The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-21-2020 10212020 HE Packet HEARING EXAMINER October 21, 2020 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 25 West Main Street I. Case No: PLT19-0011 Applicant(s): Julian Prossor Principal Inhabit Consulting, LLC 330 Madison Ave S. Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Property Owner: Lisa Brody 11637 30th Ave SW Burien, WA 98146 Request: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.74 acres into 21 single-family residential lots and 6 tracts in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. Project Location: The project site is located east of the intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 294th St., north of S 296th St. and south of S 292nd St., within NW¼ of Section 2, Township 21, Range 4. Parcel Number(s): King Co. Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095 and 0221049066. Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 2 II. Case No: PLT19-0009 Applicant: Scott Clark Principal Planner Larson & Assoicates 9027 Pacific Ave Ste. #4 Tacoma, WA 98444 Property Owner: Gilbert LeVander G A L Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 2150 Buckley, WA 98321 Request: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 6.35 acres into 26 single-family residential lots and five tracts in the R-5, Residential Zone, Five Dwelling Units per Acre district. Project Location: The project site is located west of 46th Pl. S, approx. 1,400 ft. south of S. 325th St. and approx. 1,000 ft. north of S. 331st St., within SE ¼ of Section 15, Township 21, Range 4. Parcel Number(s): King Co. Parcel No. 152104-9215 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM HEARING EXAMINER Agenda Subject/Title: PLT19-0011, Brody Preliminary Plat Date: October 7, 2020 Department: Community Development DESCRIPTION: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.74 acres into 21 single-family residential lots and 6 tracts in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Brody Preliminary Plat with 33 conditions and associated Engineering Deviation request (City File No. DEV20-0026). PROJECT SUMMARY: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.74 acres into 21 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots range in size from 4,501 square feet (sq. ft.) to 7,493 sq. ft. The plat will extend a new public road (“Road A”) approximately 583 feet (ft.) east off of 51st Ave. S and which will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Two shared access and utility tracts (A and B) will extend off of Road A. A trail tract (Tract C) will connect Road A to an open space and recreation tract (Tract E). Stormwater will be managed onsite via one stormwater detention pond (Tract D). Lakehaven water and sewer will be extended through the site to service each lot. An existing wetland and its associated buffer will be placed into a separate sensitive area tract (Tract F). LOCATION: The project site is located east of the intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 294th St., north of S 296th St. and south of S 292nd St., within NW¼ of Section 2, Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095, and 0221049066. APPLICANT(S): Julian Prossor, Principal, Inhabit Consulting, LLC, 330 Madison Ave. S, Suite 108, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Lisa Brody, 11637 30th Ave. SW, Burien, WA 98146 Summary of Staff Recommendations: Preliminary Plat: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, with 33 conditions. Deviation Requests: The City Engineer recommends approval of the engineering Deviation Request, without conditions. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 2 of 23 Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Classification and Current Land Use: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use Project Site Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential; West Hill Overlay Single-family residence North Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential; West Hill Overlay Single-family residences South Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential; West Hill Overlay Single-family residences East Single-Family Residential; Neighborhood Commercial Overlay R-5 Residential; West Hill Overlay Single-family residences West Urban Residential Medium 4-12 du/acre (King County designation) R-6 Residential (King County designation) Single-family residences Excerpted Zoning Map: Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 3 of 23 Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Map: 2019 Aerial Map: Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 4 of 23 Street Layout Map: SEPA STATUS: A combined Notice of Application (NOA) and SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP19-0034 on September 17, 2020, see Exhibit 4. A revised mailing was completed, correcting the street intersection, on September 18, 2020. The notices were posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, published in The Seattle Times newspaper, and sent to potentially affected agencies. The comment period ended October 2, 2020 and the appeal period ended October 16, 2020. One comment was received. The comment received along with the City’s response are included as Exhibit 5. No appeal of the SEPA decision was received. FINDINGS OF FACT: Preliminary Plat Findings Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 5 of 23 1. Julian Prossor, Principal, Inhabit Consulting, LLC, on behalf of Lisa Brody, Property Owner via Delegation of Authority as an heir, submitted a Preliminary Plat application and associated SEPA application on November 12, 2019 to subdivide approximately 4.74 acres (referred to in this Staff Report as the “Site”) into a 21-lot single-family residential subdivision. 2. The Site consists of three parcels and is located in the West Hill portion of the City, east of the intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 294th St., approx. 493 feet (ft.) north of S 296th St. and approx. 566 ft. south of S 292nd St. The Site is located within the City of Auburn’s corporate limits, and referenced by King County Tax Assessor Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095, and 0221049066. 3. The Site currently has one single-family home and one damaged structure (appears to be formerly a residential structure). The home and damaged structure will be demolished. The Site is currently served by an existing on-site septic system and Lakehaven Water & Sewer District (“Lakehaven”) water. The Applicant will be required to make application for a demolition permit, which will require the abandonment of the on-site septic system. 4. The Site is rectangular in shape, as shown and dimensioned here: 5. The Site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family Residential” and is currently zoned R-5, Residential, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre, which has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.74 acres, which in accordance with the density calculation would require between 18.96 (rounded to 19) and 23.7 (rounded to 24) per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065(A)(1)(a)) lots. The Project proposes 4.4 dwelling units per acre. 621.51 ft. 328.11 ft. 300.42 ft. 329.86 ft. 130.20 171.88 ft. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 6 of 23 6. The Project is subject to the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district in effect at the time the Project application was considered “Complete” (i.e. vested). Per ACC 18.07.030 the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district include: • Minimum lot area: 4,500 square ft. • Minimum lot width: 50 ft. • Lot cot coverage: 40% • Impervious surface: 65% • Maximum building height: 35 ft. • Minimum yard setbacks: o Front: 10 ft. o Side, interior: 5 ft. o Side, street: 10 ft. o Rear: 20 ft. 7. Per ACC 18.52.020 two off-street parking spaces per single family residence is required. 8. The Site is relatively flat. Per the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 10), site slopes downward from west to east. The Site has a relief of about 22 feet and is underlain with Vashon Glacial Till. The Geotechnical Report notes that due to the underlying soil conditions infiltration of stormwater runoff is infeasible and that a stormwater detention pond would be a suitable method of managing runoff. 9. The Site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification. Therefore no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs). 10. The Site is not located within any shoreline designation. 11. The Site is not located within an aquifer recharge area. 12. The Site is not located in the regulatory floodplain per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. 13. No state or federal candidate threatened or endangered plant or animal species or habitat has been identified on the Site. 14. Road A will be extended approximately 583 ft. east off of 51st Ave. S, through the Site, and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Based on the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Functional Roadway Classification Map, Road A will be a public “Local Residential” street. Therefore, Road A will be constructed with full street improvements meeting “Local Residential” standards. Two shared access and utility tracts (Tracts A and B) will extend north off of Road A. One trail tract (Tract C) will connect Road A north to an open space and recreation tract (Tract E). For full size plans, reference the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7). The Site is located within the utility service areas of, and will be served by, Lakehaven for public water and sewer. Reference Lakehaven water and sewer certificates in Exhibit 14. Lakehaven water and sewer service will be extended from S 292nd St, through a 30 ft. ingress, egress, and utility easement (Exhibit 15), through the Site. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 7 of 23 15. Per Wetland Delineation Report (Exhibit 12), one approximately 0.149 acre (6,500 sq. ft.) Category IV wetland exists partially on site (the wetland category rating is vested to Ordinance No. 5894, adopted 2005). The portion of the wetland that is on-site is approximately 0.05 acres or 2,178 sq. ft. The remainder of the wetland extends offsite to the east and south onto the adjacent properties (see “Brody Property – Existing Conditions” image below). While off-site sensitive areas have been identified, the adjacent properties are not included in this project nor are under control of the Property Owner and therefore will be required to mitigate under separate development proposal(s). The on-site portion of the wetland will be placed into a separate sensitive area tract (Tract F) on the final plat map and encumbered by a conservation easement as conditioned below. This tract is inclusive of the on-site wetland’s 25 ft. buffer shown on various sheets of the Preliminary Civil Plans. A draft Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan (Exhibit 12) was submitted with the project application. A final enhancement plan will be reviewed with the future submittal of the Public Facility Extension (FAC) (civil) plans for the Project. As conditioned below the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan must be approved prior to approval of the civil plans under the FAC. 16. One stormwater treatment and flow control facility will be constructed on site. As provided in the Technical Information Report (Exhibit 11) stormwater treatment and flow control will be managed through a stormwater detention pond (“stormwater pond”) in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW ) and Auburn Supplements. Stormwater from the stormwater pond will be discharged to the Category IV wetland within Tract F. The stormwater pond will be located in Tract D which is proposed to be publically dedicated at the time of final plat. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 8 of 23 17. To mitigate temporary noise impacts associated with the Project, all construction shall occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday as required per ACC 8.28.010(B)(8) unless a work hour exception is requested and approved as provided in this same code section. 18. To mitigate increased demand for parks created by the Project, the current park impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.08 ACC ‘Parks Impact Fees’. 19. To mitigate increased demand for schools created by the Project, the current school impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.02 ACC ‘School Impact Fees’. 20. To mitigate increased demand for fire/emergency services generated by the Project, payment of the fire impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is required in accordance with Chapter 19.06 ACC ‘Fire Impact Fees’. 21. To mitigate increased PM peak hour trips generated by the Project, a traffic impact fee in accordance with the City of Auburn Traffic Impact Fee Schedule shall be assessed at building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.04 ACC ‘Transportation Impact Fees’. 22. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued on September 17, 2020 (Exhibit 4). The notice was posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle Times newspaper. 23. In response to the public notices the City received one comment letter from one party as of October 7, 2020 (the date this Staff Report was finalized) on the project. The following list is Staff’s abbreviated summary of the comment along with a short summary of the City’s response, if one was necessitated. The comment and response is included as Exhibit 5. a. Katelynn Piazza, Department of Ecology: Ecology provided a comment letter stating that the Site is located in an area that may have been affected by the former Asarco Smelter. City Response: The comment letter was forwarded to the Applicant. Further information and guidance from Ecology on the nature and basis of the recommendation is requested by the Applicant. However, by the date this Staff Report was finalized additional information or guidance from Ecology has not been obtained. Therefore, in response to the comment letter and the need for guidance, a condition requiring consultation with Ecology is proposed. Engineering Deviation Findings 24. The applicant submitted a request for a “deviation” from the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS) for the following: a. City File No. DEV20-0026 (Exhibit 13): Vertical Curves (COADS Section 10.02.5): Approval to reduce the sag vertical curve length from 201 ft. to 20 ft. at the intersection of Road A and 51st Ave. S. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 9 of 23 25. Deviations from the COADS and Standard Details are subject to approval of the Hearing Examiner per ACC 17.18.010(A) and COADS 1.04 which state (emphasis added): “ACC 17.18.010(A). The hearing examiner may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC or established or referenced in the city’s design standards or construction standards, upon making the findings of fact in ACC 17.18.030; provided, that the hearing examiner shall obtain the concurrence of the city engineer for any requests to modify any city of Auburn design or construction standard.” “COADS 1.04. For deviation applications that are associated with a preliminary plat application submitted in compliance with Chapter 17.10 ACC, the deviation application and a recommendation from the City Engineer must accompany the preliminary plat to the hearing examiner.” 26. The City Engineer’s recommendation for the deviation is included under ‘Conclusions’ below. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat Conclusions Per ACC 14.03.030, a preliminary plat is a Type III Decision which are quasi-judicial final decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.070 ‘Findings of Fact’ lists the approval criteria for a preliminary plat. A comparison of the project’s relationship to subdivision approval criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis: A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and schools; Staff Analysis: No adverse impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare are anticipated from the proposed subdivision. Staff offers the following analysis of each of subcategory listed in this criterion: Open Spaces: The Project is not subject to any park dedication, open space, or clustering requirements under Title 18 ‘Zoning’ or Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’. While not required, the Project is however, proposing to place 0.391 acres (17,058 sq. ft.) in open space and recreation tract (Tract E). Tract E will be owned and maintained by the future homeowner's association (HOA). Drainage Ways: No existing drainage ways appear to be located on the Site. Through the civil plan review process, the stormwater runoff from the Project will be evaluated, treated, and detained within the stormwater pond in Tract D per the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW ) and Auburn Supplements. Streets, Alleys, other Public Ways: The following roadway(s) and access or pedestrian tracts will be constructed concurrent with the plat: Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 10 of 23 1. Half-street improvements in accordance with ACC 12.64A to the Site’s frontage on 51st Ave. S. Eleven feet of right-of-way (ROW) will be dedicated from the Site’s frontage to accommodate the half-street improvements. 2. Road A will be extended, west to east, off of 51st Ave. S into the Site and will terminate in a cul-de-sac. As a new public “Local Residential” street, Road A will be constructed with full street improvements. Road A will feature full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips. Portions of Road A will be posted “No Parking” due to its road width. Also, the cul-de-sac shall be posted “No Parking” around their the entire perimeter. Seventeen lots (proposed lots no. 1-10, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 will take access from this road. 3. Tract A is a shared access and utility tract that will extend north off of Road A. Tract D will feature a paved width of 20 ft. (tract is 22 ft. in width). Two lots (proposed lots no. 13 and 16) will take access from this private tract. The tract will be marked “No Parking – Fire Lane” on both sides. Tract A will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 4. Tract B is a shared access and utility tract that will extend north off of Road A. Tract B will feature a paved width of 20 ft. (tract is 22 ft. in width). Two lots (proposed lots no. 19-21) will take access from this private tract. The tract will be marked “No Parking – Fire Lane” on both sides. Tract B will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 5. Tract C is a trail tract that will extend north off of Road A. As shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plans (Exhibit 8) Tract C will contain a 5 ft. wide engineered wood fiber path (tract is 10 ft. in width) and will connect residents to Tract E, the open space and recreation tract. Tract C will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 6. Pedestrians will be connected to 51st Ave. S via sidewalks along Road A. One Deviation has been requested to reduce the sag vertical curve length from 201 ft. to 20 ft. at the intersection of Road A and 51st Ave. S, of which the City Engineer has conditionally recommended for approval; reference the ‘Engineering Deviation Conclusions’ below. With the construction of the aforementioned roadways and pedestrian infrastructure, in accordance with the Chapter 12.64A ACC ‘Required Public Improvements’, the COADS, and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the requested deviations, the City’s Transportation Division finds that there will be no decrease in the road network level of service (LOS) standard. Additionally, as provided in ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 21 each new residence will be required to pay the Traffic Impact Fee in place at time of building permit issuance. Public Water: The Site is located in the Lakehaven’s water service area. Adequate water service will be provided for the Project. Water will be extended through the Project from an existing water main in S 292nd St., through a 30 ft. ingress, egress, and utility easement (Exhibit 15), located north of the Site. The extended water service stub at the junction between Road A and 51st Ave. S. Public Sanitary Sewer: The Site is located in the Lakehaven’s sewer service area. Adequate Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 11 of 23 sanitary sewer service will be provided for the Project. Sewer will be extended through the Project from an existing sewer main in S 292nd St., through a 30 ft. ingress, egress, and utility easement, located north of the Site. The extended sewer will stub just east of 51st Ave. S. Parks, Playgrounds: One approx. 0.391 acre (17,058 sq. ft.) open space and recreational area is proposed for the Project (Tract E). Per the Preliminary Landscape Plan (Exhibit 8) Tract E will retain most of the existing trees. Arborist chips or shredded park will be added as groundcover. An engineered wood fiber pad will provide space for the future HOA to install amenities within the open space and recreational tract. Since no parks or playgrounds are required under city code authority, park impact fees are required and will be paid at the time of building permit issuance (currently $3,500.00 per unit). The closest park is Camelot Park. This park is within unincorporated King County and is located north of the intersection of S 298th St. and 45th Pl. S. It is approx. 0.7 miles from the Project. Per the King County Open Space Plan, Camelot Park is a approx. 18.08 acre, "Multi-use" site. Multi-use sites include lands that have areas of ecological value and may support active and passive recreation that are less intensively developed. Per King County iMap (the County’s mapping system) Camelot Park contains a stream and large wetland. Schools: The Site is located within the Federal Way District #210 boundary. As provided in the School Access Analysis (Exhibit 9), students within the Project will attend: 1) Meredith Hill Elementary School, 2) Kilo Middle School, and 3) Thomas Jefferson High School. This Project lies within the “walking zone” for Meredith Hill Elementary and Thomas Jefferson High School. The Project lies outside of the walking zone for Kilo Middle School. The School Access Analysis outlines the walking routes to the respective schools or, in the case of Meredith Middle School, to the bus stop located at the intersection of S 292nd St. and 52nd Pl. S. The improvements to bolster a safe walking route are depicted in Exhibit A and Exhibit Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 12 of 23 B of the School Access Analysis and are summarized here: • Half-street improvements, including sidewalk, will be constructed on 51st Ave S., along the frontage of the Project. • New extruded curb, set two feet behind fog line, will be constructed along the frontage of the properties south of the Project to S 296th St. Sidewalk exists to the south of S 296th St. • New extruded curb, set two feet behind fog line, will be constructed along the frontage of the properties north of the Project to S 292nd St. Sidewalk exists to the north of S 292nd St. • A new crosswalk will be striped across S 292nd St. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan; Staff Analysis: The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the Site as ‘Single Family Residential’. Therefore this Project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single family dwellings. Additionally, adequate services and facilities can be provided. Lakehaven sewer and water will be extended to serve the proposed Project. The Project will also provide adequate facilities for stormwater; all stormwater will be directed to the proposed stormwater pond (Tract D). The stormwater pond will be required to meet applicable code and engineering design standards, as conditioned below. Road A, a new “Local Residential” public street will be constructed to serve the proposed Project. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of Road A. Pedestrian access will be enhanced along 51st Ave. S by the dedication of 11 ft. of right-of-way and construction of half-street improvements, which will include sidewalks. Public services such as the Auburn Police Department, Valley Regional Fire Authority, and the Federal Way School District #210 will also serve the proposed Project. Finally, impact fees including traffic, fire, parks, and school impact fees will mitigate respective impacts generated by the Project. The Project is also consistent with or implements the specific following goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element Policies: “CORE Land Use 8. Identify, protect, preserve, and restore Auburn’s environment and natural resources.” “LU-5 New residential development should contribute to the creation, enhancement and improvement of the transportation system, health and human services, emergency services, school system, and park system. This may be accomplished through the development of level of service standards, mitigation fees, impact fees, or construction contributions.” Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 13 of 23 Capital Facilities Element “Objective 1.1. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they require.” Policies: “CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with development.” “CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner.” “CF-4 If adequate facilities are currently unavailable and public funds are not committed to provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own expense in order to develop.” “CF-7 The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to project occupancy or use.” “Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities.” Policies: “CF-10 Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this comprehensive plan.” “CF-12 No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate share of related system needs.” “Objective 1.3. To ensure safe and adequate water service, for both domestic and fire protection purposes, to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “Objective 1.4. To ensure the efficient transmission of sanitary sewage to the appropriate treatment and disposal facilities in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “Objective 1.6. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 14 of 23 drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” Policies: “CF-37 The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements.” Transportation Plan “Connect-01: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community.” “Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.” “Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments.” “Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their needs.” “ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of- way include: ♣ Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development; ♣ Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and ♣ Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.” “Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.” Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan “PR-8 Park impact fees should be established that help fund the future development of new parks, park facilities, trails, and acquisition of open space that meet the needs of an increasing population.” C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council; Staff Analysis: The preceding analysis for Criterion B demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plans adopted Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 15 of 23 by the City. The project is generally consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the PROS Plan. D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated in ACC 17.02.030; Staff Analysis: The proposed subdivision meets the general purposes of Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Subdivisions’. The Brody Preliminary Plat is a 21-lot subdivision that is consistent with the minimum density of the R-5 zoning district. Adequate provisions for water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, and safe walking conditions will be provided with this Project. The plat has been processed and reviewed for conformity with the regulations for the Auburn City Code, city plans and policies, and COADS. Below is a comparison of the Project’s consistency with ACC 17.02.030 and the specific purpose statements of the subdivision code (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis for each item. “The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within the corporate limits of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and prevent or abate public nuisances in accordance with standards established by the state and the city, and to: A. Prevent the overcrowding of land; Staff Analysis: The Project does meet the minimum and base density of the R-5 zoning district. As provided under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 5, the R-5 zoning district has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.74 acres, which in accordance with the density calculation would require between 18.96 (rounded to 19) and 23.7 (rounded to 24) per ACC 18.02.065(A)(1)(a)) lots. As proposed, the Project will meet the density requirements for the R-5 zone. B. Promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; Staff Analysis: A safe and convenient travel will be provided. The Project is will construct one new public road, Road A. This road will feature sidewalk on both sides of the road. Additionally, sidewalks will be constructed on the frontage of the Project. Therefore pedestrian access to and through the Project will be provided. C. Promote the effective use of land; Staff Analysis: The Project is effectively developing the Site by implementing the number of residential units that are allowed for the R-5 zoning district. D. Provide for adequate light and air; Staff Analysis: The Project will provide adequate light and air through the applicable setback and lot coverage development standards. E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 16 of 23 recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; Staff Analysis: The Finding of Facts, and preceding analysis for Criteria A and B demonstrates the Project is providing adequate provisions for water supplies, sanitary wastes, drainage, roads, and other public requirements such as public health, safety, parks, and schools. F. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing the use of storm water low impact development techniques; Staff Analysis: The Site is relatively flat. Per the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 10), site slopes downward from west to east. The Site has a relief of about 22 ft. and is underlain with Vashon Glacial Till. The report notes that due to the underlying soil conditions infiltration of stormwater runoff is infeasible and that a detention pond would be a suitable method of managing runoff. The eastern portion of the site contains a Category IV wetland. The on-site portion of the wetland and its associated buffer will also be placed into a tract (Tract F). As conditioned below, prior to commencement of construction or clearing activities, the boundary for the buffer of the wetland in Tract F shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing or similar, and will remain in place until all clearing and construction is completed. The northern portion of the site will be set aside as an open space and recreation tract (Tract E). The Applicant has proposed to preserve the existing trees in Tract E during the construction phase. In preparation of the remaining area of the site, the lots, stormwater detention pond (Tract D), shared access and utility tracts (Tract A and B), the trail tract (Tract C), Road A, and utilities, will be cleared of vegetation and graded. To reduce stormwater discharges, areas of the Site will be revegetated. As proposed in the Preliminary Landscape Plans (Exhibit 8), landscape strips along Road A will contain sod lawn and street trees and the stormwater pond tract (Tract D) will feature a combination of hydroseed (grass), shrubs, and groundcover. The area inside the stormwater pond will be hydroseeded; the area outside the stormwater pond will be vegetated with shrubs and groundcover. The stormwater pond tract landscaping will be finalized during review of the FAC. Finally, as required by the R-5 zoning district, the subsequent development of each lot will be held to a maximum of 40% lot coverage (roofed area) and 65% impervious surface coverage. G. Provide for proper ingress and egress; Staff Analysis: As demonstrated in the analysis for Criterion A, the Project will provide proper ingress and egress for each individual future home and a pedestrian connection. H. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions which comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies and land use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW; Staff Analysis: Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a timely and comprehensive review of the Project. I. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state and city; Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 17 of 23 Staff Analysis: The Project will eventually provide for 21 new single-family residences to serve future residents. J. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal description; Staff Analysis: Upon final plat map review, the Project will be required to meet all applicable survey requirements. K. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.” Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criterion B, the Project successfully implements the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD; Staff Analysis: As analyzed in the ‘Findings of Fact’ the Project is able to meet applicable zoning and engineering standards, with the exception of the requested engineering deviation (sag vertical curve), which is discussed under the ‘Engineering Findings of Fact’ (above) and the ‘Engineering Deviation Conclusions’ (provided below). The placement of homes will be required to meet the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district to which the Project is vested (reference ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 5). Staff therefore finds that the Project is able to meet this criterion, as conditioned herein. F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment; Staff Analysis: Per Wetland Delineation Report (Exhibit 12), one 0.149 acre (6,500 sq. ft.) Category IV wetland exists partially on site. The portion of the wetland that is on-site is approximately 0.05 acres or 2,178 sq. ft. The on-site portion of the wetland will be placed into a separate sensitive area tract (Tract F). Minor grading actions are necessary within a portion of the wetland’s (on-site) buffer to allow for the construction of Road A and to allow for the installation of a stormwater dispersion trench. The stormwater dispersion infrastructure will be located outside be located outside of the buffer and will direct treated stormwater to the wetland. It will provide supplemental hydrology to the wetland. The entire on-site wetland buffer, including the portion temporarily impacted by the grading, will be enhanced to increase habitat complexity, diversity, and screening from outside disturbances. A draft Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan (Exhibit 12) was submitted with the project application. A final enhancement plan will be reviewed with the future submittal of the FAC for the Project. As conditioned below the W etland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan must be approved prior to approval of the civil plans under the FAC. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 18 of 23 The Site is also located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, which is the least stringent classification. With the utilization of Best Management Practices, it is anticipated that potential impacts to groundwater can be mitigated. A DNS was issued on September 17, 2020 or this Project. Compliance with the recommended conditions of approval, city code, and COADS will ensure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. During FAC (civil plan) review process, the Project will be reviewed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal standards to ensure no unacceptable adverse impacts to the environment occur. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances; Staff Analysis: Adequate provisions are made, and will be made through the subsequent civil plan review process, so the proposed Project will prevent or abate public nuisances. As the Site is mainly undeveloped, there are no active code violation cases for the site and no known public nuisances. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. H. Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native soils and/or vegetation that are integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm water management manual. Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria A, B, and D above, the Project has been designed such that it will be consistent with the COADS, and the Ecology SWMMWW and Auburn Supplement. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. Engineering Deviation Conclusions Per Section 1.04 of the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS) the City Engineer may grant a deviation from the engineering design standards, construction standards, and the Ecology SWMMWW and Auburn Supplements if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in Section 1.04.1. For deviation applications that are associated with a preliminary plat application submitted in compliance with Chapter 17.10 ‘Preliminary Subdivisions’ ACC, the City Engineer shall make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on any modifications requested from the COADS. Per Chapter 17.18 ‘Modifications of Standards and Specifications’ ACC, the Hearing Examiner may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’, or referenced in the city’s design standards or construction standards. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 19 of 23 The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation and has the following recommendation to the Hearing Examiner: City File No. DEV20-0026 (Exhibit 13): Vertical Curves (COADS Section 10.02.5): Approval to reduce the sag vertical curve length from 201 ft. to 20 ft. at the intersection of Road A and 51st Ave. S. In the case of the request to deviate from Section 10.02.5 of the COADS, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards. The request to deviate from Section 10.02.5 ‘Vertical Curves’ of the COADS is approvable and is recommended for approval to the Hearing Examiner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Brody Preliminary Plat and the Engineering Deviation request (City File No. DEV20-0026), subject to the information contained in this Staff Report, the attached exhibits, and the 33 recommended conditions of approval below. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The sensitive area tract (Tract F) will be owned and maintained by the future Brody Plat Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall address this maintenance responsibility. 2. Long-term protection of the wetland and its associated buffer (Tract F) must be protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the city, a conservation organization, land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city. The easement shall grant the City access to on-site mitigation areas for the purposes of monitoring, maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the sensitive area, but not the obligation to. The easement shall also include a statement to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the sensitive area tract. The vegetation may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed, or damaged without approval in writing from the City, unless otherwise approved by law. 3. The Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan must be approved prior to approval of the civil plans under the Facility Extension Agreement (FAC). Required vegetation must be installed prior to approval of the Final Plat. 4. Prior to commencement of construction or clearing activities on the site under the FAC, the boundary for the sensitive area tract (Tract F) shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing or similar, and shown on engineering plans. The fencing shall remain in place until all nearby clearing and construction is completed. 5. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plans shall show permanent split rail fence or city approved equivalent and critical area signs along the outer boundary of the open space/recreation tract (Tract F). Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 20 of 23 6. A sensitive area performance and maintenance financial security is required prior to approval of the Final Plat. The amount of the performance security shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the five-year monitoring period. 7. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plans shall show permanent split rail fence or city approved equivalent along the outer boundary of the open space/recreation tract (Tract E). 8. The open space tract (Tract E) will be owned and maintained by the future Brody Plat HOA. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall address this maintenance responsibility. 9. A note must be placed on the face of the Final Plat indicating the following: Tract E is set aside and reserved for permanent open space and recreational us for the benefit of the present and future owner(s) of the lots in this subdivision. No building shall be placed on Tract E and such tract shall not be further subdivided or used for financial gain. Tract E is hereby conveyed to the HOA then maintenance of Tract E shall be the responsibility of the HOA. 10. The Landscape Plan must be approved prior to approval of the civil plans under the FAC. Any required vegetation must be installed prior to approval of the Final Plat. 11. The trail tract (Tract C) will be owned and maintained by the future Brody Plat HOA. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall address this maintenance responsibility. 12. After installation of landscaping the trail tract (Tract C), the property owner shall complete an initial maintenance period lasting one year. The property owner shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.50 ACC. A maintenance assurance device must also be submitted. The value of the maintenance assurance device shall equal at least 100 percent of the total landscape materials plus installation. The maintenance assurance device is required prior to approval of the Final Plat. 13. The Site is in the City’s identified Groundwater Protection Zone 4. All approvals and permits related to the Project and issued by the City shall be consistent with best management practices (BMPs) per ACC 16.10.120(E)(2). 14. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the existing on-site septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with the King County Health Department requirements and documentation of the approved abandonment from the Health Department shall be provided to the City. 15. Per Exhibit A of the School Walkway Analysis, a crosswalk is req uired to be provided across 292nd St. at the intersection of 51st Ave. Improvements are required to be provided along 51st Ave S. between the northern end of proposed sidewalk and S 292nd St. to separate/protect pedestrians from vehicles in adjacent travel lanes. 16. Per Exhibit B of the School Walkway Analysis, improvements are required to be provided along 51st Ave S. between the southern end of proposed sidewalk and S 296th St. to separate/protect pedestrians from vehicles in adjacent travel lanes. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 21 of 23 17. The application (City File No. DEV20-0026) is a deviation request from the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS) Section 10.02.5 ‘Vertical Curves’ to reduce the sag vertical curve length from 201 ft. to 20 ft. at the intersection of Road A and 51st Ave. S is approvable. The City Engineer recommends to the Hearing Examiner approval of DEV20- 0026. 18. While a sight distance analysis is provided in the preliminary plat plans it is missing the vertical sight distance analysis due to missing survey information. The applicant/engineer must verify that there are no vertical sight distance obstructions prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC. 19. The applicant/engineer must confirm that the proposed curb line matches the existing curb line to the north prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC. The curb line location may not be consistent with the standard cross section in the City’s Engineering Design Standards. 20. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plans shall show that appropriate portions of Road A shall be posted “No Parking” due to its road width. Also, the cul-de-sac shall be posted “No Parking” around the entire perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance with City of Auburn Code and the COADS. 21. The shared access and utility tracts (A and B) must be identified and maintained as fire lanes in accordance with the City of Auburn Code 10.36.175. 22. The maximum distance allowed from any part of a single-family residential structure to the closest fire hydrant is 450 feet (COADS Section 7.01.6.1(i)). Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, this requirement must be depicted on the plans. 23. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the applicant must provide documentation of application to the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in size. 24. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the future Brody Plat HOA and its heirs and successors shall maintain those portions of the tracts containing the stormwater pond and specifically the portions located outside the fenced pond boundaries, or if no fence is provided, outside the 10-year stormwater surface elevation, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall also address this maintenance responsibility. 25. Vehicles are required to be able to enter/exit without driving beyond the limits of the tract. The applicant/engineer shall provide an adequate turn around area or turning templates how this is achieved for proposed lots no. 13, 16, 19, and 21 with the future civil site improvement submittal. 26. The hydrology of the adjacent existing wetlands must be maintained and the proposed wetland mitigation areas shall be properly evaluated per Volume I, Appendix I-D of the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in 2014). This means protecting them and ensuring hydrologic functions of the wetland are maintained or improved. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 22 of 23 27. The asphalt pavement tapers north and south of the 51st Ave. S are currently shown to be 50-feet long. The taper pavement length shall be based on the roadway design speed and AASHTO requirements. 28. The proposed retaining wall along the southern side of the plat shall be spaced far enough from the southern property line that the wall can be constructed and maintained without entering the adjacent properties south of the proposed plat. If an easement is required to construct or maintain the retaining wall an easement shall be obtained prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC from the adjacent property owners to the south. 29. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC the applicant shall provide approved plans from Lakehaven Water & Sewer District. 30. Per the Checklist, Section C, Item 12, occupation features (i.e. fences, gates, walls, driveways, etc.) affecting all boundaries between the subject site and adjoining parcels are shown and dimensioned. Of particular note, the edge of maintained ground, fence along the southeasterly line, gravel driveways in northeasterly portion and shared driveway in the northwesterly portion of the proposed plat indicate a potential claim of prescriptive use and/or access. Any potential adverse claims and/or unwritten rights associated with the depicted occupation features is a civil matter between private parties. It is suggested the applicant or their authorized representative establish communication with the adjoiners to create an open discussion regarding the occupation features. The City’s review of this preliminary plat application is for its conformity to Auburn City Code and state law, and as such does not address nor adjudicate any potential unwritten rights that may be acquired by the applicant or the adjoiners. If at FINAL PLAT application, the nature and location of the depicted occupation features remain unchanged and/or unresolved, then per RCW 58.17.255, a “survey discrepancy note” shall be placed on the face of the FINAL PLAT similar to the following example: SURVEY DISCREPANCY NOTE: EXISTING FENCES, DRIVEWAYS AND MAINTAINED AREAS HAVE BEEN SHOWN PURSUANT TO RCW 58.17.255 AND SHALL BE DISCLOSED IN THE TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY THE TITLE INSURER AND ISSUED AFTER THE FILING OF THIS PLAT 31. Per Chicago Title Commitment No. 0139785-06 Schedule B Part II Item 6, the common driveway easement and maintenance agreement under Rec. No. 20000810001428 is blanket in nature and encumbers the entirety of Tax Parcels 022104-9095 and 022104- 9193. Since the plans indicate that the driveway will be relocated to be entirely on the adjoiner’s property, as a condition of preliminary plat approval the applicant shall coordinate with the adjoiner, appropriate legal counsel and/or title company to extinguish and remove from title the common driveway easement and maintenance agreement under Rec. No. 20000810001428. The easement must be extinguished prior to approval of the civil plans under the FAC. 32. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, per Chapter 10.11 of the COADS, a DNR Monument Removal/Destruction Permit shall be acquired for the existing survey monument at the intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 294th St. that is located within the construction limits of the half-street improvements per Sheet P03 of the preliminary plat plans. The following note shall be placed on the face of the FAC plans: Staff Member: Teague Date: October 7, 2020 Page 23 of 23 EXISTING MONUMENT LOCATION SHALL BE PRESERVED, PERPETUATED AND/OR RESTORED PER WAC 332-120 UNDER DNR PERMIT 7013. 33. On October 2, 2020, the Washington State Department of Ecology provided a comment in response to the Brody Plat combined Notice of Application, SEPA DNS, Notice of Public Hearing stating that the Site is located in an area that may have been affected by the former Asarco Smelter. Therefore, prior to the issuance of the civil permits under the FAC, the Applicant is required to consult Ecology and, if applicable, implement appropriate measures in response. The results of the consultation must be shared with the City. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1. Staff Report Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map Exhibit 3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Forms Exhibit 4. Combined Notice of Application, SEPA DNS, and Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5. Written Comment(s) and Received and City Response(s) Exhibit 6. Revised SEPA Checklist, Inhabit Consulting, LLC, dated July 16, 2020 Exhibit 7. Preliminary Civil Plans, Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, dated August 18, 2020 Exhibit 8. Preliminary Landscape Plans, Glenn Takagi Landscape Architect, dated May 20, 2020 Exhibit 9. School Access Analysis, Inhabit Consulting, LLC, dated August 18, 2020 Exhibit 10. Geotechnical Report, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC, dated November 5, 2019 Exhibit 11. Technical Information Report, Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, dated August 18, 2020 Exhibit 12. Wetland Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan, dated February 5, 2020 Exhibit 13. Engineering Deviation Request Letter, Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, dated July 9, 2020 Exhibit 14. Lakehaven Water & Sewer Availability Certificates, Lakehaven Water and Sewer District Exhibit 15. Ingress, Egress, and Utilities Easement Recording No. 7409230513 Prepared by Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 Form Updated 1/30/2017 4 CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) Planning & Development Department APPLICATION Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001 Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) – LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION (A copy of this letter must be submitted for each property owner involved) I, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington as follows; 1. I am the owner of the property that is the subject of the application. 2. I have not appointed anyone, or have appointed _________________________________ to act as my agent regarding this application. 3. All statements, answers, and information submitted with this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 4. I agree to hold the City of Auburn harmless as to any claim (including costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in the investigation of such claim) which may be made by any person, including the undersigned, and filed against the City of Auburn, but only where such claim arises out of the reliance of the City, including its officers and employees, upon the accuracy of the information provided to the City as part of this application. 5. I hereby grant permission for representatives of the City of Auburn and any other Federal, State, or local unit of government with regulatory authority over the project to enter onto my property to inspect the property, take photographs, and post public notices as required in connection with review of this application and for compliance with the terms and conditions of permits and approvals issued for the project. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE CITY and STATE WHERE SIGNED ADDRESS Lisa Brody Julian Prossor X Lisa Brody Seattle, WA 206-271-8645 lisabrody@yahoo.com DocuSign Envelope ID: DEA65967-14FB-427D-A0F9-8D442AB27FF1 7/8/2019 EXHIBIT 3 NOTICE OF APPLICATION SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Brody 21-Lot Preliminary Plat PLT19-0011 and SEP19-0034 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA), SEPA Determination of Non- Significance (DNS), and Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the following described project. The project application and listed studies may be reviewed by contacting the Department of Community Development at planning@auburnwa.gov or by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.47 acres into 21 single- family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots range in size from 4,501 square feet (sq. ft.) to 7,493 sq. ft. The plat will extend a new public road (“Road A”) approximately 583 feet east off of 51st Ave. S and which will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Two shared access and utility tracts (A and B) will extend off of Road A. A trail tract (Tract C) will connect Road A to an open space and recreation tract (Tract E). Stormwater will be managed onsite via one stormwater detention pond (Tract D). Lakehaven water and sewer will be extended from through the site to service each lot. An existing wetland and its associated buffer will be placed into separate tracts (Tract F). Location: The project site is located east of the intersection of 51st Ave. S and 49th Ave. S, within NW¼ of Section 2, Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095, and 0221049066. Notice of Public Hearing: September 17, 2020 Notice of Application: September 17, 2020 Application Complete: December 10, 2019 Permit Application: November 12, 2019 File Nos. PLT19-0011 SEP19-0034 Applicant: Julian Prossor, Principal Inhabit Consulting, LLC 330 Madison Ave. S, Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Property Owner: Lisa Brody 11637 30th Ave. SW Burien, WA 98146 will be placed into a separate tract (Tract F). S 294th St. (49th Ave. S),Location: The project site is located east of the intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 294th St. (49th Ave. S), north of S 296th St. and south of S 292nd St., within NW ¼ of Section 2, Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095, and 0221049066. 4.74 EXHIBIT 4EXHIBIT 4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION / DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLT19-0011 / SEP19-0034 (Continued) Page 2 of 4 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:  Revised SEPA Checklist, Inhabit Consulting, LLC, July 16, 2020  Preliminary Civil Plans, Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, August 18, 2020  Preliminary Landscape Plans, Glenn Takagi Landscape Architect, May 20, 2020  School Access Analysis, Inhabit Consulting, LLC, August 18, 2020  Geotechnical Report, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC, November 5, 2019  Technical Information Report, Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, August 18, 2020  Wetland Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Plan, February 5, 2020 Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:  Public Facility Extension (FAC) / Grading Permit(s) Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2020 to the mailing address of 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 or to the email address below. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA 98001-4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 16, 2020. Public Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the preliminary plat on October 21, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. The public hearing will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Per City of Auburn Resolution No. 5533 the location for Hearing Examiner meetings will be virtual until King County enters into Phase 3 of the Governor's Safe Start Reopening Plan. Join the ZOOM meeting at the following web address: https://zoom.us/j/93501051768 Meeting ID: 935 0105 1768, or via one tap mobile: +12532158782, 93501051768# US (Tacoma). Dial by your location: +1 253 EXHIBIT 4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION / DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLT19-0011 / SEP19-0034 (Continued) Page 3 of 4 215 8782 US (Tacoma), 877 853 5257 US Toll-free, 888 475 4499 US Toll-free ; Meeting ID: 935 0105 1768. Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aH1l5SrUV. Written comments may be either emailed or mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001 (please note, due to the current Governor’s Stay Home Stay Safe order, mailed comments may not be received by City Staff on time for inclusion in the packet provided to the Hearing Examiner), or submitted at the public hearing by email. For persons with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For questions regarding this project, please contact Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3088. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate POSITION/TITLE: Director, Department of Community Development ADDRESS: 25 W Main St. Auburn, Washington 98001 253-931-3090 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. 9/16/20 EXHIBIT 4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION / DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLT19-0011 / SEP19-0034 (Continued) Page 4 of 4 Vicinity Map Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout EXHIBIT 4 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF LEGAL APPLICATION NOTICE Application Number: PLT19-0011 / SEP19-0034 Applicant: Julian Prossor, Principal Inhabit Consulting, LLC 330 Madison Ave. S, Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Property Owner: Lisa Brody 11637 30th Ave. SW Burien, WA 98146 Location: The project site is located east of the intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 294th St. (49th Ave. S), within NW¼ of Section 2, Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095, and 0221049066. Closing Date for Public Comments: October 2, 2020 I certify that on 9.15.2020 I did send a Notice of Application for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 16.06.090, to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through the United States Postal Service at least 15 days prior to the closing date for public comments noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. ___________________________________________ Jen Oliver – Administrative Assistant 9.18.2020 EXHIBIT 4 Scanned with CamScanner EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 COVERSHEET EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 5 From:Alexandria Teague To:Julian Prossor Cc:Michelle Smith Subject:FW: ECY SEPA 202004816 - Brody Plat - Comments Date:Friday, October 2, 2020 2:00:00 PM Attachments:202004816_ECYCommentLetter.pdf Good afternoon Mr. Prossor, Please find attached a comment letter from the WA Dept. of Ecology regarding the Brody Plat. Sincerely, Alexandria Effective March 25, 2020, in response to Gov. Inslee’s Stay Home Stay Safe directive, the City of Auburn has closed City Hall and the Annex Customer Service Center until further notice. I am currently out of the office but working remotely from home. If inquiring about a specific site, please include the parcel number or address, or if inquiring about a specific project, please include the City project number in your email. Thank you for your understanding and apologies for any inconvenience. Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm From: ECY RE NW SEPA (NWRO) <nwsepa@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:35 AM To: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Cc: Barber, Eva (ECY) <evba461@ECY.WA.GOV> Subject: ECY SEPA 202004816 - Brody Plat - Comments EXHIBIT 5 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Good Morning, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Brody Plat (Lead Agency File No(s). SEP19-0034, PLT19-0011). Ecology’s comments are attached. Please ensure the applicants receive a copy. [ Statewide SEPA Register No. 202004816 ] Katelynn Piazza (she/her) ERTS & SEPA Coordinator Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave SE | Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 (425) 649-7229 | katelynn.piazza@ecy.wa.gov NOTICE: This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). EXHIBIT 5 Form Updated: March 2019 Page 1 of 8 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Date Received: Physical Address: Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 E Main St Mailing Address: 25 W Main St Auburn, WA 98001 Webpage & Application Submittal: www.auburnwa.gov applications@auburnwa.gov Phone and Email: 253-931-3090 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov Project Name: Parcel Number(s): A. Background [help] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of Applicant: Name of Agent (if applicable): 3. Address and phone number of Applicant: Address and phone number of Agent (if applicable): 4. Date Checklist prepared: Date(s) Checklist Revised: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Brody Plat 0221049066,0221049095,0221049174 %URG\3ODW$XEXUQ Julian Prossor 330 Madison Ave. S, Ste. 108, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206.780.6018 11-4-19UHYLVHG City of Auburn 6.Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable). Complete entitlements 2019. Construction 2021. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. AWetland Delineation and Fish and WildlifeHabitatAssessmentwas prepared by SoundviewConsultantson 5/30/19 and updated on 2/5/20 & 7/14/20. None known. 10.List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. WSDOEConstructionStormwaterGeneralPermit6(3$'HWHUPLQDWLRQ3XEOLF)DFLOLW\([WHQVLRQ$JUHHPHQW *UDGLQJ3HUPLW:HWODQG0LWigDWLRQ $SSURYDO/DNHKDYHQ6HZHUDQG:DWHU3HUPLWVDQG)LQDO3ODW$SSOLFDWLRQwillberequired. 11.Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Project will subdivide approx. 4.74 acres (by combining a 1.16 acre, 1.23 acre and a 2.35 acre lot) parcel into 21 residential lots. / revised 7/16/20 EXHIBIT 6EXHIBIT 6 Form Updated: March 2019 Page 2 of 8 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. B. Environmental Elements [help] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. W hat general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. Air [help] a. W hat types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Plateau 7KHSXUSRVHLVWRGHYHORSD1ORWVLQJOHIDPLO\SODWDFUHVWRWDOVLWHDUHD7KHWRWDOGLVWXUEHGDUHDLVDFUH$SSUR[LPDWHO\F\RIILOODQGF\RIH[FDYDWLRQDUHDQWLFLSDWHGDWWKLV WLPH$SSUR[LPDWHO\ILOOZLOOFRPHIURPRQVLWHPDWHULDOVLIVXLWDEOHDQGWKHUHVWZLOOEHLPSRUWHGVWUXFWXUDOILOO$Q\LPSRUWIURPRXWVLGHWKHVLWHZLOOEHIURPDSSURYHGVRXUFHV Address is 29402 51st Ave. S, Auburn, WA. Vicinity map and legal descriptions of existing lots are attached. 13%+/- Sandy gravelly loam with large rocks. Lot will be graded, and soils removed. No Yes, upper portion of the site is relatively flat with low potential for erosion. Lower portion of the site has moderate slopes and moderate potential for erosion. Approximately 46% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after construction (roof, driveway, sidewalk, asphalt pavement of road, etc.) BMPsforerosioncontrolwillbeused.BMPsincluderockconstructionentrance,siltfences,interceptditches,checkdDms,erosion and sedimentcontrolpond/trap,etc. Vehicle emissions from construction equipment. None known. %HVWPDQDJHPHQWSUDFWLFHVDUHSURSRVHGWRUHGXFHRUFRQWUROHPLVVLRQVVXFKDVFRQWUROOLQJGXVWOLPLWLQJLGOLQJRIHQJLQHVHWF EXHIBIT 6 Form Updated: March 2019 Page 3 of 8 3. Water [help] a. Surface Water. [help] 1.Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round andseasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. Ifappropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2.Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground Water. [help] 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water runoff (including stormwater). 1.Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. 7KHVLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQLGHQWLILHGRQHSRWHQWLDOO\UHJXODWHGZHWODQG:HWODQG$ORFDWHGRQWKHVRXWKHDVWHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\H[WHQGLQJ RIIVLWHWRWKHHDVWRQHSRWHQWLDORIIVLWHZHWODQG:HWODQG%DQGWZROLNHO\XQUHJXODWHGGLWFKHVRIIVLWHWRWKHHDVWZLWKLQIHHWRIWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\:HWODQG$LVD&DWHJRU\,9ZHWODQGWKDWLVUHJXODWHGE\WKH&LW\RI$XEXUQ Approximately 4 cy of structural fill will be placed in the wetland buffer area for road construction support. The fill will be imported material. No No No No. Residenceswillbeconnectedto/DNHKDYHQZaterservices. ([LVWLQJVHSWLFV\VWHPDWUHVLGHQFHWREHGHPROLVKHGWREHGHFRPPLVVLRQHG No No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orm Updated: March 2019 Page 4 of 8 4.Plants [help] a.Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c.List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. d.Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: e.List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. 5.Animals [help] a.Check any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, geese, ducks, crows, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b.List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d.Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: e.List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 6.Energy and Natural Resources [help] a.What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b.Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c.What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: According to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Salmon Scape mapping, there is a modeled salmonid bearing stream approximately 300 feet south of the site; however, no threatened or endangered species have been documented or observed on or near the site. No Invasive animal species were identified onsite. However, European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) are all common invasive urban species that may be present on or near the subject property. Trees and vegetation within 51st Avenue South right-of-way, along with the general site area (roadways and lots) will be removed as needed for roadway improvements, grading, utility installations and general lot construction. None known. Project proposal includes landscape plan utilizing native vegetation. Blackberries, Scotch Broom, English Ivy, and yellow archangel. Yes, the site is located within the Pacific Flyway for migratory bird species. Preserving stand of mature trees within portions of the wetland buffer. The residences will be connected to city electrical and gas services. A 2” gas line is present near the southwest corner of the site at the west side of 51st Ave. South just outside the fog line. No Homes will be built to current WA State Energy Code. EXHIBIT 6 Form Updated: March 2019 Page 5 of 8 7. Environmental Health [help] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise. 1.What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2.What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. Land and Shoreline Use [help] a.What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? 1.Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No None known. None known. None known. Normal fire, police and EMT services will be used by the home residents. None proposed. Normal traffic noise. During construction noise will be generated from construction activities. Construction will take place between 7-5 Monday-Friday. No unusual long-term noise impacts are anticipated. The current use is residential and undeveloped forested land. The project will not affect adjacent properties. No. The land is currently zoned as residential. No EXHIBIT 6 Form Updated: March 2019 Page 6 of 8 c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current Comprehensive Plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j.Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: m.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: 9. Housing [help] a.Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. c.Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10.Aesthetics [help] a.What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c.Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11.Light and Glare [help] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There are 2 existing residences on the property. One is an occupied rental unit and the second is fire damaged. Yes, the2existingstructureswillbedemolishedastheyareinpoorconditionDQGWKHXWLOLW\VHUYLFHVGLVFRQQHFWHGLQFRRUGZLWKWKHDSSOLFDEOHXWLOLW\ Residential5. SingleFamily This site does not fall under the purview of the SMP as it is not within 200 feet of shoreline. One wetland (Wetland A) is located on the southeastern portion of the subject property. The project is currently designed to house 22 residences assuming 4 people per residence – 88 people total. Two. None proposed. Project is compatible with existing usage. None proposed. The project is currently designed to house 21 middle income residences. There is 1 existing middle income residence on the property that will be eliminated during FAC. None proposed. 30 feet. None. None proposed. Normal reflection from windows during the day, lights from homes during the night. EXHIBIT 6 Form Updated: March 2019 Page 7 of 8 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation [help] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation [help] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. 14. Transportation [help] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not anticipated. None anticipated. None proposed. Camelot Park is in the immediate vicinity. No. None proposed. No. No. None proposed. None proposed. The site will be accessed via 51st Avenue South. Please see attached site plan. The site is currently served by King County metro system. The nearest King County bus stop is located approx. 0.8 miles away at 45th Pl S & S 288th St. EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 6 BRODY PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET FOR COUNTY ROAD; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF WITHIN 51ST AVENUE SOUTH. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL C: LOT D, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 673024, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 7409230513, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 6 16 9 18 13 8 17 76TRACT C (TRAIL)5 21 14 TRACT E (OPEN SPACE & RECREATION) 42 19 3 12 1 11 15 TRACT D (STORM)TRACT A (ACCESS)TRACT B (ACCESS)20 10 TRACT F (SENSITIVE AREA)Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7EXHIBIT 7 16 9 18 13 8 17 76TRACT C (TRAIL)5 21 14 TRACT E (OPEN SPACE & RECREATION) 42 19 3 12 1 11 15 TRACT D (STORM)TRACT A (ACCESS)TRACT B (ACCESS)20 10 TRACT F (SENSITIVE AREA)Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 16 9 18 13 8 17 76TRACT C (TRAIL)5 21 14 TRACT E (OPEN SPACE & RECREATION) 42 19 3 12 1 11 15 TRACT D (STORM)TRACT A (ACCESS)TRACT B (ACCESS)20 10 TRACT F (SENSITIVE AREA) SSMH #3 SSMH #1 SSMH #2 SSMH #7 SSMH #6 SSMH #5 SSMH #4 SEWER STRUCTURE TABLE SSMH #8 EX SSMH #1 EX SSMH #2 Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 TRACT C (TRAIL)TRACT E (OPEN SPACE & RECREATION) TRACT D (STORM)TRACT A (ACCESS)TRACT B (ACCESS)TRACT F (SENSITIVE AREA) 1 16 9 18 13 8 17 765 21 14 42 19 3 1211 15 20 10 EX CB #2 EX CB #1 CB #6 CB #5 EX CB #3 EX CB #5 CB #3 CB #1 CB #2 CB #7 CB #8 CB #4 EX CB #6 CB #10 CB #11 CB #12 CB #9 CB #13 CB #14 CB #15 CB #19 CB #17 CB #18 CB #16 STORM STRUCTURE TABLE Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 CB #1 (TYPE I) CB #3 (TYPE I) CB #8 (TYPE II-48"Ø) CB #15 (TYPE II-48"Ø)CB #13 (TYPE I) CB #6 (TYPE II-48"Ø) CB #12 (TYPE II-48"Ø) SSMH #3 SSMH #1 SSMH #5 (W/ DROP CONNECT) SSMH #4 CB #6 (TYPE II-48"Ø) CB #4 (TYPE I) CB #5 (TYPE II-48"Ø) SSMH #2 SSMH #3 CB #12 (TYPE II-48"Ø) CB #9 (TYPE I) CB #10 (TYPE I) SSMH #5 (W/ DROP CONNECT) CB #17 (TYPE II-48"Ø)CB #18 (CB-TYPE 1)CB #16 Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 111 EX CB #3 (TYPE I) EX CB #5 (TYPE I) EX CB #6 (TYPE I) EX CB #8 (TYPE I)Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 9 21 TRACT D (STORM) 20 10 TRACT F (SENSITIVE AREA) CB #13 CB #14 CB #15 SSMH #6 SSMH #5 SSMH #4 CB #17 CB #18 CB #16 Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 Design, LLCEngineeringPacificCivil Engineering andPlanning ConsultantsEXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 8 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Parcel No. 0221049095, 0221049174, 0221049066 Introduction: Any students residing at the proposed Brody Plat – Auburn would attend the fol- lowing Federal Way District #210 Schools: High School – Thomas Jefferson High School Middle School – Kilo Middle School Elementary School – Meredith Hill Elementary FWPS Transportation Department Coordinator of Office Operations Kimberly Pennington (253-945-5961) identified that this project lies outside the “walking zone” for Kilo Middle School. Ms. Pennington identified the current bus stop near- est the project site for Kilo Middle School as the intersection of 52nd Place S and S 292nd St. According to the FWPS Transportation Department, this project lies within the “walking zone” for Meredith Hill Elementary School and Thomas Jefferson High School. Access Analysis Kilo Middle School Bus Stop at Intersection of 52nd Place S. and 292nd St.: Any students residing at the proposed Brody Plat – Auburn accessing this stop (be- ginning from the point where the new public street accesses 51st Ave. S) would walk north on the east side of 51st Ave. S approximately 525 feet to the intersection with S 292nd St. Students would then cross S 292nd St and turn right, following the sidewalk on the north side of S 292nd St. approx. 500 feet to bus stop location. It was undetermined by the district staffer which side of the intersection this bus stop is located on. A crosswalk will be provided on 292nd St. at the intersection of 51st Ave. Addi- tional improvements will be installed along 51st Ave S to separate/protect pedestri- ans from vehicles in adjacent travel lane. See Exhibit A. EXHIBIT 9EXHIBIT 9 Thomas Jefferson High School is located within the “walking zone” for our pro- ject site. Any students residing at the proposed Brody Plat – Auburn attending T.J.H.S. Students will walk north on 51st Ave. S approx. .3 miles to the intersection of S 288th St. and then cross 288th St. at the crosswalk. Student should continue onto the north side of 288th St. along the sidewalk approx. .2 miles to the school. Addi- tional improvements will be installed along 51st Ave S to separate/protect pedestri- ans from vehicles in adjacent travel lane. See Exhibit A. Meredith Hill Elementary is located within the “walking zone” for our project site. Any students residing at the proposed Brody Plat – Auburn attending Mere- dith Hill Elementary (beginning from the point where the new public street ac- cesses 51st Ave. S) would walk south on the east side of 51st Ave. S approx. 1050 feet to the intersection of S 296th St. Improvements will be provided along the east side of 51st Avenue S between the end of proposed sidewalk and S 296th Street. See Exhibit B. Students will then cross at the crosswalk to the south side of S 296th St. and turn left, staying on the sidewalk on the south side of S 296th St. for approx. 1575 feet to the intersection of 55th Ave. S, where they will turn right and remain on the sidewalk on the west side of 55th Ave. S for approx. 525 feet to the intersec- tion of S 297th St. Student will cross 55th Ave. S and follow the sidewalk on the north side of S 297th St. for approx. 450 feet to 57th Place S, where they will cross 57th Place S at the crosswalk and follow the designated fenced path through the houses to the school grounds. There are no crosswalks at any of the intersections along 55th Ave. S. Photos for each of these described student pedestrian paths are included. EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Kilo Middle School 51st Ave. S looking north (property is on the right near fire hydrant) Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 1 OF 16 PATH FOR STUDENTS TOWARDS 292nd ST. S. REFER TO EXHIBIT A FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Kilo Middle School Intersection of 51st Ave. S and S 292nd St. looking east Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 2 OF 16 NEW CROSSWALK ACROSS 292nd ST. S. EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Kilo Middle School Bus stop location at intersection of S 292 St. and 52nd Place S. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 3 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School Walking map from project site to high school. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 05/05/20 SHEET: 4 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School 51st Ave. S looking north (property is on the right near fire hydrant) Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 05/05/20 SHEET: 5 OF 16 PATH FOR STUDENTS ALONG 51st AVE. S. NORTH. REFER TO EXHIBIT A FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. EXHIBIT 9 6&+22/$&&(66$1$/<6,6 .LOR0LGGOH6FKRRO 9LHZRIVLGHZDONDORQJHDVWVLGHRIVW$YH6ORRNLQJQRUWK ,QKDELW&RQVXOWLQJ//& 0DGLVRQ$YH6 6XLWH %DLQEULGJH,VODQG:$ dĞů͗ϮϲϬͲϳϴϬͲϲϬϭϴ ũƉΛŝŶŚĂďŝƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ĐŽŵ %URG\3ODW±$XEXUQ VW$YH6 $XEXUQ:$ ^>͗EŽŶĞd͗ϬϱͬϬϱͬϮϬ ^,d͗ϲK&ϭϲ EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School View of crosswalk at intersection of 51st Ave. S & 288th St. looking north. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 05/05/20 SHEET: 7 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School View of 288th St. looking north. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 05/05/20 SHEET: 8 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School View of sidewalk along north side of 288th St. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 05/05/20 SHEET: 9 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Thomas Jefferson High School Intersection of 288th St. & 46th Ave. S. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 05/05/20 SHEET: 10 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School Walking map from property site to elementary school. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 11 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School View of 51st St. S looking south (property is on left side of street). Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 12 OF 16 PATH SOUTHBOUND ON 51st AVE. S. REFER TO EXHIBIT B FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School Intersection of 51st St. S and S 296th St. looking south. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 13 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School Intersection of S 296th St. and 55th Ave. S. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 14 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School Intersection of 55TH Ave. S and S 297th St. looking north. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 15 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Meredith Hill Elementary School Crosswalk at 57th Place S leading to designated path to school grounds. Inhabit Consulting LLC 330 Madison Ave. S Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 260-780-6018 jp@inhabitdevelopment.com Brody Plat – Auburn 29402 51st Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 SCALE: None DATE: 06/27/19 SHEET: 16 OF 16 EXHIBIT 9 Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, Washington 98028 www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097 March 18, 2019 Updated November 5, 2019 Tom Myers 6550 21st Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98106 C/O Michelle Smith Inhabit Development 330 Madison Avenue South, Suite 108 Bainbridge Island, Washington RE: Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 29402 – 51st Avenue South Auburn, Washington Dear Mr. Myers, In accordance with your authorization, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC has prepared this letter to discuss the results of our stormwater feasibility eval uation at the referenced site. Site and Project Description The site is located at 29402 – 51st Avenue South in Auburn, Washington. The site consists of three adjoining parcels with a total area of about 207,000 square feet. The northern two parcels are developed with single-family residences and outbuildings. The remainder of the site is undeveloped and vegetated with grasses, ferns, ivy, blackberry vines, and variable diameter trees. The site slopes downward from west to east at magnitudes of less than 20 percent and relief of about 22 feet. The property is bordered to the north, east, and south by residential properties and to the west by 51st Avenue South. The project includes construction of up to 22 residential building lots, greenspace, access roadways, and stormwater facilities. If feasible, runoff may be infiltrated. We have updated this report with a new site plan (Figure 1) that shows the new location of the proposed detention pond. Area Geology The Geologic Map of King County indicates that the site is underlain by Vashon Glacial Till. Vashon Glacial Till is typically characterized by an unsorted, non-stratified mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders in variable quantities. These materials are typically dense and relatively impermeable. The poor sorting reflects the mixing of the materials as these sediments were overridden and incorporated by the glacial ice. EXHIBIT 10 March 18, 2019 Updated November 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097 Soil & Groundwater Conditions As part of our evaluation, we excavated and sampled two borings up to 10 feet below grade in the southeast portion of the property, at or near the location of the proposed stormwater facility. Figure 1 shows the general location of the borings. Exploration logs are attached at the end of this letter report. Both borings encountered approximately 12 inches of topsoil and vegetation underlain by approximately 3.5 to 4.5 feet of loose to medium dense, silty -fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of gravel and cobbles (Weathered Glacial Till). These materials were underlain by dense to very dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel (Glacial Till), which continued to the termination depth of the borings. Groundwater was not encountered in t he borings. It is possible that light amounts of perched groundwater could be encountered between weathered and unweathered till during late winter and spring months depending on the annual precipitation, land use, grading, and upslope land usage. Infiltration Feasibility It is our opinion that infiltration of stormwater runoff is not feasible due to the underlying soil conditions. We performed an in situ infiltration test in an excavation adjacent to boring B-1 at a depth of 3 feet below grade. Following saturation, testing, and application of correction factors for site variability (0.33), testing (0.5), and influent control (0.9), the infiltration rate was determined to be 0.25 inches per hour. This is lower than what the Washington State Department of Ecology considers to be feasible. Detention Ponds It is our opinion that one or more detention ponds would be a suitable method of managing runoff from new impervious surfaces. The updated site plan shows the new location of the pond, near the northeast corner of the site. We recommend that ponds be excavated into medium dense or firmer native soi ls as much as possible. In other words, we recommend limiting the amount of the pond that is above existing grades where feasible. Where fill is required, such as for pond berms and local side slopes, the existing native soils must be benched prior to fill placement. Benches should be nearly level and excavated into medium dense or firmer glacial till and all fill placed and compacted on the benches must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified proctor (ASTM D 1557 Test Method) in maximum 12 inch thick loose lifts. Structural fill may consist of native glacial till provided compaction requirements are achieved and the soils contain at least 40 percent fines by weight. Detention ponds should have maximum interior slopes of 2H:1V (horizontal t o vertical) and maximum exterior slopes of 3H:1V. Pond berms should have a minimum width of 6 feet at their top. We anticipate that overflow may be necessary for the new pond. If overflow includes one or more dispersion trenches, we recommend maximum flowpath gradients of 15 percent. We should be provided with the civil plans when they become available so that we may review the proposed EXHIBIT 10 March 18, 2019 Updated November 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097 grading and pond layout. We can provide additional recommendations upon request if plans vary from the assumptions in this report. Closure The information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above and for the current site conditions and should not be used for any other site. Sincerely, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC Exp. 6/26/2020 Phil Haberman, PE, LG, LEG Principal Attachments EXHIBIT 10 Proposed Residential Plat 29402 - 51st Avenue South Auburn, Washington N SITE PLAN FIGURE 1 Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 331-1097 www.cobaltgeo.com cobaltgeo@gmail.com EXHIBIT 10 PT Well-graded gravels, gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines COARSE GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve) Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic content (ASTM D4427) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Gravels (more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Sands (50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve) Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (liquid limit 50 or more) Organic Inorganic Organic Inorganic Sands with Fines (more than 12% fines) Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) Gravels with Fines (more than 12% fines) Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Poorly graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts of low to medium plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts, or clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silty soils, elastic silt Inorganic clays of medium to high plasticity, sandy fat clay, or gravelly fat clay Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Moisture Content Definitions Grain Size Definitions Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table Grain Size Definitions Description Sieve Number and/or Size Fines <#200 (0.08 mm) Sand -Fine -Medium -Coarse Gravel -Fine -Coarse Cobbles Boulders #200 to #40 (0.08 to 0.4 mm) #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm) #10 to #4 (2 to 5 mm) #4 to 3/4 inch (5 to 19 mm) 3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm) 3 to 12 inches (75 to 305 mm) >12 inches (305 mm) Classification of Soil Constituents MAJOR constituents compose more than 50 percent, by weight, of the soil. Major constituents are capitalized (i.e., SAND). Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil and precede the major constituents (i.e., silty SAND). Minor constituents preceded by “slightly” compose 5 to 12 percent of the soil (i.e., slightly silty SAND). Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil (i.e., slightly silty SAND, trace gravel). Relative Density Consistency (Coarse Grained Soils) (Fine Grained Soils) N, SPT, Relative Blows/FT Density 0 - 4 Very loose 4 - 10 Loose 10 - 30 Medium dense 30 - 50 Dense Over 50 Very dense N, SPT, Relative Blows/FT Consistency Under 2 Very soft 2 - 4 Soft 4 - 8 Medium stiff 8 - 15 Stiff 15 - 30 Very stiff Over 30 Hard Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 331-1097 www.cobaltgeo.com cobaltgeo@gmail.com Soil Classification Chart Figure C1 EXHIBIT 10 Log of Boring B-1 Date: March 4, 2019 Contractor: Method: Hollow Stem Auger Depth: 9’ Elevation: N/A Logged By: PH Checked By: SC Initial Groundwater: N/A Sample Type: Split Spoon Final Groundwater: N/A Material Description SPT N-Value Moisture Content (%)Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 10 20 30 400 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 End of Boring 9’ Vegetation/Topsoil Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel, mottled dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown, moist. (Weathered Glacial Till) SM Medium dense to dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand, mottled yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist. (Glacial Till) SM Boring Log Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 331-1097 www.cobaltgeo.com cobaltgeo@gmail.com Proposed Plat 29402 - 51st Avenue South Auburn, Washington 24 22 24 9 12 11 2 2 2 EXHIBIT 10 Log of Boring B-2 Date: March 4, 2019 Contractor: Method: Hollow Stem Auger Depth: 9’ Elevation: N/A Logged By: PH Checked By: SC Initial Groundwater: N/A Sample Type: Split Spoon Final Groundwater: N/A Material Description SPT N-Value Moisture Content (%)Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 10 20 30 400 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 End of Boring 9’ Vegetation/Topsoil Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel, mottled dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown, moist. (Weathered Glacial Till) SM Medium dense to dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand, mottled yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist. (Glacial Till) SM Boring Log Cobalt Geosciences, LLC P.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 331-1097 www.cobaltgeo.com cobaltgeo@gmail.com Proposed Plat 29402 - 51st Avenue South Auburn, Washington 1 2 1 4 6 7 10 16 16 EXHIBIT 10 Brody Preliminary Plat Auburn Technical Information Report Prepared For: Lisa Brody PO Box 16387 Seattle, WA 98116 Prepared By: Pacific Engineering Design, LLC 15445 53rd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98188 Phone: (206) 431-7970 Fax: (206) 388-1648 Web site: www.paceng.com August 18, 2020 PED Job No. 18042 EXHIBIT 11EXHIBIT 11 2 SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 3 SECTION 2 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION ............................................ 4 SECTION 3 REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 6 SECTION 4 ONSITE FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY TREATMENT . 8 SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS ................................................. 31 SECTION 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ..................................................... 32 SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS ................................................................................... 33 SECTION 8 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ............................................................. 34 SECTION 9 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ............................... 35 EXHIBIT 11 3 SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project is located on 29322 52nd Avenue South and 29402 51st Avenue South, in a portion of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 2, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in City of Auburn, Washington. The site includes three parcels (022104-9095, -9174 and -9066) with a total area of 4.74 acres before a 11 feet wide Right of Way dedication along the frontage of 51st Avenue South. The site area is 4.67 acres after the Right of Way dedication. Zoning of the site is R5. The site is located in the Mullen Slough drainage sub-basin of the West Hill drainage basin. The proposed project will construct 21 single-family residences along with associated roads and utilities. Under existing condition, parcel 022104-9066 is undeveloped. Parcel 022104-9095 and - 9174 have been developed as single-family residence lots. The two existing residences on these two lots will be removed for this development. Other than the two residences and their driveways, the rest of the site is mostly covered with dense trees and ground covers and can be considered as covered by forest. There is a ridge just east of the existing residence on parcel -9095, area around the existing residence is relatively flat, west of the ridge, the site slopes westerly to 51st Avenue South at 1 to 3% slopes. East of the ridge, the site slopes easterly to a Creek (Category 3 Stream) that drains to the Mullen Slough at an overall slope of approximately 5%. There is a category 4 wetland located at the southeast corner of the site near the Creek that drains to Mullen Slough. 25’ wetland buffer plus 15’ building setback is required. The drainage system along the east site of 51st Avenue South also drains to the same Creek located east of the site within 0.25 miles downstream of the site, thus the two onsite drainage basins can be considered as draining to the same threshold discharge area. The drainage system design of the project is per the requirements of City of Auburn Surface Water Design Manual which adopt the 2014 Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual for West Washington with the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to meet the minimum requirements of #1 through #10. Preliminary Plat and SEPA application are proposed for this project with file number PLT19-0011 and SEP19-0034. Other permits include Public Facility Extension Agreement and Grading, Wetland mitigation, Lakehaven Water and Sewer and Final Plat permits. EXHIBIT 11 4 SECTION 2 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION Upstream Tributary Area Most areas in the parcels north and south of the site sheet flows easterly to the Creek that drains to the Mullen Slough, a small portion of these areas sheet flows westerly to 51st Avenue South. The drainage system along the east side of 51st Avenue South intercepts half of the street runoff and runoffs from the portion of the single-family lots that sheet flows to the street. The offsite drainage system along the east side of 51st Avenue South drains to the same Creek mentioned above. Nearly no offsite runoff enters the site. Downstream Analysis – Figure 1 EXHIBIT 11 5 There is a ridge just east of the existing residence on parcel -9095, area around the existing residence is relatively flat, west of the ridge, the site slopes westerly to 51st Avenue South at 1 to 3% slopes. East of the ridge, the site slopes easterly to a Creek (Category 3 Stream) that drains to the Mullen Slough at an overall slope of approximately 5%. There is a category 4 wetland located at the southeast corner of the site near the Creek that drains to Mullen Slough. 25’ wetland buffer plus 15’ building setback is required. The drainage system along the east site of 51st Avenue South also drains to the same Creek located east of the site within 0.25 miles downstream of the site, thus the two onsite drainage basins can be considered as draining to the same threshold discharge area. There is a 12” ADS N-12 storm line running along the east shoulder of 51st Avenue South with 3 type 1 catch basins along or near the frontage of the site (one slightly north of the site, one at the middle and the other one near the southwest corner of the site). Start from the southwest corner of the site, this storm line drains to the south for approximately 310 feet and then discharges to a Creek that drains to the Mullen Slough. Start from the southeast corner of the site, there is a wetland that is part of the Creek that drains to the Mullen Slough, the 0.25-mile downstream point from the southeast corner of the site is located near the Creek intersection of 55th Avenue South. At the 0.25-mile downstream point, drainage area to the Creek is approximately 83.3 acres, 15% of this area is 12.5 acres which is larger than the 4.74 acres site area. Thus, the downstream analysis can be ended at the 0.25-mile downstream point. The one-mile downstream point is located in the farmlands along Mullen Slough. No major drainage problems were found within the 0.25-mile downstream area. No negative drainage effect will be created by this project to the downstream drainage system and properties. To mitigate potential drainage and erosion problems, Onsite Stormwater Management/LID per List #2 of City of Auburn Stormwater Management Manual will be used. A combined detention/water quality pond will be used to provide the required Flow control (Duration Flow Control, Forest Existing Site Condition) and Basic Water Quality treatment for the onsite and offsite improvements. EXHIBIT 11 6 SECTION 3 REQUIREMENTS The following is the minimum requirements listed in the City of Auburn code. “Stormwater management manual” means the 2012 Edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (WSDOE SWMMWW), as amended in December 2014, adopted by reference and prepared by Ecology. The Minimum Requirements are: 1. Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans Stormwater Site Plans are prepared per City of Auburn code and the 2014 WSDOE SWMMWW. 2. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, prepared per City of Auburn code and the 2014 WSDOE SWMMWW, will be provided at the time of future civil site improvement (FAC) submittal. 3. Source Control of Pollution Not applicable since Source Control is not required for single-family residential projects. 4. Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Onsite runoff and offsite runoff from the frontage improvement of the site will be routed to a new onsite combined detention/water quality pond for flow control (Duration flow control using forest existing condition) and basic water quality treatment, treated runoff will be discharged to the onsite category 4 wetland and offsite category 3 stream. Same drainage pattern will remain. 5. On-site Stormwater Management/LID On-site stormwater management BMP/LID will be implemented by this project. 6. Runoff Treatment Onsite runoff and offsite runoff from the frontage improvement of the site will be routed to a new onsite combined detention/water quality pond for basic water quality treatment. 7. Flow Control On-site stormwater management BMP/LID will be implemented per City codes, an onsite combined detention/water quality pond is used to provide the required Duration (Forest existing site condition) Flow Control. 8. Wetlands Protection There is a category 4 wetland on the southeast corner of the site, Wetland Protection per City codes is required for this project. EXHIBIT 11 7 9. Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance of the combination detention/water quality pond and storm drain system located within the new public street will be maintained by the City of Auburn. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be provided, if necessary, during the future civil site improvement (FAC) submittal. 10. Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation See Section 2 of this report for Off-site Analysis and Mitigation. EXHIBIT 11 8 SECTION 4 ONSITE FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY TREATMENT ON-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/ LID Minimum Requirements #1-#10 are required for this project. Since onsite soil is glacial till soil per geotechnical report, meeting the LID Performance Standard is infeasible for this project, use List#2 for LID. Native vegetated area to remain: A panhandle shape area (17,057 sf., 0.39 acres currently covered with forest) in the north portion of the site will be set aside as Open space/Native growth protection area and remain undisturbed by this project and is not included in the Flow control and Water quality facility sizing calculations of this project. There is a wetland area in the southwest portion of the site (currently covered with forest). The wetland and its related buffer area will be set aside as a sensitive area tract (15,259 sf., 0.35 acres). A small area of wetland buffer will be disturbed for the installation of the main access road cul-de-sac and to grade a flowpath at the end of the outfall pipe from the combined detention/water quality pond. Disturbed buffer area will be restored per City of Auburn requirements including wetland buffer mitigation measures. This sensitive area is also not included in the Flow control and Water quality facility sizing calculations of this project. LIST#2: Lawn & Landscaped Area: Use BMP T5.13 Post construction Soil Quality and Depth. Treated area can be credited and be modeled as Pasture instead of Lawn. Roofs: BMP T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration Systems are infeasible for this project because onsite soil is till soil. BMP T5.30 Full Dispersion is not feasible for this site due to the proposed impervious area coverage. Other Hard Surfaces: BMP T5.30 Full Dispersion is not feasible for this site due to the proposed impervious area coverage. BMP T5.15 Permeable Pavement is infeasible for this project because onsite soil is till soil. BMP T7.30 Bioretention is infeasible for this project because onsite soil is till soil and not enough spaces are available. EXHIBIT 11 9 BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion or BMP T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion is not feasible due to the small yard space areas available. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY TREATMENT Onsite combined detention/water quality pond design: Total onsite area before ROW dedication along 51st Avenue South = 4.74 acres Total onsite plus offsite area to the limit of street widening = 4.958 acres Open space (Native growth protection area in the north portion of the site, not draining to the proposed combined detention/water quality pond) = 0.391 acres Sensitive area tract (Wetland and wetland buffer areas) = 0.350 acres Total area draining to the proposed combined detention/water quality pond = 4.958 – 0.391 – 0.350 = 4.217 acres. Use 2012 WWHM to size the combined detention/water quality pond Time step = 15 minutes Gage = Seatac Scale factor = 1.0 EXHIBIT 11 10 Predeveloped condition: Total area draining to the proposed combined detention/water quality pond = 4.958 – 0.391 – 0.350 = 4.217 acres. (Assume till forest with moderate slope). EXHIBIT 11 11 EXHIBIT 11 EXHIBIT 11 12 Predeveloped condition peak flows: Q 2y = 0.1256 cfs Q10y = 0.2573 cfs Q25y = 0.3186 cfs Q50y = 0.3611 cfs Q100y = 0.4008 cfs Developed condition: A new catch basin will be installed at the north curb return point of the entrance site street, this catch basin will collect runoff from the offsite half street frontage improvement north of the entrance Street and route it to the onsite combined detention/water quality pond. Approximately 0.08 acres of existing asphalt pavement from the existing 51st Avenue street will also be collected by this catch basin, in exchange, approximately 0.08 acres of new plus replaced impervious area from the half street improvement south of the site entrance street will be collected by the existing storm system that runs along the east side of 51st Avenue Street and bypassing the onsite combined detention/water quality pond. Total area draining to the proposed combined detention/water quality pond = 4.958 – 0.391 – 0.350 = 4.217 acres. EXHIBIT 11 13 Rooftop area = 0.972 acres Driveways (Moderate slope) = 0.096 acres Roads (Moderate slope, onsite plus offsite) = 1.098 acres Concrete sidewalk (Moderate slope, onsite plus offsite) = 0.511 acres Pond water surface and access driveway = 0.373 acres Total impervious area = 3.050 acres Pervious lawn area (Lots) = 0.850 acres Pervious lawn area (Tract D) = 0.317 acres Total pervious area = 0.850 + 0.317 ac = 1.167 acres (Use BMP T5.13 for all new pervious area to credit new lawn area as pasture area) EXHIBIT 11 ······EXHIBIT 11 14 Developed condition peak flows with Flow control BMP only (before mitigated with onsite detention facility): Q 2y = 1.1520 cfs Q10y = 1.6797 cfs Q25y = 1.9588 cfs Q50y = 2.1732 cfs Q100y = 2.3934 cfs Q100y dev – Q100y pre = 2.3934 – 0.4008 = 1.9926 cfs > 0.15 cfs Detention facility is required. An onsite combined detention/water quality pond will be used. EXHIBIT 11 15 EXHIBIT 11 16 Developed mitigated duration VS pre-developed duration Developed mitigated peak flows VS pre-developed peak flows EXHIBIT 11 17 Developed condition mitigated peak flows (released from the combined detention/water quality pond) VS pre-developed peak flows Flow Frequency Pre-developed (cfs) Developed mitigated (cfs) 2 year 0.1256 0.0820 5 year 0.2057 0.1288 10 year 0.2573 0.1655 25 year 0.3186 0.2188 50 year 0.3611 0.2637 100 year 0.4008 0.3134 All developed mitigated peak flows are less than the predeveloped peak flows and the flow duration comparation are passed. The requirements of the Standard Flow Control are met. 100-year peak stage = 411.95 - 407.00 = 4.95’ ≤ 5’ Riser height, o.k. Required detention live storage = 1.46223 acre-feet = 63,695 cf. Provided detention live storage = 65,444 cf. > 63,695 cf., o.k. EXHIBIT 11 18 Required Water quality dead storage = 0.4058 acre-feet = 17,677 cf. Provided dead storage = 19,332 cf. > 17,677 cf., o.k. No negative drainage effect will be created by this project to the downstream drainage system and properties. EXHIBIT 11 19 Wetland Volume Fluctuation: Pre-developed Condition: Existing onsite area tributary to Wetland “A” EXHIBIT 11 20 Modeled using WWHM2012 under “existing condition” • C, Forest, Mod = 78,442 sf. (1.801 acre) EXHIBIT 11 21 Developed Condition EXHIBIT 11 22 EXHIBIT 11 23 Wetland Fluctuation Analysis: 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 .000 .002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Wetlands Input Volumes POC 2 EXHIBIT 11 24 Wetlands Fluctuation for POC 2 Average Annual Volume (acft) Month Predevel Mitigated Percent Pass/Fail Jan 0.3171 0.3411 107.6 Pass Feb 0.2254 0.2263 100.4 Pass Mar 0.1658 0.1722 103.9 Pass Apr 0.0781 0.0927 118.8 Fail May 0.0126 0.0445 353.7 Fail Jun 0.0047 0.0398 840.8 Fail Jul 0.0003 0.0180 5851.3 Fail Aug 0.0002 0.0278 17751.2 Fail Sep 0.0003 0.0480 14054.3 Fail Oct 0.0115 0.1245 1084.4 Fail Nov 0.1257 0.3016 240.0 Fail Dec 0.2592 0.3488 134.6 Fail Day Predevel Mitigated Percent Pass/Fail Jan1 0.0101 0.0117 115.7 Pass 2 0.0104 0.0120 115.1 Pass 3 0.0091 0.0109 120.0 Fail 4 0.0111 0.0106 95.9 Pass 5 0.0117 0.0114 96.9 Pass 6 0.0124 0.0119 96.1 Pass 7 0.0111 0.0122 109.9 Pass 8 0.0109 0.0125 115.2 Pass 9 0.0087 0.0122 140.0 Fail 10 0.0076 0.0112 147.0 Fail 11 0.0088 0.0106 120.2 Fail 12 0.0091 0.0103 113.5 Pass 13 0.0118 0.0106 90.2 Pass 14 0.0125 0.0106 85.2 Pass 15 0.0108 0.0104 96.9 Pass 16 0.0108 0.0106 97.9 Pass 17 0.0104 0.0104 100.0 Pass 18 0.0123 0.0113 91.7 Pass 19 0.0119 0.0113 94.8 Pass 20 0.0104 0.0113 108.6 Pass 21 0.0090 0.0113 125.7 Fail 22 0.0096 0.0113 118.2 Pass 23 0.0116 0.0115 98.9 Pass 24 0.0107 0.0114 107.3 Pass 25 0.0086 0.0105 122.3 Fail 26 0.0087 0.0101 116.0 Pass 27 0.0086 0.0096 111.1 Pass 28 0.0092 0.0097 105.1 Pass 29 0.0107 0.0100 93.5 Pass 30 0.0101 0.0105 104.1 Pass 31 0.0102 0.0104 102.1 Pass Feb1 0.0088 0.0096 108.4 Pass 2 0.0075 0.0089 119.3 Pass 3 0.0074 0.0086 116.1 Pass 4 0.0059 0.0080 135.1 Fail 5 0.0066 0.0077 115.4 Pass 6 0.0078 0.0077 99.3 Pass 7 0.0104 0.0087 84.2 Pass 8 0.0109 0.0114 104.1 Pass 9 0.0082 0.0107 130.5 Fail EXHIBIT 11 25 10 0.0062 0.0092 146.7 Fail 11 0.0071 0.0078 110.8 Pass 12 0.0076 0.0073 97.1 Pass 13 0.0064 0.0068 106.2 Pass 14 0.0072 0.0070 96.6 Pass 15 0.0083 0.0072 86.9 Pass 16 0.0087 0.0074 84.3 Pass 17 0.0081 0.0073 89.9 Pass 18 0.0108 0.0078 72.2 Fail 19 0.0100 0.0083 83.1 Pass 20 0.0082 0.0076 91.8 Pass 21 0.0074 0.0073 98.7 Pass 22 0.0068 0.0069 101.2 Pass 23 0.0077 0.0069 90.0 Pass 24 0.0074 0.0069 94.1 Pass 25 0.0065 0.0067 102.6 Pass 26 0.0074 0.0066 89.7 Pass 27 0.0074 0.0073 98.2 Pass 28 0.0092 0.0087 94.9 Pass 29 0.0060 0.0071 118.3 Pass Mar1 0.0057 0.0064 111.4 Pass 2 0.0069 0.0063 91.5 Pass 3 0.0075 0.0066 87.8 Pass 4 0.0082 0.0078 94.8 Pass 5 0.0066 0.0075 112.9 Pass 6 0.0055 0.0064 116.7 Pass 7 0.0047 0.0058 123.8 Fail 8 0.0059 0.0058 98.1 Pass 9 0.0064 0.0059 92.1 Pass 10 0.0063 0.0060 94.6 Pass 11 0.0076 0.0066 86.5 Pass 12 0.0067 0.0065 96.4 Pass 13 0.0058 0.0059 101.5 Pass 14 0.0060 0.0058 97.1 Pass 15 0.0053 0.0057 106.8 Pass 16 0.0057 0.0055 96.5 Pass 17 0.0054 0.0053 99.5 Pass 18 0.0053 0.0057 107.3 Pass 19 0.0042 0.0054 127.2 Fail 20 0.0034 0.0046 135.5 Fail 21 0.0043 0.0046 105.4 Pass 22 0.0053 0.0048 92.1 Pass 23 0.0050 0.0049 97.7 Pass 24 0.0048 0.0048 101.0 Pass 25 0.0039 0.0044 114.4 Pass 26 0.0036 0.0042 116.0 Pass 27 0.0032 0.0039 123.2 Fail 28 0.0035 0.0041 116.5 Pass 29 0.0037 0.0040 109.9 Pass 30 0.0032 0.0039 118.9 Pass 31 0.0030 0.0037 124.5 Fail Apr1 0.0025 0.0036 144.5 Fail 2 0.0026 0.0033 124.6 Fail 3 0.0043 0.0036 84.2 Pass 4 0.0054 0.0047 88.0 Pass 5 0.0043 0.0041 95.1 Pass 6 0.0032 0.0035 110.4 Pass EXHIBIT 11 26 7 0.0030 0.0032 108.4 Pass 8 0.0035 0.0034 96.8 Pass 9 0.0030 0.0033 110.0 Pass 10 0.0024 0.0034 139.7 Fail 11 0.0022 0.0033 148.0 Fail 12 0.0026 0.0035 135.6 Fail 13 0.0024 0.0035 147.1 Fail 14 0.0021 0.0033 159.3 Fail 15 0.0029 0.0032 109.4 Pass 16 0.0034 0.0031 91.7 Pass 17 0.0021 0.0027 128.7 Fail 18 0.0026 0.0028 108.7 Pass 19 0.0036 0.0030 84.6 Pass 20 0.0022 0.0027 123.9 Fail 21 0.0018 0.0023 125.5 Fail 22 0.0032 0.0027 84.8 Pass 23 0.0024 0.0028 119.4 Pass 24 0.0017 0.0025 151.8 Fail 25 0.0011 0.0022 189.3 Fail 26 0.0011 0.0022 212.7 Fail 27 0.0010 0.0024 246.8 Fail 28 0.0011 0.0022 199.1 Fail 29 0.0016 0.0023 147.5 Fail 30 0.0015 0.0021 145.9 Fail May1 0.0012 0.0022 188.5 Fail 2 0.0008 0.0021 267.5 Fail 3 0.0008 0.0018 218.6 Fail 4 0.0009 0.0018 195.6 Fail 5 0.0009 0.0017 190.9 Fail 6 0.0007 0.0015 217.3 Fail 7 0.0004 0.0015 374.2 Fail 8 0.0003 0.0013 423.2 Fail 9 0.0003 0.0011 374.8 Fail 10 0.0004 0.0015 349.9 Fail 11 0.0003 0.0013 509.2 Fail 12 0.0004 0.0012 283.7 Fail 13 0.0004 0.0013 323.4 Fail 14 0.0003 0.0013 417.6 Fail 15 0.0003 0.0013 506.2 Fail 16 0.0002 0.0012 768.6 Fail 17 0.0002 0.0013 721.5 Fail 18 0.0003 0.0014 437.4 Fail 19 0.0003 0.0015 428.5 Fail 20 0.0002 0.0012 546.2 Fail 21 0.0002 0.0010 425.3 Fail 22 0.0002 0.0010 516.7 Fail 23 0.0001 0.0012 964.1 Fail 24 0.0001 0.0012 1463.3 Fail 25 0.0001 0.0012 1916.1 Fail 26 0.0001 0.0014 2320.7 Fail 27 0.0001 0.0013 1759.5 Fail 28 0.0001 0.0013 910.7 Fail 29 0.0003 0.0016 443.4 Fail 30 0.0002 0.0017 726.4 Fail 31 0.0002 0.0016 887.0 Fail Jun1 0.0003 0.0017 525.7 Fail 2 0.0003 0.0016 476.4 Fail EXHIBIT 11 27 3 0.0003 0.0019 640.4 Fail 4 0.0002 0.0018 1055.2 Fail 5 0.0002 0.0017 722.6 Fail 6 0.0004 0.0019 469.4 Fail 7 0.0003 0.0017 550.1 Fail 8 0.0004 0.0016 455.5 Fail 9 0.0005 0.0017 356.7 Fail 10 0.0003 0.0017 625.2 Fail 11 0.0002 0.0018 976.5 Fail 12 0.0001 0.0016 1519.8 Fail 13 0.0001 0.0012 2177.6 Fail 14 0.0000 0.0009 2034.5 Fail 15 0.0001 0.0009 1132.8 Fail 16 0.0001 0.0010 889.6 Fail 17 0.0001 0.0010 835.4 Fail 18 0.0001 0.0008 1233.1 Fail 19 0.0000 0.0008 1684.9 Fail 20 0.0001 0.0008 1041.5 Fail 21 0.0001 0.0007 1062.8 Fail 22 0.0001 0.0008 1148.7 Fail 23 0.0001 0.0013 1079.8 Fail 24 0.0001 0.0015 1761.0 Fail 25 0.0000 0.0013 3014.3 Fail 26 0.0000 0.0012 4323.0 Fail 27 0.0000 0.0011 4779.8 Fail 28 0.0000 0.0011 4797.6 Fail 29 0.0000 0.0010 4215.3 Fail 30 0.0000 0.0009 3041.8 Fail Jul1 0.0000 0.0009 3894.2 Fail 2 0.0000 0.0009 4529.0 Fail 3 0.0000 0.0007 6254.9 Fail 4 0.0000 0.0007 5611.0 Fail 5 0.0000 0.0007 7771.0 Fail 6 0.0000 0.0006 8149.8 Fail 7 0.0000 0.0007 4173.0 Fail 8 0.0000 0.0008 4690.4 Fail 9 0.0000 0.0008 5088.8 Fail 10 0.0000 0.0007 6819.4 Fail 11 0.0000 0.0007 4962.8 Fail 12 0.0000 0.0006 3306.0 Fail 13 0.0000 0.0006 3410.6 Fail 14 0.0000 0.0006 4212.0 Fail 15 0.0000 0.0008 5210.9 Fail 16 0.0000 0.0008 7009.1 Fail 17 0.0000 0.0006 9750.3 Fail 18 0.0000 0.0006 13660.8 Fail 19 0.0000 0.0005 10699.3 Fail 20 0.0000 0.0003 13578.3 Fail 21 0.0000 0.0003 14912.1 Fail 22 0.0000 0.0003 29440.0 Fail 23 0.0000 0.0003 47816.9 Fail 24 0.0000 0.0002 27564.5 Fail 25 0.0000 0.0004 11594.9 Fail 26 0.0000 0.0005 8260.1 Fail 27 0.0000 0.0005 12334.4 Fail 28 0.0000 0.0003 17013.9 Fail 29 0.0000 0.0002 17107.8 Fail EXHIBIT 11 28 30 0.0000 0.0001 13115.6 Fail 31 0.0000 0.0003 11452.3 Fail Aug1 0.0000 0.0004 8065.7 Fail 2 0.0000 0.0006 4227.4 Fail 3 0.0000 0.0005 6642.0 Fail 4 0.0000 0.0004 9881.1 Fail 5 0.0000 0.0004 16197.1 Fail 6 0.0000 0.0007 29425.6 Fail 7 0.0000 0.0007 44170.3 Fail 8 0.0000 0.0007 47914.4 Fail 9 0.0000 0.0007 75985.0 Fail 10 0.0000 0.0006130332.4 Fail 11 0.0000 0.0005302701.5 Fail 12 0.0000 0.0004800413.6 Fail 13 0.0000 0.0005 27473.0 Fail 14 0.0000 0.0007 16063.1 Fail 15 0.0000 0.0008 28473.9 Fail 16 0.0000 0.0008 30071.8 Fail 17 0.0000 0.0009 37921.2 Fail 18 0.0000 0.0010 62281.9 Fail 19 0.0000 0.0011 87619.2 Fail 20 0.0000 0.0010142913.3 Fail 21 0.0000 0.0013 59664.6 Fail 22 0.0000 0.0014 13262.6 Fail 23 0.0000 0.0015 11307.9 Fail 24 0.0000 0.0016 14704.5 Fail 25 0.0000 0.0016 11347.5 Fail 26 0.0000 0.0015 12570.8 Fail 27 0.0000 0.0014 17871.7 Fail 28 0.0000 0.0014 17664.5 Fail 29 0.0000 0.0013 13119.1 Fail 30 0.0000 0.0012 14736.7 Fail 31 0.0000 0.0012 23273.0 Fail Sep1 0.0000 0.0013 37226.2 Fail 2 0.0000 0.0012 61986.8 Fail 3 0.0000 0.0014 53861.8 Fail 4 0.0000 0.0013 96339.5 Fail 5 0.0000 0.0013 63841.5 Fail 6 0.0000 0.0012 95241.5 Fail 7 0.0000 0.0011 45753.9 Fail 8 0.0000 0.0011 36110.4 Fail 9 0.0000 0.0011 43408.6 Fail 10 0.0000 0.0014 49354.1 Fail 11 0.0000 0.0011 18664.7 Fail 12 0.0000 0.0008 23682.8 Fail 13 0.0000 0.0011 19955.7 Fail 14 0.0000 0.0012 25376.6 Fail 15 0.0000 0.0012 37812.2 Fail 16 0.0000 0.0017 14531.4 Fail 17 0.0000 0.0020 17945.1 Fail 18 0.0000 0.0021 22973.5 Fail 19 0.0000 0.0020 25730.0 Fail 20 0.0000 0.0019 28899.4 Fail 21 0.0000 0.0019 7903.7 Fail 22 0.0001 0.0023 2876.8 Fail 23 0.0000 0.0022 4556.9 Fail 24 0.0000 0.0022 8646.5 Fail EXHIBIT 11 29 25 0.0000 0.0022 12091.5 Fail 26 0.0000 0.0021 17609.3 Fail 27 0.0000 0.0023 17914.1 Fail 28 0.0000 0.0020 19104.8 Fail 29 0.0000 0.0021 14392.6 Fail 30 0.0000 0.0021 16187.2 Fail Oct1 0.0000 0.0019 18370.4 Fail 2 0.0000 0.0020 20904.8 Fail 3 0.0000 0.0024 12498.4 Fail 4 0.0000 0.0024 9364.7 Fail 5 0.0010 0.0033 321.8 Fail 6 0.0011 0.0039 363.6 Fail 7 0.0006 0.0039 656.5 Fail 8 0.0004 0.0042 1086.0 Fail 9 0.0003 0.0042 1543.4 Fail 10 0.0002 0.0040 2613.7 Fail 11 0.0001 0.0036 4497.1 Fail 12 0.0001 0.0036 5766.4 Fail 13 0.0000 0.0033 8674.0 Fail 14 0.0000 0.0033 10369.2 Fail 15 0.0000 0.0031 13895.9 Fail 16 0.0001 0.0031 6000.8 Fail 17 0.0001 0.0032 3604.1 Fail 18 0.0001 0.0036 3307.0 Fail 19 0.0009 0.0048 559.9 Fail 20 0.0018 0.0069 378.0 Fail 21 0.0010 0.0058 585.8 Fail 22 0.0006 0.0054 939.9 Fail 23 0.0003 0.0049 1547.2 Fail 24 0.0002 0.0048 2418.5 Fail 25 0.0002 0.0049 2644.8 Fail 26 0.0002 0.0049 2402.9 Fail 27 0.0002 0.0053 2567.3 Fail 28 0.0005 0.0053 995.2 Fail 29 0.0009 0.0052 571.1 Fail 30 0.0006 0.0054 853.5 Fail 31 0.0006 0.0054 912.2 Fail Nov1 0.0008 0.0054 718.6 Fail 2 0.0012 0.0061 525.9 Fail 3 0.0010 0.0068 675.1 Fail 4 0.0007 0.0069 953.4 Fail 5 0.0019 0.0084 438.2 Fail 6 0.0023 0.0095 414.6 Fail 7 0.0016 0.0084 538.5 Fail 8 0.0017 0.0082 479.9 Fail 9 0.0023 0.0085 373.8 Fail 10 0.0029 0.0090 304.1 Fail 11 0.0033 0.0099 299.3 Fail 12 0.0031 0.0108 349.5 Fail 13 0.0035 0.0105 302.3 Fail 14 0.0030 0.0100 338.6 Fail 15 0.0025 0.0098 392.6 Fail 16 0.0025 0.0096 377.7 Fail 17 0.0034 0.0095 280.7 Fail 18 0.0053 0.0105 199.1 Fail 19 0.0069 0.0113 164.0 Fail 20 0.0067 0.0121 179.0 Fail EXHIBIT 11 30 21 0.0055 0.0111 201.6 Fail 22 0.0058 0.0109 188.7 Fail 23 0.0102 0.0142 139.3 Fail 24 0.0109 0.0149 136.6 Fail 25 0.0093 0.0149 160.9 Fail 26 0.0076 0.0137 179.3 Fail 27 0.0058 0.0120 208.9 Fail 28 0.0062 0.0115 184.8 Fail 29 0.0073 0.0117 159.9 Fail 30 0.0066 0.0121 182.7 Fail Dec1 0.0067 0.0120 179.2 Fail 2 0.0104 0.0129 124.3 Fail 3 0.0101 0.0136 134.1 Fail 4 0.0077 0.0121 157.1 Fail 5 0.0076 0.0117 153.8 Fail 6 0.0065 0.0108 164.3 Fail 7 0.0062 0.0104 167.2 Fail 8 0.0065 0.0101 154.7 Fail 9 0.0075 0.0104 137.8 Fail 10 0.0081 0.0106 130.3 Fail 11 0.0087 0.0107 123.8 Fail 12 0.0088 0.0110 125.9 Fail 13 0.0091 0.0110 120.5 Fail 14 0.0122 0.0130 106.7 Pass 15 0.0104 0.0131 126.5 Fail 16 0.0085 0.0127 150.5 Fail 17 0.0072 0.0124 172.1 Fail 18 0.0063 0.0114 178.9 Fail 19 0.0081 0.0108 133.7 Fail 20 0.0084 0.0110 131.9 Fail 21 0.0076 0.0111 146.6 Fail 22 0.0077 0.0105 135.8 Fail 23 0.0073 0.0100 136.8 Fail 24 0.0069 0.0093 136.1 Fail 25 0.0092 0.0101 109.4 Pass 26 0.0116 0.0113 97.7 Pass 27 0.0087 0.0108 123.9 Fail 28 0.0079 0.0099 125.9 Fail 29 0.0117 0.0110 93.6 Pass 30 0.0091 0.0112 122.9 Fail 31 0.0085 0.0111 130.5 Fail EXHIBIT 11 31 SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS Conveyance system analysis to be provided during future civil site improvement (FAC) submittal. EXHIBIT 11 32 SECTION 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation, proposed residential development 29402 – 51st Avenue South, Auburn, Washington, dated March 18, 2019 by Cobalt Geosciences. Technical Memorandum - Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan – Brody Property: 29322 52nd Avenue South and 29402 51st Avenue South, Auburn, Washington 98001, dated February 5, 2020 by Soundview Consultants, LLC. Stormwater Model Analysis – Brody Property: 29322 52nd Avenue South and 29402 51st Avenue South, Auburn, Washington 98001 (PLT19-0011), dated May 29, 2020 by Soundview Consultants, LLC. EXHIBIT 11 33 SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS Other required permits include Water and Sewer permits, Right of Way Use permit and Building permit. EXHIBIT 11 34 SECTION 8 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Erosion and sedimentation control will be provided during future civil site improvement (FAC) submittal. EXHIBIT 11 35 SECTION 9 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be provided during future civil site improvement (FAC) submittal, if necessary. EXHIBIT 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 1777.0001 Brody Property 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Technical Memorandum To: Julian Prossor, Inhabit Land LLC File Number: 1777.0001 From: Jon Pickett, Soundview Consultants LLC Revision Date: February 5, 2020 Re: Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan – Brody Property: 29322 52nd Avenue South and 29402 51st Avenue South, Auburn, Washington 98001 Dear Mr. Prossor, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) conducted a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment of an approximately 4.74-acre site located at 29322 52nd Avenue South and 29402 51st Avenue South in the City of Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The site consists of three parcels situated in the Northwest ¼ of Section 2, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 0221049095, 0221049174, and 0221049066). This assessment was conducted to support the potential residential redevelopment of the subject property. SVC investigated the site to evaluate if any potentially-regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat are located on or adjacent to the subject property. This Technical Memorandum has been prepared to document the results of this assessment and has been revised to include a wetland buffer enhancement plan and to address the City of Auburn’s comments (City of Auburn, 2019a; email correspondence, 2019). Figure 1. Subject Property Location. Subject Property Location Parcel -9095 Parcel -9 0 66 Parcel -9174 EXHIBIT 12EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Background Data Prior to the site investigation, SVC staff conducted background research using the King County and City of Auburn Geographic Information System (GIS) data, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), and Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing system (Attachment A). All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, USFWS, local precipitation data, and various orthophotographic resources. The King County sensitive areas map (Attachment B6) identifies a potential unclassified stream along the eastern portion of the subject property. The USFWS NWI map (Attachment B1), WDFW PHS map (Attachment B3), DNR Stream Typing map (Attachment B5), King County sensitive areas map, and City of Auburn stream and wetland inventory (Attachment B7) identify potential wetland areas offsite to the west and southeast as well as an erroneously mapped stream to the southwest within 200 feet of the subject property. Although no actual stream was identified offsite to the southwest, the WDFW SalmonScape map (Attachment B4) identifies the modeled presence of coho salmon within this reach. The NRCS soil survey map (Attachment B2) identifies two soil series on the subject property: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB) and 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC), which are considered non-hydric soils. No other wetlands, streams, or priority habitats or species are documented within 200 feet of the subject property. Precipitation Precipitation data was acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station at SeaTac International Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation for the general Puget Sound region during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summary1. Site Visit Date Day Of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2 Weeks Prior 30 Days Prior (Observed/Normal) Year to Date (Observed/Normal)2 Percent of Normal3 10/24/18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 1.21/2.83 1.15/2.38 43/48 12/27/19 0.01 0.05 4.57 6.38 7.65/5.59 13.03/14.76 137/88 Table 1 Notes: 1. Precipitation levels provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew) for Sea-Tac Airport. 2. Year-to-date precipitation is for the water year from October 1 to the onsite dates. 3. Percent of normal is shown for the 30 days prior and water year to date. Precipitation levels during the October 2018 site investigation were well below the statistical normal range for the prior 30 days (43 percent of normal) and the 2018/2019 water year (48 percent of normal). Precipitation levels during the December 2019 site visit were slightly above the statistical normal range for the prior 30 days (137 percent of normal) and within the normal range for the 2019/2020 water year (88 percent of normal). However, it should be noted that 4.67 inches of precipitation was recorded in the one week leading up to the December 2019 site visit. As such, hydrologic conditions encountered may have been both drier (October 2018) and wetter (December 2019) than normal. Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Prior Sensitive Areas Notice Prior to annexation into the City of Auburn, a nearby parcel to the northeast of the subject property (King County tax parcel number 0221049168) was under the jurisdiction of King County. In 1996, King County issued a permit (permit number B95A5376) for a remodel of a prior residence on this property. SVC obtained a copy of this permit and critical areas site plan from the Applicant (King County, 1996); the site plan identifies the estimated boundary of a Class III stream that reportedly existed on the western boundary of this property. This identified “stream” appears to be the main drainage ditch identified offsite to the east of the subject property during SVC’s October 2018 site visit. The 1996 critical areas site plan does not appear to be based on an actual ordinary high water delineation (no flags are indicated), and SVC has not been provided with or reviewed a copy of the critical areas report (if one exists) on which the critical areas site plan is presumably based. Given that the critical areas site plan is greater than 20 years old and inconsistent with SVC’s current findings, it is important to note that the 1996 study would have utilized outdated stream definition criteria under a different jurisdiction. Methods A site investigation was performed during October 2018 by qualified SVC staff, with a follow-up investigation performed in December 2019. The investigation consisted of a walk-through survey of the subject property and a reconnaissance of accessible areas within 200 feet of the subject property for potentially-regulated wetlands, streams, or priority habitats or species. Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features per Auburn City Code (ACC) Title 16.10 (Critical Areas) and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland boundaries were determined in accordance with ACC 16.10.080 and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010) ) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS, 2018). Qualified wetland scientists marked boundaries of onsite wetlands with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected (DP-1 to DP-4). Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundary to further confirm the delineation. SVC classified all wetlands using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, WSDOE-trained scientists rated and categorized all wetlands using the prior Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004) and the definitions established in ACC 16.10.080.C. The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visit by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. The experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Results The 4.74-acre subject property is located in a mixed land use setting consisting of residential and undeveloped forested areas. The site is partially developed with two abandoned residences and contains undeveloped forested and shrub areas throughout the remaining areas. Upland vegetation on the subject property is dominated by an overstory of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), cherry species (Prunus sp.), and western crabapple (Malus fusca) with an understory of vine maple (Acer circinatum), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and western swordfern (Polystichum munitum). Topography on the subject property slopes approximately 20 feet from west to east with elevations ranging from approximately 430 to 410 feet above mean sea level. The site investigation identified one potentially-regulated wetland (Wetland A) located within the southeastern portion of the subject property extending offsite to the east, one potential offsite wetland (Wetland B), and two likely unregulated ditches offsite to the east within 200 feet of the subject property. The identified wetlands contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland A and drainage ditches are depicted on the site plan in Attachment A. Four formal data plots (DP-1 to DP-4) were collected onsite. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, streams, and/or fish and wildlife habitat were observed on or within 200 feet of the project area. The wetland data forms, wetland rating form (Wetland A only), and wetland rating maps (Wetland A only) are provided in Attachments C, D, and E, respectively. Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 6,500 square feet (0.15 acres) in size and is located on the southeastern portion of the subject property, extending offsite to the south and east. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided primarily by a seasonally-high groundwater table, direct precipitation, and overland surface flow. Wetland vegetation is dominated by a forested canopy of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red alder (Alnus rubra), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) with an understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus alba), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Soil within Wetland A met primary hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). Wetland A is a Palustrine Forested, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PFOB). Per ACC 16.10.080, Wetland A is classified as a Category IV depressional wetland. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified during the site investigation. Potential Offsite Wetland B Offsite Wetland B is approximately 101,200 square feet (2.32 acres) in size and is located offsite to the southeast approximately 165 feet from the subject property. No formal soils or hydrology data was collected in this area as it is located entirely offsite. Based on offsite observations, vegetation within offsite Wetland B appears to be dominated by a canopy of red alder and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) with an understory of Scouler’s willow (Salix scouleriana) and hardhack. Offsite Wetland B is a Palustrine Forested/Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded wetland (PFO/SSC). Per ACC 16.10.080, offsite Wetland B is classified as a Category III depressional wetland. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified during the site investigation. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Table 2. Wetland Summary. Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size Onsite Buffer Width (feet)5 Cowardin1 HGM2 WSDOE3 City of Auburn4 A PFOB Depressional IV IV ~0.05 acres 25 Offsite B PFO/SSC Depressional III III N/A - Offsite 25 Table 2 Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, SS = Scrub-Shrub; Modifiers for Water Regime: B = Seasonally Saturated, C = Seasonally Flooded. 2. Brinson, M. M. (1993). 3. WSDOE 2004 wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby, 2004). 4. ACC 16.10.080.C wetland definitions. 5. ACC 16.10.090.E wetland buffer standards. Offsite Ditches Two ditches were identified offsite to the east of the site that run south to north, converging to form a single ditch. Both ditches appear to be intentionally and artificially excavated from uplands due to the abrupt edges and linear shape that is distinctive of manmade conditions. In addition, while the ditches contain a defined channel, no evidence of a defined bed (i.e. sorting and cobbling) were observed as the ditches are lined with organic debris. The western ditch is approximately 3 feet deep by approximately 6 feet wide with side cast soils forming a berm between the ditch and Wetland A. The eastern ditch is approximately 1-foot deep by approximately 2 feet wide and surrounded by uplands on either side. Both ditches were dry during the investigation and appear to only convey ephemeral flows during or immediately after storm events. In addition, the drainage ditches are not recognized by the City of Auburn or DNR mapping tools as potential streams (Attachments B5 and B7). Although King County erroneously maps the western drainage ditch onsite (Attachment B6), it is not classified as a typed stream, and the ditches do not currently meet stream definition criteria. As the drainage ditches appear to be entirely artificial watercourses that are not used by salmonids, the ditches should not be regulated as streams per ACC 16.10.020, which states that regulated streams are “not intended to include artificially created irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or created for the purposes of stream mitigation.” Regulatory Considerations Wetland Buffer Requirements ACC 16.10.080.C uses the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Department of Ecology, 2004, Publication No. 04-06-025). Category IV wetlands generally provide low levels of function; they are typically more disturbed, smaller, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category I, II, or III wetlands. Category IV wetlands provide low levels of functions and score less than 30 points on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). Wetland A is classified as a Category IV wetland and offsite Wetland B is classified as a Category III wetland. Per ACC 16.10.90.E.1, Category III and IV wetlands are subject to standard 25-foot buffers. Mitigation Sequencing The proposed project requires minimal grading within the buffer associated with Wetland A to accommodate the access road and stormwater dispersion trench. As temporary indirect impacts are EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 unavoidable due to the grading, mitigation sequencing measures as outlined under ACC 16.10.110.A are described below for the proposed project. 1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations; The project was carefully designed in order to minimize impacts to the onsite wetland to the greatest extent feasible, and all direct impacts are avoided. The project also utilizes the entire upland area throughout the majority of the site for reasonable residential development. However, minor grading actions are necessary within a minimal portion of Wetland A’s buffer area (approximately 1,120 square feet) to ensure the access road meets all safety requirements and to also allow the installation of a stormwater dispersion trench. While the actual stormwater dispersion infrastructure will be located outside of the buffer, minor grading within the buffer is necessary to direct the treated stormwater to Wetland A. Per ACC 16.10.090.E.1.c, minimal activities/impacts within the buffer are allowed if they do not result in adverse impacts, especially to water quality. As the minor grading actions will only result in temporary impacts and the entire buffer area is proposed to be enhanced, it is anticipated that the proposed project will result in a net increase in water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions. In addition, the installation of a stormwater dispersion trench will provide supplemental hydrology (i.e. treated stormwater) to the onsite wetland. Lastly, all appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be in place for the duration of construction activities to minimize any minor and temporary impacts. 2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and The project proposes to enhance the entire buffer area associated with Wetland A which is currently degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry. In addition to removing all non-native invasive species present, a selection of native trees and shrubs will be installed to increase habitat structural complexity, species diversity, pollution filtration, and screening of the wetland from outside disturbances. In addition, the entire buffer area will be reseeded with an approved seed mix to minimize temporary erosion. As such, the proposed buffer enhancement plan will ensure no net loss of critical area functions and will likely result in a net gain in ecological function when compared to the existing buffer proposed to be impacted. To ensure success of the enhancement actions, the buffer enhancement area will be maintained and monitored for a period of five years. The proposed buffer enhancement plan will also effectively restore the temporarily disturbed areas due to the minor grading actions. 3. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical functions. See response to number 2 above. The proposed buffer enhancement plan will remove non-native invasive species present and replant with a diverse selection of native trees and shrubs to improve habitat and water quality functions, resulting in a net gain in ecological functions. Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan This section incorporates the wetland buffer enhancement plan for the entire onsite buffer area associated with Wetland A (approximately 5,263 square feet; see Attachment A, Figure 3). The EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 objectives of the proposed wetland buffer enhancement plan are to enhance habitat and water quality functions within the Wetland A buffer through the removal of invasive species and replanting with native vegetation, which will also effectively restore the temporarily disturbed areas due to the minor grading actions. The existing Wetland A buffer contains some native deciduous trees and shrubs, with a dominance of Himalayan blackberry in the understory. As such, the enhancement plan proposes the removal of invasive species and planting a diverse selection of native trees and shrubs that will improve screening of the wetland; minimize dust, light, and physical obtrusions; and provide habitat protection, as needed while restoring natural conditions. Disturbed areas may also be hand-seeded with a native grass seed mix, as needed. The enhancement actions will primarily rely on the use of hand tools where possible, though equipment (e.g., tractor) may be used as necessary to remove and grub the invasive vegetation. Existing trees will be retained. Overall, the proposed enhancement actions will provide additional protective screening between the single-family residential redevelopment and the wetland, while also increasing plant diversity and interspersion. Buffer Enhancement Specifications The following specifications are established as a set of minimum standards for proper implementation of the buffer enhancement actions. Additional actions, modifications, and/or substitutions may be approved in advance by the responsible Wetland Scientist. Plant Scheduling, Species, Density, and Location All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. All planting will be installed per the procedures detailed in the following subsections using the species and densities outlined in Figure 4 of Attachment A of this Technical Memorandum. Plant Materials All plant materials to be used on the site will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings, they will exhibit normal, densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects and all forms of disease and infestation. Any container stock provided in-lieu of specified bare root stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. All plant material shall be inspected upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately ½-inch to 1-inch in size and ½-inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 salvaged from the land clearing activities for the proposed residence. Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat, or moss. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The Applicant or the landscape contractor will verify the location of all elements of the planting plan, prior to installation. The Applicant or landscape contractor may adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all stock with roots. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water and install a 4- to 6-inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. Optional Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for enhancement are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the proposed enhancement actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering may be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two growing seasons while the native plantings become established. Wetland and Buffer/Habitat Management Recommendations The wetland buffer enhancement plan drawings and specifications are included in Attachment A. The following habitat management recommendations are provided to further protect the onsite wetland and associated buffer: • Prior to the initiation of the construction activities, erosion control measures (e.g., silt fencing) and temporary construction fencing at least 30 inches tall should be erected around the perimeter of the wetland area to protect wetland functions, minimize the potential for sedimentation into the wetland, prevent unintended intrusion, and protect native wetland vegetation. • The temporary fencing shall be posted with signage clearly identifying the wetland area and EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 should remain in place through site development and construction; • Vehicles, construction materials, fuel, and/or other hazardous materials should not be placed in the wetland area. The use of machinery within the buffer enhancement area should be limited to the greatest extent possible and only during implementation of the enhancement actions; • The soil duff layer should remain undisturbed to the greatest extent possible near the wetland areas; • Following implementation of the enhancement actions, appropriate signage should be installed along the outer perimeter of the enhanced wetland buffer to indicate the sensitive nature of the buffer and to deter intrusion; and • Following construction and enhancement activities, control invasive plant communities to the extent practicable using mechanical and/or approved herbicide methods, as needed. Maintenance and Monitoring Plan This section outlines a maintenance and monitoring plan in accordance with ACC 16.10.130. The Applicant is committed to compliance with the buffer enhancement plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and other waste. The wetland buffer enhancement actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the mitigation actions are successful. Therefore, the wetland buffer enhancement area will be monitored for a period of five years, with formal inspections by a qualified consulting Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and minimally on an annual basis during Years 1, 2, 3, and 5. Closeout assessment will also be conducted in Year 5 for the wetland buffer enhancement area to ensure the success of the non-compensatory actions. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk- through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying enhancement plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified wetland buffer area and terminate at the observed buffer boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of each species and wetland status will be included within the monitoring report. Conclusions The site investigation identified one Category IV wetland (Wetland A) on the southeastern portion of the subject property, one Category III offsite wetland (Wetland B), and two likely unregulated ditches offsite to the east within 200 feet of the subject property. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or within 200 feet of the subject property. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 February 5, 2020 Through careful planning efforts, the proposed project avoids direct impacts to the identified wetlands and ditches. However, the minor grading actions within a small portion of Wetland A’s buffer are necessary which may result in minor and temporary impacts. The proposed wetland buffer enhancement plan will effectively restore the temporarily disturbed buffer areas and result in a net gain in ecological functions. If you have any further questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ___________________________ _________________ Jon Pickett Date Senior Planner/Scientist EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 References Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. City of Auburn. 2019. Auburn City Code. Title 13, Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Auburn/. Current through Ordinance 6753, passed December 2, 2019. City of Auburn. 2019a. Preliminary Plat / SEPA / Application for Brody Plat – King County Parcel Nos. 0221049174, 0221049095, 0221049066 (File Nos. PLT19-0011 &SEP19-0034). Prepared December 10, 2019. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Email correspondence. 2019. Communications between Alexandria Teague, City of Auburn, and Julian Prossor, Inhabit Land LLC. [December 19, 2019]. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, Washington. April 2005. Hitchcock, C.L. & A. Cronquist, Ed. by D. Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R. Olmstead. 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edition. U.W Press and Burke Museum. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2006 update (Publication # 14-06-025). Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. King County. 1996. Sensitive Areas Notice and Critical Areas Site Plan for Permit Number B95A5379. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. NRCS. 2018. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment A – Existing Conditions and Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Exhibits EXHIBIT 12 àààààààààààààààààààà àààà àààà àààà àààà ààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààààà àààààààààààààààààààààààà ààà ààà ààà ààà ààà ààà àààààààààààààààààààà ààà ààà ààà ààà ààà '&'& '& '&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A-7A-6 A-5 A-3A-2A-1 A-13 DP-4U DP-3U DP-1U Pictometry, King County BRODY PROPERTY - EXISTING CONDITIONS ¢ PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 BRODY PROPERTY JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1777.0001 DLS 1 SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET015030075Feet Wetland ACategory IV 1 " = 150 ' '&Data Point Wetland Flag ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ditch Standard 25' WetlandBuffer ààààààààààààààà ààà ààà Wetlands ààààààààààà ààà Offsite Wetlands Site Boundary A-9 A-8 A-10A-11A-12 A-14 DP-2WA-4 Offsite Wetland B 7/14/2020DATE: EXHIBIT 12 ààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà '&'& '& '&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A-7A-6 A-5 A-3A-2 A-1 A-13 DP-4U DP-3U DP-1U BRODY PROPERTY - PROPOSED SITE PLAN ¢ 0 100 20050 Feet PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 BRODY PROPERTY DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1777.0001 DLS 2 SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET Wetland ACategory IV 1 " = 100 ' '&Data Point Wetland Flag ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ditch Standard 25' WetlandBuffer ààààààààààààààà ààà Wetlands ààààààààààààààà ààà ààà Offsite Wetlands Temporary BufferImpact Area(~1,120 SF) Site Boundary A-9 A-8 A-10A-11A-12 A-14 DP-2WA-4 Temporary BufferImpact Area (~1,120 SF) 7/14/2020 EXHIBIT 12 S(S(UUUU@@ @@ @@ @ @ @@ G& G& G& = = lll«lll« ¦ ' ' ' ¦ ¦ º º º ªª ª ªª ªª Á Á Á Á ÁÁ ÁÁÁ Á Á f f f f f f f cccccccSÓ SÓ SÓ SÓ SÓ SÓ SÓ TN TN TN TN TNTN TN TN TN àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà àààà BRODY PROPERTY - PROPOSED SAMPLE BUFFER RESTORATION PLAN ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 BRODY PROPERTY DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 1777.0001 DLS 3 Wetland A 1 " = 30 ' =Paperbark birch S(Pacific crabapple 'Sitka spruce lll«Douglas fir ¦Western red cedar ºWestern hemlock Á Lady fern @ Red-twig dogwood ªBlack twinberry G&Pacific ninebark cNootka rose TN Clustered wildrose f Salmonberry UPacific willow SÓ Scouler's willow Buffer Seed Mix ³±N\S ³±N\S ³±N\S ³±N\S Critical AreaSignage Split-RailFence LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOTES: STORAGE OF LIVE STAKES ALL WOODY PLANT CUTTINGS COLLECTED MORE THAN 12 HR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, MUST BE CAREFULLY BOUND, SECURED, AND STORED OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND SUBMERGED IN CLEAN FRESH WATER FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO TWO WEEKS. OUTDOOR TEMPERATURES MUST BE LESS THAN 50 DEGREES F AND TEMPERATURE INDOORS AND IN STORAGE CONTAINERS MUST BE BETWEEN 34 AND 50 DEGREES F. IF THE LIVE STAKES CANNOT BE INSTALLED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON, CUT DURING THE DORMANT SEASON AND HOLD IN COLD STORAGE AT TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 33 AND 39 DEGREES F FOR UP TO 2 MONTHS. 1. LIVE STAKES TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH DIAMETER 24 TO 32 INCHES LENGTH. 2. USE 1/2 INCH DIAMETER REBAR OR ROCK BAR TO MAKE PILOT HOLE. 3. INSTALL LIVE STAKES TAPER END DOWN WITH BUDS POINTED UP. 4. MINUMUM TWO BUDS ABOVE GRADE. 5. SET LIVE STAKES WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER. 6. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.70-80 % OF STAKEINSTALLED BELOW GRADETREE & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED) SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE 2 to 3 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCH MIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUB NOTES: 1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVE A NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASS AND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY. 2. 3. UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE 4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY. 5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. 7/14/2020 EXHIBIT 12 à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àààààààààà ààà à à à à à à à à à à àààà àààà BRODY PROPERTY - PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 BRODY PROPERTY DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 7/14/2020 1777.0001 DLS 4 N/A Plant Name Planting Area Buffer Scientific Common Plant Status Restoration Area Spacing Size Condition Planting Area Sq. Feet: 5,263 Trees Acres: 0.12 Betula papyrifera Paperbark birch FAC 2 8 - 10 ft 3 - 4 ft Bare root Dry/Moist - near wetland Malus fusca Pacific crabapple FACW 2 8 - 10 ft 3 - 4 ft Bare root Wet - near wetland Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC 3 12 - 15 ft 3 - 4 ft Bare root Moist - near wetland Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 2 10 - 12 ft 3 - 4 ft Bare root Dry Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 3 10 - 12 ft 3 - 4 ft Bare root Dry/Moist Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU 2 10 - 12 ft 3 - 4 ft Bare root Dry/Moist Totals 14 Shrubs Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC 10 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Moist/Wet Cornus sericea Red-twig dogwood FACW 10 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Moist/Wet - near wetland Lonicera involucrata Black twinberry FAC 7 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Moist/Wet - near wetland Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark FACW 3 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Moist/Wet Rosa nutkana Nootka rose FAC 7 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Dry Rosa pisocarpa Clustered wild rose FAC 9 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Wet Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC 7 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Bare root Moist Salix lucida Pacific willow FACW 4 8 - 10 ft 3 - 4 ft Stakes Wet Salix scolleriana Scouler's willow FAC 7 4 - 5 ft 2 - 4 ft Stakes Dry Totals 64 Buffer Seed Mix 30 lbs/acre % by wt. Agrostis exerata Spike bentgrass FACW 10 Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass FACW 10 Deschampsia danthonioides Annual hairgrass FACW 10 Deschampsia elongata Slender hairgrass FAC 10 Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye FACU 25 Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley FACW 25 Lupinus polyphyllus Streamside lupine FAC 10 Total 100 1 - Scientific names and species identification taken from Flora of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edition (Hitchcock et al, 2018). 2 - Over-sized or container plants are suitable for replacement pending project biologist's approval. 3 - All plans and schedules are conceptual for regulatory review and impact analysis. Final plans may be needed for construction, and may be subject to regulatory approval. 4 - Planting density and locations may require adjustment in the field, as directed by project biologist. 5 - All disturbed and bare soil areas, including reinforced earth slope areas, to be seeded with buffer seed mix. SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDARY SIGN DETAIL NOT TO NOT TO SCALESCALE 12"X18" ALUMINUM SIGN WITH WHITE REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND. INSTALL AT SPACING NOT GREATER THAN 50' O.C. IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE MINIMUM OF TWO GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL WOOD LAG BOLTS TO FIRMLY SECURE SIGN. 4'X4' PRESSURE TREATED WOODEN POST WITH 1/2" CHAMFER AT TOP. MAGNETIC LOCATOR PIN (EG; PIPE REBAR, 20 PENNY NAIL, ETC.) PLACED 8-12" FROM POST ALONG NGPA LINE COMPACTED NATIVE MATERIAL WITH QUICKSET CONCRETE COMPACTED NATIVE MATERIAL Sensitive Area Boundary Help protvegetatiect on, pland care facing fillor thi or s area. garbage, Trampliadn any otherng or cutting ties that may disturb the sensitive area are prohibiactivias regulated under Auburn City Code Chapter 16.10.ted, Pl(253)eas 288-e contact C4318 wiityt of h questiAuburnons or concerns. 5 ft. 2 ft. min. 6" SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDARY SIGN NOTES: SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDARY SIGN PURCHASE INFORMATION: THE SIGN TEMPLATES ARE ON FILE AND AVAILABLE FROM ALPINE SIGNS (ALPINEMARKINGS.COM). THE SPECIFIC SIGN NAME IS "CITY OF AUBURN SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDARY COMMERCIAL AQUATIC SIGN" SIGN PRICING IS AS FOLLOWS: 1 - 19 PCS 12" X 18" $25.50 EACH; 20 - 49 PCS 12" X 18" $22.50 EACH; 50+ PCS 12" X 18" $18.50 EA. ALTERNATIVELY, IF YOU CHOOSE A DIFFERENT SIGN PURVEYOR, PLEASE CONTACT PLANNING SERVICES, planning@auburnwa.gov, FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN DETAILS. 1. SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDAR SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED NO GREATER THAN 50 FEET APART AROUND THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PERIMETER OF THE STREAM BUFFER RESTORATION AREA, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY BIOLOGIST. 2. SIGN PLACEMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF CITY STAFF. ALTERNATIVE SIGN DESIGNS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF FOR APPROVAL. 3. ALL SIGNS MUST BE SECURE AND PERMANENT. SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 8" MIN. 12" TO 16" 6" MIN. 12" DIAMETER2' MIN.4'8' ROUGH CEDA R T Y P E - ( T R I A N G U L A R ) EXHIBIT 12 BRODY PROPERTY – ENHANCEMENT SPECIFICATIONS Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan This section incorporates the wetland buffer enhancement plan for the entire onsite buffer area associated with Wetland A (approximately 5,263 square feet). The objectives of the proposed wetland buffer enhancement plan are to enhance habitat and water quality functions within the Wetland A buffer through the removal of invasive species and replanting with native vegetation, which will also effectively restore the temporarily disturbed areas due to the minor grading actions. The existing Wetland A buffer contains some native deciduous trees and shrubs, with a dominance of Himalayan blackberry in the understory. As such, the enhancement plan proposes the removal of invasive species and planting a diverse selection of native trees and shrubs that will improve screening of the wetland; minimize dust, light, and physical obtrusions; and provide habitat protection, as needed while restoring natural conditions. Disturbed areas may also be hand-seeded with a native grass seed mix, as needed. The enhancement actions will primarily rely on the use of hand tools where possible, though equipment (e.g., tractor) may be used as necessary to remove and grub the invasive vegetation. Existing trees will be retained. Overall, the proposed enhancement actions will provide additional protective screening between the single-family residential redevelopment and the wetland, while also increasing plant diversity and interspersion. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals and objectives for the proposed wetland buffer enhancement actions will be based on providing additional habitat and protection for the onsite wetland and providing supplementary water quality and hydrological functions. Wetland buffer enhancement actions are capable of improving habitat function for the wetland over time by establishment of a dense vegetation barrier between the project and the critical area. The goals and performance standards for the buffer enhancement actions are outlined below. Goal 1 – Improve and protect wetland buffer functions to offset indirect impacts associated with the project. Objective 1 – Establish areas of native trees, shrubs, and emergent plants to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and additional wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 1 – By the end of Year 5, the non- compensatory buffer enhancement area will have at least 2 species of native trees, 3 species of native shrubs; native volunteer species will be included in the count. To be considered, the native species must make up at least 5 percent of the vegetation class. Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions Soundview Consultants LLC BRODY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001 AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 www.soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 12 BRODY PROPERTY – ENHANCEMENT SPECIFICATIONS Performance Standard 2 – Minimum plant survivorship will be at 100 percent of installed plants at the end of Year 1 (replacement of lost plants allowed), 85 percent at the end of Year 2, 75 percent at the end of Year 3, and 70 percent at the end of Year 5. Performance Standard 3 – Non- native invasive plants will not make up more than 15 percent total cover in any growing season during the monitoring period following Year 1 through Year 5. Buffer Enhancement Specifications The following specifications are established as a set of minimum standards for proper implementation of the buffer enhancement actions. Additional actions, modifications, and/or substitutions may be approved in advance by the responsible Wetland Scientist. Plant Scheduling, Species, Density, and Location All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. All planting will be installed per the procedures detailed in the following subsections using the species and densities outlined in Figure 4 of Attachment A of this Technical Memorandum. Plant Materials All plant materials to be used on the site will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings, they will exhibit normal, densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects and all forms of disease and infestation. Any container stock provided in-lieu of specified bare root stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. All plant material shall be inspected upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately ½-inch to 1-inch in size and ½-inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions Soundview Consultants LLC BRODY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001 AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 www.soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 12 BRODY PROPERTY – ENHANCEMENT SPECIFICATIONS sourced from woody materials salvaged from the land clearing activities for the proposed residence. Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat, or moss. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The Applicant or the landscape contractor will verify the location of all elements of the planting plan, prior to installation. The Applicant or landscape contractor may adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all stock with roots. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water and install a 4- to 6-inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. Optional Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for enhancement are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the proposed enhancement actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering may be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two growing seasons while the native plantings become established. Wetland and Buffer/Habitat Management Recommendations The wetland buffer enhancement plan drawings and specifications are included in this set. The following habitat management recommendations are provided to further protect the onsite wetland and associated buffer: Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions Soundview Consultants LLC BRODY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001 AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 www.soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 12 BRODY PROPERTY – ENHANCEMENT SPECIFICATIONS • Prior to the initiation of the construction activities, erosion control measures (e.g., silt fencing) and temporary construction fencing at least 30 inches tall should be erected around the perimeter of the wetland area to protect wetland functions, minimize the potential for sedimentation into the wetland, prevent unintended intrusion, and protect native wetland vegetation. • The temporary fencing shall be posted with signage clearly identifying the wetland area and should remain in place through site development and construction; • Vehicles, construction materials, fuel, and/or other hazardous materials should not be placed in the wetland area. The use of machinery within the buffer enhancement area should be limited to the greatest extent possible and only during implementation of the enhancement actions; • The soil duff layer should remain undisturbed to the greatest extent possible near the wetland areas; • Following implementation of the enhancement actions, appropriate signage should be installed along the outer perimeter of the enhanced wetland buffer to indicate the sensitive nature of the buffer and to deter intrusion; and • Following construction and enhancement activities, control invasive plant communities to the extent practicable using mechanical and/or approved herbicide methods, as needed. Maintenance and Monitoring Plan This section outlines a maintenance and monitoring plan in accordance with ACC 16.10.130. The Applicant is committed to compliance with the buffer enhancement plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and other waste. The wetland buffer enhancement actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the mitigation actions are successful. Therefore, the wetland buffer enhancement area will be monitored for a period of five years, with formal inspections by a qualified consulting Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and minimally on an annual basis during Years 1, 2, 3, and 5. Closeout assessment will also be conducted in Year 5 for the wetland buffer enhancement area to ensure the success of the non-compensatory actions. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying enhancement plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions Soundview Consultants LLC BRODY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001 AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 www.soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 12 BRODY PROPERTY – ENHANCEMENT SPECIFICATIONS monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified wetland buffer area and terminate at the observed buffer boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of each species and wetland status will be included within the monitoring report. Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions Soundview Consultants LLC BRODY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO: 29402 51ST AVE S 98001 AUBURN WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 www.soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B – Background Information This attachment includes a USFWS NWI map (B1); NRCS soil survey map (B2), WDFW PHS map (B3); WDFW SalmonScape map (B4); DNR stream typing map (B5); King County stream and wetland inventory (B6); City of Auburn stream and wetland inventory (B7); and King County contours map (B8). EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B1 – USFWS NWI Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B2 – NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B3 – WDFW PHS Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B4 – WDFW SalmonScape Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B5 – DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B6 – King County Stream and Wetland Inventory Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B7 – City of Auburn Stream and Wetland Inventory Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment B8 – King County Contours Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment C – Data Forms EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1777.0001 - Brody Property Auburn / King 10/24/2018 Inhabit Land LLC WA DP-1 Kyla Caddey 2 / 21N / 4E Plateau Concave 0 A2 47.33829426 -122.27013286 WGS 84 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophitic vegetation observed. Data collected in western portion of the site. Frangula purshiana 15 Yes FAC 3 5 15 60% Rubus armeniacus 40 Yes FAC Gaultheria shallon 15 Yes FACU Crataegus monogyna 15 Yes FAC Rosa pisocarpa 5 No FAC 75 Polystichum munitum 90 Yes FACU 90 0 10 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through dominance test; however, vegetation observed consisted primarily of FAC species typical of upland and/or disturbed areas. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-1 0 - 7 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaGrLo Sandy grvally loam with large rocks 7 - 16 10YR 3/3 100 ----SaGrLo Sandy grvally loam with large rocks None -- No hydric soil indicators observed. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1777.0001 - Brody Property Auburn / King 10/24/2018 Inhabit Land LLC WA DP-2 Kyla Caddey 2 / 21N / 4E Hillslope Concave 3 A2 47.33821931 -122.26832027 WGS 84 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A All three wetland criteria observed. Data collected in Wetland A. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC 2 2 50 100% Cornus alba 90 Yes FACW Rubus spectabilis 5 No FAC 95 0 0 100 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the dominance test. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-2 0 - 9 10YR 3/1 99 10YR 3/6 1 C M SaLo Sandy loam 9 - 16 2.5Y 5/1 92 10YR 4/6 8 C M SaLo Sandy loam None -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None None None Hydrologic criteria met indirectly through secondary indicators D2 and D5. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1777.0001 - Brody Property Auburn / King 10/24/2018 Inhabit Land LLC WA DP-3 Kyla Caddey 2 / 21N / 4E Hillslope Concave 3 A2 47.33842686 -122.26853067 WGS 84 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A No wetland criteria observed. Data collected west of Wetland A. Acer macrophyllum 60 Yes FACU 2 Populus balsamifera 20 Yes FAC Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Yes FACU 7 100 29% Lonicera involucrata 30 Yes FAC Symphoricarpos albus 25 Yes FACU Oemleria cerasiformis 15 No FACU Spiraea douglasii 10 No FACW Ilex aquifolium 5 No FACU 85 Polystichum munitum 30 Yes FACU Rubus ursinus 10 Yes FACU 40 0 60 No hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed; did not meet dominance test. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-3 0 - 13 10YR 3/1 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam None -- No hydric soil criteria observed. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 4 50% NL 1777.0001 - Brody Property Auburn / King 12/27/2019 Inhabit Land LLC WA DP-4 Kyla Caddey, Monica Szarvas 2 / 21N / 4E Depression Concave 3 A2 47.338549 -122.26953781 WGS 84 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A No wetland criteria observed. Data collected in the center portion of the subject property. 4.57 inches of precipitation was recorded in the week leading up to the site visit. 2 0 Acer circinatum 60 Yes FAC Rubus spectabilis 25 Yes FAC Rubus armeniacus 10 No FAC Oemleria cerasiformis 5 No FACU Corylus cornuta 5 No FACU 105 Rubus ursinus 15 Yes FACU Polystichum munitum 15 Yes FACU Lamium galeobdolon 10 Yes 40 0 60 No hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed; did not meet the dominance test. Prevalence index not warranted due to lack of hydric soils and hydrology. EXHIBIT 12 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-4 0 - 10 10YR 3/2 100 ----MeLo Medium loam with charcoal from 10-11 inches 11 - 12 7.5YR 3/4 100 ----MeLo Medium loam 12 - 16 2.5Y 5/3 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M MeLo Gravelly medium loam; very compacted None -- No hydric soil criteria observed. The bottom layer is too bright to be depleted and is also separated from the dark surface by a bright layer, both of which exclude the soil from meeting indicator A11. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. Soil pit left open for 20 minutes. EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment D – Wetland Rating Forms EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Date of site visit: Rated by: Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training: SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No _____ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland : I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarin e Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands t hat Need Additiona l Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purp oses of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rati ng system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individ uals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. A A 10/24/18 Kyla Caddey, Jon Pickett 11/2016 2 21N 4E 1 6,500 sq. ft. IV 4 2 14 20 EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Clas sification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annu al low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ______ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface wate r runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classi fied as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ______ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size ; ______ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ______ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ______ The water leaves the wetland without be ing impounded ? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland cla ss is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ______ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE un der wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. A EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 D Depres sional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricte d, surface outlet (permanently flowing ) ....... points = 1 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowi ng treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawin g Figure ___ D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetat ion (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure ___ D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total a rea of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure ___ Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditi ons provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression w ith no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points = 2 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom o f the outlet ....................... points = 7 • The wetland is a “headwater” wetland .................................................................................. points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit ................................................... points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit .......................................... points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class ......................................................................................... points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above A 4 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might o therwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: A 2 2 EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species ? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground - cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Figure ___ H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently floode d or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 Permanently flowing strea m or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure ___ H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure ___ H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, do wned, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover l ess than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above A 1 0 1 0 3 5 EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 H 2 Does the wetland ha ve the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .............................................................................................. points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ................................................................... points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................ points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .............................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure ___ H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively un disturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegeta ted corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does no t have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: •Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR •Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point •Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres?NO = 0 points Comments: A 4 1 EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 8 2): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ____ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). ____ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ____ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ____ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of sna gs, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ____ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). ____ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ____ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 ). ____ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and condition s that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ____ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). ____ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ____ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. ____ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ____ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not inc luded in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape : Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connect ions between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake w ith little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8  Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 Comments: A 1 3 5 9 14 EXHIBIT 12 Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of 12 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.8 6 ) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at leas t two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II ___ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non -native plant species. If the non -native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ___ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland ___ The wetland has at least 2 of the f ollowing features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 8 7 ) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wet land as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1.Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2.Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that ar e less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3.Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at g round level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of ra ting NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hol e dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” p lant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4.Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cove r)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I A EXHIBIT 12 YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? Wetland name or number ________________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 of 12 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 9 0) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its func tion. Old -growth forests : (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter a t breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 9 1 ) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks , gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks . The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20 % cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square f t.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 9 3 ) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rati ng If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: •Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 •Grayland -Westport -- lands west of SR 105 •Ocean Shores -Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III  Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: A EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment E – Wetland Rating Maps EXHIBIT 12 ààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà ààààààààààààà Pictometry, King County BRODY PROPERTY - 150' BOUNDARY MAP ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 3 4/5/2019 1777.0001 DLS 1 Wetland Rating Maps 150' Boundary ààààààààààààààà ààà ààà Wetland Site Boundary 0 30 6015 Feet 1 " = 60 ' BRODY PROPERTY 29322 52ND AVE S & 29402 51ST AVE SAUBURN, WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 EXHIBIT 12 King County BRODY PROPERTY - CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP ¢ 0 600 1200300 Feet www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 3 4/5/2019 1777.0001 DLS 2 Wetland Rating Maps àààààààààààà ààà ààà Wetland Contributing Basin 0 0. 0.0 1 " = 600 ' Area of Contributing Basin (SF)4,075,010 Area of Wetland A (SF)6,497 Percent of Wetland A within Contributing Basin 0.159% D.3.0 D.3.3 BRODY PROPERTY 29322 52ND AVE S & 29402 51ST AVE SAUBURN, WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 EXHIBIT 12 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community BRODY PROPERTY - CONNECTIONS & CORRIDORS MAP ¢ www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 3 4/5/2019 1777.0001 DLS 3 Wetland Rating Maps 1 Mile 3 Miles 5 Miles Brackish or Saltwater Area >40 Acres of Large Field /Pasture 1 " = 2 mi 0 1 20.5 Miles SITE Within 5 miles of brackish or salt water estuary Yes Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (>40 acres)Yes Within 1 miles of a lake greater than 20 acres No H.2.0 Wetland A H.2.2 BRODY PROPERTY 29322 52ND AVE S & 29402 51ST AVE SAUBURN, WA 98001 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 0221049095, 0221049174, & 0221049066 EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 Attachment E – Qualifications All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum prepared for the Brody Property , were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jon Pickett of SVC. In addition, the site inspection was completed by Kyla Caddey and Ryan Krapp, and report preparation was completed by Rachael Hyland. Jon Pickett Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner Professional Experience: >10 years Jon Pickett is a Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner with diverse professional experience in habitat development as a Regional Biologist and Environmental Project Manager, with an emphasis in wetland restoration and enhancement. Jon has extensive experience successfully planning, developing, securing funding, managing and implementing numerous large-scale wetland habitat projects aimed at restoring the biological and physical functions of wetlands throughout California’s Central Valley and Southern California. During this time, he managed a 2,200-acre private wetland and upland habitat complex as a public trust resource for conservation and consumptive use. He worked to ensure projects were designed and implemented to achieve habitat restoration goals, including reclamation of wetland and floodplain habitats, reintroduction of aquatic complexity and habitat, and reestablishment of riparian corridor. Jon has worked with Federal and State agencies and private entities on land acquisitions for conservational habitat and public use, including prioritizing acquisitions relative to value and opportunity and funding. In addition, Jon has experience in regulatory coordination to ensure projects operated in compliance with Federal, State and local environmental regulations, preparing permit documentation, coordinating with all pertinent agencies and stakeholders, and developing and maintaining appropriate permitting timelines to ensure timely approvals. He also oversaw earthwork construction components and revegetation efforts, as well as post-project monitoring, with an emphasis in native vegetation establishment and natural channel morphology. Jon earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Sciences from Washington State University and Bachelor of Science Minor in Forestry from Washington State University. He has received 40-hour wetland delineation training and has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Using Field Indicators for Hydric Soils, and the Using the Credit-Debit Method for Estimating Mitigation Needs. Kyla Caddey Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 5 years Kyla Caddey is an Environmental Scientist with a diverse background in riparian habitat restoration, stream and wetland ecology, wildlife ecology and conservation, and wildlife and natural resource assessments and monitoring. Kyla has advanced expertise in report preparation, grant writing, environmental education, data compilation and statistical analysis. Kyla has field experience performing in-depth studies in both the Pacific Northwest and Central American ecosystems. She currently performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat EXHIBIT 12 1777.0001 Brody Property Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Delineation & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Revised February 5, 2020 assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use projects. Kyla earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management from the University of Washington, Seattle with a focus in Wildlife Conservation and a minor in Quantitative Science. She has received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), is a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist, and is a USFWS-approved Mazama pocket gopher survey biologist. Kyla has been formally trained through the Washington State Department of Ecology, Coastal Training Program, and the Washington Native Plant Society in winter twig and grass, sedge, and rush identification for Western WA; Using the Credit-Debit Method in Estimating Wetland Mitigation Needs; How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark; Using Field Indicators for Hydric Soils; How to Administer Development Permits in Washington Shorelines; Puget Sound Coastal Processes; and Forage Fish Survey Techniques. Rachael Hyland Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 5 years Rachael Hyland is a wetland profession in training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists and a Certified Associated Ecologist through the Ecological Society of America. Rachael has a background in wetland and ecological habitat assessments in various states, most notably Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Washington. She has experience in assessing tidal, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and White Nose Syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats, which was recently documented in Washington. Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael has completed Basic Wetland Delineator Training with the Institute for Wetland Education and Environmental Research, received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), and received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. EXHIBIT 12 EXHIBIT 13EXHIBIT 13 Profile View of Vertical Curve for Road A EXHIBIT 13 Plan View of Vertical Curve for Road A EXHIBIT 13 EXHIBIT 15EXHIBIT 15 EXHIBIT 15 EXHIBIT 15 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM HEARING EXAMINER Agenda Subject/Title: PLT19-0009, Canyon Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat Date: October 5, 2020 Department: Community Development DESCRIPTION: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 6.35 acres into 26 single-family residential lots and five tracts in the R-5, Residential Zone, Five Dwelling Units per Acre district ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Canyon Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat with 13 conditions. PROJECT SUMMARY: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approx. 6.35 acres into 26 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre; the proposal is for 4 units per acre. The proposed lots range in size from approx. 4,500 sq. ft. to 7,776 sq. ft. Roadways to be constructed include widening of 46th Pl. S, construction of a new cul-de-sac extending into the site approx. 570 ft., and construction of one private access road. The site is located within the Lakehaven Water & Sewer District. A sewer main will be extended to the site from an existing manhole north of the site approx. 1,400 ft., then into the site within the new cul- de-sac to serve each proposed lot. Water will be extended into the site within the cul-de-sac from 46th Pl. S to serve each lot. Two open space tracts will be included that contain wetlands/wetland buffers and steep slopes, as well as one private park tract, a private access tract, and a stormwater tract. LOCATION: The project site is located west of 46th Pl. S, approx. 1,400 ft. south of S. 325th St. and approx. 1,000 ft. north of S. 331st St., within SE ¼ of Section 15, Township 21, Range 4. King Co. Parcel No. 152104-9215. APPLICANT(S): Scott Clark, Principal Planner, Larson & Associates, 9027 Pacific Ave. Ste. #4, Tacoma, WA 98444 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Gilbert LeVander, G A L Construction ,Inc., PO Box 2150, Buckley, WA 98321 Summary of Staff Recommendation: Preliminary Plat: Staff recommends the preliminary plat be approved, with 13 conditions. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 2 of 19 Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Classification and Current Land Use: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use Project Site Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential Vacant North Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential Single-family residence South Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential Single-family residences East Single-Family Residential R-5 Residential Single-family residences West King County Right-of-Way (Peasley Canyon Rd.) N/A Peasley Canyon Rd. Excerpted Zoning Map: PROJECT SITE R-5 ZONING CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 3 of 19 Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Map: 2019 Aerial Map: PROJECT SITE R-5 ZONING CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PROJECT SITE Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 4 of 19 Street Layout Map: SEPA STATUS: A combined Notice of Application (NOA) and SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP19-0021 on September 3, 2020, see Exhibit 4. The notice was posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle Times newspaper. The comment period ended September 21, 2020 and the appeal period ended October 5, 2020. One comment was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, see Findings of Fact No. 26, below. No appeal of the SEPA decision was received. FINDINGS OF FACT: Preliminary Plat Findings 1. Scott Clark, Principal Planner, with Larson & Associates, on behalf of Gilbert LeVander, G A L Construction, submitted a Preliminary Plat application and associated SEPA application on May 30, 2019 to subdivide approximately 6.35 acres (referred to in this Staff Report as the “Site”) into a 26-lot single-family residential subdivision. 2. The Site consists of one parcel and is located in the West Hill portion of the City, on the west side of 46th Pl. S., approx. 1,400 ft. south of S. 325th St. and approx. 1,000 ft. north of S. 331st St.. The Site is located within the City of Auburn’s corporate limits, and referenced by King County Tax Assessor Parcel No. 152104-9215. 3. The Site is currently vacant. PROJECT SITE Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 5 of 19 4. The Site is rectangular in shape, as shown and dimensioned here: 5. The Site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family Residential” and is currently zoned R-5, Residential, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre, which has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 6.35 acres, which in accordance with the density calculation, would require between 25.4 (rounded to 25) and 31.75 (rounded to 32) per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065. The Project proposes 26 lots which is 4.1 dwelling units per acre. 6. The Project is subject to the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district in effect at the time the Project application was considered “Complete” (i.e. vested). Per ACC 18.07.030 the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district include:  Minimum lot area: 4,500 square ft.  Minimum lot width: 50 ft.  Lot cot coverage: 40%  Impervious surface: *See ‘Conclusions’ No. B, below*  Maximum building height: 35 ft.  Minimum yard setbacks: o Front: 10 ft. o Side, interior: 5 ft. o Side, street: 10 ft. o Rear: 20 ft. 7. Per ACC 18.52.020 two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence are required. 1323.73 ft. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 6 of 19 8. The eastern 200 ft. of the Site, from 46th Pl. S, is relatively flat, then the next 200 ft. heading west drops at an approx. 13% slope, flattens out for the next approx. 250 ft. heading west then drops off at 40%-plus slopes down to Peasley Canyon Rd. 9. Per the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), the soils found on the site are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Infiltration for the on-site soils is not feasible. With the exception of Lots 3 and 4, all stormwater for the site will be sent to the stormwater pond in the middle-northern area of the site; stormwater from Lots 3 and 4 will be dispersed into the wetland tract. 10. The Site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification. Therefore no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs). 11. The Site is not located within an aquifer recharge area. 12. The Site is not located within any shoreline designation. 13. The Site is not located in the regulatory floodplain per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. 14. No state or federal candidate threatened or endangered plant or animal species or habitat has been identified on the Site. 15. A new street (labeled “Public Road” on the plans) will be constructed approx. 590 ft. into the site and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Based on the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Functional Roadway Classification Map, Road A will be a public “Local Residential” street. Therefore, Road A will be constructed with full street improvements meeting “Local Residential” standards. One shared access and utility tract (Tract A) will extend off of the new street. For full size plans, reference the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7). 16. The Site is located within the utility service areas of, and will be served by, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District (“Lakehaven”) for public water and sewer. Reference Lakehaven Water and Sewer Certificates in Exhibit 13. Sewer will be extended in 46th Pl. S for approx. 1,400 ft. from the north from an existing manhole near S. 342th St. and then through the Site in the new street. Water will be extended into the site in the new public street from the existing main located on the east side of 46th Pl. S. 17. Per the Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 11) there are two small Category III wetlands located on the Site. One is 184 SF (Wetland A) and the other is 3,793 SF (Wetland B); note that the wetland category rating is vested to Ordinance No. 5894, adopted 2005. The wetlands will be placed into a separate tract (Tract B) on the final plat map per Chapter 16.10 ACC requirements, as conditioned below. This tract is inclusive of the 25-ft. wetland buffers shown on the Preliminary Plat Map (Exhibit 12) and in the image below. Buffer width averaging will be utilized for removing approx. 820 SF of buffer area and will be mitigated within Tract B with approx. 4,000 SF of replacement buffer, as shown on Pages 30 and 31 of the Critical Areas Report and Sheet 7 of the Preliminary Civil Plans. The existing wetland buffers are not degraded and therefore will not require enhancement or revegetation. A buffer replacement plan will be required to be submitted along the future submittal of the Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 7 of 19 Public Facility Extension (FAC) (civil) plans for the Project, as conditioned below. 18. The western portion of the site includes Geologically Hazardous Areas and will be set aside in an open space tract (Tract D). No alterations, with the exception of the anchored stormwater pipe (see next Finding), will be done in this tract. 19. One stormwater treatment and flow control facility will be constructed on site, located in Tract C. As provided in the Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Report (Exhibit 11), stormwater treatment and flow control will be managed through a stormwater detention pond (“stormwater pond”) in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Auburn Supplements. Stormwater from the stormwater pond will be meter-released downhill to the west into Mill Creek via an anchored stormwater pipe. West of the property line, where the stormwater will be released into Mill Creek, is King County ROW. A stormwater discharge permit from King County will be required, see Condition No. 4, below. The stormwater detention pond has been sized to handle a limited amount of impervious surface from each lot. As analyzed under ‘Conclusions’ No. B, below, impervious surface limits will be placed on each lot and a note shall be placed on the Final Plat and a covenant recorded on each lot stating as such, see Condition 12, below. 20. To mitigate temporary noise impacts associated with the Project, all construction shall occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday as required per ACC 8.28.010(B)(8) unless a work hour exception is requested and approved as provided in this same code section. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 8 of 19 21. To mitigate increased demand for parks created by the Project, the current park impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.08 ACC ‘Parks Impact Fees’. In addition, an approx. 2,500 SF park tract (Tract E) is proposed south of the open space/wetland tract. 22. To mitigate increased demand for schools created by the Project, the current school impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.02 ACC ‘School Impact Fees’. 23. To mitigate increased demand for fire/emergency services generated by the Project, payment of the fire impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is required in accordance with Chapter 19.06 ACC ‘Fire Impact Fees’. 24. To mitigate increased PM peak hour trips generated by the Project, a traffic impact fee in accordance with the City of Auburn Traffic Impact Fee Schedule shall be assessed at building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.04 ACC ‘Transportation Impact Fees’. 25. To ensure future development of the parcel to the north, ROW dedication along the northern property line will be required. There is an existing 30-ft. ROW on the parcel to the north (King County parcel no. 926280-0310) and 20 ft. of ROW will be dedicated along with the final plat for a distance of approx. 381 ft. for a total ROW width of 50 ft. The required ROW dedication will not extend the full length of the parcel (as is the case for the parcel to the north) as there are critical areas (wetlands and steep slopes) that would inhibit roadway extension any further. 26. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued on September 3, 2020 (Exhibit 4). The notice was posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, published in The Seattle Times newspaper, and sent to any potentially affected agencies. 27. Two comments were received; one from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), and one from Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, summarized as follows: a. Karen Walters (since retired), MIT Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader, expressed concerns over the stormwater discharge to Mill Creek as well as concerns that the drainage way along the western side of 46th Pl. S could be considered a stream. A response memorandum was provided by the Applicant’s consultant, Curtis Wambach with EnviroVector, addressing the concerns and clarifying the conclusions that were initially made. See Exhibit 5 for the comments (email string) as well as the response. b. Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Development Engineering Supervisor, reiterated comments that were provided on the Water & Sewer Availability certificates (Exhibit 13) regarding utility requirements. See Exhibit 5 for reference. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 9 of 19 CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat Conclusions Per ACC 14.03.030, a preliminary plat is a Type III Decision which are quasi-judicial final decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.070 ‘Findings of Fact’ lists the approval criteria for a preliminary plat. A comparison of the project’s relationship to subdivision approval criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis: A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and schools; Staff Analysis: No adverse impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare are anticipated from the proposed subdivision. Staff offers the following analysis of each of subcategory listed in this criterion: Open Spaces: The Project is not subject to any park dedication, open space, or clustering requirements under Title 18 ‘Zoning’ or Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’; however, per ACC 16.10.110(D)(1), the open space and wetland tracts will be required to be placed in separate tracts shown on the final plat indicating that the Homeowners Association (HOA) will own and maintain these areas in perpetuity. Drainage Ways: No existing drainage ways appear to be located on the Site; however a drainage way is located in the ROW along 46th Pl. S., as shown and described in the EnviroVector response memorandum included in Exhibit 5. Through the civil plan review process, the stormwater runoff from the Project will be evaluated, treated, and detained within either the stormwater pond or dispersed to the wetlands, per the Dept. of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Auburn Supplements. Streets, Alleys, other Public Ways: The following roadway(s) and access will be constructed concurrent with the plat: 1. Half-street improvements in accordance with ACC 12.64A to the Site’s frontage on 46th Pl. S. are required which include varying-width paving along the Site frontage as well as off-site to the north and south to meet the City of Auburn Engineering design Standards, as shown on Sheet 1 of the Preliminary Civil Plans. In addition, adequate ROW dedication will be required to accommodate the half-street improvements. 2. The “Public Road” will be extended westerly into the site, off of 46th Pl. S into the Site and will terminate in a cul-de-sac. As a new public “Local Residential” street, the new roadway will be constructed with full street improvements. Road A will feature full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips. Portions of Road A may be posted “No Parking” due to the road width. Also, the cul-de-sac will be posted “No Parking” around their the entire perimeter. 3. Tract A, a 20-ft. paved roadway, is a shared access and utility tract that will extend off of the “Public Road”. Lots 1 and 2 will take access from this private tract. The tract will be marked “No Parking – Fire Lane” on both sides. Tract A will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 10 of 19 4. Pedestrians will be connected to 46th Pl. S via sidewalks along the “Public Road”. 5. 20 ft. of ROW will be dedicated along the northern property line for a distance of approx. 381 ft. to allow for future development on the parcel to the north (926280- 0310). Public Water: The Site is located in the Lakehaven’s water service area. Adequate water service will be provided for the Project. Water will be extended through the Project from an existing water main in 46th Pl. S., within the new public roadway. A water availability certificate is included in Exhibit 13. Public Sanitary Sewer: The Site is located in the Lakehaven’s sewer service area. Adequate sanitary sewer service will be provided for the Project. Sewer will be extended from an existing manhole near S. 324th St., for approx. 1,400 ft. southerly to the Site, where it will then be extended into the site within the “Public Road”. A sewer availability certificate is included in Exhibit 13. Parks, Playgrounds: A recreation tract (Tract E) is proposed on the north side of the new “Public Road”, south of the open space/wetland tract. The tract is approx. 2,500 SF and will include some pedestrian amenities, due be reviewed and determined along with the FAC review. 0.391 acre (17,058 sq. ft.) open space and recreational area is proposed for the Project (Tract E). Since no parks or playgrounds are required under city code authority, park impact fees are required and will be paid at the time of building permit issuance (currently $3,500.00 per unit). The closest park is Centennial Viewpoint Park (approx. 0.7 miles to the east), which offers minimal active or passive features; which is why the Applicant has proposed to include an on-site recreation area. Schools: The Site is located within the Auburn School District boundaries. As provided in the School Access Analysis (Exhibit 8), students within the Project will attend: 1) Evergreen Heights Elementary School, 2) Cascade Middle School, and 3) Auburn High School. This Project does not lie within the “walking zone” of any of these schools. The School Access Analysis indicates there are existing bus stops on the east side of 46th Pl. S, near the undeveloped S. 324th St. Construction of sidewalks within the subdivision and along the projects frontage along 46th Pl. S will provide safe walking routes for students within the Project’s boundaries, however, there are no existing sidewalks elsewhere on 46th Pl. S in the vicinity of the Site, reference the image shown on Page 4 of the School Access Analysis. There are, however, wide gravel shoulders on the east side of 46th Pl. S that would provide safe walking routes for students, if a crosswalk is installed along with this development. Therefore, a condition of approval will be for the Project to include a crosswalk with crossing signage on the civil plans, the location to be coordinated with the City’s Traffic Engineer. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan; Staff Analysis: The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 11 of 19 single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the Site as ‘Single Family Residential’. Therefore this Project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single family dwellings. Additionally, adequate services and facilities can be provided. Lakehaven utilities, such as sewer and water will be extended to serve the proposed Project. The Project will also provide adequate facilities for stormwater; with stormwater being directed to the proposed stormwater pond (Tract C) as well as the wetlands to maintain wetland hydrology. The stormwater pond will be required to meet applicable code and engineering design standards. The stormwater pond has been designed to limit the amount of impervious surface in the subdivision, and specifically for each lot, as shown on the Preliminary Plat Map, which is summarized as follows: - Impervious surfaces (defined in ACC 18.04.497) will be limited as follows:  Lots 1-4, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-26 – maximum 2,700 SF  Lots 5-6 – maximum 2,350 SF  Lots 13-16 – maximum 2,000 SF To ensure future homeowners are aware of the impervious surface limits, a note shall be placed on the Final Plat stating those limits. In addition, a separate covenant shall be recorded on each lot stating the limitations. See Conditions 12, below. A new “Local Residential” public street will be constructed to serve the proposed Project. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of the new roadway as well as along the frontage of the Site on 46th Pl. S. Public services such as the Auburn Police Department, Valley Regional Fire Authority, and the Auburn School District will also serve the proposed Project. Finally, impact fees including traffic, fire, parks, and school impact fees will mitigate respective impacts generated by the Project. The Project is also consistent with or implements the specific following goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element Policies: “CORE Land Use 8. Identify, protect, preserve, and restore Auburn’s environment and natural resources.” “LU-5 New residential development should contribute to the creation, enhancement and improvement of the transportation system, health and human services, emergency services, school system, and park system. This may be accomplished through the development of level of service standards, mitigation fees, impact fees, or construction contributions.” Capital Facilities Element “Objective 1.1. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they require.” Policies: Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 12 of 19 “CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with development.” “CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner.” “CF-4 If adequate facilities are currently unavailable and public funds are not committed to provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own expense in order to develop.” “CF-7 The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to project occupancy or use.” “Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities.” Policies: “CF-10 Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this comprehensive plan.” “CF-12 No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate share of related system needs.” “Objective 1.3. To ensure safe and adequate water service, for both domestic and fire protection purposes, to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “Objective 1.4. To ensure the efficient transmission of sanitary sewage to the appropriate treatment and disposal facilities in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “Objective 1.6. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” Policies: “CF-37 The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements.” Transportation Plan “Connect-01: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community.” “Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.” “Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments.” Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 13 of 19 “Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their needs.” “ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of- way include: - Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development; - Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and - Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.” “Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.” Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan “PR-8 Park impact fees should be established that help fund the future development of new parks, park facilities, trails, and acquisition of open space that meet the needs of an increasing population.” Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council; Staff Analysis: The preceding analysis for Criterion B demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plans adopted by the City. The project is generally consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the PROS Plan. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated in ACC 17.02.030; Staff Analysis: The proposed subdivision meets the general purposes of Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Subdivisions’. The Canyon Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat is a 26-lot subdivision that is consistent with the R-5 zoning district. Adequate provisions for water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, and safe walking conditions will be provided with this Project. The plat has been processed and reviewed for conformity with the regulations for the Auburn City Code, City plans and policies, and COADS. Below is a comparison of the Project’s consistency with ACC 17.02.030 and the specific purpose statements of the subdivision code (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis for each item. “The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within the corporate limits of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and prevent or abate public nuisances in accordance with standards established by the state and the city, and to: 1. Prevent the overcrowding of land; Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 14 of 19 Staff Analysis: The Project meets the minimum density of the R-5 zoning district. As provided under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 5, the R-5 zoning district has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 6.35 acres, which in accordance with the density calculation would require between 25.4 (rounded to 25) and 31.75 (rounded to 32) per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065. The Project proposes 26 lots which is 4.1 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Project is within the densities allowed in the R-5 zone and will not create an overcrowding of the land. 2.. Promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; Staff Analysis: A safe and convenient travel will be provided. The Project will construct one new public road, a cul-de-sac, within the Site. This road will feature sidewalk on both sides of the road, therefore providing pedestrian access through the Project. 3. Promote the effective use of land; Staff Analysis: The Project is effectively developing the Site by maximizing the number of residential units that are allowed for the R-5 zoning district. 4. Provide for adequate light and air; Staff Analysis: The Project will provide adequate light and air through the applicable setback and lot coverage development standards. 5. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; Staff Analysis: The Finding of Facts, and preceding analysis for Criteria A and B demonstrates the Project is providing adequate provisions for water supplies, sanitary wastes, drainage, roads, and other public requirements such as public health, safety, parks, and schools. 6. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing the use of storm water low impact development techniques; Staff Analysis: As described in the ‘Findings of Facts’, above, the Site contains steep slopes in the western portion of the property and wetlands in the northern-middle area of the site. These will remain undisturbed and permanently protected in tracts upon recording of the Final Plat. Per the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), due to the underlying soil conditions, infiltration of stormwater runoff is infeasible and that a combination of a detention pond and dispersion into the wetlands would be a suitable method of managing runoff. As conditioned below, prior to commencement of construction or clearing activities, the boundary for the buffer of Tracts B and D shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing or similar, and will remain in place until all clearing and construction is completed. Vegetation within the open space (wetlands and steep slope) tracts will not be disturbed. Tree protection measures will be implemented to ensure the trees are not injured during construction, as conditioned below. 7. Provide for proper ingress and egress; Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 15 of 19 Staff Analysis: As demonstrated in the analysis for Criterion A, the Project will provide proper ingress and egress for each individual future home. 8. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions which comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies and land use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW; Staff Analysis: Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a timely and comprehensive review of the Project. 9. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state and city; Staff Analysis: The Project will eventually provide for 26 new single-family residences to serve future residents. 10..Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal description; Staff Analysis: Upon final plat map review, the Project will be required to meet all applicable survey requirements. 11. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.” Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criterion B, the Project successfully implements the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD; Staff Analysis: As analyzed in the ‘Preliminary Plat Findings’, above, the Project is able to meet applicable zoning and engineering standards. The placement of homes will be required to meet the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district to which the Project is vested, as amended for impervious surface limitations (reference ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 5). Staff therefore finds that the Project is able to meet this criterion, as conditioned herein. F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment; Staff Analysis: Per Critical Areas Report, two Category III (wetland category rating is vested to Ordinance No. 5894, adopted 2005) wetlands are located on the Site (184 SF and Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 16 of 19 3,793 SF). The wetlands and its buffer will be placed into a separate tract (Tract B) on the final plat map and encumbered by a conservation easement as conditioned below. Per the Geotechnical Report, the western portion of the property contains Geologically Hazardous areas and therefore will be placed into a separate tract and encumbered by a conservation easement, as conditioned below. The Site is also located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, which is the least stringent classification. With the utilization of Best Management Practices, it is anticipated that potential impacts to groundwater can be mitigated. A DNS was issued on September 3, 2020 or this Project. Compliance with the recommended conditions of approval, City Code, and COADS will ensure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. During FAC (civil plan) review process, the Project will be reviewed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal standards to ensure no unacceptable adverse impacts to the environment occur. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances; Staff Analysis: Adequate provisions are made, and will be made through the subsequent civil plan review process, so the proposed Project will prevent or abate public nuisances. As the Site is currently undeveloped, there are no active code violation cases for the site and no known public nuisances. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. H. Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native soils and/or vegetation that are integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm water management manual. Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria A, B, and D above, the Project has been designed such that it will be consistent with the City’s Engineering Design Standards and the Ecology SWMMWW and Auburn Supplement. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Canyon Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat, subject to the information contained in this Staff Report, the attached exhibits, and the 18 recommended conditions of approval below. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 17 of 19 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The open space tracts (Tracts B and D) will be owned and maintained by the future Canyon Ridge Estates Plat Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall address this maintenance responsibility. 2. The Final Plat shall include language and depictions to allow City Staff to access the open space tracts (Tracts B and D). The language shall grant the City access to on-site mitigation areas for the purposes of monitoring, maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the sensitive area, but not the obligation to. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that all trees and other vegetation within the tracts shall remain undisturbed . The vegetation may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed, or damaged without approval in writing from the City, unless otherwise approved by law. 3. A wetland buffer replacement plan shall be included with the FAC (civil) plans addressing the required replacement buffer improvements for impacts to the existing wetland buffers. 4. Prior to approval of the FAC plans, a stormwater discharge permit for the outlet into King County ROW shall be required. 5. A crosswalk with appropriate signage will be required across 46th Pl. S, location and details to be coordinated with the City’s Traffic Engineer shall be included with the FAC plans. 6. Prior to commencement of construction or clearing activities on the site under the FAC, the boundary for Tracts B and D shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing or similar, and shown on the FAC plans. The fencing shall remain in place until all clearing and construction is completed, as determined by the City. 7. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plans shall show permanent split rail fence and critical area signs along the outer boundary of the sensitive area tracts (Tract B and D). The signs shall be made of metal face and attached to fence posts, and posted every 50 ft. Alternatively, the fencing material for the steep slope tract (Tract D) may utilize a different fence design, however, shall include the aforementioned signage. 8. The open space tracts (Tracts B and D) will be owned and maintained by the future Canyon Ridge Estates HOA. A note and depiction shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating as such. 9. Adequate tree protection measures shall be included on the FAC plans to protect all trees within Tracts B and D, consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs). 10. A note must be placed on the face of the Final Plat indicating that Tracts B and D are set aside and reserved for permanent open space and preservation for the benefit of the present and future owner(s) of the lots in this subdivision and the City. No buildings, structures, or similar, shall be placed on said tracts. Said tracts are hereby conveyed to the HOA and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the HOA. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall address this maintenance responsibility. Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 18 of 19 11. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC), provide approved water and sanitary sewer plans from Lakehaven Water and Sewer District. 12. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat, and a separate recorded perpetual covenant on each lot, stating that the individual lots have limits on the amount of impervious surfaces allowed (defined in ACC 18.04.497), per the following limits: a. Lots 1-4, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-26 – maximum 2,700 SF b. Lots 5-6 – maximum 2,350 SF c. Lots 13-16 – maximum 2,000 SF 13. COA Survey Control Monument 804-002 will be impacted by the construction of the road and utility improvements. The monument shall be referenced and preserved per WAC 322- 120 and a DNR Monument Destruction Permit will be required prior to approval of Public Facility Extension Agreement (FAC) plans. The following note shall be placed on the face of the FAC plans: EXISTING MONUMENT LOCATION SHALL BE PRESERVED, PERPETUATED AND/OR RESTORED PER WAC 332-120 UNDER DNR PERMIT NO._______________ 14. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC), provide documentation of application to the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in size. 15. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that The Canyon Ridge Estates Homeowner’s Association and its heirs and successors shall maintain those portions of the tracts containing the stormwater pond and specifically the portions located outside the fenced pond boundaries, or if no fence is provided, outside the 10-year stormwater surface elevation, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to be reviewed by the City shall also address this maintenance responsibility. 16. Vehicles are required to be able to enter/exit without driving beyond the limits of the tract. The applicant/engineer shall provide an adequate turn around area or turning templates how this is achieved for lots 1 and 2 with the future civil site improvement submittal. 17. Hydrology for the existing wetlands shall be maintained and the proposed wetland mitigation areas shall be properly evaluated per Volume I, Appendix I-D of the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in 2014). This means protecting them and ensuring hydrologic functions of the wetland are maintained. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report Staff Member: Gouk Date: October 5, 2020 Page 19 of 19 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1. Staff Report Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map Exhibit 3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Forms Exhibit 4. Combined Notice of Application, SEPA DNS, and Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5. Written Comments and Received and City Responses Exhibit 6. Revised SEPA Checklist, Larson & Associates, dated 2/25/2019 Exhibit 7. Preliminary Civil Plans, Larson & Associates, dated 7/15/2020 Exhibit 8. School Access Analysis, Larson & Associates, dated 3/31/2020 Exhibit 9. Geotechnical Report, Krazan & Associates, dated 4/28/2020 Exhibit 10. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Report, Larson & Associates, dated 7/15/2020 Exhibit 11. Critical Areas Report, EnviroVector, dated 7/9/2020 Exhibit 12. Preliminary Plat Map, Larson & Associates, dated 7/15/2020 Exhibit 13. Lakehaven Water & Sewer Availability Certificates, Lakehaven Water and Sewer District, dated 3/13/2019 Prepared by Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM, Senior Planner 2,666.7 NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet Feet2,666.71,333.30 Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map 10/8/2020Printed Date: Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS Imagery Date: May 2015 Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Form Updated 2/13/2017 1 CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) Planning & Development Department APPLICATION PACKET Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001 Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION INTRODUCTION (TYPE III DECISION) What does Type III refer to? Type III land use and land division decisions are also referred to as quasi-judicial decisions made by the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner following a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner is responsible by City Code to interpret, review, and implement land use, land division, and ot her ordinances and regulations. City staff conducts an initial review of the application and submits a written recommendation to the City’s Hearing Examiner who conducts the public hearing. Interested citizens can participate by giving written or verbal comments on a proposed project or issue. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issues a written decision that can be appealed to the Superior Court of the county in which the property is located (King County or Pierce County). What is a Subdivision? A subdivision is the land use process that provides general approval of division or re-division of land into 10 or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership or development. A subdivision may be used to create conventional lots in residential or commercially zoned areas, clustered residential subdivision lots, or small lot infill development. What is a Preliminary Plat? A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the layout of streets, alleys, lots, blocks, utilities and other elements of a subdivision consistent with RCW 58.17 and provisions of Auburn City Code (ACC) 17.10 (Preliminary Subdivisions). What are the Minimum Requirements for stormwater management? The City is required to implement Minimum Requirements for stormwater management on all new development and redevelopment projects, including short subdivisions. The Minimum Requirements are presented in the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual and must be addressed in accordance with the applicable provisions of ACC 13.48. The Minimum Requirements that must be addressed early in the planning of a preliminary plat are:  #5 – On-Site Stormwater Management (Low Impact Development [LID])  #6 – Runoff Treatment  #7 – Flow Control  #8 – Wetlands Protection  #10 – Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation Can you cluster lots within a subdivision? In certain areas of the City, the City of Auburn allows clustering of lots within a subdivision onto a portion of the site, while maintaining the density. Clustering allows future development to occur at an appropriate density and location for infrastructure services; it also protects environmentally critical areas or cultural/historic features by clustering lots away from these areas. The standards by which clustering is allowed is set forth in ACC 17.26. Form Updated 2/13/2017 2 When is a neighborhood review meeting required? Per ACC 18.02.130, neighborhood review meetings are required for a residential subdivision project comprising forty (40) or more lots or units; or multi-family residential projects comprising forty (40) or more units; or mixed-use development projects comprising forty (40) or more units. How long before I am notified if my application is complete? At the time you submit an application, you must submit all of the written and plan information listed in this application under “Type III Subdivision Application Submittal Checklist”. Within 28 calendar days of receiving your application, City staff will determine if the application is complete based on the attached checklist. If your application is complete you will be notified in writing by City st aff. If your application is incomplete, you will receive a letter from City staff detailing required information to make it complete. What are the criteria for preliminary plat approval? The preliminary plat must conform to general requirements for subdivision including ACC 17.10.070 (Findings of Fact) and RCW 58.17.110 (Factors to be considered and Findings). What is SEPA and when is it applicable? Preliminary plats may be subject to compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) based on the presence of critical areas; proposed grading, required licensing for air emissions or discharges to water; or other factors. If subject to SEPA, an environmental checklist must be submitted with the preliminary plat application. After the Notice of Application comment period expires, the Planning Director – who is the City’s SEPA Responsible Official - issues a SEPA threshold determination (TD), or other SEPA decision as provided in ACC 16.06, RCW 43.21 and WAC 197-11. The SEPA decision is final unless the TD is appealed or the City revises the TD based on further comments during the appeal period. The appeal period is 14 days for a determination of non-significance and 21 days for a mitigated determination of non-significance. If appealed, the appeal must be filed with the City Clerk per ACC16.06.230 and it will be heard by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to ACC 18.66.130. If the SEPA Responsible Official issues a Determination of Significance (DS) because of probable significant impacts by the proposal, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required before the City makes any decision on this application. What if there are CRITICAL AREAS on the property? Projects that involve work within or adjacent to critical areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes, ground water protection areas) may require that the City contract out for expert technical assistance. Pursuant to ACC 16.10, the applicant is responsible for providing any information, mapping, studies, materials, and for paying for inspections or review by a qualified professional acceptable to the City. You will be advised at the earliest possible point if your project will be subject to these types of expenses. What happens after a preliminary plat is approved? Preliminary plat approvals are valid for a period of five years following the date of the notice of final decision (ACC 17.09.110 Time limitations). After preliminary approval is granted, engineering design and construction in compliance with ACC 17.14/Improvement Requirements, must be completed and conditions of preliminary plat approval satisfied. Then an application for final plat can be submitted to the City for review. Once City staff confirms that all conditions and requirements have been met, the final plat is forwarded to the City Council for approval. Following City Council approval, the final plat will be recorded by the City with the county recorder’s office. What are Impact Fees? Impact Fees are fees associated with new development to mitigate the impacts of the development. Impact fees are typically assessed and required to be paid at the time of building permit(s) issuance. Such fees may include fees when there is an associated impact to streets, fire service, schools and city parks per ACC Title 19. PLEASE NOTE: Applicants are responsible for complying with all City Codes and ordinances; and should review all City regulations that may be applicable to their proposed project. For assistance in determining which regulations are applicable, please contact the City of Auburn Permit Center. QUESTIONS? PHONE 253.931.3090 or E-MAIL permitcenter@auburnwa.gov Form Updated 1/30/2017 5 CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) Planning & Development Department APPLICATION Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001 Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS Please indicate whether you are submitting one or more concurrent applications with this application by checking one or more of the boxes below: Type I Applications (administrative decisions made by the city which are not subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA]): Administrative Use Permit Boundary Line Adjustment Boundary Line Elimination Building Permit Excavation Permit Floodplain Development Permit Grading Permit Home Occupation Permit Land Clearing Permit Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit Public Facility Extension Agreement Right-of-way Use Permit Short Subdivision Special Permit Temporary Use Permit (administrative) Utility Permit Type II Applications (administrative decisions made by the city which include threshold determinations under SEPA): Administrative Use Permit Building Permit Floodplain Development Permit Grading Permit Land Clearing Permit Public Facility Extension Agreement Short Subdivision Type III Applications (quasi-judicial final decisions made by the hearing examiner following a recommendation by staff: Conditional Use Permit Preliminary Plat Special Exceptions Special Home Occupation Permit Substantial Shoreline Development Permit Surface Mining Permit Temporary Use Permit Variance Type IV Applications – (quasi-judicial decisions made by the city council following a recommendation by the hearing examiner): Rezone (site-specific) OTHERS - as may apply: SEPA_____________ SHORELINE EXEMPT ___________________ ___________________ Form Updated 1/30/2017 6 CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) Planning & Development Department APPLICATION Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001 Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) LAND SURVEYOR’S CERTIFICATION NAME OF SUBDIVISION: _________________________________________________________________ REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR (COMPANY) NAME (INDIVIDUAL) STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL ENGINEER (COMPANY) NAME (INDIVIDUAL) STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL APPLICANT (COMPANY) NAME (INDIVIDUAL) STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL Land Surveyor’s Certification Land Surveyor Seal and Signature I hereby certify that the accompanying plat has been inspected by me and conforms to all rules and regulations of the platting resolution and standards for Auburn, Washington. SIGNATURE:_____________________________________ PRINTED NAME:__________________________________ DATE:___________________________________________ Canyon Ridge Estates Larson & Associates, Inc. 9027 Pacific Ave Suite #4 Tacoma WA 98444 Larson & Associates, Inc. 9027 Pacific Ave Suite #4 Tacoma WA 98444 G A L Construction, Inc. PO Box 2150 Buckley WA 98321 Thomas E. Battey 05/30/2019 Tom Battey, PLS (253) 474-3404 TBattey@rrlarson.com Grant Middleton (253) 474-3404 GMiddleton@rrlarson.com Gilbert LeVander (253) 862-0339 gslevander@comcast.net Form Updated 1/30/2017 7 CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) Planning & Development Department APPLICATION Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001 Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST DIGITAL COPIES OF WRITTEN MATERIALS AND PLANS & GRAPHICS Please provide a labeled readable compact disc(s) containing digital versions of all submitted written materials and plans and graphics for use by the City of Auburn during the preliminary plat review process. Staff will use this information in report preparation and public noticing so please be sure to provide current and accurate information. Written materials should be submitted to be compatible with Microsoft Office desktop software products. Plans and graphics should be submitted in pdf or tiff format APPLICATION FEES - Make checks payable to the City of Auburn All application fees, including, but not limited to fees for: Preliminary Plats and Public Notice Board Posting. Some fees will not be invoiced until actual costs are known. Current fee schedule can be found @ http://www.auburnwa.gov/community/about/forms.asp under the current Fee Schedule. WRITTEN MATERIALS – Total of ten (10) copies unless otherwise noted A. APPLICATION FORM. Provide a completed application form signed by the property owner(s) and/or applicant with the completed Application Submittal Checklist. (One original and 9 copies) B. LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION. Provide one original letter of authorization to act contained with this application packet inclusive of all required signatures. C. CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS FORM Identify applications that are being submitted concurrent with the subdivision application and concurrent review of a SEPA environmental checklist. D LAND SURVEYOR’S CERTIFICATION Provide one original signed and sealed Land Surveyor’s Certification as contained within this application and completed by a professional land surveyor E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Provide on a separate sheet a legal description of the property to be subdivided. The legal description shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Washington. F. TITLE REPORT (2 Copies) with liability for errors not to exceed the assessed value of the lots on the date of application. The title report shall be issued no more than 30 days prior to the application date (available from a Title Company). The City may request an updated title report prior to preliminary approval at its discretion. G. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICANTION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST – Addressing Written Materials and Drawings with Plans. X X X X X X X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 8 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION H. SEPA CHECKLIST. If applicable, submit a completed environmental checklist together with any supporting documentation, such as a critical areas report (see below), or information to address potential or known environmental impacts resulting from the proposal. I. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (6 copies). If the preliminary plat application is for a new use or an expanded use that will generate traffic, safety or other issues, the City Engineer may require submittal of a traffic analysis prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The City Engineer may make this determination prior to application submittal as part of a pre-application conference meeting request or as part of coordination with the applicant prior to application submittal. Traffic Analysis required and attached. Traffic Analysis is not applicable as determined by the City Engineer Don’t know J. SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS (6 copies). If a residential subdivision is proposed, provide a School Access Analysis to determine the safety of walking conditions for students who walk to and from school (RCW 58.17.110). K. PRELIMINARY STORM REPORT (6 copies). The following Minimum Requirements must be addressed in the preliminary storm report, if applicable to the project, with supporting calculations, justification, and drawings, in accordance with the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (current edition): Minimum Requirement #5 – On-Site Stormwater Management (Low Impact Development [LID]) Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetlands Protection Minimum Requirement #10 – Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation L. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT (6 copies), if applicable, addressing compliance ACC 16.10 (Critical Areas) prepared by a qualified consultant as defined by ACC 16.10.020 as a person who has attained a degree from an accredited college or university in the subject matter necessary to evaluate the critical area in question (e.g., biology, ecology, or horticulture/arboriculture for wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and geology and/or civil engineering for geologic hazards, and hydrogeologist for ground water protection areas), and/or who is professionally trained and/or certified or licensed by the State of Washington to practice in the scientific disciplines necessary to identify, evaluate, manage, and mitigate impacts to the critical area in question. Known or Suspected Critical Area Class Analysis Required Analysis Prepared Wetlands ______ Stream ______ Wildlife Habitat Area ______ Geologic Hazard Area Seismic, steep slope, landslide, & erosion ______ Groundwater Protection Area ______ Other: Flood Hazard - ACC 15.68 ______ X X X X X III C X X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 9 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION M. GEOTECHNICAL SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT (6 copies). Prepared by a geotechnical engineer licensed in the State of Washington. At a minimum, the geotechnical report shall include the required information from Volume I, Section 3.1.1.2 of the DOE’s current Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and address the following: Soil infiltration rate (inches per hour) Seasonal (Winter) High Groundwater Elevation N. EVIDENCE OF WATER/SEWER AVAILABILITY. If the property is located within the City’s Water and/or Sanitary Sewer Service Area, the city shall confirm the applicability of utilities as part of the preliminary plat review process. If the property is located outside the City’s Water or Sanitary Sewer Service Area, application shall include evidence of water and/or sanitary sewer availability from the purveyor or evidence of approval from King County or Pierce County Health Departments for any well and/or on-site sewage disposal system(s) adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Where any lot is proposed to be served by an on-site sewage disposal system, results of preliminary percolation tests for each such proposed lot, conducted under the applicable county department of health rules and regulations, shall be submitted. Water Service by City Sanitary Sewer by City Water and/or Sewer Service by another agency and Availability Certificate attached. On-site sewage disposal system planned and County Health approval attached. On-site well planned and County approval and well covenant are attached. O. RESTRICTIONS. Provide documents containing applicable restrictions, if any, to be imposed upon the use of the land. Such restrictions must be recorded simultaneously with the subdivision. P. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY NOTES. Provide one (1) copy of the summary notes from the Pre-application Conference (if a pre-application conference meeting was held). Q. NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW MEETING DOCUMENTATION. Submit required documentation for neighborhood review meeting required by ACC 18.02.130, if applicable. Neighborhood review meetings are required by ACC 18.02.130.B for residential subdivision project comprising forty (40) or more lots or units; or multi-family residential project comprising forty (40) or more units; or mixed- use development project comprising forty (40) or more units. R. WRITTEN/PLAN/GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE TO MULTI-FAMILY/MIXED USE DESIGN STANDARDS AND INFILL STANDARDS. If applicable to the proposed project, submit required written and plan/graphic documentation demonstrating compliance to the applicable design standards for multi-family or mixed use development contained within the City of Auburn “Multi- Family/Mixed Use Developments Design Standards”. If infill standards apply, submit required written and plan/graphic documentation demonstrating compliance with ACC 18.25. X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 10 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING and PLANS Total of ten (10) copies / full size sets of the preliminary plat submittal & one (1) 11” x 17” copy. All drawings and plans should be folded to fit a legal size file jacket. A. SCALE & LEGIBILITY All drawings and plans must be to scale (engineering scale) no less than 1” = 100’ (1”= 50’ is preferred) and should have a maximum sheet size of 24” x 36”. If more than one (1) sheet is needed, each sheet shall be numbered consecutively and an index sheet showing the entire property at an appropriate scale and orientation to the other sheets shall be provided. All geographic information portrayed by the preliminary plat drawings shall be accurate and legible. A north arrow and graphic scale must be provided for each drawing and plan. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING - List of items to be included: 1. The name of the proposed subdivision, together with the words “Preliminary Plat.” 2. Name, stamp and signature of the professional engineer and professional land surveyor both licensed in the State of Washington who prepared the preliminary plat drawings and associated plans together with their address, e-mail, and phone number. 3. Name, address, e-mail address and phone number of the applicant. 4. Name, address, e-mail address and phone number of each property owner. 5. Section, Township and Range of the subdivision. 6. Legal description. 7. Name of sewer provider or proposed sewer disposal system. 8. Name of water provider or source of water supply. 9. School district. 10. Fire district. 11. Telephone service. 12. Power source. 13. Existing zoning designation. 14. Proposed zoning designation. 15. Residential Table -Provide a table with the following information for each zone classification on the site involving residential land uses: a. Proposed land use (i.e. single family, duplex, multi-family) b. Number of dwelling units proposed c. Density – proposed dwellings per net acre d. Gross acreage e. Net acre area (list f. Minimum number of dwelling required. (Minimum Density X Net Acres) g. Maximum number of dwellings allowed (Base Density X Net Acres) h. Bonus Density Credit (if proposed) i. Existing zoning designation j. Proposed zoning designation k. Approximate area of smallest lot 16. Blank 4” X 4” box for City date and other stamps. 17. Date plan was prepared and space for revision dates for subsequent resubmittals. 18. Vicinity Map: A vicinity map sufficient to define the plat location and boundaries. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION C. PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING - GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION The Preliminary Plat Drawing must be prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Washington and the following graphic features shall be shown on the drawing: 1. Indicate boundaries of the subdivision by a heavy line. Use heavier line weight for streets so they will stand out from the lots and contour lines. 2. The boundaries and approximate dimensions of all proposed lots and tracts to the nearest foot, Include the square footage of each. Identify all lots proposed to be created by lot number and tracts by alphabetic identification, together with the purpose of the tract. Also include the location, width, and purpose of each new easement to be created. 3. Location, widths, and names of all existing or proposed streets, public ways, or private streets within or adjacent to the plat. (City will assign street names after initial review of application and plat) 4. Location of storm water quality/detention facilities, existing vegetation and infiltrative soils areas to be preserved, and natural drainage features. 5 Location of Critical Areas, and Critical Area Buffers. 6 Location of public and private parks, and open space areas 7. A section or quarter section breakdown with appropriate ties to the subject parcel(s). 8. The boundaries of any adjacent property under the same ownership as the land to be subdivided. 9. All existing property lines lying within the proposed subdivision which are to be vacated. 10. Where the property has been previously subdivided, the original lots, blocks, street easements, etc., shall be shown in dotted lines in scale with the proposed subdivision. 11. Identify setbacks from proposed property lines and easements for existing structures to remain. 12. Show location of all physical and legal description encroachments affecting the boundary between the application site and the adjoining parcels. Encroachments may be from the application site onto the adjoining parcels or from the adjoining parcels onto the application site. D. EXISTING FEATURES PLAN / FIELD TOPOGRAPHY Provide a plan be prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed with the State of Washington showing the following: 1. Existing topography of the land indicated with contours at 2-foot intervals when slopes are 5% or less and 5-foot intervals for slopes exceeding 5% within the boundaries of the proposal. Identify all slopes 25 percent or greater on or within 25 feet of the site. Contours for streets abutting the property must also be included. Contour lines shall be labeled at intervals not to exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall be based upon current City Datum in accordance with the City’s Engineering Design Standards. 2. Location of existing vegetation on site, specifically identifying “Significant Trees” defined as healthy evergreen tree, six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade, or a healthy deciduous tree four inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade (ACC 15.74.030N.). 3. Show location and extent of all critical areas; shorelines of the state; FEMA flood designations; hydrologic features within 200 feet of the boundaries to the site; and required buffers and/or setbacks. Indicate if streams are intermittent and the limits of any wetlands. Identify the limits of the 25-year floodplain for streams and 100-year floodplain for rivers. Provide names of all water features and all drainage basins served X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 12 by or containing these features. Contours for these features must be sufficient to accurately determine the existing character. 4. Show all existing structures, including rockeries fences and walls; and parcels both within the proposed subdivision and within 100 feet of the boundaries of the proposed subdivision. Indicate whether or not the on-site structures will be removed or relocated. 5. The location, widths, and purposes of any existing easements including recording numbers, lying within the proposed subdivision; and any known adjacent easements. 6. Show the location of existing utilities on the property and within adjacent right-of-way. E. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN. Provide a conceptual grading plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of W ashington, showing: 1. Existing and proposed grades with cross sections to demonstrate code compliance. 2. Location of proposed clearing and grading limits. 3. Contour lines at 2-foot intervals when slopes are 5% or less and 5-foot intervals for slopes exceeding 5% within the boundaries of the proposal. Contour lines shall be labeled at intervals not to exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall be based upon current City Datum in accordance with the City’s Engineering Design Standards. Existing contour lines which will be altered through filling or excavation shall be indicated by broken lines (final contour lines shall be indicated by solid lines). 4. The conceptual grading/clearing plan must identify grading required on site and within proposed or existing right-of-way. 5. Contours for critical area features must be sufficient to accurately determine the existing character and extent of proposed change. F. CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN - Water, Sewer, Storm and Other Provide a conceptual utility plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington showing all utility infrastructure needed to serve the subdivision and/or methodology prepared in accordance with the City’s comprehensive plans, engineering standards or ordinance requirements. The conceptual utility plan shall include information to ensure that utilities can be constructed consistent with the preliminary plat layout and that the facilities will ultimately meet City design requirements including adequate maintenance and repair access. The Plan shall specify the following information: 1. Background grading contours and adequate horizontal and vertical datum. 2. The location of all existing and proposed ditches, culverts, catch basins, and other parts of the design for the control and conveyance of surface water drainage; and existing and proposed water quality facilities. 3. The location of tracts or easements (or other areas) dedicated for retention , detention, and drainage facilities. 4. The location and size of existing sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water lines or other utilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. 5. The location, size and vertical profile for all proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water lines or other utilities to serve the proposed subdivision. 6. The location of any well used for domestic water supply existing within the proposed subdivision or within one hundred (100) feet of the boundaries of the proposed subdivision. 7. The location of other utilities other than those provided by the City. 8. If electrical transmission lines cross the subject property, show locations of poles and towers. Identify overhead electrical, and other facilities that are required to be undergrounded. 9. Place all regional utility lines crossing the site in tract(s) or easements. 10. Identify any non City facilities, such as: booster stations, PVR’s, wells, or lift stations proposed to serve the proposed subdivision. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 13 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION G. TRANSPORTATION PLAN - Neighborhood Circulation, Conceptual Street, and Access 1. Planned street system. The planned street system must be compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Development which is proposed in areas of the city which have a planned street system which is a part of the comprehensive plan or the city’s six (6) year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such streets and must not preclude implementation of such street plans. 2. Provide a conceptual street and access plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The plans shall show existing and proposed streets, access points and access points adjacent or on the opposite side of the subject property’s frontage. The application shall also include a transportation site plan for streets, pedestrian, and bike facilities. The site plan shall include adequate horizontal and vertical information to ensure the transportation facilities can be constructed consistent with the preliminary plat layout. The plan should show: a. The location, right-of-way widths, pavement widths, classifications and names of all existing or platted streets, whether public or private, and other public ways including railroads right of way within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. b. The boundaries and approximately dimensions of all proposed streets to the nearest foot. c. Adequate horizontal and vertical street geometrics to ensure compliance with City Standards for all proposed streets. Including plan and profile drawings of all proposed streets. d. Sight distance triangles for entry to all streets and at all intersections (private and public). e. Typical roadway sections, including streetlights and street trees for all proposed streets and existing frontage streets. 3. Non-motorized transportation routes. Preliminary plats and binding site plans which are proposed in areas of the city which have planned routes or facilities for bicycles, equestrian, or other non-motorized transportation mode which is a part of the comprehensive plan or the city’s six (6) year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such routes and must not preclude implementation of such routes. 4. A non-motorized circulation system shall be integrated into the overall subdivision and surrounding area as follows: a. When abutting vacant or underdeveloped land, new developments shall provide for the opportunity for future connection to its interior pathway system through the use of pathway stub-outs, building configuration, and/or parking lot layout. The proposed location of future non-motorized and pedestrian connections shall be reviewed in conjunction with applicable development approval. b. Developments shall include an integrated non-motorized circulation system that connects buildings, open spaces, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system. c. Pedestrian connections to existing or proposed trails/pedestrian routes on adjacent properties shall be provided unless there are physical constraints such as critical areas that preclude the construction of a pedestrian connection. d. Show walking conditions and planned improvements for students who only walk to and from school for a residential subdivision (RCW 58.17.110). X X X X X X X X X X X X X Form Updated 1/30/2017 14 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION H. LANDSCAPE PLAN The Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a professional landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington showing existing wooded areas, meadows, rock outcroppings, proposed and required buffers, open spaces, street trees, significant trees, ornamental landscaping, and other landscape features. The Plan shall identify areas to be cleared and those significant trees to be retained and those to be removed. This plan needs to include background information, including: sight distance triangles, proposed utilities, driveway access, and street lighting to show that all required improvements can be met by the proposed subdivision. I. PHASING PLAN If applicable show divisions of the plat and a proposed timetable for construction of each division. Including the phasing of the public improvements required to serve each phase of the project and how each phase will individually meet City standards and requirements. (i.e. may need to extend utility improvements beyond phase lines to complete looping or to reach appropriate terminus points of the utility systems.) DECISION CRITERIA FOR SUBDIVISIONS The following State and City Codes comprise the main factors to be considered in review of a subdivision application. To assess compliance of the subdivision with these codes, the City relies on policies, codes, special studies, SEPA and other applicable documentation. This list does not include all possible applicable codes. RCW 58.17.110 - Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication — Factors to be considered Conditions for approval — Finding — Release from damages (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners. X Form Updated 1/30/2017 15 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION RCW 58.17.120 - Disapproval due to flood, inundation or swamp conditions — Improvements — Approval conditions The city, town, or county legislative body shall consider the physical characteristics of a proposed subdivision site and may disapprove a proposed plat because of flood, inundation, or swamp conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. No plat shall be approved by any city, town, or county legislative authority covering any land situated in a flood control zone as provided in chapter 86.16 RCW without the prior written approval of the department of ecology of the state of Washington. AUBURN CITY CODE – ACC 17.10.070 - Findings of Fact: Preliminary plats shall only be approved if findings of fact are drawn to support the following: A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and for schools; B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan; C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council; D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated in ACC 17.02.030; E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD ; F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment; and, G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances. NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Canyon Ridge Estates 25-Lot Preliminary Plat SEP19-0021 / PLT19-0009 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The project application and listed studies may be reviewed by contacting the Department of Community Development at planning@auburnwa.gov or by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approx. 6.35 acres into 25 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre; the proposal is for 4 units per acre. The proposed lots range in size from approx. 4,500 sq. ft. to 7,776 sq. ft. Roadways to be constructed include widening of 46 th Pl. S and construction of a new cul-de- sac extending into the site approx. 570 ft. and one private access road. The site is located within the Lakehaven Water & Sewer District. A sewer main will be extended to the site from an existing manhole north of the site approx. 1,400 ft., then into the site within the new cul-de-sac to serve each proposed lot. Water will be extended into the site within the cul-de-sac from 46th Pl. S to serve each lot. Two open space tracts will be included that contain wetlands/wetland buffers and steep slopes, as well as one private park tract and a stormwater tract. Location: West side of 46th Pl. S, approx. 1,400 ft. south of S. 325th St. and approx. 1,000 ft. north of S. 331st St., see Vicinity Map below. King Co. Parcel No. 152104-9215. Notice of Application: September 3, 2020 Application Complete: July 25, 2019 Permit Application: May 30, 2019 File Nos. SEP19-0021 PLT19-0009 Applicant/Owner: Gilbert A. LeVander G A L Construction, Inc. PO Box 2150 Buckley, WA 98321 Applicant’s Scott Clark Representative: Larson & Associates, Inc. 9027 Pacific Ave. Suite #4 Tacoma, WA 98444 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:  Preliminary Civil Plans, Larson & Associates (4/8/2019, 12/16/2019, 7/15/2020)  Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, Larson & Associates (4/18/2019, 12/17/2019, 7/15/2020)  Critical Areas Report, EnviroVector (10/8/2018, 7/19/2020)  Geotechnical Report, Krazan & Associates (10/22/2018, 12/16/2019, 4/28/2020)  Preliminary Plat Layout, Larson & Associates (5/30/2019, 12/20/2019, 7/15/2020)  Lakehaven Water & Sewer Availability Certificates (3/13/2019)  School Access Analysis, Larson & Associates (5/30/2019, 1/8/2020, 7/15/2020)  Arborist Report, Sound Urban Forestry (2/5/2019) 6 26 NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP19-0021 / PLT19-0009 (Continued) Page 2 of 4  Landscape Planting & Buffer Mitigation Plan, Nature by Design (11/21/2019) Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:  Public Facility Extension (FAC) / Grading/Storm Permit(s) Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 p.m. on September 21, 2020 to the mailing address of 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 or to planning@auburnwa.gov. Please note, due to the current Governor’s Stay Home Stay Safe order, mailed comments may not be received by City Staff on time for inclusion in the packet provided to the Hearing Examiner and email comments are recommended. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 5, 2020. Public Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the Preliminary Plat on October 21, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. The public hearing will be held virtually and telephonically via Zoom. A future notice will be sent out that includes the Zoom information. Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W. Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. For citizens with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For questions regarding this project, please contact Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5031. NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP19-0021 / PLT19-0009 (Continued) Page 3 of 4 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate POSITION/TITLE: Director of Community Development ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 253-931-3090 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. September 3, 2020 NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP19-0021 / PLT19-0009 (Continued) Page 4 of 4 Vicinity Map Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout S. 296TH ST. 59TH AVE. S S. 292ND ST. 64TH AVE. S MEREDITH HILL ELEMENTARY PROJECT SITE ***UPDATE*** VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Canyon Ridge Estates PLT19-0009 Per the Notice of Public Hearing posted on September 3, 2020, the information below are the instructions for attending the virtual hearing on Zoom on October 21, 2020 for the proposed Preliminary Plat of Canyon Ridge Estates. ZOOM MEETING INFO: https://zoom.us/j/93501051768 Meeting ID: 935 0105 1768, or via one tap mobile: +12532158782, 93501051768# US (Tacoma). Dial by your location: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma), 877 853 5257 US Toll-free, 888 475 4499 US Toll-free; Meeting ID: 935 0105 1768. Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aH1l5SrUV. Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W. Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. For citizens with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For questions regarding this project, please contact Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5031. Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout CANYON RIDGE ESTATES CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON RESPONSE TO MUCKLESHOOT FISHERIES DIVISION Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist and Principal EnviroVector 4 October 2020 www.envirovector.com 4 October 2020 Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Reference: Canyon Ridge Estate Subject: Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Dear Mr. Gouk: This letter has been prepared in response to comments by Karen Walter of the Muckleshoot Tribe. A vicinity map is provided in Figure 1. An Existing Conditions map is provided in Figure 2. 1.0 MILL CREEK CONCRETE FLUME & FISH BARRIERS Ms. Walter states that the environmental reports submitted by EnviroVector are incomplete because they do not address downstream fish barriers on Mill Creek. This response addresses downstream fish barriers on Mill Creek. A concrete flume is located on the northwestern corner of the subject property (Figure 3; Appendix A, Photos 1-10). Fast moving water rapidly flows through the concrete flume with no channel diversity or appreciable aquatic habitat (Appendix A, Photos 3 & 4 & 7-10). The culvert under Peasley Canyon Road is mapped as a total fish barrier by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Appendix A, Photos 5 & 6; Appendix B). No impacts to salmonids are expected to occur in Mill Creek as a result of this project because no scouring or erosion is expected to occur in the concrete channel and because no salmonids are likely to occur in Mill Creek to more than three thousand (3,000) feet downstream of the subject property (Appendix B). The project applies all the current stormwater requirements to protect aquatic life downstream of the subject property. A number of partial and total fish barriers are documented downstream by the WDFW Fish Passage Inventory (Appendix B; Table 1). Thereby, no fish are expected to occur in Mill Creek at the subject property. Also, one (1) total fish barrier is mapped in Mill Creek downgradient of the roadside stormwater ditch on 46th Lane S. Thereby, no fish are expected to occur in either Mill Creek or the roadside stormwater ditch at the subject property. EnviroVector 1441 West Bay Drive Suite 301 Olympia, WA 98502 Phone: (360) 790-1559 Email: curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 3 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Table 1: List of fish barriers mapped in Appendix B Fish Barrier Degree of Blockage Type of Barrier Distance from Subject Property Comments 1 Likely Total Barrier Corrugated plastic pipe 3,000 ft Corrugated plastic pipe spilling jetted water over a steep vertical fall 2 Total Fish Barrier Perched concrete culvert 2,300 ft Peached concrete culvert with flat bottom 3 Natural Fish Barrier Natural fish barrier 2,000 ft Waterfall 4 Not a Barrier Concrete flume 1,700 ft No Habitat 5 Total Fish Barrier Concrete culvert 200 ft Concrete culvert with flat shallow bottom 6 Partial Fish Barrier Concrete waterfall 50 ft Concrete flume and waterfall 7 Total Fish Barrier Concrete flume 600 ft north Concrete banks and flat shallow bottom 2.0 NO FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL IN STORMWATER CONVEYANCE Ms. Walter states that “it shows a stream on WDFW maps and King County maps. With the flow showing up in June, it is likely a stream, not a stormwater conveyance….” The EnviroVector (9 July 2020) Response to City of Auburn addressed and resolved any uncertainty or confusion regarding agency databases. Since this research has already been prepared and submitted to the City of Auburn, no duplicate effort will be presented in this current document. However, the City of Auburn provides a map showing piping at and downgradient of the subject property, indicating that the referenced drainage is a roadside stormwater conveyance system (Insert 1). A more expansive map of downgradient piping is provided in Figure 4, which shows extensive piping as the stormwater conveyance carries water away from the frontage of the property. No surface conveyance was observed immediately south of the subject property. However, a small reach of surface conveyance is presumed one hundred forty (140) feet south of the subject property on 46th Place S but has not been verified under the dense thicket of Himalayan blackberry. Insert 1. Roadside Stormwater Conveyance City Mapped Ditch and Pipes at Subject Property Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 4 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Figure 4 shows photo points for which the photos are found in Appendix A. The roadside stormwater conveyance ditch at the eastern edge of the subject property is very shallow and densley vegetated (Appendix A, Photos 21-24). Water capacity in this intermittent ditch would severely limit any potential aquatic life. The roadside ditch completely disappears on 46th Place S immediately south of the subject property (Figure 4; Appendix A, Photo 19). The majority of the roadside area south of the subject property is flat and is vegetated by non-wet- adapted plants, including orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum, FACU) with no indication of a surface conveyance (Appendix A, Photos 11-14). No surface conveyance is observed on 46th Place S at two hundred eighty (280) feet south of the subject property (Appendix A, Photo 20). The conveyance bends to the west at approximately three hundred sixty (360) feet downgradient of the subject property where no surface conveyance is observed (Appendix A, Photos 15-18). Ms. Walter states that “the stream assessment is still incomplete and does not firmly establish this stream as having no fish habitat potential.” Ms. Walter states that the project biologist should assess the open channel sections for the potential to meet physical criteria from WAC 222-16-031 unless there is a natural barrier downgradient as determined by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Fish Passage and Barrier Assessment Manual. A natural fish barrier occurs downgradient of the subject property in the form of a gradient barrier (Figure 5). For a stream reach to be considered a gradient barrier, a water surface slope of twenty percent (20%) or greater should be sustained for a minimum length of one hundred sixty (160) meters or five hundred twenty-four (524) feet, according to the WDFW (2019) Fish Passage and Barrier Assessment Manual. Figure 5 shows a twenty three percent (23%) slope for a distance of five hundred seventy (570) feet, which satisfies the definition of natural fish barrier under WDFW (2019) Fish Passage and Barrier Assessment Manual. Thereby, a natural fish barrier occurs downgradient of the subject property on this small, intermittent conveyance. Also, low water capacity is a fish barrier. When low water capacity is combined with a gradient barrier, the potential for a total fish barrier is amplified. Fish cannot climb dry slopes. In addition, a total fish barrier is located approximately one thousand eight hundred (2,300) feet downstream of the subject property on Mill Creek south of Highway 18 (Appendix B, Fish Barrier #2). No fish are thought to pass this total fish barrier upstream to the roadside stormwater conveyance ditch. No fish habitat potential occurs in the stormwater conveyance ditch because of low water capacity, no appreciable aquatic habitat, stormwater conveyance pipes, and total fish barriers, including a natural fish barrier, downgradient. Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 5 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Conclusion This response letter fully addresses concerns from Karen Walter of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division as presented in emails to the City. No fish are expected to occur in either Mill Creek or the roadside stormwater ditch at the subject property as a result of numerous partial and total fish barriers downgradient. The majority of the roadside area is piped immediately downgradient of the subject property. A gradient barrier occurs downgradient of the subject property and the stormwater pipes. A total fish barrier is mapped in Mill Creek below the confluence with this roadside stormwater conveyance. No fish are expected to pass these total fish barriers. If you have any questions or require further services, you can contact me at (360) 790-1559. Sincerely, Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist and Principal EnviroVector Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 6 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Figures SubjectPropertyS 320th StreetInterstate 5Highway 167Ho g hw a y 1 8 S Peasley Canyon RdHighway 18Interstate 5Highway 167PugetSound360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 14500'0Scale: 1" = 4500'Vicinity Map3 October 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesAuburnFederal WayAlgonaKentDes Moines © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS Wetland BWetland A46th Place SouthS Peasley Canyon RoadMill CreekConcreteFlumeStormwater &Road RunoffConveyancePipePipePipePipe Approx.LocationPhoto 20Photo 18Photo 23Photo 19Photos 13-16Peasley Canyon Road360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 3150'0Scale: 1" = 150'Existing Conditions3 October 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesWetlandWater CourseStormwater Pipes © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS Wetland B S P e a s l e y C a n y o n R o a dMi l l Creek Concrete Flume Peasley Canyon Road Mill Creek Concrete Flume Figure 3 3 October 2020 Scale: 1" = 60' 0 60' 360-790-1559 curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Canyon Ridge Estates © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS 46th P lace Sou th Stormwater & Road Runoff Conveyance Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Approx. Location Photo 20 Photo 18 Photo 23 Photo 19 Photos 13-16 Mill Creek Concrete Flume Figure 4 3 October 2020 Scale: 1" = 120' 0 120' 360-790-1559 curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Canyon Ridge Estates Photo Point (See Appendix B) Stream © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS Photo 18 Gradient Barrier to Fish Access Figure 5 3 October 2020 Scale: 1" = 100' 0 100' 360-790-1559 curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Canyon Ridge Estates23% Gradient for 570 feet For a stream reach to be considered a gradient barrier, a water surface slope of 20% or greater should be sustained for a minimum length of 160 meters or 524 feet (WDFW 2019 Fish Passage Inventory Manual) Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 7 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Appendix A Photographs Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 8 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Mill Creek Concrete Flume Photo 1. Waterfall and fish barrier on concrete flume Photo 2. Concrete flume on Mill Creek Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 9 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Photo 3. Concrete flume creates a long fast water glide Photo 4. Concrete flume creates a long fast water glide Photo 5. Concrete flume at culvert under Peasley Canyon Rd Photo 6. Concrete flume at Peasley Canyon crossing Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 10 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Photo 7. Concrete flume creates a long fast water glide Photo 8. Fast moving water moves through concrete flume Photo 9. Concrete flume creates a long fast water glide Photo 10. Fast moving water moves through concrete flume Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 11 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Roadside Stormwater Conveyance Photo 11. Drainage piped underground next to road Photo 12. Drainage piped underground next to road Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 12 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Photo 13. Drainage piped underground next to road Photo 14. Orchard grass (FACU) & bracken fern (FACU) Photo 15. Drainage pipe mapped in this location Photo 16. Red paint lines lead to square painted in road Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 13 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Photo 17. Drainage pipe mapped in this location Photo 18. Drainage pipe mapped in this location Photo 19. Drainage piped underground next to road, no ditch Photo 20. Drainage piped underground next to road, no ditch Photo 21. Dry roadside ditch at property, thickly vegetated Photo 22. Dry roadside ditch at property, thickly vegetated Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 14 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Photo 23. Dry roadside ditch at property, thickly vegetated Photo 24. Dry roadside ditch at property, thickly vegetated Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 15 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Appendix B Fish Barriers on Mill Creek Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 16 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 1 Subject Property 7 6 2 5 4 3 Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner 4 October 2020 Page 17 of 17 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division From: Scott Clark <SClark@rrlarson.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:57 AM To: Thaniel Gouk Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Attachments: Canyon Ridge Response (4 October 2020).pdf CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Good morning, Thaniel. Pursuant to your request, please find attached the response material regarding the query received from Karen Walter of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. If you need anything more or you need me to submit via DropBox, please let me know. Best regards, Scott Clark Priciple Planner Secretary 253-474-3404 253-625-3340 From: Thaniel Gouk [mailto:tgouk@auburnwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:53 AM To: Scott Clark Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Sooner rather than later. I don’t want anything to get held up. From: Scott Clark <SClark@rrlarson.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:44 PM To: Thaniel Gouk <tgouk@auburnwa.gov> Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Thaniel, Ok, I’ll forward to our biologist for clarification. Will the timing of his contact/response hold up progress on your end? Best regards, Scott Clark Principal Planner Secretary Office: 253-474-3404 Cell: 253-625-3340  Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Thaniel Gouk [mailto:tgouk@auburnwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 12:21 PM To: Scott Clark Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Hi Scott. I would like if your consultant could look at her latest message and either provide a response or he can contact her directly to discuss. I saw the updated plans came in as well, I’ll ask Steve to take a look. Thanks, Thaniel From: Scott Clark <SClark@rrlarson.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:14 PM To: Thaniel Gouk <tgouk@auburnwa.gov> Subject: FW: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Good afternoon, Thaniel. Thanks for your efforts in working with Ms. Walter. Is there anything further we need to do from our end? Best regards, Scott Clark Principal Planner Secretary Office: 253-474-3404 Cell: 253-625-3340  Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2020 2:02 PM To: Thaniel Gouk Cc: Steven Sturza; Scott Clark Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Thaniel, Thanks for pointing this out. The consultant’s information notes that this is a stream and not a ditch per KC information that includes mapping the location correctly onsite. However, the stream assessment is still incomplete and does not firmly establish this stream as having no fish habitat potential. The downstream piping is not the basis for this determination; rather instead the open channel sections of the stream should be assessed for the potential to meet physical criteria from WAC 222-16-031 unless there is a natural barrier downstream as determined by WDFW’s Fish Passage and Barrier Assessment Manual. Best, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Thaniel Gouk [mailto:tgouk@auburnwa.gov] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2020 1:55 PM To: Karen Walter Cc: Steven Sturza; Scott Clark Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Hi Karen, if you look at Page 7 and 8 of the wetland response letter I sent earlier, it shows the research done by the consultant for the ditch. From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 11:22 AM To: Thaniel Gouk <tgouk@auburnwa.gov> Cc: Steven Sturza <ssturza@auburnwa.gov>; Scott Clark <SClark@rrlarson.com> Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Yes, it shows a stream on WDFW maps and King County maps. With the flow showing up in June, it is likely a stream, not a stormwater conveyance…. Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Thaniel Gouk [mailto:tgouk@auburnwa.gov] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2020 10:56 AM To: Karen Walter Cc: Steven Sturza; Scott Clark Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Karen – there is a roadside ditch along 46th Pl. SE, is that the one you are referring to? Also, along Peasley Canyon Rd. there is what we have labeled as Mill Creek that is outside of the City limits (unincorporated KC). I was out there just north of this property on the east side of Peasley a few years ago looking at the storm outfall from the Auburn Assemblage plat so I’m somewhat familiar with the area in question. What they are proposing is to release stormwater in a pipe down the slope on the west side of their property into an existing culvert that crosses Peasley Canyon Rd., here is a screenshot from our GIS: Here is a snippet from the SSP: And here is a screenshot from the SSP showing where the stormwater is being discharged. Please keep in mind that the City limits stop at the western boundary of the site so King County will have jurisdiction past that; the Applicant is aware they need to work with KC. Stormwater treatment for this site is proposed to meet the City of Auburn and DOE engineering and stormwater standards. These standards have been deemed sufficient to protect natural features from water quality issues. The stormwater from this site will be treated using a Modular Wetland, BioPod, or wetpool in combination with a Storm Detention Pond and then released to the natural discharge point of the site. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks, Thaniel From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:49 AM To: Thaniel Gouk <tgouk@auburnwa.gov> Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments From a quick glance, none of the documents address the issues… Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Thaniel Gouk [mailto:tgouk@auburnwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 11:28 AM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Karen – I will follow-up and respond to your comments. Can you take a look at these documents and see if it clarifies anything? It’s the first review of the wetland report, my comment letter, then the consultants response. Note that there was no second review, it skipped to the one I sent you this morning. Thanks, Thaniel From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:07 AM To: Thaniel Gouk <tgouk@auburnwa.gov> Cc: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov>; Martin Fox <Martin@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Thaniel, Thank you again for sending us the wetland/stream report and the stormwater plan for the Canyon Ridge Estates project referenced above. We have reviewed this information and offer the following comments: 1. Unnamed stream/ditch to Mill Creek The wetland/stream report notes the existing of a stream/ditch and concludes that this is an unregulated stream without providing sufficient information to support this conclusion. Several sources note this to be a stream, including WDFW’s fish passage map. Further, pictures of the stream in the stream/wetland show flow in the stream in a photo dated May which suggests that this is not just a roadside ditch draining stormwater. More information is needed particularly as it appears that a portion of the stream will be piped further with this project. We encourage Auburn to work with us and WDFW on this stream issue to ensure that the stream is correctly classified; potential impacts identified and any mitigation for unavoidable impacts. These potential impacts include but are not limited to, additional piping of the stream, permanent buffer reductions, etc. 2. Stormwater impacts The project is proposing to discharge its treated stormwater to Mill Creek downslope of the site using basic treatment methods. The project should be using enhanced treatment methods to reduce pollutants in stormwater that adversely affect salmon, including coho salmon. Please note that the fish distribution discussion in the wetland/stream report is incomplete as WDFW has noted the existence of barriers that would affect salmon distribution (see attachment). The stormwater report notes that the stormwater will be discharged into a concrete channel section of Mill Creek. Does this concrete portion exist already? Who owns this section of the creek? Again, a concrete lined portion of the stream would very likely limit fish passage and affect fish distribution. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City of Auburn/applicants’ responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Thaniel Gouk [mailto:tgouk@auburnwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 7:27 AM To: 'cblansfield@auburn.wednet.edu'; 'mayor@algonawa.gov'; 'brian.davis@cityoffederalway.com'; 'jdodge@ci.pacific.wa.us'; 'separegister@ecy.wa.gov'; 'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov'; 'MARI461@ECY.WA.GOV'; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov'; 'jim.chan@kingcounty.gov'; 'hubenbj@dshs.wa.gov'; 'tosborne@lakehaven.org'; 'jmartinson@dieringer.wednet.edu'; 'kbush@mbaks.com'; Karen Walter; 'shirlee.tan@kingcounty.gov'; 'cmoore@fwps.org'; 'tim@futurewise.org'; 'Valerie.Garza@kingcounty.gov'; 'josh.baldi@kingcounty.gov'; 'Steve.Bleifuhs@kingcounty.gov'; 'beth.humphreys@kingcounty.gov'; 'laila.mcclinton@kingcounty.gov'; 'McCollD@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'Jim.Ishimaru@kingcounty.gov'; Jeffrey Watson; Krongthip Sangkapreecha; Rob Otsea; Laura Murphy; 'sepa@dahp.wa.gov'; 'jeff.payne@pse.com'; 'amy.hendershot@usda.gov'; Karen Stewart VRFA; 'Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov'; 'mindy@wecprotects.org'; 'SEPA.reviewteam@doh.wa.gov' Cc: Planning-1 Subject: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Please see the attached SEPA DNS and associated SEPA Checklist for a proposed 26-lot subdivision within the West Hill portion of the City. Thanks, Effective March 25, 2020, in response to Gov. Inslee’s Stay Home Stay Safe directive, the City of Auburn has closed City Hall and the Annex Customer Service Center until further notice. I am currently out of the office but working remotely from home. I have access to email and voicemail but will be responding to all inquiries by email only. Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.804.5031 | tgouk@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 Customer Service Survey Application Forms Zoning Maps The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. From: Brian Asbury <BAsbury@lakehaven.org> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 12:26 PM To: Thaniel Gouk Subject: RE: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates Attachments: CityAub-PLT 19-0009.pdf CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Thaniel, Some LWSD water/sewer comments regarding the proposed 26-lot SFR subdivision on parcel 1521049215. Let me know if there’s any questions or if additional information is needed at this time. WATER · Lakehaven issued a Water Certificate of Availability for the proposed project/property on 3/13/19; Certificate is valid for one-year from date of issuance (however, conditions noted in this Certificate have not changed). · Fire Flow at no less than 20 psi available within the existing water distribution system is a minimum of 1,000 GPM (approximate) for two (2) hours or more. This flow figure represents Lakehaven’s adopted minimum level of service goals for residential areas regarding performance of the existing water distribution system under high demand conditions. If more precise available, &/or estimated onsite, fire flow figures are required or desired, Applicant can request Lakehaven perform a system hydraulic model analysis. 2020 cost for a system hydraulic model analysis is $240.00. · A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new and/or abandon and/or modify existing water distribution system facilities for the proposed development. It’s presumed two (2) points of connection to existing LWSD water distribution system mains will be required (e.g., off NE & SE corners of property). Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing & submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre- Design Meeting or a DE Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre- design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. · Service pressure(s) greater than 80 psi indicated, Pressure Reducing Valve(s) indicated, contact local building official for requirements &/or additional information. · The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven, prior to activating any new domestic or irrigation water service connections. · Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection fees/charges/deposits (2020 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. o Water Service/Meter Installation, 1” preliminary size: $640.00 drop-in meter fee (each). Actual size TBD by Lakehaven based on UPC plumbing fixture count. o Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water: $4,180.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). SEWER · Lakehaven issued a Sewer Certificate of Availability for the proposed project/property on 3/13/19; Certificate is valid for one-year from date of issuance (however, conditions noted in this Certificate have not changed). · A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new and/or abandon and/or modify existing sanitary sewer system facilities for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing & submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre-Design Meeting or a DE Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. · Due to ground elevations in this area, some portion/number of the proposed new SFR lots will require private grinder pump connections. · Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection fees/charges/deposits (2020 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. o Sewer Service Connection permit: $480.00 (each). o Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer: $3,988.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). o Service (Private Grinder Pump) Agreement Charge: $140.00 (each lot, if/where applicable). o County Document (Private Grinder Pump Agreement) Fees: $250.00 (+/-, each lot, if/where applicable). GENERAL · All Lakehaven Development Engineering related application forms, and associated standards information, can be accessed at Lakehaven’s Development Engineering web pages (http://www.lakehaven.org/204/Development-Engineering). · All comments herein are valid for one (1) year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and Lakehaven’s current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or Lakehaven’s regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly. Brian Asbury Development Engineering Supervisor Lakehaven DE Website Due to recommendations from government and health officials to do everything reasonably possible to prevent the spread of COVID-19, LWSD’S offices are closed to public entry until further notice. From: Tim Osborne Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:21 AM To: Brian Asbury <BAsbury@lakehaven.org> Cc: Ken Miller <kmiller@lakehaven.org> Subject: Fwd: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates DE email --- Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thaniel Gouk <tgouk@auburnwa.gov> Date: September 3, 2020 at 7:29:45 AM PDT Subject: SEP19-0021, PLT19-0009 Canyon Ridge Estates To: cblansfield@auburn.wednet.edu,mayor@algonawa.gov,brian.davis@cityoffederalway.com,jdod ge@ci.pacific.wa.us,separegister@ecy.wa.gov,sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov,MARI461@ECY.WA.GO V,sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov,jim.chan@kingcounty.gov,hubenbj@dshs.wa.gov,Tim Osborne <tosborne@lakehaven.org>,jmartinson@dieringer.wednet.edu,kbush@mbaks.com,Karen.walter @muckleshoot.nsn.us,shirlee.tan@kingcounty.gov,cmoore@fwps.org,tim@futurewise.org,Valer ie.Garza@kingcounty.gov,josh.baldi@kingcounty.gov,Steve.Bleifuhs@kingcounty.gov,beth.hu mphreys@kingcounty.gov,laila.mcclinton@kingcounty.gov,McCollD@wsdot.wa.gov,Jim.Ishim aru@kingcounty.gov,Jeffrey.Watson@muckleshoot.nsn.us,ktsang@muckleshoot.nsn.us,Rob@m uckleshoot.nsn.us,laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us,sepa@dahp.wa.gov,jeff.payne@pse.com,a my.hendershot@usda.gov,Karen Stewart VRFA <karen.stewart@vrfa.org>,Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov,mindy@wecprotects.org,SEPA.reviewtea m@doh.wa.gov Cc: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Please see the attached SEPA DNS and associated SEPA Checklist for a proposed 26-lot subdivision within the West Hill portion of the City. Thanks, Effective March 25, 2020, in response to Gov. Inslee’s Stay Home Stay Safe directive, the City of Auburn has closed City Hall and the Annex Customer Service Center until further notice. I am currently out of the office but working remotely from home. I have access to email and voicemail but will be responding to all inquiries by email only. Thaniel Gouk – Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.804.5031 | tgouk@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 Customer Service Survey Application Forms Zoning Maps The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. D 48TH AVE S49TH AVE S8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8" 926280TRCT 9262800179 32461 9262800248 32604 9262800190 32442 9262800255 32626 9262800178 32455 1521049128 32266 1521049090 32521 1332100840 1332100440 4924 1332050820 1521049159 32437 9262800181 32435 1332100600 32405 1332100400 4941 9262800188 32448 9262800192 32414 926280TRCT 9262800249 32612 5530000050 32822 9262800186 32418 9262800180 32409 9262800311 32639 1521049215 9262800251 32711 1521049180 32423 9262800185 32456 5530000010 32817 1332100410 4923 5530000040 32838 9262800310 32647 9262800183 32449 1521049011 32810 9262800175 32405 1332100580 32421 9262800243 32603 1332100830 1521049162 32405 1521049105 32858 9262800184 32460 1332050830 1332100590 32413 1332100560 32437 1332100420 4905 1332100510 4939 1521049106 32843 9262800247 32620 1332100540 32453 1332100530 4903 1521049003 1521049124 32261 1521049093 32259 1332100520 4921 1332100570 32429 1521049104 32844 1521049075 32837 9262800245 32615 9262800177 32415 9262800250 32728 1521049158 9262800182 32528 9262800235 9262800189 32454 9262800305 32732 1332100550 32445 1332100430 4906 1332100450 4942 1332050860 9262800176 32425 9262800240 32603 282410TRCT 2824100210 32508 2824100280 32606 2824100260 32534 2824100250 32528 2824100240 32522 2824100190 32436 1521049003 2824100230 32516 2824100270 32540 1521049184 32922 1521049047 330101521049183 32934 1521049088 33008 618150TR-A 6"6"6"8"6 "6 "6"6"6"6"6"8" 8" 8 " 8 "6"6"6"46t h Pl SS 3 2 4 T H S T 46TH AVE SS PEASLEY CANYON RD0 400200 Feet NOTE: Lakehaven Water and Sewer District neither warrants nor guarantees the accuracy of any facility information provided. Facility locations and conditions are subject to field verification. Canyon Ridge Estates PLT 19-0009 9/3/2020 BIA 1 CANYON RIDGE ESTATES SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS Canyon Ridge Estates is a proposed subdivision in the City of Auburn. The proposal includes the development of Parcel #1521049215 into 26 single family residential lots. The purpose of this school access analysis is to determine the following: 1. The identification and location of all schools (Grades K-12) which will be attended by future student residents of Canyon Ridge Estates. 2. The location(s) of existing bus stop locations nearest to Canyon Ridge Estates, as well as the suggested location(s) of any proposed bus stops, should they be needed. 3. A reasonable assumption as to how students living in Canyon Ridge Estates will get to and from school (Bus or Walk). 4. The assumed routes students will take while walking to/from school or to/from the nearest bus stop. 5. The relative safety of assumed walking routes as provided by the current proposed site plans. 6. A reasonable determination as to whether any further on-site and/or off-site improvements will need to be made in order to ensure the safety of students walking to and from school or the nearest bus stop. Please note that because the proposed project site does not yet have an address assigned to it, the address of the adjacent parcel (see Figure 1 below) directly North of the proposed site was used to generate data in this report. Adjacent Parcel/Address Used For Generating Report Data: Parcel Number: 9262800310 Address: 32647 46th Pl S - Auburn, WA 98001 Figure 1 (King County iMaps) 2 SOURCES FOR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION INCLUDE:  Google Maps - https://www.google.com/maps  Auburn School District Website - https://www.auburn.wednet.edu/auburnsd  Find My Bus Route - https://www.auburn.wednet.edu/Page/420  Versatrans E-Link - https://vtweb.tylertech.com/Auburn/elinkrp/Login.aspx The proposed subdivision is in the Auburn #408 School District and future student residents will attend the following schools: EVERGREEN HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Grades Pre-K through 5  Website: https://www.auburn.wednet.edu/Domain/17  Address: 5602 South 316th St – Auburn, WA 98001  Distance from proposed site: Approximately 1.4 miles (Via Road Network) 3 CASCADE MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 6 through 8  Website: https://www.auburn.wednet.edu/Domain/15  Address: 1015 24th St NE – Auburn, WA 98002  Distance from proposed site: Approximately 4.5 miles (Via Road Network) AUBURN HIGH SCHOOL - Grades 9 through 12  Website: https://www.auburn.wednet.edu/Domain/8  Address: 711 East Main St – Auburn, WA 98002  Distance From Proposed Site: Approximately 3 miles (Via Road Network)  4 EXISTING BUS STOP LOCATIONS AND ASSUMED WALKING ROUTES: There are two existing stops located just west of the proposed site at the NW corner of 46th Pl S and our proposed access road, S 328th St. Per the Auburn School District website, Cascade Middle School and Auburn High School students are picked up and dropped off at 32732 46th Pl S, and Evergreen Heights Elementary School students are picked up and dropped off at 32728 46th Pl S (See Figure 2 Below). VIEW OF EXISTING BUS STOP LOCATIONS – FACING NORTHWEST ON 46TH PLACE SOUTH Figure 2 (Preliminary Site Plan) Figure 3 (Google Maps) 5 SUMMARY FINDINGS Determination of how student residents will get to and from school: The Auburn School District has determined the need for providing bus service for this site; please see the School Attendance Areas maps above. Determination of the need for additional bus stop locations: As illustrated by Figure 2 and Figure 3 in this report, there are two existing bus stop locations in very close proximity to the project site. The stops are located at 32728 46th Pl S and 32732 46th Pl S, which are neighboring parcels on the East side of 46th Pl S, adjacent to the North East corner of the project site. All three of the identified schools are serviced by these two stops. Given the proximity of the existing locations to the proposed site, it appears there would be no need for additional stops. Safety and Improvements: Figure 2 illustrates the designated walking routes from each proposed lot to the existing bus stop locations. Using these routes, students will utilize 5 foot sidewalks within the subdivision for optimal safety, with a striped crosswalk proposed crossing 46th Place South (at the intersection of 46th Place South and South 328th Street) for improved student and pedestrian safety. As an additional measure of safety, metal traffic “crosswalk warning signs” are proposed in the right-of-way on either side of the striped crosswalk; one north and one south of the crosswalk at interval spacing specified by the City. CANYON RIDGE ESTATES CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Prepared By: Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist and Principal 9 July 2020 360-790-1559 www.envirovector.com CANYON RIDGE ESTATES CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Prepared For: Grant Middleton Prepared By: Curtis Wambach, M.S., Senior Biologist and Principal EnviroVector Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 790-1559 www.envirovector.com 9 July 2020 Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page i 9 July 2020 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Property Location ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Review of Existing Literature .......................................................................................... 1 2.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Wetland Identification ...................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 2 2.3.2 Soils........................................................................................................................... 3 2.3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Wetland Classification and Rating ................................................................................... 4 3.0 STUDY RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Background Information .................................................................................................. 4 3.1.1 NRCS Soil Survey for King County ......................................................................... 4 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) ........................................................................ 4 3.1.3 King County iMap Wetlands .................................................................................... 4 3.1.4 King County iMap Contours ..................................................................................... 4 3.1.5 Salmonscape Database .............................................................................................. 4 3.1.6 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing Database .......................... 5 3.1.7 The WDFW PHS Database ....................................................................................... 5 3.1.8 Department of Ecology 303d and TMDL ................................................................. 5 3.2 Field results ...................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.2 Wetland B ................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.3 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.2.4 Mill Creek ............................................................................................................... 10 3.2.5 Road-side Ditch on 46th Place South ...................................................................... 12 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 14 4.1. Wetland A ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2. Wetland B ....................................................................................................................... 15 4.3 Wetland Buffer Reduction & Averaging ....................................................................... 16 4.4 Slopes ............................................................................................................................. 16 5.0 LAND USE ACTION ........................................................................................................ 19 6.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 20 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 21 Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 1 9 July 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Critical Areas Report is to identify and map Critical Areas on the subject property, satisfying City of Auburn regulatory requirements under Critical Areas. Potential wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and their buffers were evaluated on the subject property and within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. These features were delineated onsite using orange ribbon flagging labeled sequentially. Delineation flags were GPS-located using a hand-held Garmin 680t unit and plotted onto AutoCAD. 1.2 Property Location The 6.50-acre (#1521049215) subject property is located on 46th Place South, City of Auburn, King County, WA 98059 (Section 15, Township 21 North, Range 04 West, Willamette Meridian) (Figure 1). Permitting Jurisdiction is under the City of Auburn. 2.0 METHODOLOGY This report is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts is to collect and document existing information that reflects current site conditions for assessing potential impacts. 2.1 Review of Existing Literature Prior to conducting fieldwork, and throughout the duration of project design, biologists reviewed existing information to identify wetlands, streams, vegetation patterns, topography, soils, wildlife habitats, and other natural resources in the project area. Existing data sources that were reviewed for this report included but were not limited to the following: • Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), online wetlands mapper • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Salmonscape Database • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority and Habitat Species Database • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Database • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 2 9 July 2020 2.2 Field Investigation Wetland and stream evaluation was performed on the subject property on 3 May 2018. A wetland evaluation was performed on-site as well as off-site of the subject property to determine if wetlands, streams, or their buffers extend onto the subject property. The routine on- site determination method was used to identify potential wetlands using the procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the 2010 USACE Regional Wetland Supplement. Under the City of Auburn Code, wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.” Wetland determination data forms were recorded for each wetland (Appendix I). 2.3 Wetland Identification Prior to 2010, biologists delineated wetlands according to the methods specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). At that time, these methods complied with those in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology] 1997). Following 2010, biologists evaluate wetlands according to the methods specified in the USACE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). These methods comply with those adopted by Washington State pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-035, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.380. The City of Auburn requires the application of the Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology] 1997). 2.3.1 Vegetation The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status were evaluated to determine whether the vegetation is hydrophytic. Hydrophytic vegetation is generally defined as vegetation adapted to prolonged saturated soil conditions. To meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate, according to the plant indicator status category assigned to each plant species by the USACE National Wetland Plant List. Table 1 provides the definitions of the indicator status categories. The scientific and common names for plants follow the currently accepted nomenclature. Dominant plant species were observed and recorded on wetland determination data forms for each data plot (Appendix I). Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 3 9 July 2020 Table 1. Key to Plant Indicator Status Categories Plant Indicator Status Category Symbol Symbol Obligate Wetland Plants OBL Plants that almost always (>99% of the time) occur in wetlands but may rarely (<1% of the time) occur in non- wetlands Facultative Wetland Plants FACW Plants that often (67% to 99% of the time) occur in wetlands but sometimes (1% to 33% of the time) occur in non-wetlands Facultative Plants FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (33% to 66% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands Facultative Upland Plants FACU Plants that sometimes (1% to 33% of the time) occur in wetlands but occur more often (67% to 99% of the time) in non-wetlands Upland Plants UPL Plants that rarely (<1% of the time) occur in wetlands and almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in non - wetlands 2.3.2 Soils Soils were excavated to 18 inches or more below the surface within test pits to evaluate soil characteristics and hydrological conditions throughout the property. Soil chroma (color) is evaluated using the Munsell Color Chart (Munsell Color, 1988). Generally, an area must have hydric soils to be considered a wetland. Hydric soil forms when soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portion. Biological activities in saturated soil result in reduced concentrations of oxygen that in turn result in a preponderance of organisms that use anaerobic processes for metabolism. Over time, anaerobic biological processes result in certain soil color patterns, which are used as indicators of hydric soil. Typically, low-chroma colors are formed in the matrix of hydric soil. Bright-colored redoximorphic features form within the matrix under a fluctuating water table. Other important hydric soil indicators include organic matter accumulations in the surface layer, reduced sulfur odors, and organic matter staining in the subsurface. 2.3.3 Hydrology The project area was examined for evidence of hydrology. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005) provides a technical standard for monitoring hydrology on such sites. This standard requires 14 or more consecutive days of flooding or ponding, or a water table 12 in. (30 cm) or less below the soil surface, during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (50 percent or higher probability). The USACE 2010 Regional Supplement provides a list of hydrology indicators to evaluate whether the hydrology standard is satisfied. If wetland hydrology, including pooling, ponding, and soil saturation, is not clearly evident, hydrological conditions may be observed through surface or soil indicators. Indicators of hydrological conditions include oxidized root channels, drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 4 9 July 2020 2.4 Wetland Classification and Rating Delineated wetlands were classified according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Hydrogeomorphic classifications were assigned to wetlands using USACE methods established in A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands were rated using the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 3.0 STUDY RESULTS 3.1 Background Information 3.1.1 NRCS Soil Survey for King County Two (2) non-hydric soil type are mapped on the subject property by the NRCS soils database (Appendix B). Soil Types 1) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes (non-hydric) 2) Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes (non-hydric) 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) No wetlands are located on the subject property according to National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database (Appendix C). No other wetlands are mapped within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. 3.1.3 King County iMap Wetlands No wetlands are mapped on or within 300 feet of the subject property by the King County iMap (Appendix D). A stream is mapped west of the subject property across Peasley Canyon Road. One (1) intermittent stream is mapped onsite stretching across the center of the property represented by a dotted line in the 2018. In 2020, the King County iMap maps the same drainage along 46th Place South (Appendix D). 3.1.4 King County iMap Contours The entire subject property is relatively flat other than steep slopes on the western edge of the subject property associated with Peasley Canyon (Appendix E). 3.1.5 Salmonscape Database No salmonids have been mapped on the subject property or within 300 feet of the subject property by the WDFW Salmonscape database (Appendix F). Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) spawning and winter steelhead modeled presence has been documented 2,400 feet downstream (south) of the subject property. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 5 9 July 2020 3.1.6 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing Database One (1) Type F stream has been mapped west of the subject property, in Peasley Canyon, by the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Stream Typing Database (Appendix G). A small drainage that flows through the roadside ditch along 46th Place South is unrecognized as a stream. 3.1.7 The WDFW PHS Database No wetlands have been mapped on the subject property by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database (Appendix H). One (1) wetland has been mapped to the east, within two thousand (2000) feet of the subject property. Resident coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) have been mapped in Mill Creek west of the subject property that flows through Peasley Canyon. A small drainage that flows through the roadside ditch along 46th Place South is unrecognized as a stream. 3.1.8 Department of Ecology 303d and TMDL The subject property is located within an approved TMDL area. One (1) stream flowing through Peasley Canyon, approximately 100 feet west of the subject property is mapped as 303(d) according to the Department of Ecology (Appendices K & L). 3.2 Field results Two (2) wetlands, labeled Wetland A and Wetland B, have been identified on the subject property (Figure 2). The unclassified stream mapped across the subject property by the King County iMAP is actually located in a roadside ditch along 46th Place South on the eastern edge of the subject property. Other agency databases map this drainage as the roadside ditch. No fish presence has been mapped in this drainage. A stream has been identified along Peasley Canyon Road within the steep canyon west of the subject property. The WDFW PHS database identifies resident coastal cutthroat trout in this watercourse. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 6 9 July 2020 A summary of the Critical Areas study can be found in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Critical Areas Results Wetlands Wetland Area of Wetland Cowardin Class1 Buffer Condition Habitat Features Comments Onsite Total Wetland A 184 sf (0.004 acre) 184 sf (0.004 acres) PFOC Forested N/A Small isolated wetland Wetland B 3,793 sf (0.08 acres) 3,793 sf (0.08 acres) PFOC Forested Logs and snags Small isolated wetland Streams Stream Reach Onsite Depth & Width Stream bed Fish Riparian Habitat Comments Mill Creek --- Depth 1 foot Width 3 feet Gravel Mapped Trout Road & Steep Canyon Creek in steep canyon along roadside Roadside ditch --- Depth Width 2 feet Mud None Road & fill slope Manufactured ditch adjacent to road 1. PFOC: Palustrine Forested Seasonally-flooded 3.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A is located in a small depression on the north-central portion of the subject property (Figure 2). Wetland A (184 sf) is a Palustrine Forested Seasonally-flooded (PFOC) wetland (Figure 6). The Wetland A boundary is well defined. The wetland boundary is defined by an edge of skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, OBL) and small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, OBL) (Appendix A, Photo 4). The upland edge is defined by sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa, FACU) and Osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU) (Appendix A, Photo 7). The wetland boundary has been marked using orange ribbon flagging labeled A-1 through A-4 (Figure 3). Wetland flags were GPS located using a hand-held Garmin Montana 680t. Figure 3 illustrates the wetland flag locations. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 7 9 July 2020 Vegetation Dominant plant species identified in Wetland A include: • Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) • Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa, FAC) • Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC) • Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, OBL) • False lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum, FAC) • Small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, OBL) Dominant upland plant species in the wetland buffer include: • Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) • Osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU) • sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU) • Trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU) • Bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa, FACU) Hydrology Hydrology in Wetland A is preserved by local precipitation and groundwater. Soils Soils in Wetland A consist of a grey (10YR 5/1) sandy silty loam from zero (0) to four (4) inches depth and a grey (10YR 5/1) gravelly sandy silt loam with strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 mottles at depths greater than four (4) inches (Appendix H). Upland soils adjacent to the wetland consist of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 2/3) sandy loam from zero (0) to twenty (20) inches depth. Habitat Features No habitat features in Wetland A other than one log (Appendix A, Photo 8 & 9). 3.2.2 Wetland B Wetland B is located on the north-central portion of the site and north of Wetland A (Figure 2). Wetland B is a Palustrine Forested Seasonally-flooded (PFOC) wetland (Figure 6). The Wetland B boundary is well-defined and consistent throughout. The wetland boundary is defined by an edge of skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, OBL), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa, FAC), and a topographic break (Appendix A, Photos 9-14). The upland edge is defined by sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU) and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU) (Appendix A, Photos 13 & 14). Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 8 9 July 2020 Vegetation Dominant plant species identified in Wetland B include: • Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) • Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa, FAC) • Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC) • Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, OBL) • Small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, OBL) Dominant upland plant species in the wetland buffer include: • Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) • Osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU) • Sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU) • Trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU) • Bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa, FACU) • Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU) • Bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FACU) Hydrology Wetland B has no inlet or outlet, hydrology is maintained by local precipitation. Soils Soils in Wetland B consist of black (10YR 2/1) mucky silty sandy loam from zero (0) to twenty (20) inches depth. Upland soils adjacent to the wetland consist of a dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silty loam from zero (0) to twenty (20) inches depth (Appendix H). Habitat Features Habitat features in Wetland A include some fallen logs (Appendix A, Photos 17 & 19). 3.2.3 Slopes “Slope” means an inclined earth surface, the incline of which is expressed as the ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. The slopes referenced above includes only those where the surface drops 10 feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of 25 feet. A Critical Erosion Hazard Area occurs on the western edge of the subject property in an area underlain by soils identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service) as having “severe” or “very severe” erosion hazards (Figure 2). Soils in this area consist of Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF) and/or Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) on greater than 15 percent slopes. This area contains 60% to 90% slopes. The definition of Critical Erosion Hazard Area is found in the City of Auburn Code 16.10.020---Definitions. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 9 9 July 2020 “Critical landslide hazard areas” means lands or areas where there is a high (Class III) or very high (Class IV) risk of landslide due to a combination of slope, soil permeability, and water “Landslide hazard areas” means areas that, due to a combination of slope inclination, relative soil permeability, and hydrologic conditions are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landsliding. Landslide hazard areas are classified as Classes I through IV based on the degree of risk as follows: 1. Class I/Low Hazard. Areas with slopes of 15 percent or less. 2. Class II/Moderate Hazard. Areas with slopes of between 15 percent and 40 percent and that are underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. 3. Class III/High Hazard. Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent that are underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. 4. Class IV/Very High Hazard. Areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent with identifiable zones of emergent water (e.g., springs or ground water seepage), areas of identifiable landslide deposits regardless of slope and all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. The slopes referenced above include only those where the surface drops 10 feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of 25 feet. “Erosion hazard areas” means lands or areas that, based on a combination of slope inclination and the characteristics of the underlying soils, are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of erosion. Erosion hazard areas are classified as “low” (areas sloping less than 15 percent) or “high” (areas sloping 15 percent or more) on the following Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), soil types: Alderwood- Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD) and Indianola (InD). Additional soil groups may be identified through site-specific analysis Under City of Auburn Code 16.10.080---Classification and rating of critical areas, Subsection (G)---Geologic Hazard Classifications, Geologic hazard areas shall be classified according to the criteria in this section: 1. Critical Erosion Hazard Areas. Critical erosion hazard areas are lands or areas underlain by soils identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service, as having “severe” or “very severe” erosion hazards. This includes the following group of soils when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD), and Indianola (InD). 2. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are classified as Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV as follows: a. Class I/Low Hazard. Areas with slopes of 15 percent or less. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 10 9 July 2020 b. Class II/Moderate Hazard. Areas with slopes of between 15 percent and 40 percent and that are underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel, or glacial till. c. Class III/High Hazard. Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent that are underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. d. Class IV/Very High Hazard. Areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent with mappable zones of emergent water (e.g., springs or ground water seepage), areas of known (mappable) landslide deposits regardless of slope, and all areas with slopes 40 percent or greater. 3. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are lands that, due to a combination of soil and ground water conditions, are subject to severe risk of ground shaking, subsidence, or liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. These areas are typically underlain by soft or loose saturated soils (such as alluvium), have a shallow ground water table and are typically located on the floor of river valleys. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.) 3.2.4 Mill Creek Mill Creek is located west of the subject property downslope within the valley bottom (Figure 2). No salmonids were mapped on SalmonScape within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property at the time of the study, as illustrated on the SalmonScape map provided in Appendix F. In addition, no salmonids are mapped to occur west of the subject property in March 2020 (Insert 1). Insert 1 shows that no salmonids are mapped to occur west of the subject property in 2018 or in 2020. In 2018, Coho salmon ‘Documented Spawning” and winter steelhead “Modeled Presence” were documented 2,400 feet downstream (south) of the subject property, but no account of these species were mapped west of the subject property. On 4 March 2020, SalmonScape maps “Gradient Accessible” for both species west of the subject property (Insert 1). “Gradient assessible” means that the gradient of the Creek alone is not a fish barrier. However, it does not mean “. . . there are salmon in Mill Creek to the west of the site.” No salmon have been documented to occur west of the site by the SalmonScape database in 2018 or in 2020. As a note, “Gradient Accessible” has been mapped west of the site for other salmonid species. However, no documented presence or other account of these species have been mapped in Mill Creek west of the site. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 11 9 July 2020 Insert 1. No salmonids mapped west of subject property in 2018 and in 2020 7 Oct 2018: No Coho west of site 4 March 2020: Gradient accessible west of site 7 Oct 2018: No winter steelhead west of site 4 March 2020: Gradient accessible west of site Subject Property Subject Property Subject Property Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 12 9 July 2020 3.2.5 Road-side Ditch on 46th Place South The roadside ditch on 46th Place South is a roadside stormwater ditch located on the eastern edge of the subject property along 46th Place South (Insert 2; Figure 2). This roadside stormwater ditch is piped underground on the parcel bordering the subject property to the south (Insert 2, Photo 4; Figure 2). No salmonids or fish are mapped in roadside ditch by Agency databases. In 2018, the King County iMap maps one (1) intermittent stream that extends across the center of the property (Insert 3). However, the King County iMap was updated in 2020, showing the correct location of this drainage as a roadside ditch on 46th Place South. Insert 2. Un-named ditch (Tributary 0051C) on 46th Place South at the subject property Photo 1. Dry ditch on west side of road Photo 2. Dry ditch on southeastern edge of site Photo 2. Dry ditch on northeastern edge of site Photo 4. Underground drainage in storm pipe Unnamed Ditch at Subject Property Unnamed Ditch at Subject Property Unnamed Ditch at Subject Property Unnamed drainage South of Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 13 9 July 2020 Insert 3. King County iMAP Updated in 2020, showing roadside drainage ditch Subject Property 2018 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 14 9 July 2020 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetland and stream regulatory considerations have been summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of Regulatory Considerations Wetlands Wetland Area of Wetland Category Wetland Score Minimum Buffer Maximum Buffer Comments Onsite Total Wetland A 184 sf (0.004 acre) 184 sf (0.004 acres) III 36 25 ft 50 ft Buffer can be altered through Buffer Averaging, Buffer Variance, or Mitigation Wetland B 3,793 sf (0.08 acres) 3,793 sf (0.08 acres) III 38 25 ft 50 ft Streams Stream DNR Stream Typing Database City Stream Rating Confluence Fish Stream Buffer Comments Mill Creek F Class II Drains to Duwamish - Green River Mapped fish Presence 75 ft Contain fish habitat & Not Shorelines Roadside Ditch Not Recognized as a stream Intentionally created streams” Drains to Mill Creek None Excluded from Regulation No fish habitat No Critical Habitat Slopes/ Geologic Hazard Areas Slopes Minimal Setback with Geotech Report Geologic Hazard Areas 15 ft Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 15 9 July 2020 4.1. Wetland A Wetland A is rated as a Category III under the Department of Ecology Rating forms 2004 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington revised 2006 (Ecology Publication #04-06-025) as required under City of Auburn Code 16.10.080 (C) Classification and rating of critical areas. Under City of Auburn Code Chapter 16.10.090---Buffer areas and setbacks, wetland buffers shall be established in accordance with the standards under ACC 16.10.090(E)(1) (Insert 1). Under ACC16.10.090 (E)(1)(a), the minimum buffer width for Category III wetlands is twenty- five (25) feet. Under ACC16.10.090 (g), the director may require an increased buffer width of fifty (50) feet for Category III wetlands when a larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Examples where increased buffers may be required include, but are not limited to, where a larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of species listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive, or when land adjacent to the buffer is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures are inadequate to effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts. No larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Thereby, no increased buffer width is necessary and the twenty-five (25) foot buffer is applied (Figure 4). Insert 1. City of Auburn Code Buffer Requirements Wetland Category Minimum Buffer Width Maximum Buffer Width (see subsection (E)(1) (g) of this section) Category I 100 feet 200 feet Category II 50 feet 100 feet Category III 25 feet 50 feet Category IV 25 feet 30 feet 4.2. Wetland B Wetland B is rated as a Category III under the Department of Ecology Rating forms 2004 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington revised 2006 (Ecology Publication #04-06-025) as required under City of Auburn Code 16.10.080 (C) Classification and rating of critical areas. Under City of Auburn Code Chapter 16.10.090---Buffer areas and setbacks, wetland buffers shall be established in accordance with the standards under ACC 16.10.090(E)(1) (Insert 1). Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 16 9 July 2020 Under ACC16.10.090 (E)(1), the minimum buffer width for Category III wetlands is twenty-five (25) feet. Under ACC16.10.090 (g), the director may require an increased buffer width of fifty (50) feet for Category III wetlands when a larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Examples where increased buffers may be required include, but are not limited to, where a larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of species listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive, or when land adjacent to the buffer is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures are inadequate to effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts. No larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Thereby, no increased buffer width is necessary and the twenty-five (25) foot buffer is applied (Figure 4). 4.3 Wetland Buffer Reduction & Averaging Under ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1)(a), buffer width averaging can be applied if the width averaging does not adversely impact the wetland or result in net loss to the total area buffer. Under ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1)(b), buffers for all categories of wetlands can be reduced by thirty-five (35) percent if the applicant implements measures to enhance or restore buffer conditions as approved by the director. Under ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1)(c) application of subsections (E)(1)(a) and (E)(1)(b) shall result in a buffer width no less than twenty-five (25) feet. 4.4 Slopes Under City of Auburn Code16.10.090---Buffer areas and setbacks, Subsection (E)---Buffer widths shall be established for specific critical areas according to the following standards and criteria, Number 4: Geologic Hazard Areas a. Required buffer widths for geologic hazard areas shall reflect the sensitivity of the geologic hazard area in question and the types and the risks associated with development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity and site design proposed to be conducted on or near the area. b. Required buffers may vary in width. The widths of the buffer shall reflect the sensitivity of the geologic hazard area in question and the types and density of uses proposed on or adjacent to the geologic hazard. In determining the appropriate buffer width, the director shall consider the recommendations contained in any geologic hazards report required by these regulations and prepared by a qualified consultant. c. Buffers may be reduced to a minimum width of 15 feet when the applicant demonstrates through the geologic hazard report that the reduction will adequately protect the geologic hazard and the proposed development through use of proposed engineering techniques. City of Auburn Code 16.10.100---Alteration or development of critical areas---Standards and criteria, Subsection (E)---Geologic Hazard Areas: Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 17 9 July 2020 1. General Standards The City may approve, condition or deny proposals for the alteration of geologic hazard areas, as appropriate, based on the degree to which the significant risks posed by critical hazard areas to public and private property and to public health and safety can be mitigated. The objective of mitigation measures shall be to render a site containing a critical geologic hazard as safe as one not containing such hazard or one characterized by a low hazard. In appropriate cases, conditions may include limitations of proposed uses, modification of density, alteration of site layout and other appropriate changes to the proposal. Where potential impacts cannot be effectively mitigated or where the risk to public health, safety and welfare, public or private property, or important natural resources is significant notwithstanding mitigation, the proposal shall be denied. 2. Specific Standards a. Class IV Landslide Hazard Areas. Alteration shall be prohibited subject to the reasonable use provisions of this chapter. b. Critical Seismic Hazard Areas. i. For one-story and two-story residential structures, the applicant shall conduct an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions; or ii. For all other proposals, the applicant shall conduct an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential including sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the International Building Code. c. When development is permitted in geologic hazard areas by these regulations, an applicant and/or its qualified consultant shall provide assurances which, at the city’s discretion, may include one or more of the following: i. A letter from the geotechnical engineer and/or geologist who prepared the geologic hazard report required by these regulations, stating that the risk of damage from the proposal, both on-site and off-site, are minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report, that the proposal will not increase the risk of occurrence of the potential geologic hazard, and that measures to eliminate or reduce risks have been incorporated into its recommendations; ii. A letter from the applicant, or the owner of the property if not the applicant, stating its understanding and acceptance of any risk of injury or damage associated with development of the site and agreeing to notify any future purchasers of the site, portions of the site, or structures located on the site of the geologic hazard; iii. A legally enforceable hold harmless agreement, which shall be recorded as a covenant and noted on the face of the deed or plat, and executed in a form satisfactory to the city, acknowledging that the site is located in a geologic hazard area; the risks associated with development of such site; and a waiver and release of any and all claims of the owner(s), their directors, employees, or successors, or Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 18 9 July 2020 assigns against the city of Auburn for any loss, damage, or injury, whether direct or indirect, arising out of issuance of development permits for the proposal; and iv. Posting of a bond, guarantee or other assurance device approved by the city to cover the cost of monitoring, maintenance and any necessary corrective actions. Under City of Auburn Code 16.10.120---Performance standards for mitigation planning, Subsection (D)---Geologic Hazard Areas: 1. Incorporate relevant performance standards from the preceding subsections, as determined by the director; 2. The following additional performance standards shall be reflected in proposals within geologic hazard areas: a. A geologic hazard report shall be prepared to identify and evaluate potential hazards and to formulate mitigation measures; b. Construction methods will not adversely affect geologic hazards or will reduce adverse impacts on geologic hazards; c. Site planning shall minimize disruption of existing topography and natural vegetation; d. Impervious surface coverage shall be minimized; e. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with permanent vegetation as soon as feasible pursuant to a mitigation or landscape plan; f. Clearing and grading shall be limited to between April 1st and October 31st unless the geologic hazard report specifically addresses measures necessary to perform clearing and grading during other portions of the year; g. The limited use of retaining walls that minimize disturbance or alteration of existing natural slope areas are preferred over graded slopes; h. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls, pursuant to an approved plan, shall be implemented during construction; i. A drainage plan shall be prepared for large projects as required by the city engineer; j. Development shall not increase instability or create a hazard to the site or adjacent properties, or result in a significant increase in sedimentation or erosion. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 19 9 July 2020 5.0 LAND USE ACTION The proposed land use consists of a twenty-six (26) lot subdivision, stormwater facilities, access road with cul-de-sac, and open space (Figure 5). No wetland impacts are proposed. Potential Wetland impacts would be entirely avoided in compliance with mitigation sequencing under Under ACC16.10.090 (E)(1)(a), the minimum buffer width for Category III wetlands is twenty- five (25) feet. Under ACC16.10.090 (g), the director may require an increased buffer width of fifty (50) feet for Category III wetlands when a larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. No larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Thereby, no increased buffer width is necessary and the twenty-five (25) foot buffer is applied (Figure 5). Wetland buffer averaging, allowed under ACC 16.10.090(E)(1)(a), would be applied to preserve a larger area of higher quality habitat over a smaller area at the outer edge of the buffer. The wetland buffer would be increased by five (5) times the original size (Figure 5). The wetland replacement to loss ratio would be 5:1. The installation of the stormwater discharge pipe would result in temporary impacts to vegetation and soils, which would be completely restored. Vegetation would be removed intact and stockpiled adjacent to the trench. Topsoil would be removed and also stockpiled adjacent to the trench. Following the installation of the pipe, topsoil would be backfilled into the trench and plants would be restored. Stormwater from the rooftops of Lots 3 and 4 (2,000 sf/each) will be collected and conveyed via a four (4)-inch downspout tight line system to a properly sized dispersion trench where stormwater will be dispersed into the wetland buffer area, recharging the wetland (Figure 6). Storm water runoff from the rest of the roofs will be collected and conveyed via a roof drain tight line system to the detention pond where stormwater will be meter released out to Mill Creek in a twelve (12) inch pipe to the west. From the point of release, stormwater will be conveyed within Mill Creek in a manmade concrete channel to a box culvert for approximately one hundred sixty-two (162) feet going under Peasley Canyon Rd S to the southwest where it will continue within Mill Creek for approximately seven (7) miles to Green River where it will eventually discharge out into the Puget Sound (Figure 5). Slopes would be avoided and the minimum slope setback of fifteen (15) feet would be applied. The Mill Creek stream buffer extends onto the northwestern corner of the subject property. The stream buffer would be preserved on slopes within designated open space. A stormwater overflow pipe would extend to the edge of Mill Creek and conveyed to Mill Creek in a manmade concrete channel to a box culvert that extends under South Peasley Canyon Road. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 20 9 July 2020 6.0 CONCLUSION Two (2) wetlands, labeled Wetlands A and B, were identified and delineated onsite during the site evaluation. Both wetlands are categorized as Category III under the Department of Ecology Rating forms 2004 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington revised 2006. The maximum buffer for Category III wetlands is fifty (50) feet. The minimum buffer width is twenty-five (25) feet. Slopes occur on the western portion of the property covered under a Geotechnical Report. Mill Creek buffer extends onto the northwestern corner of the subject property. However, the stream buffer overlaps slopes and would not affect the proposed land use. The roadside ditch on 46th Place South conveys stormwater runoff. The proposed land use consists of a twenty-six (26) lot subdivision, stormwater facilities, access road with cul-de-sac, and open space (Figure 5). No wetland impacts are proposed. Potential Wetland impacts would be entirely avoided in compliance with mitigation sequencing. Under ACC16.10.090 (E)(1)(a), the minimum buffer width for Category III wetlands is twenty- five (25) feet. Under ACC16.10.090 (g), the director may require an increased buffer width of fifty (50) feet for Category III wetlands when a larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. No larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Thereby, no increased buffer width is necessary and the twenty-five (25) foot buffer is applied (Figure 5). Wetland buffer averaging, allowed under ACC 16.10.090(E)(1)(a), would be applied to preserve a larger area of higher quality habitat over a smaller area at the outer edge of the buffer. The wetland buffer would be increased by five (5) times the original size (Figure 5). The wetland replacement to loss ratio would be 5:1. The increase in the wetland buffer size would maintain buffer functions. Clean water from rooftops would augment wetland hydrology (Figure 6). The installation of the stormwater discharge pipe would consist of anchoring the pipe to the surface. If trenching would occur, the activity would result in temporary impacts to vegetation and soils, which would be completely restored. Vegetation would be removed intact and stockpiled adjacent to the trench. Topsoil would be removed and also stockpiled adjacent to the trench. Following the installation of the pipe, topsoil would be backfilled into the trench and plants would be restored. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 21 9 July 2020 7.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1998. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Update. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Thurston County Area Soil Survey. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. March. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August. Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 22 9 July 2020 FIGURES SubjectPropertyS 320th StreetInterstate 5Highway 167Ho g hw a y 1 8 S Peasley Canyon RdHighway 18Interstate 5Highway 167PugetSound360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 14500'0Scale: 1" = 4500'Vicinity Map9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesAuburnFederal WayAlgonaKentDes Moines © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS Wetland BWetland A46th Place SouthS Peasley Canyon RoadMill Creek360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 2150'0Scale: 1" = 150'Existing Conditions9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesWetlandWater Course Wetland BWetland AB1B2B3B4B5B5aB6B7B8B9B10B11B12B13B14A2A1A4A3TP-3TP-5TP-1TP-2TP-4360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 330'0Scale: 1" = 30'WetlandDelineation9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesWetlandWetland DelineationA-1A-2Test PlotTP A-2 25'25'Wetland BWetland A46th Place SouthS Peasley Canyon RoadMill Creek75'360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 4125'0Scale: 1" = 125'Wetland Buffers9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesWetlandsWetland BuffersGeologic Hazard AreaRoadsWater CourseMinimum Slope Setback With Geotech Report (15 feet) 25'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'53.00'15.24'84.28'144.36'102.99'84.35'143.18'51.74'51.74'41.20'11.97'50.45'29.70'98.23'97.72'97.72'97.72'97.72'97.72'97.72'97.72'97.72'99.15'89.69'124.04'46.25'136.25'90.00'90.00'90.00'99.74'99.74'82.24'50.00'55.00'55.00'50.00'50.00'106.64'90.82'73.58'51.22'49.05'22.00'28.41'30.88'100.92'26.08'31.17'72.38'83.09'96.41'87.43'104.22'96.49'51.22'113.19'97.75'61.05'99.74'25'46th Place SouthS Peasley Canyon RoadMill CreekDischargePipeOpenSpaceSubjectProperty51'75'Lot 2Lot 1Lot 7Lot 8Lot 9Lot 6Lot 5Lot 4Lot 3Lot 25Lot 24Lot 23Lot 22Lot 21Lot 20Lot 19Lot 18Lot 17Lot 16Lot 15Lot 14Lot 13Lot 12Lot 11Lot 10360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 5100'0Scale: 1" = 100'Site Plan9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesWetlandsWetland BuffersReduced Buffer (820 sf)RoadsWater CourseStorm PipesMinimum Slope Setback (15 feet)Replacement Buffer (3,793 sf)Top of SlopeStream Buffer 90.00'99.74'99.74'82.24'50.00'55.00'55.00'106.64'90.82'73.58'22.00'100.92'26.08'61.05'99.74'Lot 2Lot 1Lot 5Lot 4Lot 3ProposedDispersionTrenchStormEasement 5'360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 630'0Scale: 1" = 30'Site Plan9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesWetlandsWetland BuffersReduced Buffer (820 sf)RoadsWater CourseStorm PipesMinimum Slope Setback (15 feet)Replacement Buffer (3,793 sf)Top of SlopeStream Buffer 360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 740'0Scale: 1" = 40'Hydroperiod &Vegetation Class9 July 2020Canyon RidgeEstatesForested Seasonally-flooded Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 23 9 July 2020 APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 24 9 July 2020 Photo 1. Inlet of roadside ditch at property boundary Photo 2. Roadside ditch Photo 3. Upland vegetation on the subject property Photo 4. Wetland A, slough sedge (OBL) and skunk cabbage (OBL) Photo 5. TP-2, skunk cabbage (OBL), bare ground, Wetland B Photo 6. Hydric soils at TP-2 in Wetland B Photo 7. Upland vegetation at TP-3 Photo 8. Upland Vegetation on subject property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 25 9 July 2020 Photo 9. Hydrophytic vegetation at TP-4 Photo 10. Flag B-10 on Wetland B Photo 11. Flag B-11 in Wetland B Photo 12. Hydrophytic vegetation in Wetland B Photo 13. Upland soil at TP-5 Photo 14. Upland vegetation at TP-5 Photo 15. Property to the north of the subject property Photo 16. Structure to the south of the property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 26 9 July 2020 Appendix B NRCS Soils Survey Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 27 9 July 2020 Subject Property AgC: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes (non- hydric) AkF: Alderwood and Kitsap soils very steep slopes (non-hydric) Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 28 9 July 2020 Appendix C National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 29 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 30 9 July 2020 Appendix D King County iMap Wetlands and Streams Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 31 9 July 2020 Subject Property 2018 Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 32 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 33 9 July 2020 Appendix E King County iMap Contours Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 34 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 35 9 July 2020 Appendix F Salmonscape Database Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 36 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 37 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 38 9 July 2020 Appendix G State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing Database Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 39 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 40 9 July 2020 Appendix H Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 41 9 July 2020 Biodiversity Areas and Corridor Subject Property *Wetlands Lake and Waterfowl Concentrations Resident Coastal Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki) Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 42 9 July 2020 Appendix I Datasheets US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kranz Property City/County: King County Sampling Date:05/03/2018 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: TP 1 Investigator(s): Dan Thew Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 30 Y FAC 2. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa) 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 12 ft) 1. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 6 ft) 1. Skunk Cabbage (Lysichton americanus) 20 Y OBL 2. Small fruited bulrsh (Scirpus microcarpus) 15 Y OBL 3. Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina) 10 Y FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 45 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 35 x 1 = 35 FACW species x 2 = FAC species 75 x 3 = 225 FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 110 (A) 260 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.36 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 5/1 100 Sandy silty loam > 4 10YR 5/1 60 7.5YR 5/6 40 Gravelly sandy silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soil saturated to surface US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kranz Property City/County: King County Sampling Date:05/03/2018 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: TP 2 Investigator(s): Dan Thew Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 70 Y FAC 2. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa) 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 12 ft) 1. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 70 Y FAC 2. Osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis) 20 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 6 ft) 1. Skunk Cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) 75 Y OBL 2. Small fruited bulrsh (Scirpus microcarpus) 25 Y OBL 3. Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina) 10 N FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83.3% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 5/1 100 Sandy silt sand > 4 10YR 5/1 80 7.5YR 5/6 20 Gravelly sandy silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Dark soil, heavyily mottled below 4 inches HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soil saturated to surface US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kranz Property City/County: King County Sampling Date:3 May 2018 Applicant/Owner: Kranz State: WA Sampling Point: TP-3 Investigator(s): Curis Wambach, Dan Thew Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 85 Y FAC 2. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa) 15 N FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 12ft) 1. Osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis) 60 Y FACU 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 25 Y FAC 3. Trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) 10 N FACU 4. 5. 95 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 6ft) 1. False lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum) 60 Y FAC 2. Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 40 Y FACU 3. Bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa) 25 Y FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 125 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 185 x 3 = 555 FACU species 135 x 4 = 540 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 320 (A) 1095 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.42 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 2/3 Silty loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kranz Property City/County: King County Sampling Date:3 May 2018 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: TP-4 Investigator(s): Dan Thew Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa) 100 Y FAC 2. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 60 Y FAC 3. Western hemlock (tsuga heterophylla) 20 N FACU 4. 180 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 12 ft) 1. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 70 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 70 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 6 ft) 1. Skunk cabbage 80 Y OBL 2. False lily of the valley 25 N FAC 3. Lady fern (Athyrium felix-femina) 20 N FAC 4. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) 10 N FACW 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 135 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 80 x 1 = 80 FACW species 10 x 2 = 20 FAC species 275 x 3 = 825 FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 385 (A) 1005 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.61 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky silty sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturated to surface US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kranz Property City/County: King County Sampling Date:3 May 2018 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: TP-5 Investigator(s): Dan Thew Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) 100 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 12ft) 1. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 40 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 6ft) 1. Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 80 Y FACU 2. False lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum) 10 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 FACU species 180 x 4 = 720 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 230 (A) 870 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.78 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 3/4 Silty loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 43 9 July 2020 Appendix J Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known):Wetland A Date of site visit: 3 May 2018 Rated by:Curtis Wambach Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training:Continual SEC: TOWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Map of wetland unit: Figure Figure2 Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland : I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 10 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 14 Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions 12 Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions 36 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) III Summary of bas ic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the w etland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW fo r the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. _____ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface wate r runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following crite ria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size ; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverin e along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine whi ch of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ... points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing ) .. points = 1 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat un it as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawin g Figure 3 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area .......................................... points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ............................................ points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area .......................................... points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area ............................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 3 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the aver age condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure 4 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if y ou know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the so urces of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urba n areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 1  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 10 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet .... points = 2 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, su rface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 4 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet .................. points = 7 • The wetland is a “headwater” wetland ............................................................................. points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outle t ...................... points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ................................. points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water . points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft .................................................................................... points = 0 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit ............................................... points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ............................................ points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the a rea of the unit ..................................... points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class .................................................................................... points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding pro blems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 2  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 14 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland th at can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. ...................................................... points = 2 • No depressions present ................................................................................................... points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit .............................................................................. points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland ........................................................................ points = 6 • Ungrazed, herb aceous plants > 2/3 area of unit ............................................................... points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit ................................................................ points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit .............................................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing pol ygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetl and that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 0  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R1 by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. R 3 Does the w etland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 .............................................................................................. points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 – 20 ......................................................................................... points = 6 • If the ratio is 5 - <10 ........................................................................................................ points = 4 • If the ratio is 1 - <5 .......................................................................................................... points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 ............................................................................................................. points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characterist ics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as “forest or shrub”. Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or sh rub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area ....................................... points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area ..................................... points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria .......................................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by f looding Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 L Lake-fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Coward in classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide ...................................................................... points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft ....................................................... points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft ........................................................ points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide ..................................................................................... points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area .............................................. points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit ............... points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area ...................................... points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit ......................................................... points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.6 1) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the sho res of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasolin e or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUN CTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed ): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide ............................................ points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. ............................................... points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. ........................................... points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................. points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type exce pt aquatic bed) .............................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 7 of 12 S Slope Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to impro ve water quality. (only 1 score per box) (see p.64) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 ft. vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) .... points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% ............................................................................................................ points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. ........................................................................................................... points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% ................................................................................................. points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland tha t trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area ...................................... points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area .......................................................... points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area. .......................................................................... points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area .......................................................... points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation .................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants sh ould be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland .......................... points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ........................................................ points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area. ....................................................................... points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid ........................ points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the box es above S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic r esources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland function s to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground -cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add th e number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures .............. points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure ............... points = 0 Figure 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ..................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............. = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure 0 H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 1 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure 0 H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 7 7): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% o f the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. 1 H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above 3 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that ap plies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .......................................... points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer .................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure 3 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated cor ridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in ripa rian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegeta ted corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does no t have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field o r pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats li sted by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) 3 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape : Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .... points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................................... points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ...................................................................................................................... points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .............................................................................................................. points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ..................................................................... points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................ points = 0 2 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 9 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 3  Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 12 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of 12 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non -native plant species. If the non -native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetl and, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal c hannels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 8 7) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by th e Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natur al heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (se e p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland Cat I SC3 Bogs (see p. 8 7) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still ne ed to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or vol canic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hol e dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” plant species i n Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or c ombination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cove r)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rati ng Cat. I Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 of 12 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 9 0) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still nee d to rate the wetland based on its function. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) t hat are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh becaus e their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks , gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks . The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive sp ecies on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III  Category of wet land based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known):Wetland B Date of site visit: 3 May 2018 Rated by:Curtis Wambach Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training:Continual SEC: TOWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNC TIONS provided by wetland : I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 10 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 14 Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions 14 Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions 38 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) III Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by t ides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. _____ ). 2. The entire wetland un it is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface wate r runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classifi ed as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size ; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with wa ter when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in R ating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ... points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing ) .. points = 1 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawin g Figure 3 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area .......................................... points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ............................................ points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area .......................................... points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area ............................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure 2 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxe s above 10 D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water qu ality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland tha t drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 1  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 10 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet .... points = 2 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, su rface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 4 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet .................. points = 7 • The wetland is a “headwater” wetland ............................................................................. points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outle t ...................... points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ................................. points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water . points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft .................................................................................... points = 0 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit ............................................... points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ............................................ points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the a rea of the unit ..................................... points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class .................................................................................... points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding pro blems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 2  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 14 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. ...................................................... points = 2 • No depressions present ................................................................................................... points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >9 0% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit .............................................................................. points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland ........................................................................ points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit ............................................................... points = 6 • Ungrazed herb aceous plants > 1/3 area of unit ................................................................ points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit .............................................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetl and that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R1 by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 .............................................................................................. points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 – 20 ......................................................................................... points = 6 • If the ratio is 5 - <10 ........................................................................................................ points = 4 • If the ratio is 1 - <5 .......................................................................................................... points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 ............................................................................................................. points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as “forest or shrub”. Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area ....................................... points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area ..................................... points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria .......................................................................... points = 0 Aerial ph oto or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 L Lake-fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUN CTIONS – Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons o f Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide ...................................................................... points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft ....................................................... points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft ........................................................ points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide ..................................................................................... points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area .............................................. points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit ............... points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 v egetated area ...................................... points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit ......................................................... points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.6 1) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the sho res of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasolin e or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUN CTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed ): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide ............................................ points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. ............................................... points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. ........................................... points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................. points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type exce pt aquatic bed) .............................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 7 of 12 S Slope Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to impro ve water quality. (only 1 score per box) (see p.64) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 ft. vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) .... points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% ............................................................................................................ points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. ........................................................................................................... points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% ................................................................................................. points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland tha t trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area ...................................... points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area .......................................................... points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area. .......................................................................... points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area .......................................................... points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation .................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants sh ould be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland .......................... points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland ........................................................ points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area. ....................................................................... points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid ........................ points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the box es above S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic r esources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier  TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland function s to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground -cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add th e number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures .............. points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure ............... points = 0 Figure 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ..................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............. = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure 0 H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 1 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure 0 H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 7 7): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% o f the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. 3 H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above 5 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that ap plies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .......................................... points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer .................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure 3 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated cor ridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in ripa rian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegeta ted corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does no t have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field o r pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats li sted by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) 3 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape : Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .... points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................................... points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ...................................................................................................................... points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .............................................................................................................. points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ..................................................................... points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................ points = 0 2 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 9 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 5  Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 14 Comments: 16 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of 12 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the we tland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non -native plant species. If the non -native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetl and, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal c hannels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 8 7) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by th e Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natur al heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (se e p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland Cat I SC3 Bogs (see p. 8 7) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still ne ed to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or vol canic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hol e dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” plant species i n Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or c ombination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cove r)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rati ng Cat. I Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 of 12 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 9 0) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still nee d to rate the wetland based on its function. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) t hat are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh becaus e their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks , gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks . The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive sp ecies on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III  Category of wet land based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 44 9 July 2020 Appendix K TMDL Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 45 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 46 9 July 2020 Appendix L 303(d) Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 47 9 July 2020 Subject Property Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 48 9 July 2020 Appendix M King County Hillshade Contributing Basin Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 49 9 July 2020 Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 50 9 July 2020 Appendix N King County Landslide Hazard Areas Canyon Ridge Estates Critical Areas Report Page 51 9 July 2020 King County Landslide hazards, incorporated KC (1990 Potential steep slope hazard areas