The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscChip Vincent From: Laureen M. Nicolay Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:06 AM To: Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Site Visit --Utilities Permit No U090004 is tied to Bretzke Short Plat Land Use File LUA07-113--Also now U120014 Hi Chip, Seems like your schedule is pretty booked up for this week. Today appears to your only semi -open day schedule -wise. appreciate you going out on this less than ideal weather day. Perhaps you can see what you need to see from NE 101h Street? You now have the wetland delineation plan (there is no mitigation plan yet, which is one of the issues). The code requires the wetland to be flagged and a condition of plat approval requires the protected trees to be fenced. You also have the tree preservation plan which will evidently indicate that at least one preserved tree has already been removed. There is also supposed to be some sort of wildlife analysis which we don't have and some very extensive erosion control. I would imagine there is none of this in the field. From: Laureen M. Nicolay Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:58 PM To: Chip Vincent Cc: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: FW: Utilities Permit No U090004 is tied to Bretzke Short Plat Land Use File LUA07-113--Also now U120014 Arneta was directed to issue the permit to extend the sewer line through the wetland buffer today —and it has now been issued, just not under the original permit number (1-1090004—covering the sewer line and all other streets/utilities). Hopefully you can check into this soon because work could already be occurring without any of the required critical area protections or mitigation submittals (see below). A new permit number has been assigned by Development Services (U120014) to cover just the sewer line portion of the plat's infrastructure. But, while this new permit number was never electronically linked to the short plat file number, it is still associated with this short plat project. See you Thursday and good luck. LaureR vv NLwQ , Se V.4o r Pla*uwr CITY OF�ENT� City of Renton Planning Division IA n 1055 S. Grady Way(' v .' Renton, WA 98057 MAR 2 0 2014 (425) 430-7294 phone (425) 430-7231 fax I RECEIVED Inicolay@rentonwa.gov CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: Laureen M. Nicolay Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11.09 AM To: Chip Vincent Cc: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: Utilities Permit No U090004 is tied to Bretzke Short Plat Land Use File LUA07-113 Chip there is a utilities permit tied to the short plat with wetlands that we were discussing. Its description reads as follows: INSTALL SERVER MAIN, GRADE DRIVEWAYS & INSTALL CURB GUTTER & SDEWLK DRAW 3494 So, it appears (at least) a revised tree removal plan, verification of required tree protection fencing, wetland flagging, final wetland mitigation and monitoring plan, etc. should all be obtained now prior to issuance of this permit. Also, in order to comply with the ERC conditions of approval, the permit should not be issued until the April window established in the conditions of approval. Also an analysis of wildlife impacts was also required by the ERC. La4weewWcaiay, Sani&r Ka~zr City of Renton Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7294 phone (425) 430-7231 fax Inicolay@rentonwa.goy Print Map Page y Page 1 of ] Parcel Map and Data �f023aS93I3 fp230S9f3A � '; 1A23A59151 fA290S9151 1023059382 10230S9i5f i023AS938� 1023059383k—� f0230591T5� i023050366 7✓E 70591760?3059iS3 1023059318 tTi23059198 itt6.ttlrllBr 7D23Q59369 92114311040 92ff0f�Ae10 10230S938A f�23a39352 r, ----� E i02903 9 1023t7593t7 9211010920 Renton 0231159357 < 921101TR-F 1023059358 1A230SD3Sf 927f01TR-0 1023059390 921101TR•A {C)2010 KIng County O�BAtt Parcel Number 1023059358 Site Address 5521 NE 10TH ST Zip code 98059 Taxpayer BRETZKE DANIEL P+FUMILO K The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice, King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or Information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County." King County I GIS Center f News j Services j Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The detail http://www5.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer/Print_Process.asp 03/05/2012 BRETZKE SNORT PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LUA 07-113 Project Condition Source of When Compliance is Party Notes Condition Required Responsible The applicant shall be required to ERC Prior to Utility Permits Applicant provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in 2005 Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual, This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Earthwork shall be undertaken only ERC Throughout project Applicant between the months of April and October. The applicant shall provide the ERC Prior to SHPL approval Applicant Done Development Services project manager with a brief description of the potential wildlife onsite, and discuss the potential impacts this development might have on habitat. This requirement is due to the project manager prior to preliminary short plat approval. The applicant shall comply with the Administrator Throughout Applicant mitigation measures from the Environmental Review Committee. The applicant shall reduce the deck by Administrator Prior to Recording Applicant 3 inches in width in order to comply with the side yard setback requirements, or apply for a variance to reduce the side yard setback. This is subject to inspection, and shall be completed prior to the recording of the short plat. In order to preserve any protected trees Administrator Prior to utility permits Applicant to be retained during utility and building construction, trees shall be fenced off around the drip line and a sign posted that the tree is to be reserved. The applicant shall submit a revised, Administrator Prior to issuance of Applicant detailed landscape plan prepared by a building construction landscape architect registered in the permits State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional. The plan is subject to the review and approval of the Development Sevices project manager and is due prior to the issuance of any building permits. Bretzke Short Plat Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2 Prior to recording, the applicant shall Administrator Prior to Recording Applicant install a split rail fence along the wetland buffer, with signs posted noting the presence of the wetland. The applicant shall establish a Administrator Prior to Recording Applicant homeowners' association or maintenance agreement prior to or concurrently with the recording of the short plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway and utilities. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. The applicant shall pay the required Administrator Building Permits Applicant Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 (estimated $2,153.25) per net average daily trip prior to the recording of the short plat. The applicant shall submit a revised temporary erosion control plan and all Administrator Prior to Utility Permits Applicant other relevant plans, for review and approval by the Development Services project manager, showing the relocation of the sediment pond outside of the critical area and its buffer. The project is required to comply with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume 1I of the 2001 edition of the Stormwater Management Manual. The revised plan is due prior to the issuance of any utility construction 2ermits. The applicant shall pay a $488.00 Fire Administrator Prior to recording Applicant Mitigation Fee per new single-family lot (estimated $1,464,00) prior to the recording of the short plat. CC: City of Renton File LUA 07-1 13 Craig Burnell Arneta Henninger Rocale Timmons CITY OF RENMy BRETZKE SHORT - rLA T ECORDING NO, VOL,/PAGE SHORT PLAT SE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SEC. 10, TWP. 23N., RGE. 5E., W.M. CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON ��I111 VVV LUA IVQ- _ 1AaEac sCALE"=4a' LND N0, SEARING MERIDIAN: / /11, - 2 A BEARING OF NOOW'427E ALONG THE EAST SECTION LINE 0 40 80 120 BETYEEN THE NE SEC. CORNER AND THE E. 1/4 CORNER OFma 1 SEC7IDN 10-23-a% PER KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. LD2SOO16, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 172 OF SURVEY. PAGE 205, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTLN. CITY =CCN� N.E. 10 TN STREET Vusuc ROAOXGIY' �a- SEtl'16'70'1: Ill .78' CALC'O %&- i.ar, gT 3/H' BAR t CAP LS1 j 15025' WETLAND NOTES: 1) THE WETLAND FLAGS AND SOIL LOG PITS SHOWN ON THE MAP PAGE WERE DERIVED BY BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC. _ GW FEBRUARY 17.2006. GEODIMENSIONS� INC. LOCATED THESE FLAGS ON MARCH Z, 200&. THE WETLAND FLAGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE MARKED AS FOUND IN nLLD. WETLAND TABLE ONE I BEARING DISTANCE Lf N a L2 Si51 24.8 L3 SOY?Sa7 E 24.99 L4 AW4 4 3&M L5 S59'44 23.1Y LB S2044 17.B2 L7 N29T1344 J6.32 L8 N32-48 47.41' L9 S57U2547 as Lie 1 7a99 LT7 572T r4i 26.34 L12 59778 4 E 3209 03 1 S4643'31'E 3d9T' BUFFER AREA-1262 SOFT+/- WE1L4 NL1 ARE4 -34 SnFT+I LOT 4 BUFFER AREA-7].407 SO.FT+/- AERAND AREA-329M SOFT.+/-. LEGEND FOR MAP PAGE POWT NO, 1845 0 w _ � - NTH lix COPPER PK � - - DOW T.:Y 4F GSE z RE sm OaRfaR OF {° SEG TO-73-S a �> SITE iCN BASW 114 MARK: R-O-W RAF REV-4BA24' it W PRJVAT ITGRESS, EGRESS J AND UTILITY, EASEMENT v R Recording 200703050D0718 I ADDRESS LOT 1 5521 NE ICU St LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 CITY OF RENTON BpE34C2H MARK N0. ARENT2111 w1H COPPDow�I 1. N CAW D" CN TACK - MZ £ 7 4 CORI¢R OF 10-23-5 10 1 15 14 7 TAME lM BEARING OMTAMM L1 SMB90 2QO7 LZ SODMt4rW 104. LJ See'1 as.70 L4 S00'0 2a01 LS N8mI W07- LO NOQO2 u 2601 L7 NO092 427 ai31 LINE 1 ARC RADIUS DELTA Cl4aEn 21 D7.47 0 C21I MOD' I MEW C17Y OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NO. 1852 a7 SLWAW MASS V= NTH PUNCH NARK se SEC COARER a, sec To--W-s V�RTICA DA o2—soa&) EN B 0 KK N NT2101 (NA VD 1988) SEE MAP FOR DETAILED WFORMAM N' t ELEVAnON ON COPPER PIN - 512-02' REFERENCES USED., FOUND MONUMENT ON 03102120M AS NOTED CITY OF RENTON LUA- 108-LLA, V.197, PAGE 067, KC RECORDS 0 FOUND REBAR AS NOTED KING COUNTY BLA NO. L02SOO16, V. 175, PAGES 205 AND 206, KC RECORDS SET 3/B" BAR & CAP 'GEOD LS 1 15025' RECORD OF SURVEY, V. 152, PAGE 83, KC RECORDS. Q. CENTERLINE OF ROAD NEW PROPERTY LINE A, WETLAND FLAG 'MARKED AS FOUND IN FIELD" ---------- EDGE OF WETLANDS - - - - - - 14ERAND BUFFER EDGE ! Bnslons 6210 FAIRWAY PLACE S.E. SM60UALMIE A. 98065 O 4. _ 4488 )" 6-2950 BRETZKE 5521 NE 10TH ST REN TON, WA 98059 SE 7/4 OF NE 1/4 , S. 70 T 23N R,--rE DWN. BY DATE JOB NO_ D.P.B J-13-2007 6D42•-Sp CHKD. BY SCALE SHEET I.-W 2 OF 2 T �I�o 35- 6 *d' 4f . 41;le qv, I ik e Ji �� Subject Property Parcel Boundaries Finura 1- Vininitv/Ritp- Ma CITY:OF .RE,NTON Table No.1: USFWS Plant Indicator Status Categories as modified by the National List of Plant Species that Occur In Wetlands: Northwest- Region IX Indicator Status Definition Obligate Wetland (OBL) Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non -wetlands. Facultative (FAC) Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands (estimated probability 34%-66%). Facultative Upland (FACU) Usually occur in non -wetlands, but occasionally found In wetlands (1%-33%). Obligate Upland (UPL) Plants that rarely occur (estimated probability <1%) in wetlands, but occur almost always in non -wetlands under natural conditions. No Indicator Status (NI) Insufficient information exists to assign an indicator status. Not Listed (NL) Not on the National List in any region. According to the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual, an area meets the hydrophytic vegetation criteria when, under normal circumstances, more than 50 percent of the dominant species from each stratum are obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC) species. For the purposes of the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual protocol, a plus (+) or a minus (-) sign is often included in the designation to specify a higher or lower level of the indicator status for the three facultative categories, and a FAC- indicator status is not considered to be an indicator of hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., it is treated in the same way as a facultative upland [FACU], upland [UPL], and a not -listed [NL] species). IV. Results One palustrine forested, scrub -shrub wetland was identified on the site. This wetland is part of a Iarger system and is connected to other similar wetlands by Honey Creek. While the system remains isolated by manmade disturbances, it remains connected hydrologically through the watercourse found in the center of the area of study. Because of this connectivity, this wetland is a valuable resource with functional potential and value. The boundary of the wetland was delineated on the site along forested and scrub -shrub communities. Seven data points as illustrated in Figure 4 were established'along the wetland boundary to establish a baseline of soil and hydrologic conditions and to sample plant communities. Data sheets were completed for each of these data points, and the Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAK A06112 Page 11 of 11 r♦ Saslow91' C�LGt° .i r. \ _ .\ —Ir — All* emu,. a 1 . \ . \ L ti •• 'tb \ % Id • 1 WL8 5 5 7 :� 1 1 1 ♦ \ 4 N .. ADING B2 ELEv. 41 S'1 1� 1 5 1 XLOT ♦ \ or, GIWMIT o '$ \ \• + ala.e' 1 \\ ♦ \ E,� .° PwL] 1 Q1 XERY. {Ah` y + ♦ ��' ' �*� \\ \\ 11 tNt HTS 5. r+.o 4S .1 J' \ NOT INko\ { ♦♦\ �\ ♦\\ o `\`\` , \ \\ { 1 ��. SNORE, LAB s\ ` ♦ y I ems? �`,�\ \ \ \ 11 } li \ ♦ \ `\ 1 CLrEtB6 of t I \ ` \ ` ♦ w \. Ill I 4 & ' .� \ \ \ 1 1 TOE OF'sL �, �`♦ u I ,BUFFE'R wn.rt9o\ "` I \ • ��`` \ \;-" \\ BRET2uE !\ i I�V£RAGTNG �•+�� ` �� L T z { 71 p \\ +'r \''e 11 ' \ .437.O I� �+"• \ °�,i $ WRa450\.\ 71 Y \ - ��. W-Be CLfv. 4118 P87 a `\ ` ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ BRET \ 45E'i •'$ra i� \f 415{ \ \\ \ `♦ T�' ` \p ,, \ l ° - LOT 1 0 Aigr�i 1 'a " GRAD( IT I Ev. .eoef, +�.irqa�� \ I CPWLI 8H \ 41101 \\\ \\ 1' 1 a' `S • `\1 `LI I �''° I , 1NCi • ' �t ` \\ CL r(1R1 LEA} I! f)Pwl2 �s\ ♦\ \ \ +7 71 17 \\ \\ �7\ + LIMIT .9'��, �i .tom'"• � �, \ � 0 5 4 7 rGP \ I �ro � `\ - ..'•'•• � .M1 ,1I ` . WLB1O \ \\ 1 1 1 1/ �` vs` \ •• \�� I p ``\\ [LEY, 415, 6' \\ \ \ 1 7 11 1 • IC, \ `\ i° • 1 I �\ \ 1 y •� ELEv. 415.3' Qpi � I P WLBH ECEY 419. �' \ \ \ \ AM1 \ Y ":.. gRETT E. 't... ....: ...... . \ \ \ \ �y f �a ,e • BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS INC. Feder Nlnh Avenue South • Sulte 300 BERGER/AB" Federal Way, Wtahieehington 900e3.25e0 2061431.2300 • FAX 20SJ431.2250 E N G I N E E R S I N C u 5 May 2006 Mr. Daniel Bretzke 1313 33rd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98144 Subject: Wetland Report and Buffer Averaging Analysis Dear Mr. Bretzke: PLANNING ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 7 2007 RECEIVED BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. is pleased to submit our wetland report and buffer averaging analysis to you for the property Iocated at 5521 SE Oth Street, Renton, Washington (King County Tax Parcel Nos. 1023059358, 1023039359 and 1023059360). This report and analysis is provided in the attachments as follows. Attachment A: Wetland Report complete with figures and data sheets Attachment B: Buffer Averaging Analysis complete with figures These deliverables complete our contractual requirements with you for this project. We thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project and look forward to working with you in the future. SiS�� Jehomas Senior Environmental PIanner JBT:dls Attachments - Attachment A Wetland Report 17 February 2006 Table of Contents Section Page 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1 II. Background Information.................................................................................................................1 A. Location....................................................................................................................................1 B. Geomorphic Context..............................................................................................................2 C. Climate and Growing Season...............................................................................................5 D. Land -Use History ...................................................................................................................6 M. Methodologies...................................................................................................................................6 A. Rationale for the Determination of the Subject Site Wetland Boundaries ......................6 B. Office Methods........................................................................................................................8 C. Field Delineation.....................................................................................................................8 IV. Results..............................................................................................................................................11 A. Data Points............................................................................................................................12 B. Boundary Flags.....................................................................................................................17 V. References........................................................................................................................................18 ImageNo.1: Subject Site..........................................................................................................................2 Image No. 2: Sampling for Hydric Soils...............................................................................................10 Figure1— Vicinity/Site Map.....................................................................................................................3 Figure2 — Basin/Soils Map........................................................................................................................4 Figure3 — Site Aerial/Topo Map..............................................................................................................7 Figure4 -- Data Point Locations..............................................................................................................13 Table No.1: USFWS Plant Indicator Status Categories as modified by the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest - Region IX .............................11 Appendix I — Field Study Data Sheets..................................................................................................19 Wetland Report BERGER/ABAM, A06112 17 February 2006 Page i of i I. Introduction BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. has been retained by Daniel Bretzke to conduct a wetland delineation on the property known as 5521 SE 10th Street, Renton, Washington (King County Tax Parcel Nos. 1023059358, 1023059359, and 1023059360). The site is located within S10, T23N, R5E and the City of Renton incorporated limits (approximate Latitude 47.29 N and Longitude-122.08 W). This report provides background information, methodologies and the results of the field work. The field work was completed during a two-day period from 6 February 2006 to 7 February 2006 pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) (4)(3)(050)(M)(4a) using the procedures provided in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, as developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Ecology Publication 96-94. This report has been prepared by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. for exclusive use by Mr. Bretzke as required documentation for land use actions with the City of Renton. No other persons may use the information contained in this report for commercial purposes without express written consent of both BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. and Daniel Bretzke. II. Background Information A. Location The site consists of three adjacent tax parcels that are located on the south side of SE 10th Street, approximately 300 feet west of 148th Avenue SE as depicted by Figure 1 — Vicinity/Site Map. There is one large wetland in part on the south-west corner of the site that follows Honey Creek drainage sub -basin. The limits of this wetland delineation are the boundaries of the site. Image No. 1 is a photo of the site taken from a vantage point above the landscape. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 1 of 1 Image No. 1. Subject Site B. Geomorphic Context The site is part of the May Creek drainage basin and the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed as mapped in WRIA No. S and shown in Figure 2. The geomorphology of this area consists of outwash till plains, terraces, and glacial till plains (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder; 1973). The immediate area is characterized by rolling hills and supports a complex of wetlands and uplands that has undergone significant landscape alterations including clearing and filling activities. There are three soils located on or near this site as shown in Figure 2 by the Soil Survey of King County Area (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder; 1973). The mapping symbols and slope classes of the three alderwood subgroups are as follows. AgB: 0 to 6% Slopes AgC: 6 to 15% Slopes AgD:15 to 30% Slopes Wedand Report 17 February 2006 BERGERIABAM, A06112 Page 2 of 2 May Creek Sub -Basin Catchment Basin # MAYCO08 IJ 023059360 102 May Creek Sub - Catchment Basin 0 NE,10th St. /_SEJ1 w U) a� Q L t17 C 6 Legend Source: King Country GIS / NRCS Soils Survey Q Gatchment Sub Basin Boundary AgH Figure 2- Basin / Soils M a p Stream A9g 8E1�GER/ABAhi C FY SS AFi99 A[ Q Subject Property Parcel Boundaries A l) 1 inch equals 200 feet ® Tax Parcels 9 The King Conservation District describes Alderwood soils as follows "Moderately well -drained soils underlain by consolidated glacial till (hardpan) at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. Alderwood soils formed in glacial deposits under conifers. They occupy upland areas at elevations between 100 and 800 feet. The annual precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, mostly rainfall between October and May. The frost - free season is 150 to 200 days." (King Conservation District) A typical Alderwood soil profile from 0 to 27 inches is a dark brown gravelly sandy loam. From 27 to 60 inches, the soil takes a grayish brown weakly to strongly consolidated glacial till characteristic (hardpan). Soil permeability is rapid in surface layer and subsoil above hardpan material and very slow in the hardpan. The depth to the seasonal high water table is 2 to 3 feet and the water -holding capacity is seasonally low (summer) to seasonally high (winter) (King Conservation District). Observations made on the landscape scale and during soil sampling were generally consistent with the descriptions provided in the Soil Survey of King County Area and by the King Conservation District. C. Climate and Growing Season L Climate Climatic information provided by the Soil Survey of King County Area on pages 88-89 and in Table 10 illustrates that the climate influencing the site is greatly tempered by weather systems that originate on the Pacific Ocean (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder;1973). Fairly warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters are the prevailing conditions. A pronounced dry season occurs during the late spring and summer months, with less than 10 days of cloudy or overcast weather and very little precipitation falling in July and August. Rains are frequent during the rest of the year, especially in late fall and winter. Average precipitation is 37 inches per year in Seattle measured at the Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. Snow is rare and typically melts quickly when it does occur. Marine air masses regulate the area's moderate temperatures. Average winter temperatures in the area average around 35' to 457, and summer temperatures typically average 60' to 707 (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder,1973). The combination of cool moist periods punctuated by distinct summer droughts is one of the chief determinants of the hydrology of the site (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder;1973). 2. Growing Season The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service currently defines the growing season as the portion of the year when soil temperatures at 19.7 inches below the soil surface are higher than biological zero (approximately 41' F) (USDA, NRCS,1996). Using information provided by the Soil Survey of King County Area (Table 10) for Seattle -Tacoma International Airport and consistent with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidance, the growing season can be approximated for five years in ten (50 percent of the time) using the 28' F Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 5 of 5 standard (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder;1973). Using these criteria, the growing season for the site occurs between 9 March and 17 November and is 253 days in length. D. Land -Use History Historically, the primary uses of this landscape have been timber production, berry production, row crops, pasture, and urban development. Low fertility and summer drought have been limiting factors to extensive farming of this area. Douglas -fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, red alder, and bigleaf maple are important tree species on all slope classes. Black cottonwood can also be found in this area (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder;1973). Recently, pressures of urban development have begun to re -alter the areas landscape and previously platted lots are being divided into a greater number of smaller lots. This redistribution of land rights and ownership has led to additional removal of forested hill tops and has increased stormwater runoff and erosion and has impacted the adjacent wetland systems. The subject site, as illustrated in Figure 3, consists of one home towards the top of the hill, and a large fenced horse area that appears to have been graded to provide a flat area for the purpose of pasture. Due to this ongoing land use, significant site erosion is apparent and this is impacting the adjacent subject wetland through sheet flow. III. Methodologies A. Rationale for the Determination of the Subject Site Wetland Boundaries The field work was completed during a two-day period from 6 February 2006 to 7 February 2006 pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) (4)(3)(050)(M)(4a) using the procedures provided in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, as developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Ecology Publication 96-94. Although the data collection and field study associated with this delineation were not made during the growing season and hydrologic observations were made following one of the areas wettest months on record, all work was done in accordance with WAC 173-22-080 that states: "It is the purpose of a delineation manual to provide information and methods that will allow a delineator to make an accurate wetland delineation at any time of the year." For this reason, field study and data collection was completed as required by the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, however, experience and field judgment were also considered in delineating the wetland boundary on the site. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 6 of 6 B. Office Methods Consistent with the scope of this project and procedures detailed in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, preliminary information about the site and the immediate vicinity prior to completing the field work. General information sources included the Soil Survey of King County Area, National Wetlands Inventory Maps, both King County and City of Renton websites, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, as well as public records available at the City of Renton. In addition, aerial photographs taken in 2002 and topographic data were reviewed and are depicted in Figure 3. Based on this information, it was possible to make preliminary decisions about the wetland system based on guidance from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Part IV, Section B that helped to scope the completed field work, including the fact that the wetland has been previously identified and accepted as a Type II wetland by the City of Renton for adjacent development activities. C. Field Delineation The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual governs that an area is not considered a regulated wetland if indicators/evidence of any one of three defined parameters, including hydrology, soil, and vegetation are not observed under normal environmental conditions to make a positive wetland determination. Methods of evaluation for each of these parameters are as follows. I. Hydrology Evaluation Consistent with the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual, the presence of wetland hydrology can be determined by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators. In addition to hydrologic data/records pertaining directly to the study area, hydrologic indicators are used to infer wetland hydrology. Field indicators of wetland hydrology listed in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual include, but are not limited to, visual observation of inundation and/or soil saturation, oxidized channels (rhizospheres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, water marks on vegetation or fixed objects, drift tines, water -born sediment deposits, water -stained leaves, surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, morphological plant adaptations, and hydric soil characteristics. According to the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual, areas that are inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season may or may not be wetlands. As outlined under "Climate and Growing Season for Wetland Delineations" above, the growing season defined by the Soil Survey of King County Area for Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, is 253 days in length. Assuming the lower percentage, 5 percent of 253 days is 13 consecutive days. Therefore, consistent with the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 8 of 8 Manual, an area must be inundated or saturated to the surface for 13 consecutive days during the growing season, which extends from 9 March to 17 November. 2. Soil Evaluation The presence of hydric soils can be determined based on the criteria outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The definition of a hydric soil is "... a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (USDA, NRCS, 1996). The definition of a hydric soil is satisfied by the fulfillment of at least one of four technical criteria, including the followingAs AAs : (1) All Histels except Folistels and Histosols except Folists; or (2) Soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, A1bolIs suborder, Historthels great group, Histoturbels great group, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are: (a) Somewhat poorly drained with a water table equal to 0.0 foot from the surface during the growing season, or (b) Poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: Water table equal to 0.0 foot during the growing season if textures are coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches; or for other soils (ii) Water table at less than or equal to 0.5 foot from the surface during the growing season if permeability is equal to or greater than 6.0 inches/hour in all layers within 20 inches; or (iii) A water table at less than or equal to 1.0 foot from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches; or (3) Soils that are frequently ponded for Iong or very long durations during the growing season; or (4) Soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long durations during the growing season. Fulfillment of the technical criteria for soil can be inferred by using a combination of published soils information and field indicators. The indicators available for determining whether a soil satisfies the basic definition and the technical criteria for hydric soils include, but are not limited to the following: the soil is a histosol, a histic epipedon is present, hydrogen sulfide odor is present, the soil is gleyed, the soil has a depleted matrix, the soil has a low chroma matrix with redoximorphic features (e.g., mottles), iron and/or manganese concretions are present, the soil occurs in an aquic or peraquic soil moisture regime, and the soil appears on the hydric soils list. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 9 of 9 Image No. 2: Sampling for Hydrlc Soils 3. VegeUtlon Evaluation For an accurate wetland determination to be made, the presence of hydrophytic vegetation must also be identified consistent with the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. Species identifications and taxonomic nomenclature follow that were found in A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon (Cooke 1997). Dominant species in each of the three strata (tree, saplingishrub, and herb) were identified. Dominant species are those species in each stratum that, when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled, immediately exceed 50 percent cover of the total dominance measure for that stratum, plus any species that comprises at least 20 percent cover. Each species' indicator status was assigned using the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest - Region IX (Reed 1988). A species indicator status refers to the relative frequency with which the species occurs in jurisdictional wetlands as outlined in Table No 1. Wetland Report BERGERJABAK A061I2 17 February 2006 Page 10 of I0 Table No.1: USFWS Plant Indicator Status Categories as modified by the National List of Plant Species that Occur In Wetlands: Northwest - Region IX Indicator Status Definition Obligate Wetland (OBL) Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non -wetlands. Facultative (FAC) Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands (estimated probability 34%-66%). Facultative Upland (FACU) Usually occur in non -wetlands, but occasionally found in wetlands (1%-33%). Obligate Upland (UPL) Plants that rarely occur (estimated probability <1%) in wetlands, but occur almost always in non -wetlands under natural conditions. No Indicator Status (NI) Insufficient information exists to assign an indicator status. Not Listed (NL) Not on the National List in any region. According to the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual, an area meets the hydrophytic vegetation criteria when, under normal circumstances, more than 50 percent of the dominant species from each stratum are obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC) species. For the purposes of the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual protocol, a plus (+) or a minus (-) sign is often included in the designation to specify a higher or lower level of the indicator status for the three facultative categories, and a FAC- indicator status is not considered to be an indicator of hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., it is treated in the same way as a facultative upland [FACU], upland [UPL], and a not -listed [NL] species). IV. Results One palustrine forested, scrub -shrub wetland was identified on the site. This wetland is part of a larger system and is connected to other similar wetlands by Honey Creek. While the system remains isolated by manmade disturbances, it remains connected hydrologically through the watercourse found in the center of the area of study. Because of this connectivity, this wetland is a valuable resource with functional potential and value. The boundary of the wetland was delineated on the site along forested and scrub -shrub communities. Seven data points as illustrated in Figure 4 were established along the wetland boundary to establish a baseline of soil and hydrologic conditions and to sample plant communities. Data sheets were completed for each of these data points, and the Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 11 of 11 points were flagged and labeled to be surveyed. Copies of completed data sheets are included in Appendix I. Data from the collection points was analyzed and a wetland determination was made for each point. Based on this data, a break in topography, plant communities, and hydrologic indicators was located and followed with occasional sampling to ensure consistency with the baseline data collected. This line was determined to be the wetland edge and was flagged and labeled for survey. The following is a description of the findings of the field study. A. Data Points L Data Point Ulr 1(Attached Data Sheet UL-1) Location: This data point is located in the northwest end of the property at the base of a Iarge hill and on the upland edge adjacent to the Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology: No indicators of wetlands hydrology were present at this data point. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet UL-1) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches was not consistent with the requirements of wetlands soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual (matrix color of 1, or 2 with redoxomorphic features present, gleyed colors, or presence of organic soils). This data point did not exhibit characteristics of a wetland soil. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted of red alder (Alnus rubra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities did not meet the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter within this wetland was found to be 48percent. Determination: Because this data point lacked the presence of any of the parameters of a wetland, it was designated an upland data point. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGERIABAM, A06112 Page 12 of I2 NF i Otli St �-;F 1 i 60l St 7. v � 1. LJL- WI.--1 e _ . WI UL1 E � j °s'1 .. • ;r �V- `ipAW Wl_-4 ,.�I►. .� 1 2 59390 Legend Source: King County GIS / 2002 USGS High Resolution Orthoimage ® Subject Property Parcel Boundaries Tax Parcels Boundary Flsgs Figure 4- Data Point Locations BERGER/AB" U Upland Data Point Nate: Data point I I I I I I I I I e R s a • Wetland Data Paint locations approximated. 0 30 60 120 Feet 2. Data Point UL-2 (Attached Data Sheet UL-2) Location: This data point is located in the southeast end of the property near the fence line of the horse coral and on the upland edge adjacent to the Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology: No indicators of wetlands hydrology were present at this data point. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet LTL-2) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inch was consistent with the requirements of wetland soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual (matrix color of 1, or 2 with redoxomorphic features present). This data point did display characteristics of a wetland soil, however, this may be due to historic site conditions as the site had no indication of required hydrology. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted of red alder (Alnus rubra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities did meet the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter within this wetland was found to be 50 percent. Determination: Because this data point lacked the presence of all three of the parameters of a wetland, it was designated an upland data point. Further evaluation of this site and its position in the landscape verified this determination. 3. Data Point UL-3 (Attached Data Sheet UL-3) Location: This data point is located in the southeast end of the property near the fence line of the horse coral and on the upland edge adjacent to the Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology: This site had strong indicators of wetland hydrology, however, observations were not made during the growing season as is recommended by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. This data point may require further evaluation during the growing season for a more accurate determination, however, the presence or absence of wetland qualifying conditions at this point do not significantly affect the wetland boundary. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet L L-3) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches was not consistent with the requirements of wetlands soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual (matrix color of 1, or 2 with redoxomorphic Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 14 of 14 features present, gleyed colors, or presence of organic soils). This data point did not exhibit characteristics of a wetland soil, however, the soils characteristics were close to those of a very gravelly wetland soil. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted of red alder (Alnus rubra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities did meet the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter within this wetland was found to be 80 percent. Determination: The characteristics at this data point were very difficult to characterize due to the scheduling of field visits outside of the growing season. Because this data point lacked the presence of all three of the parameters of a wetland, it was designated an upland data point. 4. Data Point WL-I (Attached Data Sheet WL-1) Location: This data point is located in the northwest end of the property at the base of a large hill on the wetland edge within the Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology. Strong indicators of wetlands hydrology were present at this data point. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet WL-1) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches was consistent with the requirements of wetlands soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual (presence of organic soils). This data had strong characteristics of a wetland soil. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted of red alder (Alnus rubra), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spirea dougliasi), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Swordfem (Athyrium filix-femina), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities met the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter surrounding this wetland data point was found to be 100 percent. Determination: This data point demonstrated strong indicators of the parameters of a wetland and it was designated a wetland data point. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERCER/ABAM, A06112 Page 15 of 15 S. Data Point WL-2 (Attached Data Sheet WL-2) Location: This data point is located in the northwest end of the property at the base of a large hill on the wetland edge within the Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology: Strong indicators of wetlands hydrology were present at this data point. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet WL-2) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches was consistent with the requirements of wetlands soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual (matrix color of 1, or 2 with redoxomorphic features present). This data point did display characteristics of a wetland soil. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted of red alder (Alnus rubra), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), ladyfern (Athyrium filix-femina), and English Ivy (Hedera helix). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities did meet the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter within this wetland was found to be 100 percent. Determination: This data point demonstrated strong indicators of the parameters of a wetland and was designated a wetland data point. G. Data Point WL-3 (Attached Data Sheet WL-3) Location: This data point is located in the farthest northwest end of the property adjacent to NE 10th Street on the wetland edge of Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology: Strong indicators of wetlands hydrology were present at this data point. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet WL-2) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches was consistent with the requirements of wetlands soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual matrix color of 1, or 2 with redoxomorphic features present). This data point did display characteristics of a wetland soil. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted red alder (Alnus rubra), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spirea douglassi), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and Ladyfem (Athyrium filix-femina). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities did meet the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGERIABAM, A06112 Page 16 of 16 Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter within this wetland was found to be 100 percent. Determination: This data point demonstrated strong indicators of the parameters of a wetland and was designated a wetland data point. 7. Data Point WL-4 (Attached Data Sheet WL-4) Location: This data point is located in the southeast end of the property near the fence line of the horse coral and about 5 feet from the meandering stream channel within the Honey Creek wetland. Hydrology: Strong indicators of wetlands hydrology were present at this data point. Soils: The soil survey completed (see attached data sheet WL-4) indicated the soil immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches was consistent with the requirements of wetlands soils as outlined in the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual (presence of organic soils). This data point exhibits strong characteristics of a wetland soil. Vegetation: The vegetation surveyed within and around this data point consisted of red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), ladyfem (Athyrium filix-femina), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanurn). When totaled based on dominance of the stratum, the plant communities did meet the standards of wetland vegetation outlined above and as established by the Washington State Wetlands and Delineation Manual. The percentage of dominant species with a rating FAC or wetter within this wetland was found to be 100 percent. Determination: This data point demonstrated strong indicators of the parameters of a wetland and was designated a wetland data point. B. Boundary Flags The boundary of the wetland was delineated on the site as the field work of sampling and observation was being completed. Labeled flags were used to identify points on the wetland boundary. The Professional Land Surveyor will be able to survey these points and connect them to be used in conjunction with this report as part of the required documentation for land use actions with the City of Renton. A total of 19 labeled flags were placed; 8 were lettered A through H; and 11 were numbered 1 though 11. The numbered flags start on the northwest end of the property bearing southeast, and the lettered flags start on the southeast end of the property bearing northwest. The two lines meet in the middle and form a single line that, based on the procedures and requirements outlined above, has been determined to be the wetland boundary. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERCER/ABAM, A06112 Page 17 of 17 V. References Bigley, Richard. Hull, Sabra. 2000. Recognizing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. Brinson, MM.1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, August 1993 — Final Report. 79 pp. plus appendices. Cooke, Sarah.1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetlands Plants of Western Washington & Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Cowardin, LM, Carter V, Golet TC, and ET LaRoe.1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/31. Gale, Pringle, and Snyder.1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. King Conservation District. 2000. King County Soil Descriptions. (hUp:/1www.kin cg d.org(pub soiI.htm) Kollmorgen Corporation.1994. Munsell soil color charts. KoIlmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, MD. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Washington. Biological Report NERC-88/18.47 for National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, D.C. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Northwest supplement (Region 9) species with a change in indicator status or added to the Northwest 1988 list, wetland plants of the state of Washington 1988. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service WELUT 88 (26.9), Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service in cooperation with USEPA, USFWS, USAC, and North Carolina State University. Version 2.0, June, 1996. "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States." Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. "Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual." Ecology Publications #96-94. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 18 of 18 Appendix I - Field Study Data Sheets DATA FORM 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BERGERIABAM (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) E N 6 i N E E F! I N C. Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 021( Client: Daniel Bretzke County: ! in Investigator: David Pyle State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot 1D: UL-1 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See Figure 4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the northwest end of the property on the adjacent upland bank of the Honey Creek wetland. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. VEGETATION Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 80% 1. Red Alder 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 90% 1. Himalayan B 2. 3. 4. 5. Indicator % Cover FAC � 80 % Indicator % Cover FACU 1 90% Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC {not FAC -} Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ❑ No JZ 47% Indicator % Cover FACW I 10% Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or FACU. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1of 2 SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: _Moderatley well drained (Series and Phase) _Aiderwood series Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _AgB 1 AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes ❑ No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 1 "- 0" 0 NIA NIA NIA Duff layer 0" - 10" A 10 YR 4/3 NIA NIA Sandy Clay Loam 101'- 24" B 10YR 3/2 NIA NIA Sandy Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules (w/in 3", > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Law-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) El Redox. Features (w/in 10" Criteria Met? Yes 0 No Remarks: This soil pit contained some pieces of charcoal that indicate past clearing at this location. This pit is also located at the foot of a large hill containing a pasture and resdidential development that may have casued accumulation of eroded sediment over time. HYDROLOGY ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Comment: No standina water observed in aerial Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Criteria Met? Yes NA (in. NA No saturation evident (in. ZM Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ® Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks Water was not found in the pit and was not observed on the ground surface in the immediate area of the pit. Sediment deposits were identified around the pit but may be due to sheetflow from the uphill pasture and residence where there is little groundcover and a bad erosion problem. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes LJ No Q9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No ® 1 Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Upland sample #1 (UL-1). This sample point did not exhibit characterisitcs of a wetland. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 DATA FORM 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BERGER/ABAM (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) E Nl C tl E E R S 1 N C. Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 02/07/06 Client: Daniel Bretzke County: Kin Investigator: David Pyle State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: UL-2 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See Figure 4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the southeast end of the property on the adjacent upland bank of the Honey Creek wetland and about 15' from the horse corral fenceline and 20' from the flowthrough stream channel in Honey Creek wetland. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. P1*d4iNdIf] Z1 Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 60% Indicator % Cover 1. Red Alder FAC 60% Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95% Indicator % Cover 1. Creeping Buttercup FACW 10% 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. SaplinalShrub Stratum Total Cover: 60% Indicator % Cover 1. Blackberr FACU 60% 5. 6. 7. 1 8. -Himalayan 2. 9. 3. 10. 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC -) 50% Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or FACU. The criteria was met, but this was due to the strong presence of Red alder, which is FAC. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1of 2 SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Moderatley well drained (Series and Phase) _Alderwood series Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _AgB ! AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes ❑ No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 1 "- 0" 0 NIA NIA NIA Duff layer 0" - 6" A 7.5 YR 313 NIA NIA Sandy Loam 6" - 12" A 10YR 3/2 7.5 YR 518 'See note Loamy Sand 12" - 24" B 10 YR 4/2 7.5 YR 518 ;See note Sandy Loam Hydric Soil indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules (wlin 3"; > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox. Features (w/in 10" Criteria Met? Yes 0 No Remarks: This pit is also located at the foot of a small hill below a horse corral and that may have casued accumulation of eroded sediment over time.'The soils in this pit meet the criteria of a hydric soil due to the low chroma and presencer of massinglredox features in the profile < 10". *These layers contain massing evident around rocks/pebbles found in the soil profile that may be due to deposition of this material at one time during a major flood event or due to a migrating stream channel. HYDROLOGY ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Dmment: No standina water observed in aerial Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil Criteria Met? Yes NA (in No saturation evident (in No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks Water was not found in the pit and was not observed on the ground surface in the immediate area of the pit. Water stained leaves were identified around the pit but may be due to short periods of inundation during major storm events. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes El No ® is this Sam lin Point Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Upland sample #2 (UL-2). Although this sample pit did meet the requirements for soils and vegetation, the indicators were not strong, and the point did not have any indication of wetland hydrology even though the field sampling was done immediately followingf one of the areas wettest months on record. This sample point did not exhibit all of the characterisitcs of a wetland. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 DATA FORM 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BERGER/ABAM C. (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) F G I x F F R 9 1 x Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 02/07/06 Client: Daniel Bretzke County: King Investigator: David Pyle State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: UL-3 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See Figure_4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the southeast end of the property on the adjacent upland bank of the Honey Creek wetland and about 20' from the horse corral fencline and 10' from the ffowthrough stream channel in Honey Creek wetland. This data point was placed as an additional point to verify the presence of a finger off of the wetland, howevor due the seasonality of the field work, it was difficult to make an accurate determination. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in Identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. VEGETATION Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 60% Indicator % Cover 1. Red Alder FAC 70 % 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 60% Indicator 1. Himalayan Blackberry _ FACL 2. Salmonberr FAC+ 3. 4. 5. Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95% 1. _Creeping Buttercu 2. Skunk Cabbage 3. 4. 5. 6. % Cover 7. 30% 8. 20% 9. 10. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC -) Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ® No ❑ Indicator FACW % Cover 30% OSL 10% Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or FACW. The criteria was met, but this was due to the strong presence of Red alder, which is FAC. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1of 2 SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Moderatley well drained (Series and Phase) _Alderwood series Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _AgB 1 AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes El No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 1 "- 0" 0 NIA NIA NIA Or anic Laver 0" - 6" A 10 YR 4/3 NIA NIA Sandy Loam 6" - 18" A 7.5 YR 4/2 NIA NIA I Loamy Sand Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules Win 3"; > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox. Features w/in 10" Criteria Met? Yes Ll No Remarks: This pit is also located at the foot of a small hill below a horse corral and that may have casued accumulation of eroded sediment over time. This pit contained rocks/pebbles found in the soil profile that may be due to deposition of this material at one time during a aflood event or due to a migrating stream channel. The reddish color of the soil gravel gave off false indicators of red'�oximorphicfeatures, and after further evaluation was not determined to be a wetland soil. HYDROLOGY ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Comment: No standina water observed in aerial photo Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 Depth to Saturated Soil: Criteria Met? Yes N No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ® Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ® Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ® Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks Water was found in the pit and was observed on the ground surface in the immediate area of the pit. Water stained leaves and other secondary indicators were identified around the pit but may be due to short periods of inundation during major storm events. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Q9 No LJ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No ® 1 Is this Sam plinq Point Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Upland sample #3 (UL-3). Although this sample pit did meet the requirements for hydrology, the soil and vegetation indicators were not strong. This point may be innundated because the field sampling was done immediately following one of the areas wettest months on record. This sample point did not exhibit all of the characterisitcs of a wetland, and further site evaluation at this point may be required during the growing season for a more accurate determination. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 DATA FORM 1 ' ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BFRGFR/ARAM (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) ` ` G N # 6 A 6 w Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 02/06/06 Client: Daniel Bretzke County: King Investigator: David Pyle State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: WL-1 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See figure 4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the northwest end of the property within the Honey Creek wetland. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. 11 VEGETATION Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 80% Indicator 1. Red alder FAC % Cover 80 % Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 25% 1. Creeping buttercup Indicator FACW % Cover 10% 2. 2. Swordfern FACU 10% 3. 3. Skunk cabbage OBL 5% 4. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 80% Indicator 1. Red osier dogwood FACW % Cover 50% 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. Salmonber FAC+ 20% 9. 3. Dou lass irea FACW 10% 10. 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC {not FAC -} 100% Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or FACW. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1of 2 AMI A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) _Alderwood series Drainage Class: Moderatlev well drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _Ags ! AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes ❑ No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munseil Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance! Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 211- 0" 0 N/A N/A N/A Duff/Detritus layer 0" - 24" O 10 YR 211 N/A N/A Or anic/Fibric Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules Win 3"; > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ® Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ® Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ® Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ® Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox. Features (w/in 10" Criteria Met? Yes Z No Ll Remarks: This soil pit consisted of an organic soil throughout the profile. Some sand was mixed in to the soil, and this may be due to the serious historic erosion problem on the uphill slope. I:11 NJ:ie] 111IJ91cyd ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Comment: No standing water observed in aerial photo. Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 (in Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ® Water Marks ® Drift Lines ® Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ® Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Criteria Met? Yes Z No I I Remarks This data point was saturated to the surface and emitted a strong sulfuric smell when the profile was extracted. No standing water was observed in the aerial photo howevor there is a strong canopy on site and the seasonality of the photo may not be a fair indicator of hydrology. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Wetland sample #1 (WL-1). This sample point contains primary and secondary characterisitcs of a wetland. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 DATA FORM 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BERGER/ARAM E B4O I n E E 0 S I N C. (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 02K Client: Daniel Bretzke County: Kinc Investigator: David Pyle State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: WL-2 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See Figure 4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the northwest end of the property within the Honey Creek wetland. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. VEGETATION Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 80% Indicator 1. Red alder FAC %Cover 80 % Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 30% 1. Creeping buttercup Indicator FACW %Cover 10% 2. 2. Swordfern FACU 10% 3. 3. English ivy Not listed 10% 4. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 85% Indicator 1. Red osier dogwood FACW % Cover 50% 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. Salmonber FAC+ 20% 9. 3. Himalayan blackberry FACU 15% 10. 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC -} 100% Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or FACW. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1of2 Qn11 C Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Moderatley well drained (Series and Phase) _Alderwood series Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _AgB 1 AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes ❑ No CD Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 2% 0" 0 NA NIA NIA Duff/Detritus layer 0" - 4" A 7.5 YR 312 NIA NIA Sandy Clay Loam 4" -12" A 10 YR 311 NIA NIA Sandy Clay Loam 12" - 18" B 7.5 YR 3/1 NIA NIA Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules Win 3"; > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ® Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ® Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ® Other (Explain in Remarks) El Redox. Features Win 10' Criteria Met? Yes Z No Remarks: This soil pit contained a soil profile that was primarily of a low chroma color (< 1), although it had no evidence of redoxamorphic features. I:Will DIZ191KfZH'1 ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Comment: No standing water observed in aerial Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ® Water Marks to. ® Drift Lines ® Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 in. ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ® Water -Stained Leaves 5 in. ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 3 in. ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Criteria Met? Yes Z No H Remarks This data point was saturated nearly to the surface and had obvious indicators of inundation during major storm events. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ I Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Wetland sample #2 (WL-2). This sample point contains primary and secondary characterisitcs of a wetland. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 DATA FORM 1 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BERGER/ABAM (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) E N 6 1 N E F A S I N C. Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 02/06/06 Client: Daniel Bretzke County: King Investigator: David P e State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: WL-3 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See Figure 4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the farthest northwest end of the property within the Honey Creek wetland adjacent to NE 10th Street. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. VEGETATION Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 50% Indicator % Cover 1. Red alder FAC 30% Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 10% Indicator % Cover 1. Swordfern FACU 10% 2. Western red cedar FAC 20% 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. SaolinalShrub Stratum Total Cover: 50% Indicator % Cover 1. Saimonberr FAC+ 20% 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. Douglas sirea FACW 20% 9. 3. Himalayan blackberry FACU 10% 10. 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC -) 100% Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or FACW. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1of 2 SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Moderatley well drained (Series and Phase) _Aiderwood series Reid Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _AgB 1 AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes ❑ No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Mottle Colors Mottle Abundancel Texture, Concretions, Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 1 % 0" 0 NIA NIA N/A Duff/Detritus layer 0" - 8" A 10 YR 212 NIA NIA Sandy Clay Loam 8" - 16" A 7.5 YR 312 2.5 YR 51E Few/Small Sandy Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules (wlin 3"; > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ® Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ® Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ® Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox. Features (w/in 10" Criteria Met? Yes Z No ❑ Remarks: This soil pit consisted of an organic soil throughout the profile. Some sand was mixed in to the soil, and this may be due to the serious historic erosion problem on the uphill slope. HYDROLOGY ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Comment: No standing water observed in aerial Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Criteria Met? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ® Water Marks to. ® Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 in. ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ® Water -Stained Leaves 5 in. ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 4_(in. ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks This data point was saturated to the surface and emitted a strong sulfuric smell when the profile was extracted. No standing water was observed in the aerial photo howevor there is a strong canopy on site and the seasonality of the photo may not be a fair indicator of hydrology. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Wetland sample #3 (WL-3). This sample point contains primary and secondary characterisitcs of a wetland. B£RGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 DATA FORM 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION BERGERIABAM (1997 Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual) E N o N ` ` A 9 N C. Project/Site: Honey Creek Wetland Date: 02/07/06 Client: Daniel Bretzke County: King Investigator: David Pyle State: WA Recent Weather: Rain/Outside of growing season. Plant Community Forested Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ❑ Transect ID: Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: WL-4 Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot Location See Figure 4 Explanation: This data point is located towards the southeast end of the property within the Honey Creek wetland approximately 5 feet from the meandering stream channel. Due to project timelines and at the request of the client, all field observations and data collection was done in the beginning of February, outside of the growing season and following one of the areas wettest months on record. Because of the difficulty in identifying wetland parameters at this time of year, extra attention was given to secondary indicators. VEGETATION Dominant Species Tree Stratum Total Cover: 80% Indicator % Cover 1. Red alder FAC 1 80 % 2. 3. 4. SaMing/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 50% Indicator 1. Salmonber FAC+ 2. 3. 4. 5. % Cover Dominant Species Herb Stratum Total Cover: 30% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Indicator % Cover Lady fern FAC 10% Skunk cabbage OBL 20% Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC (not FAC -) Other Notable Species: Criteria Met? Yes ® No ❑ 100% Remarks: Plants are majority FAC or OBL. Other plants were present but could not be identified due to the lack of foliage, although none of these plants made up more than 10% of the cover of any class. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 1af2 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) _Aiderwood series Drainage Class: Moderatley well drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® No ❑ Taxonomy (Subgroup): _A9B 1 AgC On Hydric Soil List? Yes ❑ No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc. 011- 4" O 10 YR 211 NIA -NIA Muck/Detritus 4" - 24" O 10 YR 211 NIA NIA Or anic/Fibric Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions/Nodules (wlin 3"; > 2 mm) ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic contents in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ® Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ® Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ® Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ® Other (Explain in Remarks) Redox. Features (w/in 10" Criteria Met? Yes M No Remarks: This soil pit consisted of an organic soil throughout the profile. Some sand was mixed in to the soil, and this may be due to the serious historic erosion problem on the uphill slope. HYDROLOGY ® Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Recorded Data Available Comment: No standing water observed in aerial Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ® Water Marks to. ® Drift Lines ® Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 in. ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ® Water -Stained Leaves 3 in. ❑ Local soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 1 (in.) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Criteria Met? Yes JK No II Remarks This data point was saturated to the surface and emitted a strong sulfuric smell when the profile was extracted. No standing water was observed in the aerial photo howevor there is a strong canopy on site and the seasonality of the photo may not be a fair indicator of hydrology. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ 1 Is this Samplino Point Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks This soil pit is being considered as Wetland sample #4 (WL-4). This sample point contains primary and secondary characterisitcs of a wetland. BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. 2of 2 Attachment B Wetland Buffer Averaging Analysis 17 February 2006 Table of Contents Section Page I. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 II. Background Information..............................................................................................................1 IV. Existing Site Conditions...............................................................................................................4 V. Proposed Buffer Averaging.........................................................................................................6 VI. Site Specific Determination of Buffer Width.............................................................................8 VII. Proposed Buffer Enhancement..................................................................................................21 V11I. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................21 IX. References.....................................................................................................................................22 Image No.1: Existing Buffer Conditions...............................................................................................5 Image No. 2: Graving Animals in Buffer............................................................................................... 6 Image No. 3: Existing Conditions of Proposed Buffer Reduction Area............................................7 Figure1-- Site Map.....................................................................................................................................2 Figure2 — Buffer Averaging Map............................................................................................................3 Figure3 — Slope Map...............................................................................................................................13 Figure4 — Buffer Vegetation...................................................................................................................14 Wetland Report BERGER/ABAM, A06112 17 February 2006 Page i of i I. Introduction Following the wetland delineation completed by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. (Attachment A) on 17 February 2006, the client, Daniel Bretzke, has requested the completion of a site analysis for the suitability of buffer averaging in accordance with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) (4)(3)(050)(M)(60 and the associated guidance document The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands by Andy McMillan (2000). Due to the presence of a large wetland on the southwest half of the subject site and the location of the proposed lot lines; the client is requesting the authorization of buffer averaging in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code. Because the characteristics and widths of buffers necessary to maintain aquatic resource health and functions are dependent on site -specific conditions (McMillan, 2000), the site has been analyzed for potential to reduce the standard width for one 340-square-foot triangular section of buffer. This document provides an assessment of site characteristics and analyzes existing conditions and proposed mitigation to ensure that the regulatory buffer width is sufficient to preserve wetland functions without being larger than necessary. This report has been prepared by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. for exclusive use by Mr. Bretzke as supplemental documentation for land use actions with the City of Renton. No other persons may use the information contained in this report for commercial purposes without express written consent of both BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. and Daniel Bretzke. II. Background Information The subject site is currently divided into three separate tax parcels. The delineated wetland and associated 50-foot regulatory buffer are situated across all three parcels and occupy more than one-half of the 2.25-acre subject site (See Figure 1- Site Map). The wetland area is primarily located on Parcel No. 1023059360 (hereby known as parcel "A"). Parcel A is 38,993 square feet in size. Of this, 25,293 square feet are occupied by wetland and 8,335 square feet are regulated as wetland buffer, limiting the development potential of this parcel to 5,365 square feet of area. Due to the location of the wetland, existing site conditions, the orientation of the existing lot lines, and the proposed development design, the applicant is requesting buffer averaging for a specific section of wetland buffer located on Parcel A. See Figure 2 for a site plan identifying the area of proposed buffer reduction and replacement. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ARAM, A06112 Page 1 of 1 ■ € s ff., � SZmw 3ss 3osa- , Figure No. 1 102303 ,' 7 s1023059188 Site Map NE�10th'Sxreet`.° � _ r y t. F Y $ t, 1023059347 ' .--wrvww.ww s a. ti •9 &,c. at vft w YF " I iGrq f tv as P' , t' Ewa .x� T �, zi 1 23059359 1023059358`= k 1023059357 Parcel r �t 10 q0 s 0 15 30 w Feet I inch equals 50 feet DMe EWy: king Cotmq GM, mm usos orawgtolw. L t—Im SERGERIARAM CfTY Of RENTON SITE PLANAl1fI iu.E. inTH ' lrs�n-e J '" ..raw ; � � � �.Tf. ,x,T •r," sr •.•;r,.-:,''� _.;l. ' �,� ...r..ti.i. �.. u.n•.0 =%I ."+� ` `- ♦�,Jl 'IY y'_,`, I:'. f �.•, ''j r ',�- _ .. ..M11 '� i.�� ' . � .r., .�Mr,• yr _� � � r••,1�ti ��j Y : ' h' hl • ' 1� , 1� �, S, �'4 M fffrrfr�wrf•AIaIY/ein I � IM fA1MIA `ti bTlli.wrwq •>•� '�' � AlAxw ilUYrie�l, ': o 1C'I.I.AAO fAru Ahko.. ae wlr-.n • U? :UI • "R i CAP WOO L 9 ► IdUA - �' IFILrr's Pdi A fOl IFA 3LLV lAMlrARV WOW Mdt►,(, < Ma TTR rAt r 4 AAAAMY: t ra �R17Afl ,n,Iu�aw+• ♦ •TAfii4-M OrOW E.iRal,ar i t3 L•:.t:.wc 1CTr'J . aror LLLrr AMA V FTAF NwOKAW (.7 !P.L 106 7FFT PH TLA.: M WED AB VIAAO TM rrf_C- R!fCAr[t ALW gA&PO An nkfe ra F7" Q 4roft r Kw4CE 000 4.,SL,4UV !JS fi:. AML:. (�Ci•.sf.' ifti4•E V IAt Z AJ,TI s*ra - - - GSA Of iFUIWIR Aw MNI!M AN4f•,O rirfi -"—� INJUeR W"fA TW T r.v 1 �f1:L4.:W COW.. C"RPTE "of MThw o-As-wr 0#81 RUTLCFIA VVaAC9 LPub C-3O C4CjQ A me for &OW rJ MOM sra Sw% ZM r/c rrs. fo" CV., fix, LO MOON. f10AB M" ", T wwr re w EI fk M u:■ 'rpYM littC,Ci —.__. A 1144V S rs A'JLx 'GZ'*?'k •.:JG T'.Mt Wr %C(Rh .j1$ iLwrw Trrr ri rsr,. GG7A,^tl NO !f* E. L• '.AW-A LIT S.'C1194 16-21-99. +S 41 t6 !A UrV WIPr LLO NO LOWDI8 GA tl AE-= Shy e" r?a bP kmvr• jr rX.A : I. AfQMA fF %!NE a..9*7" A -:T.!. r% T VEIMCAL DATUM:. f'v: •r�Pi ` r 3' 1 .y ,. ' OL �. AA ,'mc t" rjFf*W:) V AFM[:H IblAQK N0 RRM rot )YAW MCC • SEF .t6P FW „r ., i . ' • f Figure No. 2- Buffer Averaging Map M+•r Map Provided By Applicant W. Proposed Development The proposed development for this parcel will include the construction of one single family home. The site is zoned by the City of Renton as R-4, which allows up to four single-family residences per acre. No wetland alterations are being proposed. The proposed development plan will result in necessary buffer impacts; however, these impacts will be minimized and mitigated to the greatest extent possible to allow for reasonable use of the property and the placement of a building footprint while remaining in compliance with other dimensional restrictions imposed by the City of Renton. The proposed single-family residence will primarily be built adjacent to the wetland buffer, and long-term prevention of human intrusion will be maintained by the placement of a split rail fence with attached critical area easement signs prohibiting access to the buffer and wetland. Due to the dimensional limitations of the site the proposal includes the conversion of 340 square feet of wetland buffer to building footprint and the dedication of 340 square feet of lot area as wetland buffer. The proposed development also includes the enhancement of approximately 1,340 square feet of new and existing buffer. See Figure 2 for a diagram of this exchange and enhancement. This proposal will not cause a net loss of wetland buffer area and through enhancement, the proposal will help to better protect areas of the wetland and existing naturally vegetated buffer that provide the function of wildlife habitat. IV. Existing Site Conditions From across the wetland to the west and beginning at the wetland edge, the landscape develops into rolling hills and climbs away from the elevation of the wetland. Land within the buffer ranges from flat to 29 percent slope. The native vegetation on the upland portion of this site has been cleared many years ago for use as pasture and in conjunction with rural development. Currently, that portion of the wetland on Parcel A is naturally buffered by an upland vegetated strip of forested and scrub -shrub canopies that vary in width from 10 to approximately 40 feet beginning at the wetland edge and continuing uphill towards the existing single family residence. This vegetated strip lacks diversity and is primarily made up of Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) saplings, and red alder (Alnus rubra). Evidence of past clearing in this area was observed (stumps and charcoal) and the plant communities are not fully established and many of the trees that make up the buffer are still saplings. This existing vegetated buffer would benefit from enhancement, soil amendment, and the removal of invasive species. Beyond this strip of vegetation and further upland within the wetland buffer, the site is heavily impacted by grazing and rural development. Commonly characterized by bare soil and emergent vegetation, erosion and poor soil stability are apparent (See Image No. 1: Existing Buffer Conditions). The long presence of ungulates has degraded portions of the wetland buffer by striping it of topsoil and inhibiting regeneration of vegetation in the area. This area would benefit from revegetation through restoration and the removal of grazing animals (See Image No. 2: Grazing Animals in Buffer). Section VII of this Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGERIABAM, A06112 Page 4 of 4 report describes the applicant's proposed restoration in more detail. Image No. L Existing Buffer Conditions •. fir,' ,r.. r ��x Wetland Report BERGER/ABAM, A06112 17 February 2" Page 5 of 5 Image No. 2: Graving Animals In Buffer V. Proposed Buffer Averaging Renton Municipal Code (RMC) (4)(3)(050)(M)(60 states that "Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator..." An applicant may request the use of buffer averaging to reduce the wetland buffer in a specific area to help facilitate the placement of a building footprint on a site that is dimensionally limited by wetlands and associated buffers. This provision is especially oriented to a site with varying levels of sensitivity, degraded conditions, and historic uses within the regulatory buffer. There are seven criteria that must be met for an application to be considered for buffer averaging. The criteria are identified below followed by a qualifying statement. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer. The 50-foot regulatory buffer surrounding the Honey Creek wetland consists of areas of varying sensitivity. This is due to existing developments within the buffer and degradation of buffer conditions from historic grazing and rural development. The proposed buffer reduction through averaging includes a buffer creation and enhancement element as described in Section VII of this report. Image No. 3 below is a photo of the Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 6 of 6 conditions of the proposed area of buffer reduction. Existing Conditions of ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values. The proposed buffer width averaging will result in no net loss of buffer. The proposed averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values because the proposed buffer averaging will reduce the buffer in an area that is already impacted and devoid of vegetation and that provides no function or value as buffer. The proposed buffer averaging will also widen the buffer in an area that is vegetated through buffer creation and will enhance the buffer through a buffer enhancement plan providing additional protection to the wetland function and values. See Section VII of this report for a description of the buffer enhancement plan. iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging including a reduction in buffer of up to 50 percentto a triangular width of 25 feet for 340 square feet of wetland buffer and the dedication of additional land as buffer for 340 square feet of nonbuffer area. The total area of wetland buffer after averaging will be the same as the standard required buffer prior to averaging, and there will be no net loss of wetland buffer. Buffer creation and enhancement is also being proposed to ensure a higher quality buffer as the result of this action. See Figure 2 for a site map depicting buffer averaging. Wetland Report BERGMABAK A06112 17 February 2006 Page 7 of 7 iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan, 2000, has been conducted. A site specific analysis of buffer adequacy has been completed. See Section VI below. V. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (259 wide. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging including a reduction in buffer of 50 percent to a triangular width of 25 feet, converting 340 square feet of wetland buffer to building footprint. To compensate the applicant is proposing the dedication of additional land as buffer for 340 square feet of area on the same parcel. The applicant is not proposing the reduction of buffer by more than 50 percent or to a width of less than 25 feet. See Figure 2 for a map of the proposed buffer averaging. vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case -by - case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Buffer creation and enhancement in those areas where the buffer will be reduced and in those areas where the buffer will be expanded is being proposed. See section VII below for a complete description of the proposed buffer enhancement. The areas of proposed buffer enhancement is also shown on Figure 2. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to Subsection F8 of this section. The applicant will comply with all noticing requirements of the City of Renton Municipal Code. V1. Site Specific Determination of Buffer Width Record the following information about the wetland under consideration. 1 Wetland area The area of wetland onsite is 34,135 sq. ft. (covering (in acres) the three parcels surveyed) and is part of a large wetland complex that extends south and west of the subject site. The total area has not been determined due to the scope of the completed delineation. 2 Wetland rating (class/category) This wetland has been referenced by the City of and name of rating system Renton as a Type II wetland in existing documents. 3 Hydrogeomorphla Class Riverine (riverine, depressional, slope, lacustrine fringe, estuarine fringe) 4 Cowardin classes present (forested, Forested and scrub -shrub Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERCER/ABAK A06112 Page 8 of 8 Table 7 - Wetland Characteristics Record the following Information about the wetland under consideration. scrub/shrub, emergent, open water, aquatic bed) S Area of permanent open water None B Area of seasonal open water None 7 Area of vegetated standing water Hard to quantify. Small pockets of vegetated standing water exist but are well dispersed. 8 Source(s) of water Input to the Honey Creek, intermittent streams, surface sheet wetland flow, groundwater. 8 Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive None known. or rare plant species present 10 Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive None observed. Among others, bald eagle (Hallaeetus or rare animal species present leucocephalus) and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) may occasionally use this site as habitat. 11 Known or expected bird species Expected bird species that may use this site as utilizing the wetland as habitat habitat include American robin (Turdus migratorius), wren (Troglodytes), and several other migratory species. However, a bird survey was not completed due to the scope of the project. A complete list of expected birds can be found in the King County Wildlife Habitat Profile, 1987. 12 Known or expected mammal Field observations support the presence of mammals species utilizing the wetland as due to the presence of scat and tracks. However, a habitat mammal survey was not completed due to the scope of this project. Expected species include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and coyote (Canis latrans). A complete list of expected mammals can be found in the King County Wildlife Habitat Profile, 1987. 13 Known or expected fish species None known. The nearest aquatic habitat that would utilizing the wetland as habitat support fish life is May Creek. 14 Known or expected herptile species The presence of the northwestern salamander utilizing the wetland as habitat (Ambystoma gracile) and the long -toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) within the buffer area are possible due to the presence of the adjacent wetland. Additionally, garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) and northern alligator lizard (Elgarla coerulea) may also be present; however, a herptile study was not completed due to the limited scope of this study. A complete list of expected herptiles can be found in the King County Wildlife Habitat Profile, 1987. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 9 of 9 STEP 2: Describe the level of Impact from adjacent development and measures to be taken to minimize Impacts Table 8 - Description of Potential Development Impacts Describe the type of Construction of one single-family residence, including 15 development a split rail fence to restrict entry into the wetland buffer. Describe how surface water Currently, due to the degraded condition of the buffer, 16 runoff will be addressed improvements made through the proposed buffer Including plans for treatment enhancement plan will improve buffer conditions and release to wetlands or through Increased sediment and nutrient capture and streams. uptake. Surface water collected from roof and storm drains associated with the development of this site will be addressed through the City of Renton stormwater review. The applicant has indicated that soil conditions on site are amenable to infiltration. No additional surface water is anticipated to be released to the buffer or wetland as a result of this development. Describe how surface runoff No additional surface water is anticipated to be 17 will affect the hydroperlod of released to the buffer or wetland as a result of this the wetland and what development. pollutants might be Introduced Into the wetland. Describe the potential for Some light and glare from the adjacent proposed :IS noise and light to affect the residential development may affect the wetland and wetland and steps taken to buffer. The City of Renton Code allows the Reviewing reduce noise and light impacts Official to condition permits "directing lights from on the wetland. buildings or parking areas, or noise generating activities, away from wetlands". The applicant will comply with all conditions placed on the building permit. Additionally, the proposed site plan focuses all residential activities to the northeast side of the property on the opposite side of the structure from the wetland. Describe the potential for A split rail fence to restrict entry into the wetland and 19 human and pet intrusion into buffer will be constructed in conjunction with the the wetland and steps takers to placement of critical areas signs along the fence and minimize intrusion. buffer boundary. This will assist in restricting access to the buffer and wetland, and will also raise awareness of the importance of protecting wetland resources. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 10 of 10 STEP 3: Describe the characteristics of the buffer ne area witnin juu reet or the wetiana eage in the vicinity or and answer the auestions below. Make a drawing to answer Described the mapped soil type including horizons, texture and drainage class. There are three soils located on or near this site as mapped by the Soil Survey of King County Area (Gale, Pringle, and Snyder; 1973). The mapping symbols and slope classes of the three Alderwood subgroups are: AgB: 0% to 6% Slopes AgC: 6% to 15% Slopes AgD: 15% to 30%: Slopes The King Conservation District describes Alderwood soils as: "Moderately well -drained soils underlain by consolidated glacial till (hardpan) at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. Alderwood soils formed in glacial deposits under conifers. They occupy upland areas at elevations between 100 and 800 feet. The annual precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, mostly rainfall between October and May. The frost -free season is 150 to 200 days." (King Conservation District) A typical alderwood soil profile from 0 to 27 inches is a dark brown gravelly sandy loam. From 27 to 60 inches, the soil takes a grayish brown weakly to strongly consolidated glacial till characteristic (hardpan). Soil permeability is rapid in surface layer and subsoil above hardpan material and very slow in the hardpan. The depth to the seasonal high water table is 2 to 3 feet and the water -holding capacity is seasonally low (summer) to seasonally high (winter). (King Conservation District). Observations made on nt 21-22 Draw a typical soil horizon (0-20") for the buffer soils See data sheets from wetland delineation report. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAK A06112 Page 11of11 Table Evaluate the area within 300 feet of the wetland edge in the vicinity of the proposed development and answer the questions below. Make a drawing to answer questions 21-22 the landscape scale and during soil sampling were generally consistent with the descriptions provided in the Soil Survey of King County Area and by the King Conservation District. 20b Do field observations confirm Yes. the mapped soil type? 20c If not, describe soil type observed in the field Including horizons, texture and drainage class. SLOPE 21 On a drawing of the buffer area, <5% show areas where the slope Is: 5% -10% See Figure No. 3 attached. >1.0% VEGETATION 22 On a drawing of the buffer area, The site buffer is estimated to be 40% shrub, 30% Indicate approximate percent of forested, and 25% herbaceous mixed with bare. aerial cover of each vegetative strata as well as bare areas and Strata areas with buildings or Tree Impervious surfaces Shrub Herbaceous See Figure No. 4 attached. Bare Buildings/impervious 23 Describe measures that could The buffer could be enhanced through the removal of be taken to Improve the invasive species and the planting and maintenance of functioning of the buffer area. native vegetation. See section V11 for a complete description of the proposed buffer restoration plan. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAK A06112 Page 12 of I2 NE 10th Street I Lj V V I �► V V V V V V V V V V V V sr . V V V V V V V V a Legend Source: King County GIS, Puget Sound Udar Consortium, � Surveyed Parcel Lines Slope GeoOimensions Site Survey Wetland Boundary < 5% Figure No. 3- Slope Map ,ERGE,,ARAM ®® 50 Foot Wetland Buffer 5- 10 % e v c � N e R s 1 R c County Tax Parcel Lines > 10% 1 inch equals 50 feet STEP 4: Determine the buffer functions and width needed to protect the wetland Table 10 - Buffer Functions Based on the information recorded in Tables 7, S and 9 above, determine which buffer functions are needed to protect the wetland. For each function determined to be needed, describe the width necessary to protect the wetland and provide a rationale for the width selected. Include a description of enhancement activities proposed to improve the buffer or otherwise protect the wetland. Buffer Function Needed? V/7TN Needed Width & Rationale Buffer or Site Enhancement Yes The function of sediment removal See section VII below. Sediment removal from surface water sheet flows is not being provided by the Additionally, the applicant will wetland buffer in its current provide far stormwater condition. The buffer is degraded and lacking emergent vegetation infiltration, detention and or grasses in many locations and treatment in compliance with erosion is apparent. The the City of Renton adopted regulatory buffer for this wetland Stormwater Manual and is currently set at 50 feet through prevent flow from lawns and standard application of code by surfaces that directly enters the City of Renton regardless of the buffer. buffer condition. This is a proposal for buffer The applicant will also use averaging, including a reduction best management practices of buffer width to 25 feet for a to control dust during specific section of buffer that is construction. currently in a degraded condition and the addition of buffer in an area that is adjacent to an established forested community. This proposal also includes buffer enhancement for the area adjacent to the buffer reduction and for the area of buffer dedication. Following the completion and establishment of the enhanced buffer, and due to the improved vegetated condition of the buffer, a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be more effective at providing water quality function (sediment removal) than the existing standard 50-foot buffer with no enhancement. It is also important to note that this is a request for buffer Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 15 of 15 Table 1 Buffer Functions Based on the information recorded in Tables 7, 8 and 9 above, determine which buffer functions are needed to protect the wetland. For each function determined to be needed, describe the width necessary to protect the wetland and provide a rationale for the width selected. Include a description of enhancement activities proposed to improve the buffer or otherwise protect the wetland. Buffer Function Needed? Y/N Needed Width & Rationale Buffer or Site Enhancement averaging through a reduction in buffer width for a specific section of the current regulatory buffer. The applicant is proposing additional buffer dedication to compensate for the site -specific reduction of buffer. The applicant is not proposing any impacts to the wetland. Yes The function of nutrient removal See Section VII below. Nutrient removal from surface water sheet flows is not being provided by the wetland buffer in its current condition. The buffer is degraded and devoid of vegetation in many locations and there is no ability to provide this function. This is a proposal for buffer averaging including a reduction of buffer width to 25 feet for a specific section of buffer that is currently in a degraded condition and the addition of buffer in an area that is adjacent to an established forested community. This proposal also includes buffer enhancement for the area adjacent to the buffer reduction and for the area of buffer dedication. Following the completion and establishment of the enhanced buffer, and due to the improved vegetated condition of the buffer, a 25 -foot enhanced buffer will be more effective at providing water quality function (nutrient removal) than the existing standard 50-foot buffer with no enhancement. Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGERJABAM, A06112 Page 16 of 16 Table 1Functions Based on the information recorded In Tables 7, 8 and 9 above, determine which buffer functions are needed to protect the wetland. For each function determined to be needed, describe the width necessary to protect the wetland and provide a rationale for the width selected. Include a description of enhancement activities proposed to improve the buffer or otherwise protect the wetland. Buffer Function Needed? Y/N Needed Width & Rationale Buffer or SRe Enhancement It is also important to note that this is a request for buffer averaging through a reduction in buffer width for a specific section of the current regulatory buffer. The applicant is proposing additional buffer dedication to compensate for the site -specific reduction of buffer. The applicant is not proposing any impacts to the wetland. Yes The function of toxics removal See Section VII below. Toxics removal from surface water sheet flows is (specify type of not being provided by the Additionally, the applicant will toxic substance) wetland buffer in its current comply with the adopted City of condition. The buffer is degraded Renton Stormwater Manual and and devoid of vegetation in many use provisions in this manual locations and the buffer does not that ensure the routing of all have the ability or capacity to new untreated runoff away from provide this function. Currently, the wetland and its buffer. The water flows freely across the applicant will also explore the compacted soil in the buffer potential to establish a covenant area. requiring the use of integrated pest management and limiting This is a proposal for buffer the use of pesticides and averaging including a reduction herbicides to outside of the of buffer width to up to 25 feet regulated buffer. for a specific triangular section of buffer that is currently in a degraded condition and the addition of buffer in an area that is adjacent to an established forested community. This proposal also includes buffer enhancement for the area adjacent to the buffer reduction and for the area of buffer dedication. Following the completion and establishment of the enhanced buffer, and due to the improved vegetated condition of the buffer, a 25 foot enhanced buffer will be Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ASAM, A06112 Page 17 of 17 Table 10 - Buffer Functions Based on the information recorded in Tables 7, 8 and 9 above, determine which buffer functions are needed to protect the wetland. For each function determined to be needed, describe the width necessary to protect the wetland and provide a rationale for the width selected. Include a description of enhancement activities proposed to improve the buffer or otherwise protect the wetland. Buffer Function Needed? Y/N Needed Width & Rationale Buffer or Site Enhancement more effective at providing water quality function (toxics removal) than the existing standard 50- foot buffer with no enhancement. It is also important to note that this is a request for buffer averaging through a reduction in buffer width for a specific section of the current regulatory buffer. The applicant is proposing additional buffer dedication to compensate for the site -specific reduction of buffer. The applicant is not proposing any impacts to the wetland. Yes The function of shading and See Section VII below. Shading & microclimate protection is not microcllmate being provided in full by the protection wetland buffer in its current condition. The buffer is degraded and devoid of vegetation in many locations and there is limited ability to provide this function. Some sections of the buffer are forested and do provide this function. This is a proposal for buffer averaging, including a reduction of buffer width to 25 feet for a specific section of buffer that is currently in a degraded condition and the addition of buffer in an area that is adjacent to an established forested community. The applicant is not proposing the removal of existing vegetation and is proposing a reduction of buffer in an area that is already impacted. This proposal also includes buffer enhancement for the area adjacent to the buffer reduction Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 18 of 18 Table r - Buffer Functions Based on the information recorded in Tables 7, 8 and 9 above, determine which buffer functions are needed to protect the wetland. For each function determined to be needed, describe the width necessary to protect the wetland and provide a rationale for the width selected. Include a description of enhancement activities proposed to improve the buffer or otherwise protect the wetland. Buffer Function Needed? Y/N Needed Width & Rationale Buffer or Site Enhancement and for the area of buffer dedication. Following the completion and establishment of the enhanced buffer, and due to the improved vegetated condition of the buffer, a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be more effective at providing shading & microclimate protection than the existing standard 50-foot buffer with no enhancement. It is also important to note that this is a request for buffer averaging through a reduction in buffer width for a specific section of the current regulatory buffer. The applicant is proposing additional buffer dedication to compensate for the site -specific reduction of buffer. The applicant is not proposing any impacts to the wetland. Yes Because of habitat provided by See Section Vli below. Screening noise, the wetland and associated light, Intrusion buffer, this function will need to be preserved and enhanced. By Additionally, the applicant will orienting the home away from the design the single-family wetland and restricting access residence to locate activity that through preservation easement, generates noise away from the wetland intrusion and impact wetland and will direct all lights from noise will be limited. The associated with the structure will also help serve as a development away from the noise barrier from other wetland. Permanent fencing will developments located further also be installed, and through upland from this single-family enhancement, dense vegetation home. will be planted to help delineate the buffer edge and discourage This is a proposal for buffer disturbance. averaging, including a reduction of buffer width of up to 25 feet for a specific triangular section of Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 19 of 19 Table 1 - Buffer Functions Based on the information recorded in Tables 7, 8 and 9 above, determine which buffer functions are needed to protect the wetland. For each function determined to be needed, describe the width necessary to protect the wetland and provide a rationale for the width selected. Include a description of enhancement activities proposed to improve the buffer or otherwise protect the wetland. Buffer Function Needed? Y/N Needed Width & Rationale Buffer or Site Enhancement buffer. Due to the applicant's intended diligence in site design through low impact development and buffer enhancements, this minor reduction in buffer is not expected to impact the noise, light, and screening function of this wetland buffer. Yes In its current state, the wetland See Section VII below. General wlldlife buffer provides differing levels of habitat protection based on its condition Additionally, the applicant will at different locations. This is a design the single-family proposal for buffer averaging, residence to locate activity including a reduction of buffer that generates noise away width of up to 25 feet for a from the wetland and will specific triangular section of buffer. Due to the applicants direct all lights associated intended diligence in site design with the development away through low impact development from the wetland. Permanent and buffer enhancements, this fencing will also be installed, minor reduction in buffer is not and through enhancement, expected to impact the habitat dense vegetation will be function of this wetland buffer. planted to help delineate the buffer edge and discourage disturbance. No N/A N/A Habitat for particular species wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGER/ABAM, A06112 Page 20 of 20 STEP b: Determine the appropriate width of buffer and enhancement actions necessary to protect the wetland. Summary This is a proposal for buffer averaging, including a reduction of buffer width of up to (Describe the 25 feet for a specific triangular section of buffer. The applicant is proposing the overall width conversion of 340 sq. ft. of buffer to building footprint. The applicant is also needed to protect proposing the addition of 340 sq. ft. of new buffer area as compensation, and the the wetland & a enhancement of up to 1,340 sq. ft. to help restore the ability of the buffer to summary of the perform key functions in protecting the wetland and maintaining water quality. It is enhancement important to note that the applicant is not requesting a complete reduction of buffer actions needed} and is only proposing development where the existing buffer is in a degraded condition and devoid of vegetation and topsoil. Section VII of this report details the applicant's proposal for buffer enhancement. VII. Proposed Buffer Enhancement' Included in the request for buffer averaging is a proposal for buffer enhancement. Due to the degraded conditions of the wetland buffer, the applicant is proposing buffer enhancement in the area adjacent to the proposed reduction and in the area of the proposed buffer expansion. The applicant proposes the enhancement of approximately 1,000 square feet of buffer and 340 square feet of newly dedicated buffer. Enhancement will include the manual and mechanical removal of invasive species, restoring soil conditions through decompaction and amendment, and the planting of native vegetation. Plantings will include western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas fir (P. menziesii), bigleaf maple (Ater macrophylla), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer circunatum), osoberry (Gaultheria shallon), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), thimbleberry (Rubus spectabilis), and snowberry (S. albus). The enhancement plan will also include seeding with the appropriate and recommended certified grass seed mixtures. The purpose of grass seeding is to provide ground cover for soil stability to minimize erosion during the first years of growth of the proposed plantings. Seeding when combined with mulching helps to reduce erosion and helps serve as an herbaceous layer removing sediment from sheet flow and helping establish an emergent layer that the site currently lacks. With the establishment and growth of tree and shrub species, many of the grasses will be shaded out as succession progresses. A complete enhancement plan detailing planting requirements, monitoring, contingencies, and costs will be submitted with the building permit application. Vlll. Conclusions Based on the requirements outlined in the City of Renton Municipal Code, the factors identified in this report, and considering the City of Renton standard buffer width of 50 feet for Type II wetlands, this request for buffer averaging to convert 340 square feet of wetland buffer to building footprint and enhancement of up to 1,340 square feet of low quality degraded buffer will result in a net gain in wetland buffer function and enhanced wetland protection. The applicant is proposing to restore a regulatory buffer that Wetland Report 17 February 2006 BERGERAABAM, A06112 Page 21 of 21 provides little functional value and protection in its current condition and is proposing the preservation of the buffer through protective measures for generations to come. IX. References Gale, Pringle, and Snyder.1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. King Conservation District. 2000. King County Soil Descriptions. (http://www.kingcd.org(pub soil.htm) King County.1987. Wildlife habitat profile. King County Open Space Program. Parks, Planning, and Resource Department, Seattle, Washington. McMillan, A. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implications for the management of wetlands. Master's Thesis. The Evergreen State College. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. "Restoring Wetlands in Washington" Ecology Publications #93-17. Wetland Report BERGER/ABAM, A06112 17 February 2006 Page 22 of 22 I PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REP of A��°A `tAG SAP 2 120 SID BRETZKE & ROGERS SHORT PLATS 5521 NE 10T11 ST(BRETZKE) 5603 NE 10TH ST(ROGERS) Renton, WA BY SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 310 208th ST. SE BOTHELL 98012 425-481-9687 May 10, 2007 �,. DO tjG`�• �ti9 4 AS EXPIRES 151 AL 1\ r TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Section Title Number Project Overview I Preliminary Conditions Summary II Offsite Analysis Detention Design & Water Quality Design Conveyance systems Analysis and Design Special Reports and Studies Other Permits Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design Bond Quantities and Other Forms Maintenance & Operations Manual Appendix A: Wetland Analysis Appendix B: Geotechnical Report IV V VI(See Appendices) VII(not used) Vlll IX(to be completed) X(to be completed) SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT OVERVIEW This report is submitted for two short plats. The first is four lots for Daniel Bretzke at 5521 NE 10th St., and the second is three lots for Larry Rogers at -5603-NE 10" St. Both sites consist of single residential family -houses -with a number of outbuildings. The houses are to remain; however, all outbuildings except the garage on the Rogers site outbuildings will be removed. The entire development area and much of the proposed buffer has been cleared and landscaped or used for livestock in the past. The developments will share a private roadway access easement, although at least two of the lots will access directly to 10th St. Although two additional parcels to the west of the Bretzke short plat are included in the construction documents, they are not part of the subdivision. Frontage improvements in 10tt' St. are not required for those lots, but they will be done in order to create a continuity of the walks and pavement constructed for the Plat of Wedgewood Lane to the west. The staff has determined that the new impervious area in front of those parcels can be excluded from the threshold determination for flow control. Due to the presence of wetlands on the Bretzke site, a report and buffer averaging analysis were performed by Gerger/Abam Engineers. The resulting buffer limits are shown on the construction documents submitted with this report. The drainage calculations exclude the buffer and wetlands from the development area. In accordance with directions from the City staff, the requirement for detention was evaluated using the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. It is shown in this report that detention is not required, as the increase in runoff is under 0.5cfs. This exemption is defined in the subject Manual on page 1..2.3-5. Runoff control BMP's will be applied to each lot through the use of dispersion trenches, as the geotechnical report completed for the project determined that the soils are not suitable for infiltration. Water quality was not required under the PGIS area increase exemption. The post -developed site will have 8,594 square feet of new PGIS from all roadway improvements. This excludes driveway area, as that will be dispersed or allowed to sheet flow to the wetlands. Of the new impervious area, 4,524 square feet will be on the Bretzke site and 4,070 square feet on the Rogers site. The existing PGIS on the pre -developed site consists of 3,790square feet-on-the-Bretzke-,site and 3,256 square feet on the Rogers site, for a total of 7,046 square feet. Therefore, the increase in PGIS is 1,548 square feet. u i YW:i3� LLJ N N QE'PT OF ` 4 Ik LICWI.W ` Ln I 12TH ST 12TH � SE ~ f ST- - A 1127i � �+' ST s� z OLIVER At z ` ,,ITH ST HAZEiI' ell, cn,,, w HS Q ti T� _ r1 RE 1GrH ti'i. NE ta sE iisn, 1� 0TH ST 1 �� RI PLME 9TH PL iE,rN ��L list a ME 9TH 5T X �iST NE 9TH ST lw Col a Ord' "' b- [ 14E 8TH ST ~4 NE 7rH P — a SE 121. ST ST M P 1=— 11TTH 122EV6 {� 1S o ST 4J* Li t ' HA W cob W -m SE HIT z cr --r !12TH ST SE IS 112TI1 a � � 113111 t 5T a 114T11 } ITE 115T11 ST VICINITY MAP LL v SE 117TH a 5E ¢ I _ 118TH ST = SE PROPERTY INFORMATION BRETZKE ROGERS SITE ADDRESS: 5521 NE 110TH ST 5603 NE 110TH ST TAX PARCEL Acount No.: 1023059358 1023059357 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Daniel Bretzke Address 1313 33ia Ave South Phone 206 310 2190 Project Engineer David Dougherty Company: Site Development Services Address/Phone 310 208"' St. SE, Bothell, WA, 98012 425-481-9687 Part•3 TYPE�OP PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Subdivison X Short Subdivision ❑ Grading ❑ Commercial Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Bretzke Short Plat Location 5521 NE I& Street Township 23 Range 5E ...NE%, Section 10 Part 4 OTHER. REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline ❑ COE 404 X Rockery ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Vaults ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ Other ❑ COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community : Renton Drainage Basin : May Creek, Honey Creek Sub basin _ 1. Part 6. SITE,CHARACTERISTICS r ❑ River ❑ Stream ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ Depression s/Swa les ❑ Lake ❑ Steep Slopes Part 7 SOILS ❑ Floodplain X Wetlands ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Other Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties Alderwood 5% to 35% Moderate Low Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE Downstream Analysis ❑ 30' 36' culvert under NE10th ❑ Honey creek Stream channel ❑ 30' 36p culvert under Hoquiam Ave NE ❑ Honey Creek Channel 11 Part-9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION XSedimentation Facilities X Stabilized Construction Entrance X Perimeter Runoff Control ❑ Clearing and Grading Restrictions XCover Practices XConstruction Sequence ❑ Other LIMITATIONISITE CONSTRAINT MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ❑ Stabilize Exposed Surface ❑ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ❑ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ❑ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM Grass Lined ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel ❑ X Dispersion SBUH Vault XFlow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigati X Pipe System ❑ Energy Dissapator � Waiver on of Eliminated Site ❑ Open Channel X Wetland ❑ Regional Storage ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Stream Detention ❑ Wet Pond Brief Description of System Operation: On site dispersion of each house with individual on site dispersion systems. Access road to be dispersed into 50' trench next to wetland buffer. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation On Site dispersion trenches Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall XRockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS 1 XDrainage Easement X Access Easement X Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Tract ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. LSigned/Date J;jr'-J'"'�T rr •,� I, .:}r yr' ", O� A o°' IV r I I W� ��s� •i r �: �� - a r.;'r3•t, �J f.. r•r ti '�1�� -�• %��IRY '. -��'- �� fA '1., '�'e.�'..;:I -.:,; i so . � ��,�� F \ � f. .yam _ g, fa.� � •� t .. a OW -—, v11C WIL CONSERVATION SERVICE KING COUN' SOIL LEGEND The first capital letter is the initial one of the sail name. A second copirat letter, A, B, C, D, E, or F, indicates the class of slope. Symbols without a slope letter are those of nearly level soils. SYMBOL NAME AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loom, 0 to 6 percent slopes .+•--t► AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loom, 6 to 15 percenr slopes �.� Ag0 Atderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes OF Alderweod and Kitsap soils, very steep . AmB Arents, Aldttmood morerial,0 to 6 percent slopes ► AmC Arents, Aldol oad material, 6 to 15 percent slopes • An Arenrs, Everett material e Re[ Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes B.D Beausite grovelFy sandy Imm, 15 ro 30 percent *$apes BeF Beaus ite gravelly sandy loom, 40 to 75 percent slopes Bh 8e111rghom silt loam Br Briscot silt loam Bu Bvckley silt loam Cb Coastal Beaches Ea Ewhinont silt loam Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam EvB Everett grove$ly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percents lopes EwC Everett_Alderwood gravelly sandy foams, 6 to 15 percent slopes InA Indianola loamy Fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes InC Indianola loamy fine land, 4 to 15 percent slopes InD Indianola loamy Fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes KFB Kirsap silt loam, 2 to B percent slopes KPC Kirsap silt loom, B to 15 percent slopes KpD KitsoP silt loam, )5 to 30 percent slopes KsC Klaus gravelly Ioomy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes Ma Mixed alluvial (and NeC Neilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes Ng Newberg silt loom Nk Nooksack silt loom No Norma sandy loam Or Jrcas peat Os Oridio silt loam owc Ovall gravelly loom, 0 to 15 percent slopes 0v0 CDva)I gravelly loom, 15 to 25 percent slopes OvF Oval) gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand Pk Pilchvck fine sandy loom Pa Puget silty clay loam Py Puyallup Fine sandy loom Roc Ragnar fine snndy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes RaD Rognar fine sandy loom, 15 to 25 percent slopes RdC Rognor•Indianola association, sloping e RdE Rognar4ndianola association, moderately steepe Re Renton silt loam Rh Riverwosh So Sala) silt ivam Sh $amtnamish silt loam Sk Seattle muck Sm Sho)car muck Sn Si silt loom So Snohomish silt loam Sr Snohomish silt foam, thick surface variant Su Sultan silt loam T. Tukwtlo muck Ur Urban land W. Woodinville silt loom • The composition of these units is more variable than rhw of the others in the area, but it has been controlied well enough to interpret for the expected use of the soils. SECTION II PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY This section only includes Core and Special Requirements, as no conditions of approval have been issued for the subject projects. Summary of City of Renton Pre application notes 1. Sanitary sewer is required. It is not in an Aquifer Protection Zone, 2. Water is served by WD 90. Water main improvements need to be approved by City of Renton. 3. Project is in Honey Creek Drainage basin. Conceptual drainage plan and report are to be submitted with application for short plat. Drainage plan first to be designed to the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual to determine if detention is required. If detention is requiredthen it shall be designed per the 2005 KCSWDM. 4. Street improvements to include curb gutter and 5 sidewalks. Curb to be located 16 feet from center line. Private streets to be located in a 26 feet wide tract, with 20 feet paving, and include a fire department turn around. 5. All new power, telecommunications to be placed under ground. CORE REQUIREMENTS Per the drafting standards revised May 2000 the Core requirements 1-5 in section 1.2 are to be addressed, and all special requirements in 1.3 that are applicable to this project are to be addressed. Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location. The current storm water sheet flows from exiting impervious surfaces and the existing pastures to an on site wetland. The proposed storm water management plan }proposes to use dispersion trenches on each -individual -property to disperse storm water in the same manner. Core Requirement #2: Off site analysis. All the surface water from this plat drains to the wetland on the property. The wetland Is drained by -Honey Creek, which is a"tribdtary"to-May creek. This project is adjacent to the recent plat of Wedgewood, which has recently extended the culvert crossing under NE I& street. A review of the downstream system indicates stream conveyance across private property. The -next -culvert crossing in public right of way is located over a'/4 mile to the north under Hoquium Ave NE. There does not appear to be any down stream problems with in X mile of this project. Cone Requirement #3: Run off Control In accordance with directions from the City staff, the requirement for detention was evaluated using the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. It is shown in Section IV of this report that detention is not required, as the increase in runoff is under 0.5cfs. This exemption is defined in the subject Manual on page 1.2.3-5. Runoff control BMP's will be applied to each lot through the'use of dispersion trenches, as the geotechnical report completed for the project determined that the soils are not suitable for infiltration. Cone Requirement #4: Conveyance System. Downspout Dispersion systems. Appendix C, Section C2.4.4, of the 2005 KCSWDM provides that basic dispersion is allowed for single family lots with less than 22,000 square feet and full infiltration or dispersion is not possible. The conditions are that the flowpath be over at least 25 feet of vegetative coverage at a maximum slope of 15% before leaving the property and does not pose a significant flood or erosion problem." In order to accomplish this, some of the dispersion systems will have to be in easement areas that will provide for the preservation of the flowpath over adjacent lots in the plat. In addition, to avoid flowing over slopes exceeding 15%, some of the trenches had to be at the toe of the slopes in the wetland buffer, which also coincided with the edge of the wetland. Runoff from the plat roadway and Lot 1 of the Rogers Short Plat had to be conveyed to the base of the slope in the buffer as described above. This was designed as an outfall condition in accordance with Section 4.2.2 of the 2005 KCSWDM. The calculation of the runoff to allow the use of this system is found in Section V. Core Requirement #5, Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESL}: Soils in this project have a high silt content and are moderately sensitive to erosion. Also, work involves significant soils movement due to steep grades. However, the size of the development area is about 1.73 acres, so normal TESC BMP's will be applied for this project. This will include perimeter protection using silt fences, a quarry spall construction entrance, ground cover practices, and the use of a sediment pond. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operation Maintenance of the plat access road is to be performed jointly by all lot owners in the two subdivisions. An agreement has been recorded with lot line adjustment, which was recently completed. All off site improvements are to be completed under a right of way use permit from City of Renton. All storm drain maintenance will consist of catch basin and pipe cleaning as specked in Section X. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements: No such areas are known to affect this site. Floodglain/Floodway_Delineation: The site contains a wetland and is adjacent to a drainage ditch. The mitigation and restoration requirements for the wetland and buffer are being provided by BergerfAbam Engineers, Inc in a report attached as Appendix A. Flood Protection Facilities: The site is not adjacent to a Class 'I or 2 stream, nor does is propose to construct a new or modify and existing flood protection facility. Source Controls: No special controls should be required for the site, as it is a single family residential development. Oil Control: This is not a high use site, nor is it redeveloping an existing high use site. Therefore, special oil control measures are not required. SECTION III OFFSITE ANALYSIS OFF -SITE ANALYSIS UPSTREAM: The upstream area consists of the adjacent parcels to the east, which are single family residential lots. Runoff from those sites sheet flows across the southeasterly corner of the project site. No signs of concentrated runoff were found entering the site. ON -SITE: The project site is occupied by two single family residences and several outbuildings. Much of the southwest portion of the site is a forested wetlands. The area up to the wetlands and the slope leading down to it has been cleared and landscaped (Photo 1A). Some of it was used for the horses, so there is a corral and barn on the site. No sources of runoff, closed depressions or other drainage features were observed outside of the wetland area. Most of the runoff from the site sheet flows to the southwest into the wetland; however, some flows into a drainage flue to the south of the site. DOWNSTREAM: Both the wetlands and the drainage ditch mentioned above drain to the west into Honey Creek (Photo 1 B). The creek crosses 10'h St. in a new 36 inch culvert that reduces to the existing 24 inch culvert before exiting on the north side of the road(Photos 2A & 2B). This system was installed by the new plat adjacent to the west called Wedgewood Lane. From there the runoff enters a vegetated channel. The channel area immediately downstream of the outfall is landscaped, but is forested beyond that (Photo 213). This channel and the surrounding forested condition continue to a point over '/. mile downstream, so the reconnaissance ended there. SJ5 r 1 in �, in oe Iji L. th Re 1 �' r�l`""' �'�' �r'�f t (� � �'4� F `}--`' �i��•�4�� may in Cyj /��Yva �� O n-....�� ..4 �` •tom„ vi Obi'va Yru vn cl ry t iA'1 M �•••� 5 ^ h 55 ;:1 �' a`�a:v..a .. ..:.. � �r° __- "� r. 1f ..�.�. �t ,S •1,�k � :'Cf, Es- ��". '; , � � �� __.s' yy +�c.�.•- _ ..� rim_:•--,� � .{ , ,� � � � � fie. [' •�_--- � j �� + z •' t r 5�(' tit r �, 1 .� r ti .�I >'� � � L�-THY", •' ,l f�y � K"lj ^yi $`�{��J�y - I ioi r 1 L '1 i19 ! i�� 3T}� f+•'" �� Nei ,.. .� II e�i:�4F.n�i��1 I...�' -- 1•.. 1r.•..e"J r4yt, �,r {,1 M AEI r f R4 ps�+Y fwl4S. rs "�s*!• 1 - ! , . k F 3k �Yi1'' i; t �k7 �FSFr' h1.J T 1! #f>r glst+ .�+ x r Sr s '� r l ,XI�I 4i � I ^I •4 3 t d I L �� j, 9;i' �,r 7 , � %} 9b1 f > w'',h i, r { r • , , Y' I `• Qtjy 7 !r f, o; s~�'� i(-,4z i. � � r J•�,' 's �'�� ." t F�! l ,� �1�� - �,'i .�l �'� r i � r.� . •��'I r.�^� n .'r 'f/ f�.l�a;`�,, J3 ;��r.+i•,-"r f✓.-i�n'��lr: rsl + � 1, / � i,Tr j�1 i z rf S.F �' .�•�` /1 1 411.41 \f r ri 1 11 lr,Yi'rd / � IIli((''�s r ,i'' , •;! s r' j r 5. 1r.�� Y 'r r!' A ' I r4rrl VIVO / I l riff. ; ,I! f! til r/ / �v!! I �lr I `f�.='�i7 � _ . � r .'J r /:' 'I',f !,%r/ �'%1 � , � f .. /� i'��,`�- �. � �' E' �ry�' �•Fn' f , f r lf.l:'.� �.Ss �! `M. ,�� „ �S.!.I -.� r� �,r,`I ., +t- f�t;y .� �. � -4' � �, �: :� � t ti 2: 1 4 d>>y � �� li c� { i e , •r 4• - T _a�vr, $ ��rt �>v i' ,r rl. t � k. �f' y� ' ��``` rH' � K•. Kr 4` r - i ^��ry� �.*y r'�'l'�`��ry�F}'.t �x'1�il,� rip . '�•ry .j<1 f �±r] i i `, r �• + e� F�f'•'r4�1 r i+}J�,�4 4 �'!!'� dr � I Ab lj / ` '�� ++'�•,r"�t t, irf#Y. #� �'• �t�'lS.y-- ,rs� S"r,.+ ;' .r: I. .f . .`r , ..y:.,+`tl r �. ?y f•rT J,�-; �i [,f j+ �.- la-,� 61-�a-,�:y^ ---�. f .1 .. +. rr... �S„y •' ++ 1 i n 7 t -�7' n�%' -sue' �� Y +.Tr s Vint ■ ,�w-. {,.' _ l�.s, 1r iikl;y ..� � _, : l 9 -�x�I ry •! r t " ,, i' ice srJYSL,rr ` ^1 r- oilr}± 41 ^;r 1�,� #�yi�, -' '': ek :�„'•}i i.f ` �t.wrs�6J,` r .z 'SA "' L A t4 c r h,ar .•. fi ieVs� �'� Krt aj s 4 �i--'�- - .'•f/ `SG.'J ] N• t') v ��• Wit- - ■ ■ '.A iv<<L-YI fit= { �pi�s 1•t'"'J ig7 '1 7 tl li-,��I�`, r `•^ �£ � tk rj t r 'zc I I 1 s -f..r. �s + �1' { is �� 7 k r f} s ti• + - I - r .ri - ��i �7f1 r7 'J Kf I R�t� � r Ir"fi11r+t5 +�I i �rl•i tt'Jy� I7hS r,r,�yl ��i #ryl: k7 k;I} ' j 4wiY'�I �f {tl�`�1 Iyl�r I�pw1 �y� tlz5 ■1_ +t r +S.�s"f 1 °FF�+' -J � I'i r +�:^'i"_,u'F 'SN r ,fY l�°+eitii 1rf)•+1 + A 1�-1 f JIEQ+^rI f ,�L•e f 5 -I% IF ,1 r � � .f s � -.J �'(ry 55r f+7Y - .� �r1sT'n>L f� Yrg; �N+ +y I 1� tY 11� '• l S; T IJ it 1�'x'�, i .! +r -f 7 c. 7 r1'r •�RV%i 4�?�J� � {I �'' f 1 t.. r a.= if § 5 ^rV f j 7 she ~v s o ef. Z r l ii ♦,+r ,[ a_ r•�, if s s a t tl �,' MAT zt. SrJ,t+LH x1 - ?' F}n'ysll}��S �k�4 ['io•1 i F r.>�Y+•�/.�id}�Sj�Yi'S i�S lY/��jF� I I � r�, r'• !•r '.!1 '- � y I fJ 1 i �i 41V r j l• FS j5i�tl�,}y5 jI�S#`'i i� ��,„lstrr � Irk+��r�Ifi4r.� ��,}f��,r a•' Ili `, . +hl IICSrAT �r��,I''`y /';}ilaf4 rZtr l r � r II � A z^' fps—, E_i /; if Ir r ik Jy r I r +•+ .. i li A'tLst tali ,fI�/R a r rl•f JII A�.'+ FJ IF, J f I/ i r, r �,Vr l yGS .n�3f l •i �� I � � I .S'. 4..•S- yry7 X'r�tl I r: ., a Ay 1{1, s+r 1sIf fl�1y�,It(Sr�fr+ i yrk'/ ^Ir r �r1 1�' f�;' - \} }�s •f I�r r"+ f 1..�r S 111. `_►t 1! I I y- h ' J��'dt �'. R a � kr 1 iit, ' 4'r '! r`.�1 i }" v� 1 �r f !• � r 1 ! } +�,, {{�fi4 � �I :ta,Hyr1 , `SI�rll�! �,, r!'I�'' `,:p /P' ,y � f/�:. i I N'.I I�.p 1� i �. i r .r •S n1 r/`11 `k I �tI#j I��I'i1T lr Ir r\ 7 a'4T F tf N fl fi.y ' r ..sl ti"rr.. �,��':Y .-f 'aro.?`oS" �� i[�#j1/ I /�i r l.ri.�� 1 ��r"'b. ' _ r'. I. _ r,; • �!!!Y.�� 1 a 8 ` r '1 ✓.� 'P�+ �l " i � - { -i `�tr� � � [s ��.�1v4� 4 c; t. '.WIgYc1 �r `/.4 wr I- f ; t �rm M'..1•�•,. �`r' I� it \ ki F I-� 1��;� -'I ,!+. y {�4 �.. }r /.A'S.r�. a. •,. ¢ llllt<-!:r'S�-'. SECTION IV DETENTION & WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS DETENTION ANALYSIS The enclosed calculations show the increase in runoff from the pre -developed to the post -developed site conditions. In accordance with the requirements of the 1992 KCSWDM, the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method was used. The increase in the 100 year event was found to be 0.24cfs. Because this is below 0.5cfs, detention is not required. Q?U)w Lnoo CV C4 N Cq Cli C` N �jV41 rl� t k � -t'�. �J ,$`! ,L'-.if?. �t/,(c�. `1 r. s-�.., 1 �a � � f - L/ �+s U y jI'l.. P (, ►.a �.'t' l C. f.E� ni IDA- [j� "A, A wl �} , F t s 1�l�ryQ V v (oriY,- .1 i � r e Pcl ly Lr' ov9 �r �r e dr i O 41 7 4- 7g I. 7-714e-- D, 4 [ . 4o R` (41 3(=,3" 1 (V � 33lqc-� IS-) ?z 4al (9 7� ! 1s 8 1�j t. (0, 3 Z v e r -C t ',I L/ 9 f Y c S 0 -j q` r WA I � I- \t 1.0 0.9 " e- (-( - ? 6 vce�� fv\ � --) C� � 5,ew JA 0 CC. (C V LA �Vsfr-(Ie, Ile eo 7.4 c�7C-V 4 KING COUNTY, WASI-IINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TABLI? 3.5.2B SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS in 1982) Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type 1A rainfall distribution, 24-hour storm duration. CURVE NUMBERS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP LAND USE DESCRIPTION A B C 0. Cultivated land(l): winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands 74 82 89. 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85. 89 Wood or forest land: undisturbed or older second growth 42 64 76 81 Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush 55 72 81 86 Orchard: with cover crop 81 88 92 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area 68 80 (B61 90 fair condition: grass cover on 50% 1. to 75% of the area 77 85 90 92 Gravel roads and parking lots 76 85 89 91 Dirt roads and parking lots 72 82 87 89 Impervious surfaces, pavement, roots, etc. 98 98 9 98 Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. too too 00 too Single Family Residential (2) Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre % Impervious (3) 1.0 DU/GA 15 Separate curve number 1.5 DU/GA 20 shall be selected 2.0 DU/GA 25 far pervious and 2.5 DU/GA 30 impervious portion 3.0 DU/GA 34 of the site or basin 3.5 DU/GA 38 4.0 DU/GA 42 4.5 DU/GA 46 5.0 DU/GA 48 5.5 DU/GA 50 6.0 DU/GA 52 6.5 DU/GA 54 7.0 DU/GA 56 Planned unit developments, % impervious condominiums, apartments, must be computed commercial business and industrial areas. (1) For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, August 1972, (2) Assumes roof and driveway runoff is directed into street/storm system. (3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers. 3.5.2-3 I1/92 BASIN DATA AND RUNOFF CALCULATION b-r pre Event Summary: BasinID Peak Q Peak T ----- (cfs) (hrs) b-r pre 1.03 8.00 Drainage Area: b)-r pre Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Peak Factor. 484.00 Storm Dur. 24.00 hrs Area Pervious 1.4000 ac Impervious 0.3300 ac Total 1.7300 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: pervious area Impervious CN Data: Impervious areas Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet Runoff Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Fixed Impervious b-r pos Event Summary: 8asinID reak Q Peak T fs) (hrs) b-r pos 27 8.00 Drainage Area: b-r pos Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Peak Factor: 484.00 Storm Dur 24.00 hrs Area Pervious 1.0500 ac Impervious 0.6800 ac Total 1.7300 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: pervious area Impervious CN Data: Impervious areas Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet Upper segment Sheet Last segment Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet Impervious Pr--e d 19.4 r- ( oT.9c( Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event (ac-ft) ac ILoss 0.4006 1.73 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.20 Into: 10.00 min CN TC 86.00 0.26 hrs 98.00 0.01 hrs 86.00 1.4000 ac 98.00 0.3300 ac Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time 240.00 ft 16.20% 0.2400 15.37 min Length: Slope: ll 0.00 ft %a j0.00 �nS�ct 4 a toe ed Peak Vol Area Method (ac-ft) ac ILoss 0.4361 1.73 SBUH/SCS Coeff: Travel Time 0.3000 0.30 min Raintype Event TYPEIA 100 yr Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.20 Inty: 10.00 min CN TC 86.00 3.66 hrs 98.00 0.01 hrs 86.00 1.0500 ac 98.00 0.6800 ac Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time 101.00 ft 23.30% 0.2400 6.65 min 37.00 ft 5.40% 0.2400 2.45 min Length: Slope: Coeff. Travel Time 35.00 ft 10.00% 0.0100 0.31 min SECTION V CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS Due to the small size of the site a detailed conveyance analysis is not required. The 100 year runoff for the entire as calculated for the detention exemption was 1.27cfs. The capacity of a 12 inch storm drain pipe @ a slope of 0.5% (the pipe on this site are all steeper) is 2.6cfs. Thus, no pipe in the system will be at capacity, and no backwater analysis is required. Included in this section is the calculation for the flow from the roadway storm drain. The results show that the flow is over 0.2cfs, but under 0.5cfs, so a dispersion trench is appropriate. PLAT ROADWAY RUNOFF King County Runoff Time Series Program Version 4.42d All files will be read/written in the Working Directory Working Directory:C:\KC SWDM KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location Landsburg Computing Series PLAT RDWY.tsf Regional Scale Factor 0.80 Data Type Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:`KC SWDH`KC-DATA\LAEI15R.rnf 8 Impervious 0.19 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Total Area : 0.19 acres Peak Discharge: 0.228 CFS at 7:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 .� Storing Time Series File:PLAT RDWY.tsf 8 Time Series Computed ( r SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS ST 1.1 ST 1.1 FIGURE 3.2.2.A RAINFALL REGIONS AND REGIONAL SCALE FACTORS ST 1.0 ST 1.0/ ST 1.0 LA 0.8 LA 0.9 LA 1.0 LA 1.2 LXOKOMISX LOYXTi �OTXCI of •I' ♦f111Yt14' XIXO GOUXIT 't e S Y i'� g Ifs% wr/ • • frtU1i� Iu , ) y � 7 `2 s•) � "'1f r Rainfall Regions and Regional Scale Factors =2—g Incorporated Area . rs River/Lake Major Road 9/1198 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 3-22 �_._— --' -- -- ------ _ — --- - SECTION VIII EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN Size the sediment trap: Compute design flow, which is the 2 year, post -developed storm with a 15 minute time step: KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location . Landsburg Computing Series b-rconstr.tsf Regional Scale Factor 0.80 Data Type Reduced Creating IS -minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC-SVDM\KC DATA\LATG15R.rnf 8 Till Grass 1.05 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Loading Time Series File:C:\KC-SVDM\KC-DATA\LAEI15R.rnf 8 Impervious 0.60 acres Adding Yr: 8 Total Area 1.73 acres Peak Discharge: 1.38 CFS at 7:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:b-rconstr.tsf 8 Time Series Computed Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:b-rconstr.tsf Project Location:Landsburg --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.390 7 2/08/01 19:00 0.349 8 S/06/02 7.15 0.723 4 9/10/03 13:45 0.927 2 8/25/04 23:30 0.513 6 9/10/05 16:45 0.859 3 10/22/05 16:15 0.610 5 11/21/06 0:00 1.38 1 1/09/08 7:30 :omputed Peaks ------Flow Frequency Analysis - - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1.38 1 100.00 0.990 0.927 2 25.00 0.960 0.859 3 10.00 0.900 0.723 4 5.00 0.800 0.610 5 3.00 0.667 0.513 6 2.00 0.500 0.390 7 1.30 0.231 0.349 8 1.10 0.091 1.23 50.00 0.980 This shows that the two year storm has a flow of 0.51 cfs. Using the surface area (SA) for the pond from page D.3.5.1 from the Manual: SA = 2080 (0.51) = 1061 square feet This area is measured at the invert of the weir. APPENDIX A WETLAND REPORT