,1..:/l' l\ fl:0\ TEST PIT 6 if ~o' &'f' ~'Ii ,JJ-0 00 Description <:;l cP -<..0 0s 2 inches of asphalt over: -Gray-brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL - - I-.Y TOPSOIL j:ISMi{ Brown, silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, wet, loose 5 '--@1 Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense --- I-,: ... 2, <>~O /j I- • Test Pit terminated at 7.0 feet on May 14, 2014. * Groundwater seepage was observed at 4.5 feet during excavation. ... * Caving observed at 4.5 feet during excavation . 10 '-- ' TEST PIT LOG -*< GEOTECH 13839 Southeast 128th Street CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton, Washington • Job I Date: I Logged by: I Plate: / 14175 Mav 2014 TRC 5 ... I- ... I- 5 - I- ... I- ... 10 - ... I- ... ... 5 - I-... -- 10 - TEST PIT 7 Description Grass over: Gray-brown, silty SAND with gravel and pieces of concrete, fine to coarse-grained, mois FILL loose to medium-dense (FILL) t, -· TOPSOIL -- H SM : Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose ·------' Gray SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense .Y 'SW ' . [ 'lMLJ' 1 Gray, bedded SILT and SAND, non-plastic, fine to medfum-grained, moist, dense--: ; SP /;: : ' •:: * Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet on May 14, 2014 . • Groundwater seepage was observed at 7.0 feet during excavation. * Caving observed at 7.0 feet durln excavation. g TEST PIT 8 Description Grass over: Gray-brown to gray, silty SAND with gravel and pieces of concrete, fine to coarse-grain ed, y moist, loose to medium-dense (FILL) FILL TOPSOIL if" Brown, silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose - SM :: :: : i! Gray, bedded SANu witn gravel and SIL 1, non-plastic, fine to coarse-grainea, moist, SW dense ILML * Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet on May 14, 2014. * Groundwater seepage was observed at 7.5 feet during excavation. • No cavin g observed durin GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. g excavation. TEST PIT LOG 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14175 Ma 2014 TRC 6 ... ... '"" ... 5 - I"' ... Y. -- 10 - ---- 5 -- '"" ... Y. '"" 10 - TEST PIT 9 Description Grass over: Gray-brown to gray, silty SAND with gravel and pieces of asphalt and concrete, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose (FILL) FILL TOPSOIL and branches - SM Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, loose ·~,, Gray, bedded SAND and SILT, non-plastic, fine to medium-grained, moist, dense I Ml!) * Test Pit terminated at 8.5 feet on May 14, 2014. * Groundwater seepage was observed at 7.0 feet during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. TEST PIT 10 Description Grass over: Gray-brown to gray, silty SAND with gravel and pieces of asphalt, concrete, and lumber, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose to medium-dense (FILL) FILL TOPSOIL SM) Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-grained, moist to wet, loose • 'SW Gray SAND with silt, fine to coarse-grained, moist, dense . >< * Test Pit terminated at 8.5 feet on May 14, 2014. * Groundwater seepage was observed at 8.0 feet during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14175 Ma 2014 TRC 7 ;\ ;_<o o\;;,, TEST PIT 11 ~ ·c,'-v 1..'Z <o~ R;s-~o' r;,.,f' ,r,.'<>'I. ~e, 00 Description <;:f' 00 '\ '<>'<:! 0 ":J Grass over: '"' Gray-brown to dark-brown, silty SAND with gravel, organics, and pieces of concrete, FILL asphalt, brick, and plastic, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose to medium-dense (FILL) '"' ... ... TOPSOIL 5 -:,s~· Brown, silty SAND, fine to coarse-grained, moist to wet, loose ·:.~.\ -j~~J; Gray SAND, fine to coarse-grained, wet, medium-dense -.... -:!'[SM .• Gray, silty SAND, fine to medium-grained, moist, dense -* Test Pit terminated at 8.5 feet on May 14, 2014. 10 -* Groundwater seepage was observed at 6.0 feet during excavation. * Caving observed at 6.0 feet during excavation. ' TEST PIT LOG '-'< GEOTECH 13839 Southeast 128th Street CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton, Washington • Job I Date: I Logged by: I Plate: -14175 Mav 2014 TRC 8 Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Washed Rock (7/8" min. size) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Vapor Retarder/Barrier and Capillary Break/Drainage Layer ( Refer to Report text) NOTES: L__ 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 13839 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington I Job No: I Date: . 14175 May 2014 I Plate: 9 I Tab 7.0. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits for this project include: • Building Permit • Right-of-Way Use Permit 12740.003.doc Tab 8.0 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This project will utilize appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in order to protect the site and adjacent properties. 1. Clearing Limits -The clearing limits will be shown on the Demolition and TESC Plan, part of the site development drawings. 2. Cover Measures -Cover measures are added in the TESC notes on the engineering plans. 3. Perimeter Protection -Perimeter protection is shown on the engineering plans (silt fencing). 4. Traffic Area Stabilization -A stabilized construction entrance is shown on the engineering plans. 5. Sediment Retention -Catch basin filters will be used for sediment retention. 6. Surface Water Collection -Onsite surface water will be routed through an onsite BMP prior to being discharged from the site. 7. Dewatering Control -Dewatering may be necessary during onsite excavation. Only clean water may leave the site. Dewatering may be accomplished through the use of sump pumps. 8. Dust Control -Dust control by sprinklering will be utilized if needed. 9. Flow Control -Permanent flow control will be through the proposed water quality and detention vault. Because this site is greater than 1 acre, a General Permit from the Department of Ecology is required. 12740.003.doc Tab 9.0 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT Bond quantities will be provided during permit review. 12740.003.doc Tab 10.0 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL A preliminary Operation and Maintenance Manual is included. 12740.003.doc OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Storage One -Renton Highlands N.E. 4th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: Stricker Cato Murphy Architects, P.S. 311 1st Avenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 December 9, 2014 Our Job No. 12740 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH. CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION EXHIBIT A MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 12740.006.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION Catch basins are located on the Storage One site that collect runoff from the project site and route that runoff through ccnveyance piping to the southwest corner of the site where runoff enters a detention pond which provides flow control for the new land covers on the project site. Level 2 Flow Control is the required means of providing Flow Control for this project. Water quality treatment will be provided in a modular wetland to meet the City of Renton's Enhanced Basic Water Quality. The release mechanism from the detention pond is a control structure located on the east side of the pond, which has a riser pipe inside of it that releases runoff at a slow rate and tends to back up water in the pond during peak storm events. The release to the downstream drainage course is also through the modular wetland, then a pump system and force main to the existing wetland onsite. All facilities on the project site should be maintained on a regular basis of at least twice a year at an interval of every six months. Should vegetation become sparse or should it die out, then it should be replaced around the site to match what the design conditions of the site were when the site was initially constructed. The following pages of this report delineate the requirements for flow control, conveyance, and water quality facilities maintenance. Please refer to these documents when performing your maintenance on the project site. 12740.006.doc Exhibit A Maintenance Guidelines APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQU!REMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FAC[L!TIES NO. 1 -DETENTION PONDS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square reet (this Is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no vlsual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulatlons. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of conlaminan!s or pollution such Materials removed and disposed or pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented lf appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil fllm. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 Inches. Top or Side Slopes Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes If faclllty is acting Rodents removed or destroyed and of Dam, Berm or as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water dam or berm repaired. Embankment piping through dam or berm via rodent holes. Tree growth Tree growth threatens integrity of slopes, does Trees do not hinder facility not allow maintenance access. or interferes with performance or maintenance maintenance activlty. If trees are not a threat or activities. not interfering with access or maintenance, they do not need to be removed. Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where cause Slopes stabilized. using appropriate of damage is still present or where there Is erosion control measures. If erosion potential for continued erosion. Ally erosion is occurring on compacted slope, a observed on a compacted slope. licensed civil engineer should be consulted to resolve source of erosion. Settlement Any part of a dam, berm or embankment that has Top or side slope restored to design settled 4 inches lower than the design elevation. dlmensions. If settlement is significant, a licensed civil engineer should be consulted to determine the cause or the settlement. Storage Area Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 10% of the Sediment cleaned out to designed accumulation designed pond depth. pond shape and depth; pond reseeded if necessary to control erosion. Liner damaged Liner is visible or pond does not hold water as Liner repaired or replaced. (Ir Applicable) designed. ' lnleUOullet Pipe. Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleUoullet pipes clear of sediment. accumulaUon Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (Includes ffoatables and non-Hoatables). Damaged Cracks wider lhan Xi~lnch at the joint of the No cracks more than %4 1nch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence or soil entering lhe joint of the inleUoutfet pipe. at the joints of lhe inlet/outlet pipes. Emergency Tree growth Tree growth impedes now or threatens stability of Trees removed. Overflow/Spillway spillway. Rock missing Only one layer of rock exists above native soil io Spillway restored to design area five square feet or larger or any exposure of standards. native soil on the spillway. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-2 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than Yz cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the structure potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the structure by structure. more than 10%. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds 1 /3 No trash or debris in the structure. the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of structure contains no bottom of the structure to the invert of the lowest sediment. pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section. Damage to frame Comer of frame extends more than % inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than % inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than Y. inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Yz inch and longer than 3 feet, Structure is sealed and structurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1h inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1 /4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering structure through cracks. Settlement/ Structure has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than 1h-inch at the joint of the No cracks more-than Y.~inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or painl according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design standards and or unsafe misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damage T section is not securely attached to structure T section securely attached to wall wall and outlet pipe structure should support at and outlet pipe. least 1,000 lbs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to Structure in correct position. 10% from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight or Connections to outlet pipe are water show signs of deteriorated grout. tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes-other than designed holes-in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing Cteanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily and maintenance person. is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and works as missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all obstructions and blocking the plate. works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all obstructions and potentlal of blocking) the overflow pipe. works as designed. Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe ls bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation tower than design lnleUOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than Yz-lnch at the joint of the No cracks more than 1-4-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/9 inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-tocking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-8 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the sediment. lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than Xi cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris in the catch basin. 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than % inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than 1.4 inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than Y. inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Yi inch and longer than 3 feet, Catch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than % inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1 /4 inch wide at at the joint of any inleUoutlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inleUoutlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than 1h-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than 11.t-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than 1h-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than 11.t-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inleUoutlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO, 5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applylng BO lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-10 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6-CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Resu Its Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulation 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock lining out of One layer or less of rock exists above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing ( If area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-11 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 9 -FENCING Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Erosion or holes Erosion or holes more than 4 inches high and 12-No access under the fence. under fence 18 inches wide permitting access through an opening under a fence. Wood Posts, Boards Missing or damaged Missing or broken boards, post out of plumb by No gaps on fence due to missing or and Cross Members parts more than 6 inches or cross members broken broken boards, post plumb to within 11h inches, cross members sound. Weakened by rotting Any part showing structural deterioration due to All parts of fence are structurally or insects rotting or insect damage sound. Damaged or failed Concrete or metal attachments deteriorated or Post foundation capable of post foundation unable to support posts. supporting posts even in strong wind. Metal Posts, Rails Damaged parts Post out of plumb more than 6 inches. Post plumb to within 11h inches. and Fabric Top rails bent more than 6 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 inch. Any part of fence (including post top rails, and Fence is aligned and meets design fabric) more than 1 foot out of design alignment. standards. Missing or loose tension wire. Tension wire in place and holding fabric. Deteriorated paint or Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling Structurally adequate posts or parts protective coating condition that has affected structural adequacy. with a uniform protective coating. Openings in fabric Openings in fabric are such that an 8-inch _Fabric mesh openings within 50% of diameter ball could fit through. grid size. I/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-14 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 10-GATES/BOLLARDS/ACCESS BARRIERS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Chain Link Fencing Damaged or missing Missing gate. Gates in place. Gate members Broken or missing hinges such that gate cannot Hinges intact and lubed. Gate is be easily opened and closed by a maintenance working freely. person. Gate is out of plumb more than 6 inches and Gate is allgned and vertical. more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing stretcher bar, stretcher bands, and ties. Stretcher bar, bands, and ties in place. Locking mechanism Locking device missing, no-functioning or does Locking mechanism prevents does not lock gate not link to all parts. opening of gate. Openings in fabric Openings in fabric are such that an 8-inch Fabric mesh openings within 50'% of diameter ball could fit through. grid size. Bar Gate Damaged or missing Cross bar does not swing open or closed, is Cross bar swings fully open and cross bar missing or is bent to where it does not prevent closed and prevents vehicle access. vehicle access. Locking mechanism Locking device missing, no-functioning or does Locking mechanism prevents does not lock gate not link to all parts. opening of gate. Support post Support post does not hold cross bar up. Cross bar held up preventing vehicle damaged access into facility. Bollards Damaged or missing Bollard broken, missing, does not fit into support No access for motorized vehicles to hole or hinge broken or missing. get into facility. Does not lock Locking assembly or lock missing or cannot be No access for motorized vehicles to attached to lock bollard in place. get into facility. Boulders Dislodged Boulders not located to prevent motorized vehicle No access for motorized vehicles to access. get into facility. Circumvented Motorized vehicles going around or between No access for motorized vehicles to boulders. get into facility. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A l/9/2009 A-15 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grasslgroundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25°/o of the total of total foliage with split or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or No blown down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported; dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/912009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-16 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES N0.17-WETVAULT Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Resu Its Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on facility site. Trash and debris removed from facility site. Treatment Area Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated in vault No trash or debris in vault. (includes floatables and non-floatables}. Sediment Sediment acCtlmulation in vault bottom exceeds No sediment in vault. accumulation the depth of the sediment zone plus 6 inches. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vault Structure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than 1.4.·inch, any evidence of soil Vault is sealed and structurally frame, bottom, and/or entering the structure through cracks, vault does sound. top slab not retain water or qualified inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or Repair or replace baffles or walls to showing signs of failure or baffle cannot be specifications. removed. Ventilatlon Ventilation area blocked or plugged. No reduction of ventilation area exists. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non.floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than 1h·inch at the joint of the No cracks more than 1A·inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Gravity Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes nonnally. Valve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. Access Manhole Access cover/lid Access cover/lid cannot be easily opened by one Access cover/lid can be opened by damaged or difficult to person. Corrosion/deformation of cover/lid. one person. open Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self.locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Access doors/plate Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access has gaps, doesnl opening not completely covered. opening completely. cover completely Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/912009 A-23