HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIS09-0007
~ CITY OF
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASH t NGTON
Aqenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. MIS09-0007, Public Date:
Agency Special Exception for Critical Area Regulations 8/26/2009
Department: Planning, Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact: NA
Building and Community List, below
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to approve the requested Public Agency Special Exception to Critical Area Regulations
based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Conditions as outlined.
Backaround Summary:
OWNER/APPLiCANT: Robert Lee, Project Engineer
City of Auburn Public Works Department
REQUEST: A request for a Public Agency Special Exception to Critical Area
regulations; specifically the wetland and stream (river) standards -The
request is related to the site preparation and replacement of three existing
culverts conveying Mill Creek under Peasley Canyon Road SE which are
failing, while providing improved fish passage and habitat, and increased
flood flow capacity.
LOCATION: Within city right-of-Way (ROW) of Peasley Canyon Road SE and the WA
State Department of Transportation Limited Access Right-of-Way (ROW) of
SR-18 located south of SR 18 and west of West Valley Highway. The SR-
18 West Valley Highway eastbound' off-ramp borders the north side of the
project area.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1, Residential 1 dwelling uniUacre.
EXISTING LAND USE: Peasley Canyon Road - A 115-foot wide right of way developed with an
arterial route for transportation purposes, remainder of the project area is
undeveloped with forested area and shrub habitat.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Public/Quasi-Public
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT
DESIGNATION: N/A
SEPA STATUS: A Final Determination of Non-Significance was issued on August 20, 2009.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTE S: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOYJ, rMACINED
Agenda Subiect Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
Action:
Commiriee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: BYes BNo Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until
Tabled Unti~ T /
Councilmember: Staff: Wa ner
Meetin Date: Se tember 9, 2009 Item Number:
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site and surrounding
properties are: '
IM,
ME
Site, Pub1~c/QuasF Public R 1 ! Pe;asley Cdh Yon Roati;
Res~dential ~ UndevelQped ~nth
du/acre foreste~ are~ anci shrub'
- ; - - ,
hab~~at ~rem~~nmg portion
=
North Public/Q . . = . _ -
uasi-Public R-1 SR-18 Highway and off-
ram
South Open Space R-1 Undeveloped with
forested area and shrub
habitat
East Open Space C-3 Heavy West Valley Highway,
Commercial SR-167
West Public/Quasi-Public R-1 Peasley Canyon Road,
Undeveloped with
forested area and shrub
habitat
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 Master Land Use Application, Received June 12, 2009 .
Exhibit 4 Applicant Responses to Review Criteria - Special Exception for Public Agencies,
Received June 25, 2009
Exhibit 5 Wetland & Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report, Anchor QEA, LLC July 6,
2009
Exhibit 6 Critical Areas Report - Anchor QEA, LLC. June 12, 2009
Exhibif 7 Habitat Assessment Report - Anchor QEA, LLC. July 6, 2009
Exhibit 8 Restorative Programmatic for the State of Washington - Specific Project Information
Form, June 12, 2009
Exhibit 9 Notice of Application
Exhibit 10 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 11 Affidavits and Confirmations of Publication for Legal Notices
Exhibit 12 SEPA Final Determination of Non-Significance issued August 20, 2009
Exhibit 13 Letter from Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation dated August 18,
2009
Exhibit 14 Comment letter on the SEPA decision from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August
20, 2009
Exhibit 15 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) - Anchor QEA LLC. June 2009
Exhibit 16 Hydraulic Project Approval - issue by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on
August 24, 2009
Page 2 of 10
AQenda Subject Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. City of Auburn Public Works Department has applied for a"Special Exception for Public Agencies
and Utilities" for relief from wetland and stream-related standards of the City's Critical Area
regulations. The City's adopted Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) at Auburn City Code (ACC)
Section 16.10.170 provides the following process for seeking relief from the standards of the
CAO under certain circumstances and upon approval by the Hearing Examiner.
16.10.170 Special Exception for Public Agencies and Utilities.
A. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a
public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to
this section.
B. Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a public agency
and utility exception shall be made to the city and shall include a critical area
identification form; critical area report, including mitigation plan, if necessary; and any
other related project documents such as permit applications to other agencies, special
studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW). The director shall prepare a recommendation to the
hearing examiner based on review of the submitted information, a site inspection, and the
proposal's ability to comply with public agency and utility exception review criteria in
subsection D of this section.
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The hearing examiner shall review the application
and director's recommendation, and conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 18.66 ACC. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the request based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the public agency
and utility exception criteria in subsection D of this section.
D. Public Agency and Utility Review Criteria. The criteria for review and approval
of public agency and utility exceptions follow:
1. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less
impact on critical areas;
2. The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide
utility services to the public;
3. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety,
or welfare on or off the development proposal site;
4. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area
functions and values consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
E. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth
evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any
decision has to be made on the application.
2. Three existing culverts conveying Mill Creek under Peasley Canyon Road SE are failing. Two of
the existing culverts will be replaced with a 20-foot-wide by 90-foot-long 3-sided box stream
simulation culvert. A third 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (with damaged end
sections) that outlets from a wetland and is located approximately 60 feet to the southeast, will be
replaced with an 18-inch diameter, smooth interior wall culvert at the same grade.
3. The existing culverts under Peasley Canyon Road are deteriorating and could fail under elevated
stream flow conditions along with a washout of the roadway fill prism of Peasley Canyon Road.
In the past two winters sinkholes have developed in the roadway which has had to be rapidly
repaired by the City to avoid safety risk to the high volume of travelling public using the Peasley
Page 3 of 10
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
Canyon Roadway. Roadway damage or failure resulting from elevated stream flows will be
minimized through the replacement of the existing culverts.
4. The main replacement culvert is being designed as a"stream simulation" culvert that will mimic
stream conditions beyond the culvert within it. The culvert will be significantly wider than the
existing culverts (20 feet as compared to less than 5 feet currently), with a greater height (4 feet
compared to less than 1.5 feet currently) in order to provide 100-year future peak flows and
debris passage as well as reduce sediment aggradation within and beyond the culvert. The new
culvert will also comply with fish passage design criteria and reduce the enclosed length of the
creek located under Peasley Canyon Road.
5. A third 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (with damaged end sections) that outlets
from a wetland and is located approximately 60 feet to the southeast, will be replaced with an 18-
inch diameter, smooth interior wall culvert at the same grade.
6. Upstream and downstream streambed grading will occur in proximity to the replacement culvert
to align the stream with the new culvert. The replacement culvert is not is not in the same
original location so transitions are needed to maintain connectivity. Site preparation and
replacement of Large Wooded Debris (LWD) will also be installed and securely anchored within
the restored stream channel to provide for streambank toe stabilization, to maintain the natural
stream morphology, and to improve fish habitat.
7. The construction work area involves approximately 300 feet of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary. Downstream and northeast of the project site, the Peasley Canyon Tributary and
Algona Tributary join and continue north, ultimately reaching the Green River approximately 5
miles downstream.
8. Two wetlands, Wetland A and B, are found within the project area. Wetland A is a 0.02-acre
Category III riverine wetland that is located on both the north and south fringes of Mifl Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary (but beyond the Project work area limits). Wetland A is directly
associated with the Milt Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary. Wetland B is a 6.96-acre, Category I
depressional wetland, that also includes riverine features. The northern boundary of the wetland
is very close to the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary, upstream of the Peasley Canyon Road
crossing, but a low, earthen berm is located between fhe tributary and the wetland. The Wetland
and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report dated July 6, 2009 did not find a direct surface
water hydrologic connection between the two wetlands.
9. Vegetation within the study area includes a combination of native and non-native tree, shrub,
grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitats along Mill
Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary. Dominant tree species include red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific
willow (Salix lasiandra), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and big-leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum). Dominant shrub species include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas
spirea (Spiraea douglasii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), red elderberry (Sambucus
racemosa), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), with Japanese knotweed
(Polygonum cuspidatum) also frequently observed.
10: The stream and stream side communities of the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary are used by
a variety of wildlife types including song birds, game birds, raptors, woodpeckers, deer, small
mammals, furbearers, reptiles and amphibians. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps identify great blue heron rookery priority
habitat on the forested slopes on the south side study area, however, no great blue herons or
heron nests were observed in the study area during site visits performed in February and April
Page 4 of 10
AQenda Subject Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
2009 as indicated in the Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum dated July 6, 2009.
The Memorandum also states the proposed project activities would not alter rookery habitat, if a
great blue heron rookery was currently active. Mill Creek also provides habitat for migratory fish.
Winter steelhead and Chinook, which are listed species in the Endangered Species Act and
classified as threatened by fhe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are know to occur
within or near the site. The WDFW, fhrough their PHS maps, document the use of stream by fall
Chinook satmon, coho salmon, and resident cutthroat trout.
Relationship to Code ReQUirements
1. The proposed project is a'regulated activity' as defined in ACC 16.10.030(A) since it is an activity that
affects a critical area or its buffer. ACC Section 16.10.020 provides the following definition of a
regulated activity:
"Regulated activities" means activities that have a potential to significantly impact a critical area
that is subject to the provisions of this chapter. Regulated activities generally include, but are not
limited to, any filling, dredging, dumping or stockpiling, release of contaminants to soil or water,
draining, excavation, flooding, clearing or grading, construction or reconstruction, driving pilings,
obstructing, clearing, or harvesting.
2. The CAO sets forth standards of required buffer distances to be observed from the boundary of .
critical areas based on the category (or quality) of the critical area. ACC Section 16.10.020 provides
the following definitions of "streams", "wetlands" and "buffers":
"Streams" means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed that
demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but is not limited to, bedrock
channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds and defined-channet swales. The channel or bed need
not contain water year-round. This definition is 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 purpose of stream mitigation. (Emphasis added)
"Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground 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 non-wetland sites, including but not
limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate conversion of
wetlands. (Definition taken from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation
Manual, Ecology Publication No. 96-94.) (Emphasis added)
"Buffer or buffer area, critical area" means a naturally vegetated, undisturbed, enhanced or
revegetated zone surrounding a critical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts
to its integrity and value, and is an integral part of the resource's ecosystem. (Emphasis added)
3. Further elaboration of the purpose and treatment of buffers is found at ACC 16.10.090(A) as follows: "A. General Provisions. The establishment of on-site buffers, buffer areas or setbacks shall
be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to critical areas. The
purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function, value, and resources of the
Page 5 of 10
Agenda Subiect Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
subject critical area (in the case of wetlands, streams, and/or wildlife habitat areas), and/or
to protect life, property and resources from risks associated with development on
unstabfe or critical lands (in the case of geologic hazard areas). Buffers shall typicaily
consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation retained or established to achieve the
purpose of the buffer. No buildings or structures shall be allowed within the buffer unless
as otherwise permitted by this section. If the site has previously been disturbed, the buffer
area shall be revegetated pursuant to an approved enhancement plan. Buffers shall be
protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade, notice of the
presence of the critical area and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation
controls. Restrictive covenants or conservation easements may be required to provide long-term
• preservation and protection of buffer areas." (Emphasis added)
40 ACC 16.10 090(C) defines how wetland buffers are measured in the field. It provides that: "the buffer
shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland edge as delineated and marked in the field using
the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. " and for stream buffers: "the
buffer shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark."
5. Construction that is allowed to occur within identified wetfand buffers is described at ACC
16.10.090(E)(1)(d) which says:
"Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland
buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the Director within the buffer
depending on the sensitivity of the wetland. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impacts
which may be permitted in appropriate cases include permeable pedestrian trails, viewing
platforms, and utility easements; provided that any impacts to the buffer resulting from such
permitted activities shall be mitigated. Uses permitted within the buffer shall generally be
located as far from the wetland as possible." (Emphasis added)
6. Construction that is allowed to occur within identified stream buffers is described at ACC
16.10.090(E)(2)(c) which says:
"No structures or improvements shafl be permitted within the stream buffer area, including
buildings, decks, docks, except as otherwise permitted or required under the city's adopted
shoreline master program, or under one of the following circumstances: ii. For construction of
new public roads and utilities, and accessory structures, when no feasible alternative
tocation exists; or. (Emphasis added)
7. ACC Section 16.10.090(E)(1),(2) provides the following minimum and maximum buffer standards
applicable to wetlands and streams:
E. Buffer widths shall be established for specific critical areas according to the following standards
and criteria:
1. Wetland buffers shall be established as follows:
Wetland Cateqory Minimum Buffer Width Maximum Buffer Width
(see also 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
Page 6 of 10
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009 Different buffer width requirements may apply to various portions of a site, without requiring
averaging or variances, based on the site plan, the intensity of land uses in various locations, and
differences in the category of wetland.
2. Stream buffers shall be established as follows:
Stream Class Minimum Buffer Width
Class I 100 feet
Class II 75 feet
Class III 25 feet
Class IV 25 feet
8. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas and Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation
report for the project by Anchor QEA, LLC, dated June 12, 2009 and July 6, 2009, classifying and
_ delineating a 6.96-acre Category I depressional wetland (Wetland B) and a 0.02-acre Category III
riverine wetland (Wetland A) on the subject site.
9. As a Category I wetland, the required buffer width for the wetland, under Auburn City Code, ranges
from 100 to 200 feet. As a Category I I I wetland, the required buffer widfh for the wetland, under
Auburn City Code, ranges from 25 to 50 feet. The Critical Areas report by Anchor QEA, LLC did not
identify appropriate buffers for each of the wetlands but given that the proposed construction is of
medium to high intensity a buffer in the middle range is appropriate.
10. According to the Critical Areas and Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation reporf for the
project by Anchor QEA, LLC, dated June 12, 2009 and July 6, 2009, the subject site is within the Mill
Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary, a Class II stream with a minimum buffer of 75 feet.
11. The new replacement culvert through its larger channel opening, which is meant to satisfy fish and
flood flow passage requirements, will occur within the critical wetland and stream areas and their
associated buffers. Further, upstream and downstream sections of the tributary will be modified to
allow the new culvert fo function properly and to provide better fish habitat. These stream
modifications will take place within the minimum stream buffers widths. Therefore a public agency
special exception is being requested for relief from wetland and stream buffer requirements.
12. The Special Exception process is appropriate for this proposal rather than being authorized through
the buffer variation allowed through an administrative approval by the Planning Director via ACC
16.10.090(E)(1)(d) and (E)(2)(d) above, due to the following factors:
o Encroachment into the stream and wetlands buffer areas
o Modification of the stream buffer areas (for culvert alignment)
o The Special Exception is a more specific type of approval process that only applies to public
agencies and utilities and thus is more specialized.
13. The CAO also provides other mechanisms for authorizing alterations/deviations from critical area
standards associated with regulated activities, including provisions for variances (ACC 16.10.60) and
exemptions to the regulations (ACC 16.10.040(A)(4)).
However, the Special Exception process is a more appropriate to seek relief for this proposal rather
than being authorized through a variance because the Special Exception is a more specific type of
approval process.
Page 7 of 10
Aqenda Sub~ect Public Heanng MfS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
The Special Exception process is also more appropriate rather than being authorized through an
exemption to the regulations because the proposal does not fit an exemption because the large
extent of wetland and stream buffer impacts cannot be characterized as "minor" public construction.
14. Pursuant ACC 16.10.170, the Hearing Examiner shall review the application and director's
recommendation for the special exception, conduct a public hearing and issue a decision.
15. The City has issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on August 21, 2009 with an
associated 14-day appeal period to end on September 4, 2009.
16. Staff conducted a site visit on 9/16/08, to discuss the new culvert and replacement in the 2009
construction season. Additional site visits occurred on 4/22/09 and 5/11/09 with representatives from
other agencies including the WDFW and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to discuss design and
mitigation and to solicit agency comments and incorporate them to the extent feasible into the project.
17. The contents of the case file for this project (MIS09-0007) are hereby incorporated by refeFence and
made part of the record of this hearing.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff has concluded that the requested Public Agency Special Exception should be approved as the
applicanf has met the burden of proof in demonstrating fhat they are consistent with all of the following
criteria necessary to grant a Special Exception for Public Agencies and Utilities as outlined in Section
16.10.170(D)(1-4) of the Critical Areas Ordinance. An analysis of the criteria supporting the Public Utility
Special Exception application follows.
1. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on
critical areas;
Within the design development process, no other replacement culverts and adjacent channel
restoration alternatives were identified that would have less impact on critical areas. Certain physical
constraints were identified that would affect the size and design of the replacemenE culvert along
. with sections of the tributary that would also need to be realigned. Constraints included nearby
roads (Peasley Canyon Road and SR-18 east-bound off ramp), the limits of Wetlands A and B,
adjacent utility corridors and the critical areas along them, and the WSDUT park-and-ride lot to fhe
east. The projecYs final design was found to have the least impact to critical areas, which includes
eliminating the impacts to the downstream wetland (Wetland A); reducing the overall length of Mill
Creek enclosed within the road culvert, and avoiding and minimizing permanent impacts to the
adjacent open water wetland (Wetland B) and other associated critical areas.
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe submitted comments during the public comment period on the SEPA
decision. The technical issues raised in their letter were the overall size of the proposed culvert (they
advised widening it from the proposed 20 feet to 24 feet), and the installation of a bypass culvert that
was not smooth sided. Neither of these would result in fewer impacts to the critical areas, and both
suggestions will be reviewed by the City's technical consultant on the project and addressed through
project approvals.
2. The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility
services to the public;
Strict application of the wetland and stream buffer standards in ACC 16.10 would unreasonably
restrict the ability to reduce the public safety risk associated with the deteriorating condition of the
Page 8 of 10
Agenda Subject Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
existing under roadway culverts that could result in possible culvert failure and roadway fill prism
washout under high stream flow conditions. The proposed alteration to the critical area for
construction of the public facility is the minimum necessary to accommodate the facility. The
construction of the public facility minimizes the adverse impacts on the critical area and utilizes best
available construction design and development techniques which results in the least impact on the
critical areas.
The proposed culvert replacement will result in the removal of an undersized failing culvert with a
larger stream-simulation culvert. The proposed project will also improve the riparian conditions of the
stream both above and below the new culvert. The option that would further decrease critical areas
impacts would be an in-kind culvert replacement, which would not provide additional critical area
improvement (including fish and riparian habitat) and most likely would not be approved by state and
federal permitting agencies.
3. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on
or off the development proposal site;
The project does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the
improvement work area. Once the improvemenf is made, the future risk to roadway damage or
failure resulting from elevated stream flow will be minimized, as the replacement culvert and channel
restoration is designed to convey a 100-year flood event without overflow or damage to the raadway.
Averse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters involved
and their aquatic life would be prevented.
4. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and
values consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
While the proposal does not meet all standards of the Critical Areas Ordinance because it includes
construction within the stream and buffer, the project does attempt to protect and mitigate impacts to
the function and value of the critical area values consistent with the City of Auburn's Critical Areas
Ordinance. The instaltation of a wider and shorter replacement culvert (with stream simulation
features) will increase the length of the tributary and expand the riparian corridor area. The project
will also result in an overall improvement in stream, wetland, and associated regulated buffer habitat
condition where impacted areas will be replanted with healthy native vegetation to provide long-term
benefits to the stream corridor and adjacent wetland habitats within the project area. The Stream
and Wetland Conceptual Planting Plan in the Critical Areas Report byAnchor QEA (June 2009, pg
24) indicates that once the sfream channel is restored, large woody debris (LWD) will be placed in
the stream, together with streambed substrate, native riparian and wetland plantings installed along
the steam banks. Approximately 0.2 acres of existing vegetation will be removed or altered as a
result of grading and construction. However, a net gain in native wetland and upland vegetation
species and associated habitat function is anticipated as a result of landscape restoration for the
project.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the application, facts and findings and conclusions of the Staff report, Staff recommends that
the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Public Agency Special Exception for Critical Areas subject to the
following conditions:
Page 9 of 10
Agenda Subject Public Hearing MIS09-0007 Date:
8/26/2009
1. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the reviewed plans included in the Public
Agency Special Exception and JARPA application or as may be subsequently modified to meet
approvals of agencies with jurisdiction.
2. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place during their usage and the
site shall be restored to a natural condition within 30 days after abandonment by construction
activity.
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.
~
Page 10 of 10
~ a . . g
ts
~r
'S+"~g
"'T~r-Ja~.
P
r
~S
k
~
k
~v's~i• ~?3.s3~' . ic+~ t(` ~ ,yv-~,*e le f L C-~ T~'
n
4~`
M
r a.,
I ti
~~SM" ~ x ir #..t" . ::F`~''~>f F-t ! r... ev y -q
~
` { ~
.d
vo~
" z • :v s ~ , ~x ° ~ 't r r ~ ~
n
c~`ti
r~ at''
4''"" f~'n i € 8~ ~k~ si~.,~~ c.~ 3L £ 4-•~'C `c -f w~ S-s" ~ ~ T .
,
~a'~,. • • •
~n~
ZF,
OW
z @ f 9 " ~y
7- p .Jf as~
.
3
✓ t Y L.,~L ! ~y TirY x ~S
y
';k
; ~ ~ y, . , C/y, .t✓,~y.~ ~ F *
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i • • ~ .R\ :,~y ~ ~ : ' S F~ 3
T ~ie` 5 1 ~ ( •X.,.C~1 `e . ~S 2, Y d Y~ N E,. ~ q v''
F 1 rt . 2* Si ~.42 r % k2 ~ -W . .N ? x y _.AF ~ _vF'
.
, . - . . . . t. : ~ ~
.
*CIFFYF
WASHINGTQN planning, Suilding, and Cornmunity Departmeizt
MASTER LAND USEAPPLICATION- PLANNINGAPPLICATIONS
Project Name CVi V&T Date
Parcel No(s) Site Address
Legal Description .(attached separate sheet-if necessary)
APPlican C~
Name: ~zew w}}-
Mailin Ad
g dress: W _
~ .
Telephone d Fax:
{l QN r'A_4!Pq . •
Si ature: ~ - `
Owner (if mo e than one attach another sheet)
Name: ~ Mailing Addre~ : ~ ~ RECEIVED
Telephone and Fax: rJUN 1 2
Email: . 1009
SignatuFe:
Engineer/Architecture{Other uUILDING DIVlSiON
Name: .
Mailing Address:
Telephone and Fax:
Email: Description of Proposed Action: ~xtsn&,r WyOv AD ~
JVif k 01 wy-
Type of A lication Re uired Check all that A 1
Administrative Agpeal* Rezone (site specific)*
Administrative Use Permit* Short Plat
A.nnexation* Special Exception*
Boundary Line Adjusttnent Special Home Occupation Permit*
Comprehensive Plan Annendment (Text or Map)* Substantial Shoreline Development*
Conditional Use Permit* Surface Mining Pertnit*
Critical Areas Variance* Temporary Use Permit
evelopment Agreement* Variance*
Environmental Review (SEPA)* *Please note that public notification is
Final Plat required. A separate cost is char•ged
Pretiminary Piat* for the signs. City prepares signs but
PUD Site Plan Approval applicant responsible for sign posting.
Reasonable Use Exce tion*
Elbibit ,.3,
Page 1 of 2 Number Of Psges
AIJBTJRN * MC?RE THAN Y4LJ IMAGINE`D
r~ ~ V
0
I z ~ ~
~ Q N
w ~ n
<
~ W J
~
1
~ S O ifi V~ zp
~ _ { z
0
0 0
p • ~ vM ~ s~ ~ ~ / ~ ~~p
ti~~ ~ o0
1
i ! J I ♦ oo~ ~ m o
/ / / ~ \ U (o ~ V W
(L
>
mU
~ U C
w°U) U~G~ O~o
~ ( ~ p O C Os
t p
I ` f \ LL to ~
jo3 ~
3 ~ 0 = ~ ~ o
~
o O ¢ ~ Q ti
\MW>
p
t f o F /
:t ~a(n Wo
~ ~ .
lx.. ~2 ~.~Q O,'R
i 1 1 W_ /~J~J ~~3 Ua I
oll ~
/ W m ~
0.11
, 4 cc ~iaQ
~ f ~ ~ ~ - - - -
W
~ ~
i ~ ~W~ i ~ 3 a c `r ` W
Z
N~O a / F
~a°z > a4 w O~O
W ~ ~N e~-
J c~
/ / ~ ( oy b~Zy O
1 / ' ~ ~l e ~ 1= a
~ • ~ ~
fi) JJ~~ Z y
Ur
Qw
m
a o Qco
e7!s G+W'ey,sys6uµteip edeeAedieAs6u--P WMOVOlNOWD 1l.iW - Wn9nVlo AM3isMfcu.A:,q ,qs,xo)►espP uidOEZ! 600L SO un!'
; o
,
(
!
~ G
W
W
,
r-I~"~%~~~~
= .J ~ ,it► ~ E
,
~ >
3
~
% v
~ Q
(!Y ; 1 ; ~ ,
4 ~
/ 1 I
6O0
' mn W• 6
(7
ra~
~ ~ . . ,
f~
6 t;
~8 -
_
;
,
W
m
t on
9 ~o
J
; =W
s. a Z
. ~ ~
i ~
r X
I
,.y
;
,
/ ~ ( ~ j
r p
~ Z
C~_~
~
' T
1
Z W ! ~
w a d y'. N
tm a 4)
%i °w Q 1 M ~ R
i vi a 1
; °a u ~ 0! 01
; &m ► E~
; a~
a z ! N ~ 0 ~
" °W i 1 C'
Xo
o
r ~
O
C
N U
1
1 z
1 l Z
a
o w ~
► o J Y
a~
~i ~ ~ a~
jg u V
Q
. ~o'
j
oV
F
NW
7`n O ' ~ J W O O~i
N Z oft
a o~ W z y
i i m U ~
~
oQ ' w 1 z
a cWa
` t
aa°
o ~
s ~
~
~ 1 x
` a
~ lx
\ U I J
o
0
co
m
~
~
i
i
i
;
;
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
! ~ w
i
~
,
~
,
t
1
N
~
7
~ co ~
85
~a
a0
83 OZ a
X EX. GRADE
w
81
~
c~
79
~ U t0
n ~RAHEIE-CONIHOL B~RM W - X
a .o.~ .0 ~ •
-
75 a o .
0
COBBLE/B LDER
"v• Q73 MIX
71 PIEVETAIENT
q SECTION (looldng upstream)
cs
SCALE: Y=6'
~ EX. GRADE - J _ l l_ " 24" DIA. BOULDER
(BEYOND. TYP.)
24" DIA. BOULDER
a (TW)
79
3-SlDED BOX
~ m 20' SPAN
U
77 X
6' OC (TYP.) n
4.
~ w
75
\ COBBLE/BWLDER 78" REINFORCED
73 \ MIX •o . ~"J0 ~.-~..oO . p\` CONCRETE SLAB /
71
Q
sg FOUNDATION
3-S/DED BOX MATERIAL
GEOGRID (TWO 9" LIFTS)
67 g SECT/ON (IOOkIng lrpstream) GEOTEXiiLE
- 0 3 6
SCALE: 1'=6'
83
WJ
03
a c~
81 0=
a
EX. GRADE
a
79
~ /
w ~
a
n
~ o SLOPE REINFORCEMENT
0 0
75 w w a
DEPOSITION o
AREA a o
73 O
a
M
SLOPE RElNFORCEMENT
69
- 0 3 6
67 -
'NC ANCHOR Figure 4
QEA c..c...v Culvert and Channel Improvements Sections AU
Mil! Creek Peasley Canyon Road Cuivert Replacement
1
Ag6: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
AgC: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
y k~ T _ AkF: Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep
I k ~
~ . . ~ ~F ~rf•4 4 ;
~r ~ '•tt; w 3trv,~
Py: Puyallup fine sandy loam
'F#1~`j'~~
~~`~~'~x~~`Q~~`. Sk: Seattle muck
~ ~E f~t 7"3,~y~k'f•~.M~.~
.
~ Ur Urban land
rcis k ~ S n ~ '~r"t t
.
H
• ~ - M '~~j~ y , ~ ~7~`., , ~.~y t `~t~r """8., v.,~ ~
.
. .
j s~..
Limit of Excavation
~
~
S k ~ ~L
' •ib~%`.
Limit of Construction Disturbance ~ ~ 5 ~
I
. M2~
a:`•,' - s s i~Zl*..' cy
Project Area Boundary
F
w:t. r~ ~
~~``..ww~~aa""~n Xy+'~;' ~ A • 4~' 1 ~e~iR~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~S.,Y~ S ;~X'.:
ANCHoR Figure 5
V.~ QEA ~ Project Area Soils Classification AUBURN
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
N ~
~`'4"~~r~ t~ Sn~ ~v ~5 ~a~
rs"+3 ~ ~~.j~ 7
3
~A~
~L ~ . h
~ .t ~y f v~ a . ~ .s- Es"...^" ~ 1 5~ ~✓s,~ 1~` a~i fi ~ ~
~ -'L
..:`k'.~
ns 4~ ~ f
~.,R .x r ~
~ .
fi, S g
_ ~ Q ~ ~_.y,.,~,~-s,z > ~'6• $+~Ec, r~ ~a'a ~ »~~1 ~c<°~`~"~~r°~' , ~
~ _ ~v ~ ~ vF~.g ' ~ ~
,
~
~ ~ a ~ ~k a ~ ~~r y`` u~. . p x r~."~`~, ~ r N
~r , z i€ a,~ ~ ~
„ ~S
~3 A - h
.'y 1 W~
z y~~ . ~ • • r~
0,
' .
_ ~-''~{`1S
f7k 1 tt i a ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~
_ : r 4~ 1 ' ~ ~o-, a'~ r ~ ' `dc .,.c°~~.gad- r ~ y'~' ~~.5~ r .
~',xs
- ~ _'4~
Limit _,.:.,s.~.A.~rs~ ~~r:r.,r_,:aa- h . ~`!~~t.,~ t.y ~ ~ f ~ . ~ , y ° ~e ~ t ~aR'~~ g,~~`# ~ ' ~~L•. c ~ ~ o • • Distur
~ .5 ~ e.ao~~°~~ ~4P~, ~ .
sy.~ ~~w~c~
.:~'a
3'wy,"
~ s ~E~~^~
r I'vEIR
1
'
s~j ~C.z~ ~z,~ ~ ~ - 3,~, ~ xk~3 3. , . y, ' ' • ~ ~
' • B ~~t` ~s ~i ~ ~ ~"Y~ ~ ~~3`Se~a ~ ~ tiG'~, ~ ' ~ 1 ,'y ~
' 4
21, $_,i?+~~ ~ ~,R 3 R
~a F z c,~~ ~ s ,Fr ~
x ~a~
,t~~y'f~~,.~ z ~ • ~ . ~ • . y,..~~. sf'•7.i.~ T~ F r'~ F r h
~v91CWwT~' ~^~"'~~p.~y~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~b -•y* Y ~ :.-~r ~w~ ~~x ~~i sk•t"',.`~ ~ x ~l"" ~
"rr t ' ~ .
7
• y ~ ~ . ~ . ~ d Y ~ s~ ~ v ~
>
i
s - ' ~ s - v •r" r ~ .v~"`r~ a ;
.
.
• 4
F yr~~ } ~Y•~~ r; r` . ~3" . , r '~C ~ t ~ ^ l } r : 11,
NrQW `
~ ) t4nF~~ .'at
~t~J'~,~
',7
~ • ~
• • ~
~ • • • • ~ : ~
- • • - -
~ tt; ~"'I V L. ~_J 5 vr
~~L 0
Appendix A- Master Land Use Application (gy Ot= i~~~UFiN
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement PrayLqJ~~~~ ~~V"'ON
June 25, 2009
PROJECT DESCRIPTtON
The City of Auburn (City) is proposing to replace three culverts that carry Mill Creek under
Peasley Canyon Road. The culverts are located approximately 500 feet upstream (west) of
the West Valley Highway crossing of Mill Creek, and approximately 550 feet upstream of the
mainstem Mill Creek confluence. Two existing deteriorating corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
culverts (60-inch and 30-inch in diameter, respectively) will be replaced by a 20-foot wide
by 90-foot-long 3-sided box stream simulation culvert. The existing culverts act as a fish
passage partial barrier due to their limited size and the extent of sediment aggradation within
them. The third culvert, an 18-inch diameter CMP culvert with damaged end sections, is
located approximately 60 feet to the southeast of the previously mentioned culverts and is
. the outlet for the wetland areas on the south (upstream) side of Peasley Canyon Road. Due
to its deteriorated nature; this culvert will be removed and replaced in-kind. The condition,
structural integrity, and watertightness of these culverts are also suspect due to significant
sinkholes that have occurred in the overlying pavement and roadway prism backfill over the
past two winters. .
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROJECT COMPLIANCE
The Project design complies with the applicable regulatory requirements detailed in the
Auburn City Code (ACC) Special Exception for Public Agencies and Utilities (ACC 16.10.170
(D)). The following sections detail the requirements of ACC 16.10.170(D) and provide
information as.to how the Project meets these requirements.
ACC 16.10.170 Special exceptian for public agencies and utilities.
D. Public Agency and Utility Review Criteria. The criteria for review and approval of public
agency and utility exceptions foNow:
1. There is no other practical al#ernative to the proposed development with less impact on
critical areas; The project is a culvert replacement project that vvill replace the two e7:isting failing culverts
(60-inch and 30-inch diameter) located under Peasley Canyon Road at the Peasley Canyon
Page 1 of 4
NAAnAneI of Page~s
Road Tributary stream crossing. Tt will also replace a nearby third off-channel 18-inch
diameter culvert in-kind that drains the adjacent wetland complex (upstream of the road) to
the stream channel (downstream of the road). To accommodate those culvert replacements
in a manner that meets current fish passage and drainage management standards, and that
provides for proper horizontal and vertical alignment, some modifications to the adjacent
stream channel and its associated buffer are required upstream and downstream of the
crossing.
The project layout was altered during the design development process to eliminate impacts to
a downstream wetland (Wetland A); to reduce the overall length of Mill Creek within the
road culvert, and to avoid and minimize permanent impacts to an adjacent open water -
wetland (Wetland B) and other associated critical areas. Additionally, the project will fully
restore all temporary wetland impacts.
There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on
critical areas. The replacement culvert requires a much larger channel opening to meet fish
passage and flood flow passage requirements. A20-foot span by 6-foot height (4-foot clear
height), 3-sided box culvert) is proposed. There are many constraints affecting the site
design that were considered and that resulted in avoiding or mixumizing impacts to critical
areas:
• The existing highly-skewed culvert alignment relative to the road creates a much
longer culvert than is otherwise required; the culvert realignment is proposed to
shorten its length, facilitating fish passage, and adding to the open channel and
associated buffer length
• Realignment of the upstream and downstream channel sections have physical
. constraints imposed by the road, the naturally aggrading channel bed condition, an
existing upstream channel berm controlling interchange of stream flows with
adjacent wetlands, and the adjacent Wetland B Iimits; the replacement culvert and
adjacent channel restoration is aligned to achieve a bed profile consistent with the
Ionger channel profile, and to provide a"best fit" upstream and downstream channel
realignment within those identified constraints whi.le avoiding Wetland B permanent
impacts
. The WSDOT park-and-ride lot and the SR-I8 east-bound off-ramp constrain the
channel realignment downstream of the culvert, and WDFW limitations on the
Page 2 of 4
extent of acceptable channel disturbance upstream and downstream further constrain
the improvements design; the replacement culvert and channel restoration is aligned
so as not to impact those transportation-related uses, and to conform to the WDFW
maximum desired limits of channel improvement
. Adjacent overhead power lines and natural gas pipelines run parallel to portions of
the upstream and downstream channel (the power line upstream is within the
existing wetland and stream buffers); the culvert and channel restoration layout is
proposed to avoid those utility corridors and critical areas along them
A Critical Areas Report, prepared in accordance with City of Auburn standards, has been
completed for the project that more specifically illustrates and describes the proposed site
design layout that avoids or minimizes impacts to critical areas. In the design development
process, no other replacement culvert and adjacent channel restoration alternatives were .
identified that would have less impact on critical areas.
2. The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility
services to the public;
The completed Project will not unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to
the public. All utilities located on or near the site will remain in an unaltered condition
post-project, and no effect on services to the public during construction or longer term
should occur.
3. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on
or off the development proposal site;
The project does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on
or off the improvement work area: In fact, one of the primary goals of the project is reduce
the public safety risk associated with the deteriorating condition of the existing culverts that
could result in possible culverts failure and roadway fill prism washout under elevated
stream flow conditions. In the past two winters, sinkholes have developed in the roadway
that have had to be rapidly repaired by the City to avoid safety risks to the high volume of
travelling public using the Peasley Canyon Roadway (23,100 ADT reported by the City).
Once the improvement is made, the future risk to roadway damage or failure resulting from
Page 3 of 4
elevated streamflow will be minimized, as the replacement culvert and channel restorat'ion is
being designed to convey the 100-year flood event without overflow or damage to the
roadway. Beyond the Project work area, the improvement proposal should have no effect on .
public health, safety, or welfare. 4. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and
values consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
The Project is designed to minimize impacts to existing critical areas and their associated
functions and values. It will also result in an increase in critical habitat area and actually
improve the critical areas functions and values within the project area. Project benefits
within critical areas include:
• A wider and shorter replacement culvert (resulting in added channel length and
riparian comdor area)
• Removal of a partial fish passage barrier that will maximize fish use of approximately
0.65 mile or upstream aquatic habitat within the existing channel
• Addition of significant quantities of in-channel large woody debris to improve the
aquatic habitat functional values (e.g., cover, food source, gravel sorting) and add
hydraulic roughness
• Removal of invasive species and revegetation of disturbed work areas with native
plant species that will improve riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity, and
stream shading. These improvements will provide enhancernents beyond in-kind mitigation for project
temporary and permanent construction impacts, all consistent with applicable regulations
and standards, thereby improving existing critical areas functions and values. In addition, by
minimizing the project improvement footprint, existing critical areas otherwise affected by
the Project will be preserved and protected.
Page 4 of 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCI'ION 3
1.1 Review of Existing Information ..........:..........................................................................5
2 STt7DY AREA DESCRIPTION 5
2.1 Topography .......................................................................................................................6
2.2 Soils ...................................................................................................................................6
2.3 Hydrology .........................................................................................................................9
2.4 Plant Communities .........................................................................................................10
3 WETLAND DELINEATION 10
3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods ......................................................................................10
3.1.1 Vegetation .................................................................................................................14
3.1.2 Soils ...........................................................................................................................15
3.1.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................15
3.1.4 Other Data Sources ...................................................................................................15
3.1.5 Wetland Classifications ............................................................................................15
3.1.6 Wetland Ratings .......................................................................................................16
3.1.7 Wetland Functions Assessment ...............................................................................17
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results .........................................................................................17
3.2.1 Wetland A .................................................................................................................17
3.2.2 Wetland B .................................................................................................................18
3.3 Regulatory Framework for Wetland Classification ......................................................20
3.3.1 USFWS Classification ...............................................................................................20
3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores .........................20
3.3.3 City of Auburn Wetland Classification Guidance ..................................................22
3.3.4 Wetland Delineatian and Typing Limitations ........................................................23
4 STREAM OHWM DELINEA'I'ION..................................................................................... 23
4.1 Stream OHWM Delineation Methods ..........................................................................24
4.1.1 Water Typing System Criteria .................................................................................25
4.2 Stream OHWM Delineation Results .............................................................................26
4.2.1 Stream Ratings and Buffers ......................................................................................28
5 REFERINCES ......................................................................................................................29
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 1 08055 4-01
RECEIVED
'JULi 0 6 2009
CI°rY OF AUBURN
BUMLDING DIVIs~N
WETLAND AND ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK DELINEATION
MILL CREEK PEASLEY CANYON ROAD
CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Prepared for
City of Auburn
Public Works Department
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001 _
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
3312 Rosedale Street, Suite 204
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
lune 2009
Exhibit
Number of
~ -
List of Tables
Table 1 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions 14
Table 2 USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water 20
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands
Rating System 22
Table 4 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores 22
Table 5 City of Auburn City Code Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance 23
Table 6 Fish Species Documented in Mill Creek Project Area 27
Table 7 City of Auburn Ciry Code Stream Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance 28
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 4
Figure 2 NRCS Soil Series Survey Information 8
Figure 3a Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results 11
Figure 3b Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results 12
Figure 4 USFWS NWI Information 21
List of Appendices
Appendix A Sample Plot Summary Data
Appendix B Field Data Sheets
Appendix C Ecology Wedand Rating Forms
Appendix D Site Photographs
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culven Replacement Il 080554-01
1 INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2009, Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) performed a wetland delineation
and stream ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineation on an approximately 14-acre
project study area within and adjacent to Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary in the City of
Auburn, King County, Washington (Township 21North, Range 4 East, Sections 14 and 23).
A project location map identifying the project study area and impravements work
(disturbance) area is shown on Figure L
This report is intended to support of the Ciry of Auburn (City) Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Road Culvert Replacement Project (Project) (Agreement No. AG-C-348). The report was
prepared in accordance with City criteria, as defined in the City of Auburn City Code (ACC)
Critical Areas Chapter 16.10 (City of Auburn 2009). Land use within the study area consists
of roads, parking areas, undeveloped forest, and shrub habitat. Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary traverses through the north side of the study area. Two wetlands (Wetlands A and
B) were identified within the study area.
The following sections of this report describe the rnethods used in the field investigation and
Anchor QEA's findings. A description of the study area is included in Section 2. Summaries
of the findings of the wedand delineation are included in Section 3. Summaries of the
findings of the stream OHWM delineation are included in Section 4. A summary of data
collected at each sampling plot during the wedand delineation is presented in tables in
Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Wedand Rating forms are included in Appendix C, and site photographs
are provided in Appendix D.
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 3 080534-01
- ~
Project Location
a ~
- Construction Work Area -
~
~
Project Study Area Bountlary
ANCH.OR Figure 1
QEA c~<... Project Location Map
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
1.1 Review of Existing Information
As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in the study area,
Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support field
observations:
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009; s e e
Figure 3)
~ Soil Survey ofKing County, Washington (USDA 1973) ,
• Hydric Soil ListforKing County, Washington (USDA 2001)
• United States Fish and Wildllfe Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper forNational
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map Information (USF'WS 2009; see Figure 4)
• ACC (City of Auburn 2009)
• Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFLV) PriorityHabitat and Species
(PHS) Maps (WDFW 2009)
• Aerial photographs
2 5TUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The 14-acre study area is located in the City of Auburn, King County Washington (Township
21 North, Range 4 East, Sections 14 and 23; see Figure 1). Peasley Canyon Road and the
adjacent project work area are located within an exdsting Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way (ROW). A sepazate City of Auburn ROW for Peasley
Canyon Road extends through the south side of the project study area (through Wetland B), .
but is not aligned with the actual Peasley Canyon Road. The majority of the study area
beyond the roadway and adjacent park-and-ride lot is undeveloped, with tree, shrub, and
herbaceous vegetation associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitats. West Valley
Highway forms the east boundary of the study area. Undeveloped forest located on a north
facing hillside forms the south boundary. Peasley Canyon Road South forms the north study
area boundary to the west before the road bisects the study area and connects with West
Valley Highway. Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary traverses the north side of the study
area and flows beneath Peasley Canyon Road through the culvert proposed for replacement.
State Route (SR) 18 is located to the north of the study area, and SR 167 is located further to
the east of the study area. A recent aerial photograph of the study area is included as the
Figure 1 base.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Repon june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 5 080554-01
2.1 Topography
Overall, the topography within the study area is relatively flat beyond the stream channel
and bank cut slopes, and slopes gently to the east (at about a 2 percent grade), with
depression areas associated with wetland habitat. To the south, a moderately gentle slope
increases in elevation towards the forested hillside. The steepest slope on the site is
approximately 15:1 (67 percent), at the road embankment culvert end sections and in over-
steepened channel bank cut areas. Mill Peasley Canyon Tributary consists of a somewhat
incised channel cut into the valley floor sediments with bed substrate aggraded from
upstream sediment sources. In some cases, fill prisms exist along the channel banks.
The City of Auburn completed a detailed, field surveyed topographic map of the Project area
and upstream and downstream stream channel as the basis for design development. That
mapping included tie-in of selected field-delineated wetlands points; the remainder of the
wetland boundary points were tied in by portable GPS. All of the OHWM points along the
stream channel were tied in by survey. This mapping provided the basis fox project
unprovements grading plan development to min;mize potential impacts to existing wetlands
and stream habitats and their buffers.
2.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009) identifies six soil series in the location of the study
area: "Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC)," "Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD)," Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF),"
"Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py)," "Seattle muck (Sk)," and "Urban Land (Ur)." The
Alderwood and Kitsap soils are mapped within the south portion of the study area. Puyallup
soils are mapped in the eastern portion of the study area. Seattle muck soils are mapped in
the central and eastern portions of the study area. Urban Land soils are mapped along the
north boundaries of the study area, inclusive of Peasley Canyon Road and the stream channel
near the crossing. Figure 2 shows soil series in the study area.
The Alderwood series develops from consolidated substratums (e.g., glacial till). Alderwood
and Kitsap soils are made up of moderately to excessively drained soils typically found on
uplands and terraces. Puyallup fine sandy loam is made up of well drained soils formed in
sandy mixed alluvium, under trees, with slopes of 0 to 3 percent. The Seattle series is a very
poorly drained soil derived primarily from decaying sedges. Urban Land is soil that has been
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 6 080554-01
modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick
to accommodate large industrial and housing installations (USDA 1973).
According ta the Hydnc Soil ListforKing County, Washington, Seattle muck soil series are
classified as hydric soils, while Alderwood, Alderwood and Kitsap, Puyallup, and Urban Land
series are not classified as hydric soils (USDA 2001).
Sample plot soil profiles are described in Section 3.2. A summary of soils data collected at
each sample plot is presented in tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix
B.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 7 080554-01
~x
` AgB: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6lpercent siopes
~ AgC: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. 6 to 15 percent slopes
.
AkF: Aiderwood and Kitsap soiis, very steep
Py: Puyallup fine sandy loam
~
- ~ Sk: Seattle muck
Ur. Urban land
KxF
~
_ t
~
:
~
'ii...
t
~
ANCHOR Figure 2 ~
C~EA NRCS Soil Series Survey Information `J'BVkN
Mill Creek Peasiey Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
2.3 Hydrology
The study area is located in the Duwamish/Green Basin Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 9(Ecology 2009a). Hydrologic characteristics in the study area are influenced by
regional groundwater, direct precipitation, surface water runoff, and the adjacent Mill Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary. The stream and wetlands in the study area receive some runoff
from impervious surfaces associated with roads and the park-and-ride lot within the study
area. The OHWM of Mill Creek was delineated as part of the investigation and is described
in Section 4 of this report.
Hydrology for the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary was evaluated for this project
considering review and analysis of available stream gage data and results of HSPF continuous
simulation hydrologic modeling of upper basin runofF potential (using the available 158-year
regional precipitation data set). Exceedance probability data from the stream gage and HSPF
model output were used to determine expected statistical monthly flow ranges.
Periodic overflows from the stream channel upstream from the Peasley Canyon Road
crossing to wedands located to the south and east do occur under intermediate to high
stream flows. Collective overflows and local drainage inflows from the valley floor and
hillslope areas to the south are returned to Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary through an
18-inch diameter culvert that extends across Peasley Canyon Road southeast of the main
stream crossing. In recent years, aggradation in the stream channel downstream from the
Peasley Canyon Road crossing combi.ned with damaged end sections on the wetland outlet
culvert have elevated water levels in the upstream wetland areas by up to 2 feet over the
assumed target water level based on the outlet culvert design. That elevated water level
appeazs to be causing some mortality in existing trees in the forested area upstream of the
crossing.
Sample plot hydrology is described in Section 3.2. A summary of hydrology data collected at
each sampling plot is presented in tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in
Appendix B.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Repon June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 9 080554-01
2.4 Plant Communities
The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for1VWI Map Information identifies Palustrine emergent
(PEM) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) habitat west of West Valley Highway and south of
Peasley Canyon Road. Wedand habitat is not identified within the reach of Mill Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary north of the park-and-ride lot (USFWS 2009; Figure 4). WDFW
PHS maps identify wetland habitat in the same area as the NWI maps (WDFW 2009).
Wetland vegetation community types identified during the delineation include PEM, PSS,
and palustrine forested (PFO) wetland systems. Vegetation within the study area includes
tree, shrub, grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian
habitats alottg Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary. Wedand and upland vegetation in the
study area is described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. A summary of vegetarion data collected in the
study azea and at each sampling plot is presented in the tables in Appendix A and in the field
data forms in Appendix B.
3 WETLAND DELINEATION
On February 25, 2009, Anchor QEA ecologists perfornied a wetland delineation and wetland
rating analysis of wetland habitat in the study area. Two wetlands, Wetland A and B, were
found in the study area. A complete description of Wetlands A and B is provided in the
following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown on Figure 3a. Due to the small
size of Wetland A, that wedand is also shown in more detail on Figure 3b. A summary of
vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each sampling plot is presented in the tables
in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. Site photographs are provided in
Appendix D.
3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods
This section describes the methodology used to perform the wetland delineation, includi.ng
the review of existing information and field investigation proeedures. These methods are
consistent with current federal and state agency requirements, as well as local jurisdiction
requirements, for performing wetland delineations and identifying protective wetland buffer
widths.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 20119
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 10 080554-01
~ ~ .k _yfs n4 -
1v. .
Wetland
' 6.97 acres
Wetland
0.03 acres
Where field delineated wetland data points
are not shown, wetland limits shown are
approximate based on interpretation of.
'available•data.
A Ordinary High Water Mark Limits (north bank)
° Ordinary High Water Mark Limits (south bank)
>
° Wetland Limits
s> ~.A_NCHOR Figure 3a
Q~A ~ Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results Aq
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
Eg~~ - z•
~
. _ „
~
WeUand A
0.015 acres o ,
~
-
aTP
1lUetland A
0.016 acres
'e.
~
° Ordinary High Water Mark Limits (north bank)
° Ordinary High Water Mark Limits (south bank)
° Wetland Limits
ANCHOR Figure 3b
OEA ~ Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
As specified by the ACC (City of Auburn 2009), this wetland delineation was conducted
according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.• Western Mountains, Ualleys, and Coast Reglon
(Corps 2008), and Ecology's Washington State Wetland Identifi'cation and Delineation
Manual (Ecology 1997). Soil colors were classified by their numerical description, as
identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps; Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA; Ecology 2009b), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA; Access
Washington 2007), and the ACC all define wedands as: "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vebetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bags, and
similar areas."
The method for delineating wedands is based on the presence of three parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is "the
macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation
or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to
exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." Hydric soils are "formed under
conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Wetland hydrology `.`encompasses all
hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to
the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). Data
collection methods for each of these parameters are described below.
A total of 12 data plots were sampled within the approximate 14-acre study area. Sample
plots are identified numerically as wetland or upland plots (for example, SP1Wet, SP2Wet,
SP3Up, etc). Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at each of the
plots, recorded on field data sheets, and photographed. A summary of sample plot data is
presented in Appenclix A. The field data sheets are provided in Appendix B. Site
photographs are provided in Appendix D. Wetland boundaries were determined based upon
sample plot data and visual observations of each wetland. Wetland locations and boundaries
were identified using a combination of inethods including flagging and approximate location
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Repon Jvne 201I9
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 13 080534-01
of boundary points using a portable Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) during the
delineation (where site conditions allowed satellite signal pickup). Wetland areas near the
proposed culvert replacement were flagged and surveyed more accurately by the City of
Auburn Survey Department. In the southern and northeast portion of the study area, where
it is densely forested (and no GPS coverage was available), the approximate wedand
boundary was estimated based on field observations and using available aerial photographs
and topography (areas where no wetland boundary points are shown on Figure 3a).
3.1.1 Vegetation
Plant species occurring in each plot were recorded on field data sheets, one data sheet per
plot (Appendix B). Percent cover was estimated in the plot for each plant species and
dominant species were deternuned. At each plot, trees within a 30-foot radius, shrubs
within a 15-foot radius, and emergents within a 3-foot radius from the center of the plot
were identified and recorded on a data sheet. A plant indicator status, designated by the
USFWS (Reed 1988 and 1993), was assigned to each species and a determination was made as
to whether the vegetation in the plot was hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic parameter,
moxe than 50 percent of the dominant species, with 20 percent or greater cover, must have
an i.ndicator of obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACV), or facultative (FAC or
FAC+). Table 1 shows the wetland indicator status categories.
Table 1
Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions
Indicator Status Description
Obligaie wetland (OBL) Table Text Plant species occur almost always in wetlands (estimated -
probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions.
Facultative wetland Plant species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67
(FACW) percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in non-wetlands.
' Facultative (FAC) Plant species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
(estimated probability 34 percent to 66 percent).
Facultative upland Plant species usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability
(FACU) 67 percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in wetlands.
Obligate upland (UPL) Plant species occur almost always in non-wetlands (estimated
probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions.
Wetland and Ordinary Hrgh Water Mark Delineation Repon june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 14 080554-01
3.1.2 Soils
Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric soil indicators. Soil pits were dug to
a depth of 16 inches or greater, and all profiles were photographed. Hydric soil indicators
include low soil matrix chroma, gleying, and redoximorphic features (such as mottles).
Mottles are spots of contrasting color occurring within the soil matri.x (the predominant soil
color). Gleyed soils are predominantly bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. Soils having a
chroma of 2(with mottles) or less (with or without mottles) are positive indicators of hydric
soils (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
3. 1.3 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was evaluated at each plot to determine whether it "encompasses all
hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to
the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). The mesic
growing season in westem Washington is generally March through October. Field
observations of saturation and inundation, and other indicators of wetland hydrology, such
as water-stained leaves and drainage patterns in wetlands, were recorded.
3.1.4 Other Data Sources
Reviews of existing information were conducted to identify potential wedands or site
characteristics indicative of wetlands in the study area. The sources of information reviewed
to support field observations are identified in Section 1.1.
3.1.5 Wetland CJassifications
Wedand community types will be discussed according to the USFWS classification
developed by Cowardin, et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. This system, published in 1979 by
a team of USFWS scientists led by L.M. Cowardin, bases the classification of wetlands on
their physical charaeteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (trees,
shrubs, grass, etc.) and how much, and where, water is present in the wetland. The
Cowardin classification system provides a classification for every known wetland type that
occurs throughout the United States and, under this system, a wetland can be classified as
having one or more wetland classification types. The community types found duxing this
investigation were:
• Palustrine forested (PFO) - These wedands have at least 30 percent cover of woody
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 20109
Mi11 Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 15 080534-01
vegetation that is more than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) - These wetlands have at least 30 percent cover of
woody vegetation that is less than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine emergent (PEM) - These wetlands have erect, rooted, herbaceous
vegetation present for most of the growing season in most years.
• Palustrine open water (POV) - These wetlands are characterized by open water, such
as ponds.
3.1.6 Wetland Ratings
Wetland ratings were determined using the most current version of Ecology guidance in
Washington State Wetland Rating System - Western Wash.ington: Revised (Ecology 2004)
and Wedarld Rating Form - Western Washington, Version Z(Ecology 2006), and according
to City wetland rating criteria, as defined in the ACC (City of Auburn 2009).
The Ecology system was developed to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to
disturbance, their significance in the watershed, their rarity, our ability to replace them, and
the beneficial functions they provide to society. The Ecology rating system requires the user
to collect specific information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. Three major
functions are analyzed: water quality iznprovement, flood and erosion control, and wildlife
habitat. Ratings are based on a point system where points are given if a wedand meets
specific criteria related to the wedand's potential and the opportunity to provide certain
benefits.
Per Ecology's rating system, wetlands are categorized according to the following criteria and
on points given:
• Category I wetlands (70 to 100 points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, or are
more sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological
attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime.
• Category II wetlands (51 to 69 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace,
and provide high levels of some functions.
• Category III (30 to 50 points) wetlands have moderate levels of functions. They have
been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other
natural resources in the landscape than Category II wedands.
• Category IV wetlands (0 to 29 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are
often heavily disturbed.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Repon june 2009
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culven Replacement 16 080554-01
The ACC classifies wetlands into four categories (Category I, Category II, Category III, and
Category IV) based on Ecology's Washington State Wetlands Rating System - Western
Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004), as described above.
3.1.7 Wetland Functions Assessment .
The functional values of wedands were rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating
System - Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wedand Rating Form -Western
Washington, Tjersion 2(Ecology 2006). Using Ecology's system, wetlands were rated based
on a point system where points are awarded to three functional value categories: water
quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat. Detailed scoring, based on Ecology wetland rating
forms, is provided in Appendix C.
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results
Two wetlands, Wetlands A and B, were found in the study area. A complete description of
each wetland is provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown
on Figure 3a. Due to the small size of Wedand A, that wetland is also shown on Figure 3b.
A summary of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each sample plot is presented
in the tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B.
3.2.1 Wetland A
Wedand A is a 0.03-acre riverine wetland that contains PFO, PSS, and PEM habitat (Figure
3b). The entire boundary of Wedand A was delineated within the study area. Wetland A is
associated with Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary (Photographs 1 and 2 in Append'ux D).
Wedand A consists of small stream-side wetland areas on both the north and south fringes of
the stxeam (but beyond the project work area limits). Wetland A is located in the stream
reach between the culverts beneath Peasley Canyon Road to the west and West Valley
Highway to the east. A pazk-and-ride lot is located to the south of that section of stream
channel and VVetland A, and the SR 18 off-ramp is located to the north. Wedand vegetation
is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific willow (Salixlasiandra), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Dominant
buffer vegetation of Wetland A includes red alder and Himalayan blackberry (Photograph 3
in Appendix D).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Jrrne 20109
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 17 080554-01
Soils in one of the Wetland A plots included very dark gray silt loam to 18 inches deep. Soils
in the second wetland plot consisted of black silt loam to about 3 inches deep, over a layer
about 4 inches thick of dark grayish brown clay loam with light yellowish brown mottles.
Below about 7 inches in depth, soils were very dark gray sandy loam. Soils in the upland
plots were typically dark brown to brown sandy loam with gravel with no mottles within 18
inches of the surface.
Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland A with free-standing water in
the sample plots within about 4 to 8 inches of the surface. In the upland plots, saturation was
absent to a depth of 18 inches below the surface.
Four sample plots were established as part of Wetland A: SP1Wet, SP2Up, SP3Wet, and
SP4Up (Appendices A and B). SP1Wet and SP3Wet contained indicators of hydrophytic
vegetation, wedand hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot, SP2Up, had hydrophytic
vegetation, but lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils. SP4Up lacked
i.n.dicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Eleven flags were
used to identify the Wetland A boundary. The Wetland A boundaries were flagged and
those points were subsequently surveyed by the City of Auburn to define the wetland
boundaries.
3.2.2 Wetland 8 Wetland B is a depressional wetland that also includes riverine features because two small
channels flow into the wetland from the west. Wetland B extends outside the study area to
the west; 6.97 acres of Wedand B was delineated within the study area. The upstream source
of these channels was not identified as part of the investigation, but they appear to emanate
from local drainage sources and periodic stream overflows. The northern boundary of
Wetland B is very close to Mill Creek upstream from the Peasley Canyon Road crossing, but
no direct connections between Wetland B and the creek were observed. A low, earthfill
berm is located between the creek and the wetland (Photographs 4 and 5 in Appendix D).
Wetland B contains PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW habitats (Figure 2; Photographs 6 and 7 in
Appendix D).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 18 080554-01
Tree vegetation is dominated by red alder and Pacific willow. Dominant shrub species
include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasv), red-osier
dogwood (Cornussericea), and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant emergent species include
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), skunk cabbage (Lysichlton americanus), stinging
nettle ( Urtica dioica), and water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa). Dominant buffer
vegetation of Wetland B includes Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesil), red alder, red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). The non-native
invasive species Himalayan blackberry is a dominant buffer species, and Japanese knotweed
(Polygonum cuspidatum) and English ivy (Hedera hibernica) were also frequently observed.
Due to the large size of Wetland B, eight data plots were established. Soils typically
consisted of very dark gray to black silt loam or dark gray to gray sandy loam with yellowish
brown motdes. Soils in the upland plots were typically dark brown to brown sandy loam
with gravel with no motdes within 18 inches of the surface.
Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland B with free-standing water in
the sample plots typically within a few inches of the surface. A significant portion of the
wedand was also inundated at the time of the delineation. In the upland plots, saturation
was absent to a depth of 18 inches below the surface.
Eight sample plots were established as part of Wetland B because of the wetland's large size
(Appendices A and B). Wedand B sample plots include SPSWet, SP6Up, SP7Wet, SP8Up,
SP9Wet, 5P lOUp, SP I 1 Wet, and SP 12Up. All four wedand plots contained indicators of
hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The four upland plots lacked
indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The south
boundary of the wetland near Peasley Canyon Road and the proposed replacement culvert
was flagged and points were located by City surveys. GPS data points were collected during
the delineation along the north, west, and east wedand boundary. Portions of the east and
south boundaries were identified from site observations and available aerial photographs and
topography (where GPS reception was not available).
Wetland and OrdinaryHigh Waterlbfark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Pearley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 19 080554-01
3.3 Regulatory Framework for Wetland Classification
Guidance from USFWS, Ecology, and the City was used to determine the wetland
classifications under those agency standards. Information and excerpts from the specific
guidance language are provided below.
3.3.1 USFWS Classification
The wedands identified in the study area have been classified using the system developed by
Cowardin, et al. (1979) for use in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). The extent of
freshwater emergent wetland based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) NWI
boundaries is shown on Figure 4. Table 2lists the USFWS classifications for the wedands
and their connections to surface waters.
Table 2
USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections #o Surface Water
Wetland USFINS Classification Connedion to Surface Water
A PFO, PSS, & PEM Associated with Mill Creek
B PFO, PSS, PEM, & POW Associated with smali, unnamed channefs
that flow into the wetland from the west
Notes
PFO - Palustrine forested
PSS - Palustrine scrub-shrub
PEM - Palustrine emergent
POW - Palustrine open water
3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores
According to the ACC (City of Auburn 2009), wedand ratings are determined using
Ecology's Washington State Wetland RatingSystem - Western Washington: Revised
(Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2006).
Under the Ecology system, Wedand A is rated as a Category III wetland and Wetland B is
rated as a Category I wetland. Table 3 lists the Ecology and local (City of Auburn) wetland
ratings and classifications. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values for the
two wetlands are shown in Table 4. A summary of the wetland rating scores and the Ecology
Wedand Rating forms are included in Appendix C.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Jcuze 20109
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 20 080554-01
" ~ ' . . . Y » , . . .
~ . , ~ _ , ~
D • ~:k„~ . . . ' .
# ~ ..m ~ .
i . . .!c,..
_ Nk
Cj
~;a..
~ - ~
Freshwater Emergent Wettand
f
~
~
ANCHOR Figure 4
C~EA t'" USFWS NWI Information
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement ,
Table 3
Summary of Wetiand Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System
Wetiand Area (acres) Hydrogeomorphic State Rating local Rating
Classification (Ecology) (City of Auburn)
Wetland A 0.03 Riverine III III
Wetiand B 6.97 Riverine/Depressional I I
7abie 4
Summary of Functions and Values Wetiand Rating Scores
Wetiand Water Water Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat Total
Quality Quality Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions
Functions Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Scorel
Potential (Yes/No) Score (Yes/No) Score Score
Score
Totaf 16 No =1 16 No =1 18 18 72
Maximum Yes = 2 Yes = 2
Score
Wetiand A 3 2 9 2 5 5 34
Wetland B 12 2 14 2 16 9 77
Notes:
Calculated as (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic
Functions Potentia) Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential Score
plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score ~
3.3.3 City of Auburn Wetiand Clcrssification Guidance
Wetlands were rated according to City wetland rating criteria in the ACC (City of Auburn
2009). The City classifies wetlan.ds into four categories (Category I, Category II, Category III,
and Category IV) based on the Washington State Wetlands Rating System - Western
Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004). Therefore, the wetland ratings under the City are the
same as the Ecology wedand ratings, as identified in Table 3.
Appropriate minunum wetland buffers have been identified according to the current ACC
(City of Aubttrn 2009). The ACC identifies minimum and maximum protective buffer
widths based on the wetland category, per the Ecology rating system, and site conditions
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 22 080554-0I
such as intensiry of land uses. The City will confirm the actual buffers to be applied. City
wedand ratings and buffer width ranges in accordance with the ACC are provided in Table 5.
Table 5
City of Auburn City Code Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance
5tudy Area State Rating Local Rating City of Auburn City City of Auburn City Code
Wetlands (Ecotogy) (City of Auburn) Code Minimum Maximum Buffer Width
Buffer Width (feet)
(feet)
Wetland A Category III Category Iil 25 50
Wetland B CategoryI CategoryI 100 200
3.3.4 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations
Wetland identification is an inexact science and differences of professional opinion often
occur between trained individuals. Final determinations for wedand boundaries and typing
concurrence or adjustment needs are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency.
Wetlands are, by definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in
hydrology or land use. In addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a
physical change occurs in the basin or 3 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken,
another wedand survey should be conducted. The results and conclusions expressed herein
represent Anchor QEA's professional judgment based on the information available. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
4 STREAM OHWM DELINEATION
Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM boundaries for the reach of
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary within the study azea. The investigation included
approximately 320 feet of stream length between the culverts beneath Peasley Canyon Road
to the west and West Valley Highway to the east, and approximately 480 feet of stream
length west of the Peasley Canyon Road culvert entrance. Surveys were conducted by the
City of Auburn to pick up the deli.neated OHWM boundaries for the entire 800-foot
inventoried reach. The OHWM of the two small, ephemeral channels that flow into
Wedand B from the west were not delineated as part of this investigation. Habitat features
of these two channels are described in the following sections. The existing Mill Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary channel is shown on Figures 3a and 3b.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Pearley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 23 080554-01
4.1 Stream OHWM Delineation Methods
To document the Mill Creek OHWM within the study area, Anchor QEA ecologists
reviewed existing information (described in Section 1.1), performed an aerial photograph
analysis, and conducted site visits on February 25 and Apri18, 2009. Documented stream
characteristics include potential fish usage, hydrologic functions, channel bed and bank
conditions, substrate composition, and riparian vegetation. The OHWM delineation was
completed by walking the creek shoreline beginning at the east (downstream) end of the
study area and moving west. Photographs were also taken to document OHWM conditions
(Appendix D).
During the site visits, the OHWM of the entire stream length within the study area was
identified and flagged. The OHWM boundary was marked with flags in parallel formation
on both banks, as in LB-1 (left, or north bank) and RB-1 (right, or south bank), LB-2 and RB-
2, etc. In addition to identifying the flagging with GPS data points and on an aerial
photograph, the OHWM flagged OHWM boundary points were picked up by survey for
more accurate delineation by the City of Aubum.
Anchor QEA ecologists identified the stream OHWM boundary consistent with Chapter
90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-22 of the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC). The WAC defines the OHWM as:
"'Ordinary high water line' means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be found
by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of
waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark
upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting upland:
Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found the
ordinary lugh water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of inean higher high water
and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of the mean
annual flood."
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 24 080554-01
4.1.1 Water Typing System Criteria
The Mill Creek stream system was typed using the current "Water Typing System" described
in the WAC Chapter 222-16-030 and according to City criteria, as defined in Chapter
16.10.080 of the ACC. The WAC stream typing system is recognized by Ecolo.gy and the
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The following paragraphs
paraphrase the applicable WAC water typing criteria.
• Type S Water refers to all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as
"shorelines of the state" under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated
pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, including periodically inundated areas of their
associated wetlands.
• Type F Water refers to segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters that are
within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of
their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface
area of 0.5 acre or greater at seasonal low water and that in any case contain fish
habitat. "Fish habitat" refers to habitat that is used by any fish at any life stage at any
time of the year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish that could be
recovered by restoration or management and includes off-channel habitat.
• Type Np Water refers to all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of
defined channels that are perennial non-fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are
waters that do not go dry any time during a year of normal rainfall. However, for the
purpose of water typing, Type Np Waters include the intermittent dry portions of the
perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow (ephemeral channel
segments). .
• Type Ns Water refers to all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of
the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal
(ephemeral), non-fish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least
some portion of a year of normal rainfall and that are not located downstream from
any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected
by an aboveground (surface channel) system to Type S, F, or Np Waters.
The following paragraphs paraphrase the applicable City of Auburn stream typing criteria
from Chapter 16.10.80 of the ACC.
D. Stream Classification. Streams shall be desib ated Class I, Class II, Class III and Class
N according to the criteria in this section:
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Repon June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 25 080534-01
1. "Class I streams" are those natural streams identified as "shorelines of the state"
under the city of Auburn shoreline master program.
2. "Class II streams" are those natural streams that are not Class I streams and are
either perennial or intermittent and have one of the following characteristics:
- Contain fish habitat; or
- Has significant recreational value, as determined by the director.
3. "Class III streams" are those natural streams with perennial (year-round) or
intermittent flow and do not contain fish habitat.
4. "Class N streams" are those natural streams and drainage swales with channel
width less than two feet taken at the ordinary high water mark, that do not
contain fish habitat.
4.2 -Stream OHWM Delineation Results
The OHWM boundazies for an approximate 800-foot reach of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary were delineated during the site investigation. The creek flows through the study
area from west to east before passing under West Valley Highway just upstream from the
mainstem Mill Creek confluence. The delineated OHWM limits for this section of creek are
shown on Figures 3a and 3b.
At the time of the investigation, the wetted width of the stream ranged from about 6 feet
wide to as much as 14 feet wide, with the wider width generally occurring in areas that have
been aggraded (Photographs 1 through 4 in Appendix D). Water depth during the
investigation ranged from about 4 inches to more than 1 foot.
Overall, the bed and banks of the stream within the study area are clearly defined and the
channel is straight in the upstream sections, with only minor sinuosity in downstream
sections. Both the north (left) and south (right) banks of the channel are cut through
eacisting sediments (fills in some areas). The left bank upstream is adjacent to Peasley Canyon
Road, and downstream, it is in close proximity to the SR-18 east-bound off-ramp to West
Valley Highway (Photographs 1 through 4 in Appendix D). The right bank upstream has
been altered by placement of a vegetated, low-height berm between the stream channel and
Wetland B, and downstream, it is in close proximity to the north edge of the park-and-ride
lot. Substrate within the stream channel is dominated by a streambed gravel-cobble mix,
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 26 080554-01
with well-graded smaller size-fraction sediments. The existing streambed material ranges in
size up to approximately 5-inch diameter maximum.
Wedand habitat associated with the stream includes Wetland A. No direct connections
between the stream channel and Wetland B were observed, primarily because of the south
bank berm that divides those areas under low to intermediate stream flow. Dominant
riparian plant species include reed canarygrass, red alder, Pacific willow, and Hunalayan
blackberry. Japanese knotweed, a non-native, invasive species, is also found along the
riparian corridor. Dominant features of the riparian habitat include paved surfaces associated
with Peasley Canyon Road, the SR 18 off-ramp, and a park-and-ride lot (Photographs 1
through 4 in Appendix D).
Downstream from the project area, the mainstem Mill Creek is a tributary to the Green
River, which provides habitat for a variety of fish and salmon species, including species with
state and federal protected status. Table 6 includes fish species identified in the reach of Mill
Creek within the Project area documented by WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2009a) and the
SalmonScape fish mapper (WDFW 2009b).
Table 6
Fish Species Documented in Mill Creek Project Area
WDFW PHS Maps WDFW SalmonScape
Scientific Name Gommon Name Scientific Name Common Name
Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salman O. kisutch Coho salmon
0. tshawytscha Fall Chinook O. mykiss Winter steelhead
0. Clarki Resident cutthroat
Fall Chinook and winter steelhead salmon are ESA-listed species documented to exist in the
Project area. Of these species, the WDFW PHS maps identify fall Chinook and the WDFW
SalmonScape mapper identifies winter steelhead to exist in the Project area (WDFW 2009a;
WDFW 2009b). This discrepancy was discussed with a WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist,
and it was determined that presence of adult fall Chinook species is unlikely during the
proposed instream construction period (September 1 to October 15) due to the low flows in
Mill Creek that occur at that time (Foley 2009). Under the low flow conditions, it is also
unlikely that adult winter steelhead trout would migrate through Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report jvne 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 27 080554-01
At the time of the investigation, the two small channels that enter Wetland B from the west
were narrow (less than 2 feet wide), shallow (1 to 2 inches deep) systems with no defined
banks, flowing within an area of Wetland B with saturated and inundated, mucky soils.
Flow within the wedand eventually spreads out as sheet-flow and becarne indistinguishable
from the inundated portion of the wetland habitat. These channels appear to be systems
with intermittent flow associated with south bluff and valley floor runoff along with
remnant channels from periodic flood overflows from the main strearn channel. They do not
appear to provide fish habitat. The channels are not identified on WDFW PHS maps
(WDFW 2009a).
4.2.1 Stream Ratings and Buffers
Based on observations during the investigation and WAC and City stream typing criteria,
Mill Creek appears to meet the minimum criteria as a Type F Water under the WAC Water
Typing System and a Class II stream under the ACC. The reaches of the two channels
associated with Wetland B appear to meet the criteria of Type Ns Waters under the WAC
Water Typing System and Class IV streams under the ACC (City of Aubttrn 2009). The ACC
requires protective buffers to preserve stream and riparian functions. Buffers would apply to
the OHWM limits as surveyed. Because the reaches of the two channels within the study
area are located within a large Category I wetland system and do not have a defined OHWM,
it is unlikely stream buffers would be applied to the two channels. The City will confirm the
actual buffers to be applied. City stream ratings and buffer width ranges in accordance with
the ACC are provided in Table 7.
Table 7
City of Auburn City Code Stream Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance
Study Area Streams Water Typing City of Aubum City of Auburn City City of Auburn City
System City Code Rating Code Minimum Code Maximum
Rating Buffer Width (feet) Buffer Width (feet)
Mill Creek F Class II 50 100
Unnamed Channels Ns Class IV 25 30
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Jvne 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culven Replacement 28 080554-01
References
5 REFERENCES
Access Washington. 2009. Washington State Growth Management Act. Accessed online at
http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/gma/index.html on February 23, 2009.
City of Auburn. 2009. City of Auburn City Code. Auburn, Washington. Accessed online at
http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/auburn on February 23, 2009.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington
D.C.
Ecology. See Washington State Department of Ecology.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wet2and Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Foley, S. June 1, 2009. Personal communication via telephone between Steve Foley, WDFW
RHB, and Josh jensen of Anchor QEA, LLC.
Munsell. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National
Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9).
Reed, P., Jr. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88
(26.9).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region, ed J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 29 080554-01
References
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
USDA. 2001. Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Accessed online at
http://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technical/soils/county_hydric_lists.html on February
23, 2009.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Natural Resource Canservation Service
(NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Accessed online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app
on February 23, 2009.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF'WS). 2009. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for
National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. Accessed online at
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov on Febntary 23, 2009
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFVV). 2009a. Priority Habitats and
Species (PHS) Maps in the Vicinity of T21, R04E, Section 14. Report Date March 13,
2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009b. SalmonScape Mapper.
Accessed online at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ on February 23,
2009.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Washington State Wedands
Rating System - Eastern Washington: Revised. Publication #04-06-15. Olympia,
Washington.
Ecology. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating Form - Eastern Washington, version 2.
Olympia, Washington.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineatlon Report Iune 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Cvlvert Replacement 30 080554-01
References
Ecology. 2009a. Environmental Information; Watersheds; WRIA 9 Duwamish/Green Basin.
Accessed online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/number/wria9.htm
on February 23, 2009
Ecology. 2009b. Washington State Shoreline Management Act. Accessed online at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws_rules/index.html on September 5,
2009.
Wetland and Ordrnary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement 31 080554-01
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE PLOT SUMMARY DATA
AppendixA - Sample Plot Surnmary Data
Table A-1
Plant Species Observed During the investigation
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status'
Trees
Acer macrophylum Big-Ieaf mapie FACU
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC .
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU
Shrubs
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW
Polygonum
cuspidatum Japanese knotweed FACU
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU
Spiraea douglasii Spirea FACW
Ferns & Herbaceous
Equisetum hyemale Scouring-rush FACW
Hedera hibernica English ivy UPL
, Lysichiton americanus Skunk cabbage OBL
Denanthe sarmentosa Water-parsley OBL
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW
Polypodium glycyrrhiza Licorice fem FACU
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+
Notes:
These categories, referred to as the "wetland indicator status" (from the wettest to driest habitats) are as follows:
obligate wetland (OBL) plants, facultative wetland (FACW) plants, facultative (FAC) plants, facultative upland
(FACU) plants, and obligate upland (UPL) plants.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Repon june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement A-1 080554-01
AppendixA - Sample Plot Summary Data
Table A-2
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Data
WeUand Sample Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Cover %
Plot Status'
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 40%
A 1Wet Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW 10%
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 80%
Salix lasiandra Pacific wiliow FACW+ 30%
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 20%
A 2Up Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 100%
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ 20%
Alnus rubra Red aider FAC 40%
A 3Wet Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW 100%
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 20%
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ 30%
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 30%
A 4Up Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW 100%
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 60%
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ 10%
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 40%
Lysichiton americanus Skunk cabbage OBL 10%
B SWet Oenanthe sarmentosa Water-parsley OBL 20%
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 10%
Rubusspectqbilis Salmonberry FAC+ 30%
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ 60%
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 60%
B 6Up Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 20%
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 80%
Atnus rubra Red alder FAC 30%
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW 40%
B 7Wet Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 20%
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+ 60%
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ 20%
Alnus ruBra Red alder FAC 100%
Polygonum cuspidatum lapanese knotweed FACU 20%
B 8Up Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 20%
Rubus urmeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 50%
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ 40%
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU 20%
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement A 2 080554-01
Appendix A -Sample Plot Summary Data
Wetland Sample Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Cover %
Plot Status'
Alnus rubra Red aider FAC 80%
Hedera hibernica English ivy UPL 50%
B 9Wet Rpnunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW 20%
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+ 70%
Salixlasiandra Pacificwillow FACW+ 30%
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 80%
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 40%
B 10Up
Hedera hibernica English ivy UPL 100%
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 30%
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 80%
B 11Wet Lysichiton americanus Skunk cabbage OBL 20%
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+ 40%
12Up Acer macrophyfum Big-leaf maple FACU 90%
B
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 30%
Notes.
These categories, referred to as the "wetland indicator status" (from the wettest to driest habitats) are as follows:
obligate wetland (OBL) plants, facultatiVe wetiand (FACW) plants, facultative (FAC) plants, facultative upland
(FACU) plants, and obligate upland (UPL) piants.
Table A-3
Summary of Wetiand Sample Plot Hydrofogy Data
Wetland Sample Hydrology
Plot
A 1Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water in pit at 4 inches
A 2Up No saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches
A 3Wet Saturation at surfaee and freestanding water in pit at 8 inches
A 4Up (Vo saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches
B SWet Inundation 5 inches deep
B 6Up No saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches
B 7Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water in pit at 12 inches
B 8Up No saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches
B 9Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water in pit at 1 inch
B 10Up No saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches
B 11Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water at surface
B 12Up No saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement A-3 080554-0I
AppendiurA - Sample Plot SummaryData
Tabie A-4
Summary of Wetiand Sample Plot Soits Data
Wetland SamPle Soil Horizon Matrix Color Redox Color Redox Texture
Piot (inches) Abundance
A 1Wet 0 to 18+ lOYR 3/1 None None Silt loam
A 2Up 0 to 2 lOYR 4/3 None None Sandy loam
2 to 18+ 10YR 4/3 None None Sandy loam w/gravel
0 to 3 10YR 2J1 None None Silt loam
A 3Wet 3 to 7 10YR 4/2 10YR 6/4 3% Clay loam
7 to 18+ lOYR 3/1 None None Sandy loam
0 to 3 10YR 3/3 None None Sandy loam
A 4Up 3 to 18+ 10YR 3/3 None None Sandy loam w/gravel
& cobble
B SWet 0 to 18+ 10YR 3/1 None None Silt loam
B 6Up 0 to 2 10YR 4/3 None None Sandy loam
2 to 18+ 10YR 4/3 None None Sandy loam w/gravel
B 7Wet 0 to 4 lOYR 4/1 None None Sandy loam
4 to 18+ lOYR 5/1 10YR 5/6 4% Sandy loam
B 8Up 0 to 18+ lOYR 3/3 None None Sandy loam
B 9Wet 0 to 18+ 10YR 2/1 None None Silt loam
B lOUp 0 ta 6 10YR 4/3 None None Sandy (oam
6 to 18+ 10YR 4/3 None None Sandy loam w/gravel
B 11Wet 0 to 18+ 10YR 2/1 None None Silt loam
B 12Up 0 to 18+ lOYR 4/3 None None Sandy loam w/gravel
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report june 20109
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement A-4 080554-0I
Appendix A- Sample Plot Summary Data
Table A-5
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Data and Wetland Determination
Wetiand Sample Vegetation Soils Hydrology Determination
Plot
A 1Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
A 2Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
A 3Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive " Wetiand
A 4Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
B SWet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetiand
B 6Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
B 7Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
B 8Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
B 9Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetiand
B lOUp Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
B 11Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetiand
B 12Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report June 2009
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement A 5 080554-01
APPENDIX B
FIELD DATA SHEETS
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valieys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2/25/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling Point: Wet A
SP#1Wet
Investigator(s): C. Dougias, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 8 23/21 N/4E
Landfortn (hillsbpe, terrace, etc.): Riverine within urban area Local relief (concave, convex, none): Stream Channel Slope 0 to 2
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: None mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical (or this time of yeaR Yes Z No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarlcs.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Nortnal Circumstances" present? Yes j@ No 0
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, expiain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point IocaUons, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Preserrt? Yes ~ No [I
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ~ No ❑ fs the Sampiing Area within a Wetland? Yes 19 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology PreseM? Yes 0 No p
Remarks: Wetlarnl A associated with Miil Creek. Reach of Mill Creek a narrow, incised channet with paved surfaces and associated fiil prisms on all sides
and culverts at upstream and downstream ends.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Soecies? Status pominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. Salix tasiandra 30 Yes FACW OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
q, AflStrata: 4 ~B~
70 = Total Cover percerrt of Dominant Species That Are
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (AiB)
5. Rubus aimenlacus 80 Yes FACU Prevatence Index worksheet•
6. Total Cover oh Multiolv bv:
7. OBL species x1 =
8. FACW species x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. Phalads anrndfnacea 10 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14. Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16. Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. WeUand Non-Vascular Plants'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and weUand hydrology must be present,
10 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
L
2.
= Total Cover Hydrophytie VegeWtion
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 PreseM9 Yes ~ No ❑
Remaiics: 75% dominant weUand vegetation per the Dominance test
t1S Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
Project Site: Peasiey Road Culvert Replacement
SQIL Sam lin Point:WetASP#1Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirtn ihe absence of indieators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
0 to 18+ 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Sik loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=MaVix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othervvfse noted.) Indiwtors for Problematic Hydric Soils':
p Histosol (A1) ❑ Sarniy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ SUipped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histk (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed MaVix (F2)
❑ Depieted Bebw Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depieted MaVix (F3)
~ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
❑ Sandy Gleyed MaVix (S4) p Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disWrbed or
robiematic.
Restridive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: 1 chroma
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrotogy Indieators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) ~ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139)
~ High WaterTabie (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
~ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Pattems (810)
❑ Water Marics (131) 0 Aquatic invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry-Season WaterTable (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) O SaturaUon Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0' Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) O Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Cnut (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Rednction in Tilled So1ls (C6) ❑ FAGNeutral Test (135)
❑ Surface Soii Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or SVesses Plants (D1) (LRR A) p Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
❑ inunda8on Visible on Aeriai Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Exptatn in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Caicave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present7 Yes ~ No ❑ Depth (inches): 4 inches
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes ~ No ❑ Depth (inches): At surFace Wetiand Hydrotogy Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitorirg well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasiey Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2125/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling Point: Wet A SP#2Up
Investigator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 & 23/21 N/4E
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): Rlverine within urban area Local relief (concave, convex, none): Stream Channel Sbpe 0 to 2
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classfication: None mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeart Yes ~ No p (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil p, Or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? Are "Nortnal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No Q
Are Vegetation p, Sal Or Hydrology [1, naturally problemalic? (If needed, expiain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampiing point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No O
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampling Area within a Wetlandl Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks: Wetland A associated with Mill Creek Reach of Mill Creek a narrow, incised channet with paved surEaces and assxiated fill prisms on all sides
and culverts at upstream and downstream ends.
VEGETATION - Use scientffic names of lants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test Worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
1. Afnus rubra 20 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 2. Sa/ix /asiandra 20 Yes FACW OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 ~A~
3• Totai Number of Dominant Species Across
All Strata: 3 (B~
4.
40 = Total Cover percent of Dominant Species That Are Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 ~AIB~
5. Rubus armeniacus 100 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
6. Total % Cover oF. Mulliolv bv:
7. OBL species x1 =
8. FACW species x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
100 = Total Cover FACU spectes x4 =
Herb SUatum (Plot Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. Column Tofals: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence index = B/A =
12. Nydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphoiogical Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16, Remarics or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,
0= Total Cover uniess disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover kydrophytic VegeWtion
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: 67% dominant weUand vegetaGon per the Dominance test
US Army Cwps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Mterim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement
SOIL Sam tin Point: Wet A SP#2U
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indieator or confirm the absenee of indiwtors.)
Depth Matra Redox Features
(inches) Color (mofst) % Cobr (Moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarics
0 to 2 10YR 4/3 100 None None None None Sandy loam
2 to 18+ 10YR 4/3 100 None None None None Sandy loam FilI prism
w/gravel
'Type: C= Concentration, D=DepleGon, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil {ndicators: (Applicable to ail LRRs, unless otherwtse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrie Soils':
❑ Histosol (A1) O Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A70)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) p Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exeept MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explairt in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Sutfide (A4) p Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depteted Below Daric Surface (A11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Thtck Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depieted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophyNc vegetation and wetland
O Sandy Gleyed Makix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) hryodblematic.ust be present, unless disturbed or
Restrictive layer (if preseM):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils PresentZ Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: 3 chroma and no redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that appiy) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) O WaterStained Leaves (69) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (69)
❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (811) ❑ Drainage Pattems (610)
D Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrdtes (B13) ❑ DrySeason WaterTable (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
O Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ Iron Deposits (85) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sals (C6) ❑ FAGNeutral Test (135)
❑ Surface Soii Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1 ) (LRR A) ~ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
0 Inurniation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Oiher (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary finge) Yes 0 No N Depth (inches): Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ~
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aeriai photos, previous inspections), iF availabie:
Remarks: No saturation or standing water observed in sample plot to 18 inches
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coas[ - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/Kirg Sampling Date: 2/25/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum Sfate: WA Sampling Point Wet A
SPq3Wet
InvesNgator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 & 23/21N/4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riverine within urban area Locai relief (concave, convex, none): SUeam Channel Slope 0 to 2
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soit Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: None mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typicai for this time of yeaR Yes 19 No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point tocations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ID No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No 0 is the Sampiing Area within a Wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ka No ❑
Rem2rks: Wetland A associated with Mill Creek. Reach of Mill Creek a naROw, incised channel with paved surfaces and assoc(ated fill prisms on atl sides
and culverts at upstream and downstream ends.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Tree Stratum (Plot Srze: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test Worksheet:
% Cover Saecies? Status
1. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Salixlaslandra 30 Yes FACW
3• Totai Number of Dominant Species Across
4. All Strata: 4 ~B)
70 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are 75 (A/B)
Saolinq/Shiub Stratum (Plot Size: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5. Rubus arm¢n)acus 20 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
6. Total % Cover oF. Multiolv bv:
7. OBL specfes X1 =
8. FACW species X2 =
9. FAC species X3 =
20 = Total Cover FACU species X4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species X5 =
10. Phalaris arundinaeea 100 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytie Vegetation Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14. Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphological Adaptations' (Provlde supporting data in
16, Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non Vascular Plants'
1$• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,
100 = Total Cover unless disturbed or probiematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover Hydrophytic VegeWtion
% Bare Ground in Herb Shatum 0 Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 75% dominarrt weUand vegetation per the Dominance test
US Army Caps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast- lnterim Version
Project Site: Peasiey Road Culvert Replacement
SOIL Sam Gn Point: Wet A SP#3Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matritt Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 3 10YR 2/1 100 None None None None Silt loam
3 to 7 10YR 4/2 97 10YR 6/4 3 D M Clay bam
7 to 18+ 10YR 3!1 100 None None None None Sandy loam
'Type: C= ConcenUation, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=MaUix
Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to ail LRRs, unless othervvise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis':
❑ Histosof (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matiix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histtc (A3) ' ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) O Other (Explain in Remarks)
O Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ~ Loamy Gleyed MaUix (F2)
~ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ~ Depleted Matrix (F3)
~ Thick Dartc Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
El Sandy Mucky Mineral (S7) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
roblematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: 1 chroma and 2 chroma with redox
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
0 Surface Water (A1) BI Water-Stained Leaves (69) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139)
~ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46)
~ Saturation (A3) ❑ Sait Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Pattems (610)
0 Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry-Season WaterTable (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) p Satura6on Vsible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphk Position (132)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquifard (D3)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
O Surface Soii Cracks (86) ❑ Stunted or SVesses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Facplain in Remarks) p Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Fieid Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ~ No ❑ Depth (inches): 8 inches
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary finge) Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology PresentT Yes ED No ❑
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial ptatos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, VaAey, and Coast - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2/25109
ApplicantlOvmer. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling PoinC WetA SP#4Up
InvesUgator(s): C. Douglas, A Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 8 23/21N/4E
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Riverine within urban area Local relief (concave, convex, none): SVeam Channel Slope 0 to 2
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: None mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this Gme of yeai? Yes ~ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
A►e Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology SignificanUy disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes 10 No ❑
Are Vegetabon 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 ID No ❑
Hydric Soil Present7 Yes O No 0 Is the Sampiing Area within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED
Wetlarni Hydrology Preseni? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks: Wetland A associated with Mill Creek. Reach of Mill Creek a narrow, incised channel with paved surfaces and associated fiti prisms on all sides
and culverts at upstream and downstream ends.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Tree Stratum (Pbt Size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator pominanee Test Worksheet:
% Cover Soecies? tatus
1. Alnus rubra 30 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. Salix laslandre 10 No FACW OBL, FACW, or FAC: Z ~A~
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
4 All Strata: 3 ~B)
40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are
~lina/Shrub SVatum (Plot Size: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67
5. Rubus armeniacus 60 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet
6. Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
7. OBL species x1 =
8. FACW spectes x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Sfratum (Pbt Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. Phalaris arundinacea 100 Yes FACW Column Totais: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic Vegetatton indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14. Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Moiphological Adaptafrons' (Provide supporting data in
16. Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
1$• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and weUand hydrology must be present,
100 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum {Plot Size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover ►{ydrophytic VegetaGon
% Bare Ground in Herb 5tratum 0 Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 67°/a dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test
US Aimy Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, VaBey, and Coast - Inferim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement
SQIL Sam lin Point: Wet A SP{t4U
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirtn the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
0 to 3 10YR 3/3 100 None None None None Sandy bam
Sandy loam
3 to 18+ 10YR 3/3 100 None None None None w/gravei & Fill prism
cobbles
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Appiicabie to all LRRs, unless othervvise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0 Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ SUipped Matrix (S6) ~ Red Parent Materiai (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Expiain in Remarks)
~ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed MaVix (F2)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (173)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weUand
❑ Sandy Gleyed MaVix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, uniess disturbed or
robiematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydrie Soiis Present7 Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks: 3 chroma and no redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check a!I that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ WaterStained Leaves (69) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (69)
❑ High Water Tabie (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Pattems (610)
❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
[1 Sediment Deposits (62) ~ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturalion Vsible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ DriR Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
O Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tflled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutrai Test (135)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (137)
❑ Sparseiy Vegetated Concave Surface (68) '
Field Observations:
Sur(ace Water Present? Yes ❑ No N Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Preserrt? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches): Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring weli, aeriai photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No saturation or standing water observed in sample plot to 18 inches
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -lnterim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATtON DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2l25109
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling Point: Wet B
SP#SWet
InvesGgator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 8 23/21N/4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression & sVeam channel within Local relief (concave, convex, rwne): Depressfon 8 stream Slope 0 to 2
urban area Channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Mapped PEM/PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeaR Yes 0 No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarics.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significanUy disturbed? Are "Normai Circumstances° present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation p. Soii Or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point lacations, transects, important features, etc.
HydrophyGc Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Hydric Soil PreseM? Yes 0 No ❑ Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: Wetiand B near Mill Creek but separated by a nanow bertn with fill prism characteristies. No association with Mii Creek within study area.
Wetland B extends outside study area to the wesf. Two small drainage channels flow into Wetfand B from west, likely associated with Mili Creek
or other stream system but not confirtned due to location on private property. Sloping hiliside iceated to the south of wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Soecies? Status
1. Sa/ix laslandra 60 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. A/nus rubra 40 Yes FAC OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
3• Totai Number of Dominant Species Across
4. AII Strata: 5 ~B~
100 = Total Cover percent of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Sanlirw/Shrub Stratum (Pbt Size: )
5. Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes PAC+ Prevalence Index worksheet:
6. Rubus amnenJacus 10 No FACU Total °/a Cover of. Mul6olv bv:
7. OBL species X1 =
8. FACW species X2 =
9. FAC species X3 =
40 = Total Cover FACU species X4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species X5 =
10. Oenantbe sarmentosa 20 Yes OBL Coiumn Totals: (A) (B)
11. LyslchNon amedeanus 10 Yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic Vegetatlon Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16. Remarics or on a separate sheet)
17. WeUand Non-Vascular Plants'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20- 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,
30 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problemaGc.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetetion
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 Present? Yes 0 No 0
Remarks: 100% dominant weUand vegetation per the Dominance test
US Army Corps of Ertgineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Inferim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Cuivert Replacement
SOIL Sam lin Point: Wet B SPtf5Wet
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarics
0 to 18+ 10YR 3/1 100 None None None Nona Sift loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced MaUix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=MaVix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to alt LRRs, uniess otherwise noted.) fndicators for Probiematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) O 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ HisUc Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
O Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 ) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy 6leyed MaUix (F2)
❑ Depleted Bebw Dark Surface (A11 ) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
N Thick Dark Surface (A72) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleled Dark Surface (177) 'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weUand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
❑ Sandy Gieyed MaUix (S4) ~ Redox Depressions (F8) roblematic.
Restridive Layer (if preseM):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydrie Soils Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 1 chroma
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 (139) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139)
~ High Water Table (A2) (ezcept MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46)
~ Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (611) ~ Drainage Pattems (610)
~ Water Marics (61) ❑ Aquatlc Invertebrates (1313) ❑ DrySeason Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Suifide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Vsible on Aeriai Imagery (C9)
❑ Dritt Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) p Geomorphic Poskion (D2)
O Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) p Shalbw Aquitard (D3)
0 Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-NeuVal Test (05)
p Surface Soil Gacks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Piants (137) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ inundation Visible on Aeriat Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (137)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave SurFace (68)
Field ObservaGons:
Surface Water Present? Yes ~ No ❑ Depth (inches): 5 inches
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): At surface
Saturation Present? Yes n No ❑ Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
(includes capillary finge)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Saturation, standing water, and inundation observed in sample plot
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Mterim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Sfte: Peasiey Road Culvert Repiacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2/25l09
Applicant/Owner. City of Aubum State: WA 'Sampling Pofnt Wet B SP#6Up
Investigator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 & 23/21N/4E
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Depression & stream channel within Local retief (concave, convex, none): Depression 8 stream Slope 0 to 2
urban area Channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unft Name: Urban Land NWf classification: Mapped PEM/PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeart Yes ED No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology p, significanUy disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ED No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology naturally problemaGc? (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 Cg
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No N Is the Sampiing Area within a Wetiand? Yes ❑ No 0
WeUand Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 0
Remarks: Wetland B near Mili Creek but separated by a narcow berm with fill prism charecterisGcs. No associaUon with Mii Creek within study area.
Wetland B extends outside study area to the west Two smaN drainage chennels flow into Wetland 8 from west, tikely associated with Mill Creek
or other stream system but not confirmed due to IocaUon on private property. Sloping hiliside located to the south of wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test Worksheet:
% Cover Soecies? Status
1. Pseudotsuga menzlesTi 20 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are 0 2.
OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~A~
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
4. Ail Strata: 3 ~B)
20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are 0 Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: )
OBI, FACW, or FAC:
5. Rubus armeniacus 80 Yes FACU Prevatence index worksheet
6. Total % Cover oE Multiatv bv:
7. OBL species x1 =
8. FACW species x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Ploi Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. Polystichum munitum 60 Yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
13. No Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16. Remarlcs or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascufar Plants'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be preseM,
0= Total Cover uniess disturbed or probiematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Present? Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: 0% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountalns, Valley, and Coasf - Interim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road CulveR Replacement
SOIL Sam lin Point: Wet B SPt16U
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) °/a Type' Loc2 Texture Remarlcs
0 to 2 10YR 4/3 100 None None None None Sandy loam
2 to 18+ 10YR 4/3 100 None None None None Sandy loam Fill prism
wlgravel
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depie6on, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soif Indieators: (Applicable to atl LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) tndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
O Histosol (A1) p Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exeept MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Suffide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted MaVix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) [i Depleted Dark Surface (177) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetaGon and wetland
O Sandy Gleyed MaVix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (FS) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
roblematic.
Restrictive Layer (if preseM):
TYPe:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soiis Presentl Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: 3 chroma and no redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all ttiat apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139) ❑ WaterStained Leaves (139)
❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
0 Saturation (A3) ❑ SaltCrust(B11) ❑ Drainage Pattems (610)
0 Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic invertebrates (613) ❑ DrySeason Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Depos'rts (132) p Hydrogen Suifide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9)
O Drik Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Aigal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) p Shallow Aquitard (D3)
' ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soiis (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave SuAace (138)
Field ObservaUons:
Surface Water Present7 Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches):
Saturatlon Present?
(includes capillary finge) Yes ❑ No 19 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ~
Describe Recorcled Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), ff available:
Remarks: No saturation or standing water observed in sample piot to 18 inches
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valley, and Coast -lnterim VersJon
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Cuivert Repiacement Ciry/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2/25/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling PoinL• Wet B
SP#7Wet
Investigator(s): C. Dougias, A. Wick SecBon, Tovmship, Range: 14 8 23/21 N/4E
Landform (hillslope, tertace, etc.): Depression & sUeam channel within Local relief (concave, convex, none): Depression & sVeam Slope 0 to 2
urban area Channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 722.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Mapped PEMtPSS
Are climatic / hydroiogic conditlons on the site typical for this time of yeaR Yes ED No [I (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetadon Soii 0, Or Hydrology significanGy disturbed? Are °Normal Circumsfances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation 0, Soil Or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, expiain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point Iocations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic VegetaGon Present7 Yes ~ No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ~ No ❑ Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: Wetiand B near Mill Creek but separated by a narrow berm with fill prism characteristics. No association with Mil Creek within study area.
Wetiand B eztends outside study area to the wesL Two small drainage channeis flow into Wetiand B from wesy Iikeiy assoeiated with Mill Creek
or other stream system but not confirtned due to location on private property. Sloping hillside Ixated to the south of wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) Absolute Dominant IndicaWr pominance Test Woricsheet:
% Cover Saecies? Status
1. AMus ru6ra 30 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. Salix las►andre 20 Yes FACW OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
4. All Strata: 4 ~B)
50 = Total Cover percent of Dominant Species That Are 100
OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A!B)
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: )
5. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC+ Prevalence Index worksheet:
6. Comus sericea 40 Yes FACW Total °/a Cover of. Multiotv bv:
7. Ru6us armeniacus 20 No FACU OBL species X1 =
6. FACW species X2 =
9. FAC species X3 =
100 = Total Cover FACU species X4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species X5 =
10. Column Tofais: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphotogical Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16. Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetiand Non-Vascular Pianls'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Expiain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and weUand hydrology must be present,
0= Totai Cover unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Yegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 Preseot? Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 100% dominant weUand vegetation per the Dominance test
US Army Corps of Engirteers Westem Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert ReplacemeM
SOIL Sam lin Pant: Wet B SP#7Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirtn the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) °/a Color (Moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 4 10YR 4/1 100 None None None None Sandy loam
4 to 18+ 10YR 5/1 96 10YR 5/6 4 None None Sandy loam
'Type: C= Concentratlon, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to ail LRRs, unless othervvise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis':
❑ Histosol (A1) ~ Sartdy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Matetial (TF2)
❑ Biack Histic (A3) ❑ loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Expiatn in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depieted Below Dark Surfaee (A11) 0 Depleted Matriu (F3)
~ Thick Dark Sudace (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
• Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weUand
❑ Sandy Gleyed MaUix (S4) O Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
roblematic.
Restrictive Layer (ff present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soi1s Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: 1 chroma wifh redox
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) N WaterStained Leaves (139) ❑ WaterStained Leaves (139)
~ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413)
~ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (611) ❑ Drainage Pattems (610)
p Water Marics (81) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) ❑ DrySeason WaterTable (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation vsible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) O Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomoryhic Position (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Cnut (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) p Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in TiHed Soils (C6) ❑ FAGNeutral Test (D5)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Ofher (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ~ No ~ Depth (inches): At 12 inches
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary finge) Yes ~ No ❑ Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Describe Recorcied Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial piwtos, previous inspections), if availabte:
Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot
US Army Corps o/ Engineers Westem Mountains, Uaiiey, and Coast - Interlm Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: AubumlKing Sampling Date: 2/25/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling PoinL• Wet B SP#8Up
' Investlgator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 &23/21N/4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression & sVeam channel within L~al reiief (concave, convex, none): Depression & stream Slope (°a): 0 to 2
urban area Channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Mapped PEM/PSS
Are cHmatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typicat for this time of yeai? Yes ~ No [I (If no, expiain in Remarics.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology 0, significanUy disturbed? Are "Nortnal Circumstances" present? Yes n No ❑
Are Vegetation Sal 0, 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 p No 0
Hydric Soii Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED
Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: Wetiand B near Mill Creek but separated by a narrow berm with fiil prism characteristics. No assoc'iation with Mil Creek within study area.
Wetiand B extends outside study area to the west Two smail drafnage channels flow into Wetiand B irom west, likely associated with Mill Creek
or other stream system but not confirmed due to tocat(on on private property. Sioping hiliside located to the south of wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scienCific names of fants
Tree Stretum (Plot Size: ) Absoiute Dominant Irxiicator pominance Test Worksheet:
% Cover Soecies? Status
1. AMus iubra 100 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. Salix laslandra 40 No FACW OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~ ~A~
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
Ail Strata: 3 (B)
4.
100 = Totaf Cover percent of Dominant Species That Are Q (AA3)
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5. Rubus armeniacus 50 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
6. Pofygonum cuspidatum 20 No FACU Total % Cover of: Multiplv bv:
7. Sambucus racemosa 20 No FACU OBL species x1 =
8. FACW species x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
90. = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb SVatum (Plot Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. Polystichum munkum 20 Yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
11. Prevaience index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic VegeWtion Indicators:
13. No Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16, Remarics or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegelation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'indicators of hydric soil and weUand hydrology must be present,
20 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
L
2.
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 Present? Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: 34% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance 4est
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast- fnterim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Cuivert Replacement
SOIL Sam lin Point: Wet B SP#BU
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirtn the absence of indicator5.)
Depth Matrix Recbx Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type' Loc? Texture Remarks
0 to 18+ 10YR 3/3 100 None None Mone None Sandy bam
Fill prism
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to aii LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Probiematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ HisUc Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrlx (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Btack Histic (A3) O Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Hydrogen Suifide (A4) O Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted MaVix (F3)
O Thick Dark Sur(ace (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indkators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
O Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, untess disturbed or
roblematlc.
Restrictire Layer (if present):
Type:
Depih (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks: 3 chroma and no redox features
HYDROLOGY
WeUand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139) ❑ WaterStained Leaves (69)
D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Sak Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Pattems (B10)
❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry-Season WaterTable (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (82) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) p Saturation Vsibie on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduct(on in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAGNeuVal Test (D5)
❑ Surface Soil Gacks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Piants (D7) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Mt Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ inunda6on Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) O Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Coricave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ER Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(incfudes capillary finge) Yes ❑ No Eg Depth (inches): WeUand Hydrology Present? Yes Q No 0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring weil, aerial photos, previous inspections), iF available:
Remarks: No saturation or standing water observed in sample plot to 18 inches
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - InteNm Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Projeci Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2/25/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling Point: Wet B
SP#3Wet
Investigator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 & 23/21N/4E
Landform (hillsbpe, terrace, etc.): Depression 8 stream channel within Local relief (concave, convex, none): Depression & stream Stope 0 fo 2
urban area channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Mapped PEMfPSS
Are climaGc / hydrologic cond'Rions on the site typical for this time of yeaR Yes ~ No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarics.)
Are Vegetation p, Soi! Or Hydrology significanUy disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumsfances° present? Yes ~ No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology naturally problematlc? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetatlon Present? Yes 19 No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Is the Sampling Area within a WetiandT Yes ~ No ~
Wetiand Hydrotogy Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: Wetiand B near Mill Creek but separated by a narrow bertn with fill prism characteristlcs. No association wlth Mil Creek within study area.
Wetland B extends outside study area to the west Two small drainage channels flow Fnto Wetiand B froro west, likely associated with Mill Creek
or other stream system but not confirmed due to loeation on private property. Sloping hiliside located to the south ot wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) °a Cover Soecles? Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Ainus rubra 80 Yes FAC Number of Dominarri Species That Are
2. Salix /asiandra 30 No FACW OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3• Totai Numbar of Dominant Species Across
4. All Strata: 4 ~B~
100 = Total Cover percent of Dominant Species That Are Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Pbt Size: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75
5. Rubus spectabi/is 70 Yes FAC+ Prevalence Indez worksheet:
6. Total % Cover of: Mul6olv bv:
7. OBL species X1 =
8. FACW specfes X2 =
9. FAC species X3 =
70 = Total Cover FACU species X4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species X5 =
10. Ranuneu/us repens 20 Yes FACW Column Totalx (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B!A =
12. Hydrophytic Vegetatfon Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50°k
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16. Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetiand Non-Vascular Plants'
18• ProblemaGc Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and weUand hydrology must be present,
20 = Total Cover unless.disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1. Hedera hlbernlca 50 Yes UPL
50 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 PreseM4 Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 75% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test
US Army Cwps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coas[- Interim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement
SOIL Sam 1in Point: Wet B SP#9Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indiwtor or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
0 to 18+ 10YR 2/1 100 None None None None Silt loam
'Type: C= ConcenVation, D=DepleUOn, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coaied Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydrie Soil Indiwtors: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematie Hydr(c Soils3:
D Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Ep(pedon (A2) ❑ SMpped MaVix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depieted Matrix (F3)
~ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) p Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be preseM, unless disturbed or
roblematic.
Restrtctive Layer (ff present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present7 Yes ED No ❑
Remarks: 1 chroma
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) ~ WaterStained Leaves (139) ❑ WaterStained Leaves (69)
* High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46)
* Saturafion (A3) ❑ SaH Crust (B11) O Drainage Pattems (B10)
❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ DrySeason WaterTable (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Vsible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0) O Geomorphic Posftion (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard 03)
❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilted Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135)
❑ SurFace Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or SVesses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visibie on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Expiain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Fieid Observationr.
5urface Water Present? Yes ❑ No N Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ~ No ❑ Depth (inches): 1 inch
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary finge) Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology PresentT Yes [9 No ❑
Describe Recorded Data (sVeam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement CitylCounry: AubumlKing Sampling Date: 2/25/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling Point: Wet B
SPtt10Up
Investigator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 8 23/21N/4E
Landfortn (hiilstope, terrace, etc.): Depression & stream channel within LocaI relief (concave, convex, none): Depression 8 stream Slope 0 to 2
urban area Channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Mapped PEM/PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No ❑ (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are °Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ~ No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydroiogy naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showtng sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 is the Sampiing Area within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ~
WeUand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No N
Remarks: Wetland B near Mitl Creek but separated by a narrow berm with fill prism charactertstics. No association with Mil Creek within study area.
Wettand B extends outside study area to the west Two small drainage channels flow into Wetland B from west, Iikely associated with Mill Creek
or other stream system but not conrirmed due to location on private property. Sioping hiliside located to the south of wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) % Cover Soecies? Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Aeer macrophylum 80 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are 1 (A)
2. Alnus rubre 40 Yes FAC OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3• 7otal Number of Dominant Species Across
All Strata: 4 ~B)
4.
100 = Total Cover percerrt of Dominant Species That Are Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Pbt S¢e: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 ~aB~
5. Prevalence Index worksheet
6. Total % Cover of: MultipN bv:
7. OBL species x1 =
8. FACW species x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
0= Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. Polystichum munftum 30 Yes PACU Cotumn Totals: (A) (B)
11. Prevalencelndex = B/A =
12. HydrophyGC Vegetation Indicators:
13. No Dominance Test is >50%
14. Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15• Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
76. Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
18. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,
30 = Total Cover uniess disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
1. Hedera hlbemfca 100 Yes UPL
2.
100= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Present? Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: 25% dominant wetland vegeTation per the Dominance test
US Rrmy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement
SOIL Sam fin Point: Wet B SP#10U
Profile DescripUon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indiwtor or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Featu2s
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarics
0 to 6 10YR 4/3 100 None None None None Sandy loam
6 to 18+ 10YR 4!3 100 None None None None Sandy loam Fill prism
w/gravei
'Type: C= ConcenVation, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil indfcators: (Appiicabie to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematie Hydrie Soils°:
❑ 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) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted 8eiow Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted MaVix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) hydoblermatic.ust be present, uniess disturbed or
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Sais Present? Yes ❑ No 19
Remarks: 3 chroma and no redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetiand Hydrology indicators:
Primary Irxlicators (minimum of one required; check aii that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) 0 WaterStained Leaves (139) ❑ WaterStained Leaves (89)
0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (611) ❑ Drainage Pattems (B10)
❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ DrySeason WaterTable (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) O Oxidized Rhizospheres along Livirg Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (132)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
0 Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutrat Test (D5)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ inundation V'xible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Expiain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (137)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Fieid Dbservations:
Surface Water Present7 Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ~ No ~ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydroiogy PreseMl Yes ❑ No N
Describe Recorded Data (sVeam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if availabie:
Remarks: No saturaUon or standing water observed in sample plot to 18 tnches
US Army Corps o/Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast- Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Vatleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement Ciry/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2125/09
ApplicanUOwner. City of Aubum Sfate: WA Sampling PoinC Wet B
SP#11Wet
Investigator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Township, Range: 14 & 23l21N/4E
Landform (hillstope, terrace, etc.): Depression & sVeam channel within Lxal relief (concave, convex, none): Depression & stream Slope 0 to 2
urban area channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Mapped PEM/PSS
Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeaR Yes 19 No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 0, Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation El, 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 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ~ No ❑ Is the Sampling Area within a Wetiand? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology PreseM? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks: Wetland B near Miil Creek but separated by a narrow berm with fili prism characteristics. No association with Mil Creek within study area.
Wetland B extends outside study area to the west Two small drainage channels flow into Wetland B from west, likely associated with Mtll Creek
or other stream system but not eonfirmed due to location on private property. Sioping hiliside loeat¢d to the south of wetland boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Tree Stratum Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator
~ ~ % Cover Saecies? Status Qominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 60 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 3 (A)
p, OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
4. Ali SUata: 3 ~B)
80 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 700 (AIB)
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: )
5. Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC+ Prevatence Index worksheet:
6. Total % Cover of: MuttioN bv:
7. OBL species X1 =
8. FACW spectes X2 =
9. FAC species X3 =
40 = Totai Cover FACU species X4 =
Herb Siratum (Pbt Sizec ) UPL spectes X5 =
10. LysJchiton americanus 20 Yes OBL Co►umn Totals: (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
72. Hydrophy8c Vegetation Indicators:
13. Yes Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is <3.0'
15. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in
16, Remarics or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascular Piants'
18• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and weUand hydrology must be present,
20 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Piot Size: j
2.
0= Totai Cover HydrophyGc Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 ' Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegefation per the Dominance test
US Army Caps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast- lnterim Versfon
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement
SOIL Sam lin Point Wet B SP#11 Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or eonfirtn the absence of indicators.)
Depth MaUiu Redox Features
(inches) Coior (moist) % Cotor (Moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
0 to 18+ 10YR 2J1 100 None None None None Sik loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to ali LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematlc Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parenl Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) '
❑ Hydrogen Sulflde (A4) p Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depfeted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophyfic vegetaGon and wetland
~ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be preseM, unless disturbed or
roblemaUc.
Restrictive Layer (ff present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No ❑
Remarks: 1 chroma
HYDROLOGY
WeUand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
p Surface Water (A1) Eg WaterStained Leaves (139) O Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
~ High Water Tabie (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
~ SaturaGon (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Pattems (B10)
❑ Water Marks (81) ❑ Aquatic Invertebretes (813) ❑ Dry-Season WaterTable (C2)
• Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visibie on Aerial imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Posftion (D2)
❑ Algai Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reductlon in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (86) ❑ Stunted or SUesses Pfants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Exptain in Remarics) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks (137)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Fiefd Observatioru:
Surface Water Presenl? Yes ❑ No N Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No O Depth (inches): At surface
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): At surface WeUand Hydrology Present9 Yes ~ No ❑
(includes capillary finge)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarics: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valieys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement City/County: Aubum/King Sampling Date: 2125/09
ApplicantlOwner. City of Aubum State: WA Sampling Point: wet 8
SP#12Up
fnvestigator(s): C. Douglas, A. Wick Section, Tovmship, Range: 14 & 23/21N/4E
Landform (hiilsiope, teRace, etc.): Depression 8 stream channei within Local relief (concave, convex, none): Depression 8 stream Slope 0 to 2
urban area Channel
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.18N Long: 122.15W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classificaGon: Mapped PEM/PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeaR Yes ~ No p (If no, explain in Remarlcs.)
Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrobgy O. significanUy disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes ~ No ❑
Are Vegetation Soit p, Or Hydrology p, naturally probiematic? (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 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampiing Area within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ~
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No IM
Remarks: Wetiand B near Mill Creek but separated by a narrow berm with fill prism characteristies. No association with Mil Creek within study area.
Wetland B extends outside study area to the west Two small drainage ehannels flow into Wetiand B from west, likely associated with Miti Creek
or other stream system but not confirmed due to location on private property. Sloping hiliside located to the south of weUand boundary.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Tree Stratum Plot Size: Absolute Oominant Indicator
~ ~ °a Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Woricsheet:
1. Acer macrophylum 90 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are 0 (A)
2, OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3• Total Number of Dominant Species Across
4. AI{ Strata: 3 ~B)
90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are
Saolina/Shrub Siratum (Plot Size: ) OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~
5. Rabus artneniaeus 20 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet
6. Tota! % Cover oF. MulUplv bv:
7. OBL species x1 =
8. FACW species x2 =
9. FAC species x3 =
20 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: ) UPL species x5 =
10. PalysGchum munitum 30 Yes FACU Column Totals (A) (B)
11. Prevalence Index = B/A =
12. Hydrophytic VegeWtion Indicators:
13. No Dominance Test is >50%
14• Prevalence Index is 13.0'
15• Morphofogical AdaptaGons' (Provide supporting data in
18. Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
18. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
19.
20• 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,
30 = Total Cover uniess disturbed or probiematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: )
2
0= Total Cover HydrophyGc Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Sttatum 70 Present4 Yes ❑ No ~
Remarks: 0% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Interim Version
Project Site: Peasley Road Culvert Replacement
SOIL Sam lin Point: Wet B SP#12U
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirtn the absenee of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Coior (moist) % Color (Moist) Type' LocZ Texture Remarlcs
0 to 18+ 10YR 4/3 100 None None None None Sandy loam Fill rism
w/ gravels P
'Type: C= ConcenVation, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=MaVix
Hydric Soii Indicators: (Applicable to ali LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indieators for Probiematle Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
[I Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
❑ Depleted Bebw Darlc Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Dark SuRace (F6)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Daric Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
❑ Sand Gleyed MaVix (S4 ❑ Redox De ressions F8 hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
y ~ P robiematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydrie Soils Present7 Yes ❑ No ~
Remarics: 3 chroma and ra redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndieators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check ail that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ WatervStained Leaves (69) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139)
❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MIRA i, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA i, 2, 4A, and 46)
❑ Saturation (A3) ~ Salt Crust (811) ❑ Drainage Pattems (610)
❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aqua6c invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Suiftde Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres atong Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Posftion (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Cnist (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) O Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sals (C6) [I FAC-Neutrai Test (DS)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (131) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ InurxlaGon Visibie on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost Heave Hummocks (D7)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ~ Depth (inches): WeUand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ~
(includes capillary (ringe)
Describe Recorcled Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aeriai ptwtos, previous inspections), if availabie:
Remarics: No saturation or standing water observed in sample plot to 18 inches
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, 1/alley, and Coast - Interim Version
APPENDIX C
ECOLOGY WETLAN D RATI NG FORMS
, Wetland name or number A
WETLAND RATTNG FORM - WESTERN WASHIHGTON
Version 2- Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
Name of wetland (if known): Wetland A Date of site visit: 2/25/09
Rated by: C. Douslas, A. Wick Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: May 2007
SEC: 14 and 23 TWNSHP: 21I RNGE: QE ls S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X
Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size 0.02 acres
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTTONS provided by weitand: T IT lIi X TV
Category I= Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 6
Category I1 = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydro{ogic Functions 18
Category III = Score 30 - 50 Score for Habitat Functions 10
Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions 34
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACI'ERTSTCS of Wetland C II Does not apply NA
Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic iuformation about the wetland unit.
Estuarine De ressional
Natural Herita e Wetland Riverine X
Ba Lake-frin e
Mature Forest Sto e
Old Growth Forest Flats
Coastal La oon Freshwater Tidal
Interdunal
None of the above Check if unit has multiple
HGM classes resent
boes the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will
need to rotect the wetland accordin to the re ulations re arding the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland.
- - - W -
~ -
SP 1. Has the wetlond unit been documented as a habitat far any Federally listed Threatened or
Endangered arrlmal or plant species (T/E spectes)? X
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate
state or federal database.
SP2. H4s the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened ar
Endangered anlmal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the x
wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed p(ant species
are cate orized as Cate o I Natural I-Ierita e Wetlands see . 19 of data form .
SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals o Priori s ecies listed b rhe WDFW or lhe state? X
SP4. Does the wetland unit hme a local signiftcance in addition to its functiarrs? For example, the X
wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or
in a local mana ement Olan as havin s ecial si ificance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you wil) need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated.
The hychogemiooic classificatian goups w~luxJs in to dxse drat funcbon in similar ways. This simplifies the quesliam moded W ansm how weIl the wedand
funetions, "Ihe Hydrogeomorphic Class ofa wedand can be dd=*ad usiaigthe key belaw. See p, ?A for maac de4Oed ibtudions on classi£ying wettands.
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7106) Page 1 of 12
Wetiand name or number A
Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington
Mf~ii~~!µ.~a~~
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)?
YES - the wetiand class is Tidal Fringe Tf 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 Tida! Fringe (Estuarine)
Ifyvur wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tida! Fringe use the forms for Rlverine wetlands If it rs a Saltwater T'utal Fringe it
is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands daat were cal I estuarine in the fast 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 "L-"stuarine" wetland is kept Piease
note, however, that the characteristics that define Category i and 11 eshuarine wetiands have changed (see p.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water
runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
~ YES - The wetiand class is F'lats
If your wetland can be classified as a"Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressionat wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetiand 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 siae;
At least 30% of the o en water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)?
YGS - The wetland class is Lake-iringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria?
The wetiand is on a slope (slope can be very gradual).
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. lt may
flow subsurfaee, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
The water leaves the wetland wit6out being impounded?
NOTE: Surface water does not porrd in these types of wetlands except occasionally i» very small and
shallow de ressions or behind hurrrmocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep}.
"yr " YES - The wetiand class is Slope
5. Does the entire wetiand meet all of the following criteria? X The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by ovexbank flooding from that stream or river.
7{ The overbank flooding occurs at Ieast once every two years.
NOTE: The riverine unit can contain de ressions that are rlled with water when the river is notflooding..
NO - go to 6 ~i.~~'~~~x..~~ • _
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 wetiand class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetiand located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not
pond surface water mora than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by higli groundwater in the area. The
wetiand may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. .
No - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional
~ -
w
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to etassify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a
slope may gade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a wne of flaoding along its sides. GO
BACK AND IDENTtFY WI-IICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIIvIES DESCRIBED IN QUES7'IONS l-? APPLY TO DiFFERENT
AREAS IN THE LJMT (make a rough skekch to help you decide). Use tf►e following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the
ratir►g 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 1 Q% or more of tfie 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 mone than 400/o of the total area. .
~
Slo e + Riverine NOW
Slo e+ De ressional De ressional
Slo e+ Lake-frin e Lake-frin e
De ressioual
De ressional + Riverine alon stream within boundary
De ressional + Lake-frin e De ressional
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINB under wetlands with special
freshwaler wetland characteristics
If you are unable still to determine which of the above crikeria apply to your wetland, or you have more khan 2 HGM classes
witliin a wetiand boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
Wedand Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7/06) Page 2 of 12
Wetkand name or number A
....,T~-~ .~~'~e?c~ ~.:_ti,_,~`. - `=;~.+r.;" - %'~c'?{'~ y_"^`=~-„ . _ .
R 1 Daes the wetland have t6e notential to improve wnfer quality? (see p.Sl)
R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: ~~gure ~
• Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland ...............................................................................points = 8
• Depressions cover > 1!2 area of wetland ...............................................................................points = 4 0
(If depressions > 1/2 of $rea of unit draw polygons on aer{al photo or map)
• Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland : oints = 2
• No de ressions resent. ~s~
R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Fi _
. Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of tt►e unit ...................................................................................points = 8 gure
• rrees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland .............................................................................points = 6 3
. Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2!3 area of unit o oints = 6
• Ungrazed herbaceous piants > 1/3 area of unit `fl K=
• Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit ..Points = 0
Aerial hoto or ma showin ol ons of dif[erenf ve etation t es
Add the oints in the boxes above 3
R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunitv to improve water quality? (see p, 53)
Aoswer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into
the wetland that would otherwise reduce water qua)ity in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient
from the wetland. Note ivhich of the fo!lowing conditions provtde the sources of pollutands, A unrt may
have pollutants coming from several xources, bul any single source ivould qualify as opportunity.
Grazing in the wetland or within 150 f1
x Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland
Titled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland
x A stream or cuivert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed
fields, roads, or clear-cut logging
x Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland
x The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have Multi lier
raised fevels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the rivcr water above standards for p
water quality.
~ Other 2
NO multiplier is 1
♦ TOTAL - Water Quali Functions Multi I the score from Rl b 112• then add score to table on . 1 6
• ~ _ - -
R 3 Does the wetland have the notentinl to reduce Tlooding and erosionT
R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the ivetland y ~
perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel(distance between F'gure ~
banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width af unit) /(average tividth of stream between banks). z
. Ifthe ratio is more than 20 . .points = 9
• If the ratio is between 10 - 20 .points = 6
. If the ratio is 5- <10 oin
• If the ratio is 1- <5
• 1f the ratio is < 1
potnts = 1
Aerial hoto or ma showin avera e widths
R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as
`forest ar shrub Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90° Figure _
cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): 7
. Forest or shrub for > 1/3 arca OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area ~
• Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1 J3 area oints = 4
• Vegetation does not meet above criteria ....................................points = 0
Aerial hoto ar ma showin oi ons of different ve etation t es
Add the oints in the boxes above 1~ 9~ ~
R 4 noes the wetland have the onuortunity 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 properiy and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or
erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply.
x There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can
be damaged by flooding.
x There are natural resources downstream (e.g, salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding
Other Multiplier
(Answer NO if the major source of water to !he weiland }s controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is
tidal fringe along the sides o a dike 2
- NO multiplier is 1
♦ TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 b R4; then add score to tnble on p. 1 18
Comments:
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7106) Page 5 of 12
Wetland name or number A .
H 1 Does the wetlaad have the eotential to provide dabitat for many spcc{es?
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Figure _
Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) Size lhreshold jor each class is
114 acre or more than 10% of the area if unft is smaller than 2.5 acres. 2
Aquatic Bed
x Emergent plants
x Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30%cover)
x Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover)
!f the unit has a forested cla.rs check if.•
The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canapy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-
cover) that each cover 20% within t6e forested polygon.
Add the number of vegetation types thal qaalify. If you have: Ma of Cowardin vepetation classes
4 structures or more .......pomts = 4
2 structures oints = 1 1 structure..,.................. oints = 0
H 1.2 Hvdroperiods (see p.73): Figure ~
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) presenl wilhfn the wetlarrd. The ivaler regime has to
cover more than 10% of the welland or 114 acre to count (see text for descriplions of hydroperiods). z
~ Permanently flooded or inund"ated 4 or more t e,s resent , oints - 3
.
Seasonally flooded or inundated {O5~:~~es '
x Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present points = l
x Saturated only l type present points = 0
x Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
_ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
` C.ake-fringe weiland 2 points
_ FreshwAter tidal wetland.........= 2 points Map ot hydroperiods
H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75):
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (dlfferent patches of !he 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 Thfsrle. 1f you counted: > 19 species .......................points = 2
5- 19 species oints 1 0
List species below if you want to: < 5 species
H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76):
Decided from the diagrams below whetlter interspcrsion between Cowerdin vegetation (described in Hl.l), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, (ow, or none.
cl)-? ~ l' Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure ~
or 3 vegetation c(asses and 1
, . . .
open water, the rating is
None = 0 pcuate Low= ] point Mpdm= _2 poiuts always "high".
- Use map of Cowardia classes.
[riparian hmided chamiels]
Hi = 3 ints
H 1,5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77):
Check the habitat.features that are present in the wetland. The num6er of checks is the number of points
you pul 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 )east 6.6 ft. (2m ar►d/or overhanging vegetation extends at least
3.3 ft. (im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (lOm) p
Stable steep banks of line material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for clenning
30 degree slope) OR signs of recent heaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees thai have
not yet turned grey/brown)
At least I!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 amphrbians)
Invasive Plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
~ NpTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error.
ft] TOTAL Score - ofential for rovidin habitat Add the oints in the cnlumn above 5
Wetland Rating Form - westem Washington, version 2(7l06) Pagc 8 of 12
Wetland name or number A
g 2 Does thc wetland have the oaportunitv ta provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see.P. 80):
Choose the descriplion that best represents condition of buffer of wettand unit. The highest scoring Figure _
criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed 1
_ 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 (andscaping, no daily human use} points = 5
~ 100m (330 ft) of relaiively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
> 50% circumfarence . points = 4
_ SOm (170 ft) ofrelatively 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
` SOm (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
for > 50% circumference points = 3
If buffer does not meet nny of the criteria abovc:
No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland >
95% circumference. I.ight to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2
_ No paved areas of buitdings within SOm of wetland for > SO% circumference.
Light to moderate grazing or iawns are OK . points - 2
_ Heavy grazing in buffer .................................................................................................points = l
_ Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumferen"
(e.g, tilied fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) oints = 0
^ Buffer doas not meet any of the criteria above ...............................................................R,~~~~.~
Arial photo showing buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81)
H 2.2.1 Ts the wetiand part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian
or upland) that is at least 150 ft, wide, has at least a 30% cover of s6rubs, 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).
1rES = 4 points (go to H 2.3)
H. 2.2.2 Is the wetiand part of a relativety undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian p
or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at }east 30% cover of shruhs or forest, and connects to
estuaries, other wetiands or undisfurbed uptands that are at least 25 acres in size7 OR a Lake-
fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the uestion above7
YES = 2 poinis (go to H 2.3)
H. 2.2.3 Is the wet[and:
. Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
• Within 3 miles of a large field ar pasture 40 acras) OR YES = 1 oint
. Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? _
Comments: •
Wet[and Rating Form - westem Washing2on, version 2{7/06} Page 9 nf 12
Wetland name or numher A
H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed bv WDFW (see p. 82):
Which of the following priority habitais are within 330 ft. (l 00m) of the wetland?,NOTE: the connec[ions do .
not- have to be relatively unduturbed These are DFW defrnitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if
there are any guestions.
_ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutuatly influence each other.
_ Aspen Staods: Pure or mixcd stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres)
Cliffs: Greater than 7.6m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft.
_ Old-growth forests; (Old growth west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least 2[ree species, forming a
multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings, with at least 20 trces/ha (8 trees/acre)> Slem
(32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age.
Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53em (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be
! less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of iarge downed materiak is
general[y less than that faund in old-growth; 80 - 200 yeats old west of the Cascade Crest.
, Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where greases
and/or forbs form the natural climax plant commuaity.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubhle ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.Om (0.5 - 6,5 ft),
composed of basalt, andesite, andlor sedimenfary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
_ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages.
_ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy ~
coverage of the oak compbnent of the stand is 25%.
X Urbnn Natural Open Spaee: A priority speeies resides within or is adjacent to the open space and
. uses it far breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connectiog
other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isoluted; and/or the open space is an
isolated remnant of naturat habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban
development.
Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent lidal wetlands, usually semi-enclosed
by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean
water is at least occasionaily diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be
periodically increased above thet of thc open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy
coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuariae habitat extends upstream and tandward
to where ocean-derived sat[s mea.eure less than 0.5 ppt. during the period of average annual low flew.
Ineludes both astuaries and lagoans,
Marine/Estuarine Shore(ines: Shoretines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and
may also inctude the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., ctiffs,
snags, mature trees, dunes, mcadows) that are important to shoreline associeted fish and wildlife and
that coniribute to shoreline funetion (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion
c6ntCOl). .
If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats.= A points WN~Y = `i
If wetland has 2 priority habitats 3 points No habitats 0 points
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition'a priority habi#at but aze not included in this list.
earb wetlands are addressed in uestion H 2,A .
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choase the one description oflhe larrdscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84)
• There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1!2 mile, and the bonnections between them are
relatively undistuibed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating,
but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fteIds, 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 I/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are 3
disturbed
. 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 I!2 mile points = 2
• There are no wetlands within 1/2 inile.................. ints - 0
H 2 TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.I, N2.2, 112.3, N2.4 ~ 5
7'OTAL for H 1 from page 8 S ~
♦ TotTlScore Tor Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the resull on p. 1~ 10 ~
Comments:
Wetland Ra4ing Form - wescern Washington, version 2(7106) Page 10 of 12
Wetland name or number A
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERIS'rICS
Please deterrrtine if the wetland meets the aitributes described below
and circle the appropriate answers and Category.
;=z-:r~-'~o. :.~-~~?t" , .a"'"-~'~, '1. A-.rs~.:ia~...-~ is'~''--"4"~^.-~-„~:'
~
,
,y~ _ c.~ ~i;,;:ti=•-=:z.u _ - ~'~t~' W- ~~tT~r~1~:,~ ° ~ T~@2t~J~"e: r~ .~ry -.-,.~"'~";..c~'~~.a:^~ i=.:'~,=,._ - _ ~~'^`_'<r ^M ; • = - ,:~.m„ .,T_~~~~S.cy.,~"")~`.,., ,~,-r."-v
n.-c^.~~r ^ .
. _ . . ..._...y. • . ,
. ...~~~3,!t~~.. s-- . ti-"~~.. "w~~~ ~.~__=v..- - - ~=::..~~.cn•
.r .•_...-.r.`:.`>-=u
SC1 Estunrine wetlands? (see P•86) ~ l: :
Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
_ The dominant watar regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
_ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt.
YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X
SC 1.1 Is the wetiand unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Nationat Estuary Reserve, Natural
Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designaEed under WAC Cat. l
332-30-I51? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2 [s the wetiand at least i acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions?
YES = Category I NO = Category 11 Cnt. 1
Tha wetiand is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, f'tlling, cultivation, grazing, and has
~ less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are onfy species
that cover more than 10% of the wetiand, then the wetiand should ba given a dual rating (I/II). Cat. 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 3 acre. Dual
, At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed Rating
or un-mowed grass[and
The wetland has at leasi 2 of the foliowing features: tidal channels, depressions with open water,
or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
C2 Naturai Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87)
Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as
either high.quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or
Sensitive plant species.
SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? ('!'his
question is used tn screen ouJ most sftes before you need to conlact WNI/P/DNR.)
SIT/R information from Appendix D or accassed from WNHP/DNR web site
YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO X
SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetiand as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened
or endangered plant species7 Cat 1
YES = Category I Na X not a Heritage Wetland
C3 B0gs (see p. 87) -
Does the wetiand (or any pArt of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs7 Use
the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will sli[l need fo rate the
wetland based on its function.
1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of prganic soil), either peats or mucks, that
compose 16 inches or more oP the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See A endix B for a field key to
identify organic soils)? YES = go to yuestion 3 I&W~
2. Does the wetiand have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are tess 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
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 eonsists of species in Table 3)?
YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4
. NOTE: If you are uneertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that
criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. Tf the pH is
less than 5.0 and the "hog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetiand is a bog.
4. Is the onit Forested 30% cover) with sitka spruee, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western
hemlock, todgepole pine, quaking aspan, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of
the species (or combination of species) on 1he bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant _
component of the ground cover 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous caver)7 Cat. I
YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purposc of tating ,
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7/06) Page 11 of 12
Wetland name or number A
SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90)
Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Deparfinent of Fish
and Wildiife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you ivill slil! need to rate the rvetland
based on its function.
_ Old-growth torests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a
mulfi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acra (20 trees/hectare)
that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or
more),
NOTE: The criterian for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees
in wetiands will often have a smaller dbh because theit 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 foresfs: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest irees 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. Cat. ]
YES = Category 1 NO = X_ not a forested wetland with s ecia) characteristics
SC$ Wetlands in Coasfal Lagoons (see p. 91)
Docs the wetland meet atl of the foilowing criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
_ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent fo marine waters that is wholly or parfially scparated
from marine waters by sandbanks, gravet bat►ks, 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 dhe
bottom.)
YES = Go to SC 5.1 ti0 X 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, filiing, 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] 00 ft. buffer of shcub, forest, or un-grazed
or un-rriowed grassland. Cat, f
~ The wetland is targer than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.)
YES = Category I NO = Category U Cat. li
C6 Ynterdunal 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 X not an interdunat wetland for rating
If you answer yes you witl sitll need [o rRte the wetland based on its junclions.
In practical terms that means the foUowing geographic areas:
. Long Beach Peninsula 3ands west of SR 103
• Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105
• Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 115 and SR 09
SC 6.1 ls the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or targer?
YES = Category II NO - go to SC 62 Cat. I]
SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetiands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre?
YEs = Category II[ Cat. 111
Category of wefland based on Special Characferistics
♦ Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falts into several categories, and record on p. 1.
If you answered NO for alt types enter "Not Appticable" on p. 1 NA
Comments: .
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7106) Pao 12 of 12
Wetiand name or number B
WETI.AND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON
Version 2- Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
Name of wetland (if known): Wetland B Date of site visit: 2/25/09
Rated by: C. Douglas, A. Wick Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: May 2007
SEC: 14 and 23 TWNSHP: 21N RNGE: 4E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X
• Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size 7 acres
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTiOHS provided by wetland: I X iI III IV
Category I= Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 24
Category Ii = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 28
Category IIi = Score 30 - 50 Score For Habitat Functions 25
Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions 77
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERTSTCS of Wetland I II Does not appty NA
~
Final Category (choose the "highesY" category from above")
Summary of basic information about the wetland unit.
vEstuarine ~ De ressional X
Natural Herita e Wetland Riverine X
Bo Lake-frin e
Mature Forest Slo a
Old Growth Forest Flats
Coastal La oon Freshwater Tidal
Interdunai
None of the above Check if unit has muttiple X
NGM classes resent
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 rotect the wetfand aecordin to the re ulations re ardin the s ecial characteristics found in the wetland.
SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federallylrsted Threatened or
Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? X
For the purposes of this rating system, "documenEed" 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 X
wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species
are cate orized as Cate o 1 Natural Nerita e Wetlands see . 19 of data form).
SP3. Does the wetla»d unit contain individuals o Priori s ecies listed b the WDFW or the state? X
SP4. Does the wetland unif have a local signiftcance irr addition to its functiorrs? For example, the
wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Criticai Areas Ordinanee, or X
in a local mana ement lan as havin s ecial si nificance.
To complete the next part of the data sheet ou will need to determine the Hydro eorphic Class of the wetland being rated.
'Ihe lrydrogaomaphic classifiratimgroups wedands in todiose dkatfiuutiat in similar ways. This simp6fies the qespiom neaded bo wmwffhow well the wetkmA
fimwam 'IbeHydrog0ocrmphicCkssofawedand rmbedetammadusingthekeybelow Seep.24formar+edehu7edib-hxdor►sanclassifyingwedands.
Wettand Racing Form western Washington, version 2 (7/O0 Page 1 of 12
Wetland name or number B
Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Wesfern Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usua4y controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)?
YES - ihe 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 IVO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)
If your wetland ccm be classftd as a Freshwater T'rdal Fringe use the forms for Rriverine wetlands, If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it
rs rated as an Estuarrne wefland. Wetlands that were catl estuarine in the fust and second editions of the rating system are called Sait
Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Fstuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and
this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between edilions, the tertn "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Piease
note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and lI 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 water
runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
YES - The wetland class is Flats
[f your wetland can beclassified as a"Plats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. •
3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria?
7fie 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 o en water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)?
~ M YES - The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe).
4.^ Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria7
The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual).
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectionai) and usuatly 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 sma[l and
shallow de ressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep).
x""- p~ YES - The wetland c{ass is Slope
~r.
5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria?
X The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that'stream or river.
X The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years.
NOTE: The riverine unit can contain de ressions that are flled with wa[er when the river is not flooding..
NO - go to 6 =
~a
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 hi her.than the interior of the wetland.
NO go to 7 ~_~M
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 hi•gh 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 severat different HGM classes. For eacample, seeps at the base of a
siope 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 Wl-IICH OP' THE HYDROLOGIC REGIIvIFS DESCRIBED TN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE IJNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to idenrify 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 eolumn 2 is less
than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% ofthe total area
Slo -f- Riverine Riverine
Slope + Lake-frin e Lake-frin e
De ressional + Riverine alon stream within boundary De ressional
De ressional + Lake-fringe De ressional
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any ather class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special
freshwater wetland characteristics
If you are unable stil) to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HCyM classes
within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional far the rating.
WetIand Rating Form - westem Washington, version 2(7/06) Page 2 of 12
Wettand name or number B
,---._.r,_....,_:....,.~_:_:.,.:..:........_.......__.,..,: - - - - - - -
. _ - . . . - -
-
. .
r . . . _ - - -
~
- - - - - - - - _ = - -
,._..Y . _ . - - - - -
. . - - -
. _ . _ . _ . . . - -
~ _ : . _ . _ . , . . ; _ - -
_ . _ . _ _ : : . : . - ~W:~
.
1 ' _ _ .
._-'_T`h.'-:--~:._• • _ _ _ ~ _ _ :~'~•r::.... _ _
wiccz;-
_ _.....'T-..^-a -..-..Zqi.~.~rv_ ,<c.a..s. n.: _ . . r . - _ _
D 1 Does the wetland have the notential to improve water quality?
D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure
• Unit is a dePression with no surface water leaving it (no outtet) atf"`" -
.
. Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet......... points = 2 3
• Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing)........ points = 1
• Unit is a"flaY' 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
I ditch is not ermanentl owin treal unit as "intermittenil owin " Providc hoto or drawin
D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below 8he surface (or dufflayer) is clay or organic (use N12CS de)?nltiorrs) q
:
_.NO oints = 0
b 13 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class):
• Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation 95% of area oints 5 FIgure _
. ~
• Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vagetation 1/2 of area 3
• Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation 1!10 of area points = 1
• Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area ..................................................points = 0
1VIa of Cowardia ve etation classes
D 1.4 Characferisttcs of seasonal pon ing or tnun ation: T is is t e areu of t e wet and that is pon ed or at
least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanent y Figure ~
ponded. Estimaie area as the average conditlon 5 out of 10 years, 2
• Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetiand oints =4
• Area seasonaliy ponded is > 1!4 total area of wetiand oaitjt . _
• Area seasonally ponded is < I/4 total area of wetiand ...........................................................points = 0
Ma of H dro eriods
Totaf for D 1 Add rhe oints in the boxes above _ 12 ~
D 2 Does the wetland havc the oaaortunit.y to improva water quality? (see p. 44)
Answer YE5 if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into
the wetiand that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient
from the wetland? Note whrch of the following condilions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit
may have po!lutants coming from several sour•ces, bul any single source ivould qualto as oppartunlty.
_ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft
x Untreated stormwater discharges to wetiand
Tilied fiefds or orchards within I50 ft. of wetiand
x A stream or culvert discharges into wetiand that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed
fialds, roads, or clear-cut logging
x Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier
Wetfand is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen
Other Z
~ wfflffi_~ No multiplier is i
♦ TOTAL- Water Quali Functions Multi I the score from D1 b 132; then add score to table on . I 24
_ , .
~ _ ~ _ . _ .
, , _ _
_ . M.
. .
- _ . _--'~.e~ . : , . ~ . uiQ~. _ _.an~"-~".:; .
02
D3 Does the wetland 6ave the potential to reduce tlooding and erosion?
D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit
~31tts~`..~
• Unit is a de ression with no surface water leavin it no outlet A g ~ )
. Unit has an intermittently f7owing, Olt highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.......... points = 2
• Unit is a"flaY' depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface 4
outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ...........................points = 1
(/f ditch fs not permanently flowing ireat urrit as "tnlermittentlyflowing
. Unit has an unconstricted or sli htl constricted surface outlet errnanent! owin oints = 0
D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Cstimate rhe height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For
units wilh no outlei 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
. The wetland is a"headwater" wetiand ..................................................................................points = 5 7
• Marks of ponding between 2 R. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...........................points = 5
• Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 8. from surface or bottom of outlet ......................................points = 3
. Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has smafl depressions on the surface that trap water.points = 1
• Marks of ondin less than 0.5 ft .oints - 0
D 3.3 Contn ution o wet an unit to storage in the waters e: Cstimate the ratio of the area o upstream
basin coniributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetiand unit itself.
• The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit oints = S 3
• The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit
• The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit ..........................................points = 0
. Entire unit is in the FLATS class oints = 5
Total tor D 3 Add the oinls in the boxes above -14
D 4 Does tfic wetiand have the opuortunitv to reduce llooding a»d erosioo? (see p. 49)
Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velaeity, Multiplier
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 wetiand is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide
ate fla valve reservoir etc. OR ou estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetiand is from 2
Wetland Rating Form - westem Washington, version 2(7l06) Page 3 of 12
Wetland narrie or number B
groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Nate lvhich of Jhe 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
x Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or
stream that has flooding problems
_ Other
NO muitiplier is 1
♦ TOTAL - Hydrolo ic Functions Multi I. the score from D3 b D4; then add score lo table on p. I 28
Comments:
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, Version 2(7106) Page 4 of 12
Wetiand name or number B
,
- _ ~.~==xfi•=" ..~'zti: -~,~:'"'^'r.'.*` - . . ~'-~v~... . •""~;~.,~w.."~ . -.-".~•.Y.:> ~ --a"~..z_~., x#2:,:
:a::,.~'_:;-- ~ :Gy•-..~w,'
IN
~T ha
.
=
<.,.-,-~-~,..u.s~~~2
g j Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat far many species?
H 1.1 Veg,etation structure (see P. 72): Figure
Check the types of vegetation classes present (as deftned by Cowardtn) - Size lhreshold for• each class is -
114 acre or more than 1 0% of the area if unit Is smaller than 2.5 acres. A
x Aquatic Bed
x Emergent plants
x Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)
x Forested (ereas 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 ZO% within the forested palygon.
Add the number of vegetation lypes that ualr , If you have: Map ot Cowardin vegetation classes
4 structures or more -m" 3 structures points = 2
2 structures otnts = 1 1 structure..................... oints = 0
H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Figure _
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to
cover more than 10% of the weiland or 114 acre to count (see text for descriplions of hydroperiods ; 3
x Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present
Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2
x Occasionaliy flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1
x Saturated only 1 ty pe present points = 0
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wettand '
x Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
~ Lake-fringe wetiand 2 points
_ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points Map of hydroperiods
H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75):
Count the number of plant species in.the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ (different patches of the same
species can be combined to meet the siae threshold)
You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoll, reed canarygrass, ur le
loosestrife, Canadran Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species .......................~~~i~
5- 19 species ....................pomts = 1 Z
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 bctween Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none.
(ZD . Note: If you have 4 or more classes Flgure or 3 vegetation classes and 3
`~1 (4) open water, the rating is
always "high",
Norie=Opcvnts Low=]point tvfoderete=2painLs
Use mnp of Cowardin classes
-
~
~ ~ . (riparian hroided chatmeLsJ
Hi h = 3 ints '
H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77):
Check the habital,features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points
yau put into ihe next co[umn.
x Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland > 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long)
x Standing snags (diarneter at the bottom > 4 inches~ in the wetland
_ Undercut banks are present for at leasi 6,6 ft, (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least
3.3 ft. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) 4
Stabte steep banks of flne material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
30 degree slope) OR si ns of recent beaver activity are present (cu1 shrubs or trees that have
not yet turned grey/brown~
x At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are presettt in areas that
are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laing by amphibians)
x [nvasive plants cover tess than 25% of the wetland area in eac irstratum of plants
NOTL': 7'he 20% stated in early printings of the rrranual nn page 78 is an error.
1{ 1 TOTAL Score - otentiat for rovidin habitat Add the oints in 1he column above l6
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7/06) Page 8 of 12
Wetland name or number B
g2 Does the wetlflnd have the opporfunity to provide habitat for many species?
H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80):
Choose the description that besf represents condition of buffer of svetland unit. The highest scorrng Figure _
criterion lhat applies to the wetland is to be used in ihe rating. See text for definilion of "undisturbed", 3
_ 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 undisiurbed also means no grazing, no landscaping> no daily human use) points = 5
_ 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or apen water
> 50% circumference points - 4
~ SOm (170 ft) of relative{y 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 .
_ Sam (170 ft) of relative(y undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
for > 50% circumference . points = 3
If buPfer does not meet any ot the criteria above:
_ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 fl[) of wetland >
95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2
~ No paved areas of buildings within SOm of wetland for> 50% circumference.
Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OTC points = 2
_ Heavy grazing in buffer points =1
_ Vegetated buffers are < zm wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference
(e.g. tilled fields, paving, basatt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0
Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points =1
~ Ariat photo showiog buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relafively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian
or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% covcr of shrubs, forest or native
undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuarics, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at
least 250 actes in size7 (Dams in riparian corridors, heavlly used grave! roads, paved roads,
are considered breaks in the corridor).
YES = 4 oiots o to N 2.3
p ~g ) . -
H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian 2
or upland) that is at feast 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 not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above7
10 NO=gotoH2.2.3
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 l mi(e of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points
Comments:
Wetland Rating Form - western Washingron, version 2 (7106) Page 9 of 12
Wetland name or number B
H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other uriority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82):
Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft, (I OOm) of the wetland? NOTE: Ihe connections do
not have to be relatively undlsturbed These are DF'W definitions. Check with yaur local DFW biologtst if
there are any questiorrs.
_ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systcros with flawing water that contains elemeots of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
` Aspen Sfands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres)
, Cliffs: Greater than 7.6m (25 ft) high and oecurring below 5000 f1.
~ Old-growth forests: (dld growth west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a
multi-layered canopy witb occasional sma!l openings, with at leasf 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81cm
(32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age.
_ Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be
less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is
gencrally less tban that found in old•growth; $0 - 200 years old west of the Cascade Crest.
_ Prairies: Re(atively undisturbed areas (as indicaled by dominance of native plants) where greases
and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community.
_ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.Om {0.5 - 6.5 ft},
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
_ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages.
~ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where cF►c►opy ~
eoverage of Lhe oak component of the stand is 25%.
x tJrban T+Iatural Opeo Spnce: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and
uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; andlor the open space functions as a corridor connecting
other priority h4bitats, especia{ly those that would otherwise be isolated; tu►d/or the open space is an
isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban
development.
_ Estuary/Estuary-tike: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usualty semi-encfoscd
by land but witb open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean
water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater ranoff from the land. The salinity may be
periodically increased above that af the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy
coastlines there is aypreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward
to where ocean-derived satts measure ]ess than 0.5 ppt. during the period of average annual low flow.
Includes both esluaries and lagoons.
Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and .
~ may a[so include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs,
snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that arc important to shoreline assaeiated fish and wildlife and
that contribute to shoreline fanction (e.g., sand/rock/log rccruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion '
control). If wetiand has 3 or more priority habitats.= 4 points If wetiand has 1 priority habit.,. -
If wetiand has 2 priority habitats 3 points No habitats 0 points
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list.
earb wetlands are addressed in oestion H 2.4).
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choare the one descriplion oflhe landreape around the wetiand thal 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 biseeted by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5
. The wetiand is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe
wetlands within 1/2 milc points = 5
• There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1!2 mile, BUT the connections between them are 3
disturbed
. The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands
within 1/2 mile . paints = 3
• There is at least 1 wetiand within I/2 mile points = 2
. There are no wetlands within 1/2 mi1e................................................................................. oints = 0
H 2 TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add ihe scores from H2.1, l12.2, H2.3, H2.4 9 ~
TOTAL for H 1 from page 81 ~ 16 -4
♦ Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record elie result on p. I ~ 25 ~
Comments:
Wetland 12ating Form - westem Washington, version 2 (7l06) Page 10 of 12
Wetland name or number B
CATEGORIZATION BASEb ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below
and circCe the appropriate answers and Category.
=c•_ • •x~-~.^+~ S~.s
^ A
~,y,` ~ :
'Y?bP~
~~3, 1--~
~-''-`-^-w>-~`--~~'>"~"` - - - " ~°cx . M~•°- :~M=-•. ~
SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86)
Does thc wetiand unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ~~i-~
The dominant waler re ime is tidal
- g >
` Vegetated, and
_ Witli a safinity greater than 0.5 ppt.
YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X
SC 1.1 Is the wetiand unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, Nationat Park, Nationai Estnary Reserve, Natural
Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientiflc Reserve designated under WAC Cat. 1
332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least i acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions7
YES = Category I NO = Category IT Cat. I
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation; grazing, and has
less than i Q% cover of non-native plant species. Tf the non-native Sparlina spp,. aze only species
that cover more than 10% af the wetland, then the wetiand should be given a dual rating (I/II). Cat• 11
The area of Spartina woutd 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. Dual
, At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetiand has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed Rating
or un-mowed grassiand I/~r
The wetiand has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water,
~ or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
C2 Natural Heritaee Wettands (see p. 87)
Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as
cither high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Bndangered, or
Sensitive plant species.
SC 2.1 Is the wetiand being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a naturai heritage wetland? {This
question is used ta screen oul most sites before you need to contact WNHA/DNR.}
S/T/R information fram Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site
YES Contact WAIHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go io SC 2.2 NO X
SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetiand or as a site with state threatened
or endangered plant species? CAt I
YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland
C3 Boes lsee 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. IJyou answer yes you wlll still need do rate lhe
wetland based on Its functinn.
l. boes the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. tayers of organic soit), either peats or mucks, that
compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? See A endix B for a field key to
identify organic soits)? YES = go to question 3 ~x
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 volcanic ash, or that are floatin on a lake or
pond? YeS = go to question 3
3. Does the unit have more ihan 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 fierbaceous cover consists of species in Tab)e 3)?
YES =[s 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 ihe water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. ]f the pH is
less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog.
4. Is the unit forested 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine flr, 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 lhe total shrub/herbaceous cover)? Cat. I
YES = Category i No =1s not a bog for purpose of rating
Wetland Rating Form - western Washington, version 2(7/06) 1'age I 1 of 12
Wettand name ar number B
C4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90)
Does the wetiand have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteeia for the Department of Fish
and Wildiife's forests as priority habitats7 If you answer yes you will still need to rate the tvetland
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)
that are at teast 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (8] cm or
more).
NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year o1d 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 io have trees of this diameter.
_ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 ycars old
OR have an average diametars (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 generatly
fess than that found in old-growih. Cat. I
YIES = Cate o 1 No = X not a forested wetland with s ecial characteristics
CS Wetlands in Coastal Lseoons (see p. 91)
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a weiland in a coasta! Iagoon7
_ 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 meqsured near the
botlom.)
YES = Go to SC 5.1 No X not a wetland in a coastai lagoon
SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet ail of the foltowing three conditions?
~ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has
less #han 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. Cat. I
~ The wetiand is larger thaa 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.)
YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II
C6 Ynterdunal Wetlands (see p. 93)
Is the wetland west of the 18891ine (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or
WBUO)? •
YES = Go to SC 6.1 No X noi an inierdunal wetland for rating
Ijynu answer yes you wtll still need to rate the welland based on fts junctions.
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
5C 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or Iarger, or is it in a mosaic of wettands that is one acre or larger7
YES = Category Il NO = go to SC 6.2 Cat. lI
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 i acre?
YES = Category III Cat. III
Category of wetland based on SpeciTt Characteristics
♦ Choose the "highest" rating If yvelland falls into several categortes, and record on p. 1.
If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. i NA
Comments•
Wetland Rating Porm - westem Washington, version 2(7/06) Page 12 of 12
APPENDIX D
SITE PHCJTOGRAPHS
A ~
^'~-~k r ~ j~; T Ya,
. ~
b
Z
Photograph 1
Wetland A and Mill Creek Facing West
, • : ~ ~ z '~y;
3d ~'~"'V . t ~ "'a` V~ + i '
n~: 'i'1^ix. '"'f. ~ ~L y''~4~.\~. • t A• "~4
y •"l . ~
«+t-..
Y
~
lv
~~RT
~
. ~ r~ . . ~ . ~1. ~ 0
Photograph 2
Wetland A and Mill Creek Facing East
~t
. ~ , . . .
Photograph 3
Wettand A Buffer and Mil! Creek Facing West
X'
'
s
H
. r
. Y.... . _ . .
. ; . . A..
y ^
~
,
8
. " . ~ J
. . ..-x _ . . . i '
Photograph 4
Upland Berm between Mitl Creek and Wetiand B Facing West
j 3
~
~
~
Photograph 5
Upland Berm between Mili Creek and Wetland B Facing West
t ~ ~ . .
Y ' Pi iW'~ ' ~"y , ~ . A `E..: ~ ~ 5~••`~~~ ~
• kk
~
Photograph 6 ~
PFO, PSS, and PEM Habitats within Wetland B Facing South
~ at:: . t t .,,.3•.. ; ~ ~S c ~ tw3
'~K. . -•f ~ i_, A ....,:a4-"t--.
Photograph 7
PFO, PSS, and PEM Habitats within Wetland B Facing North
ECEIV
JUN 12 2009
CoTY OF AuBuRN
BusLDING DIvIsIaN
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
M I LL CREEK PEASLEY CANYON ROAD
CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Prepared for
City of Auburn Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
1605 Cornwall Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225 June 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 APPLICANT INFORMATION ............................................................................................1
2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................2
2.1 Review of Existing Information .3
2.2 Assessment Basis ...............................................................................................................4
2.3 Assumptions .....................................................................................................................4
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................5
3.1 Permits Requested ............................................................................................................7
4 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION .......................................................................•-•--•--.........9
4.1 Topography .....................................................................................................................10
4.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................10
4.3 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................10
4.4 Plant Communities .........................................................................................................11
5 EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS AND CONDITIONS .........................................................12
5.1 Streams ............................................................................................................................12
5.1.1 Stream Ratings and Buffers ......................................................................................15
5.2 Wetlands 16
5.2.1 Wetland A .................................................................................................................17
5.2.2 Wetland B .................................................................................................................17
5.3 Regulatory Framework for Wetland Classification ......................................................18
5.3.1 USFWS Classification ...............................................................................................18
5.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores .........................19
;
`5.3.3 City of Auburn Wetland Classification Guidance ..................................................20
5.3.4 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations ........................................................21
6 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ....................................................................22
6.1 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation ...........................................................22
6.2 Stream and Wetland Conceptual Planting Plan ...........................................................24
6.3 Stream and Wetland Performance Measures, Standards of Success, and Contingency
Plans ................................................................................................................................25
6.3.1 Performance Measures and Standards of Success ...................................................25
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culven Replacement Project June 2009
Draft Critical Areas Report i 080554-01
6.3.2 Contingency Plan ....................................................................................................26
7 ACC CRITICAL AREAS COMPLIANCE 28
8 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFIC.ATIONS ...............................................................................37
8.1 Best Management Practices ...........................................................................................40
9 REFERENCES 42
list of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Project Area Riparian Vegetation Species 14
Table 2 Fish Species Documented in Mill Creek Project Area 15
Table 3 City of Auburn City Code Stream Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance 16
Table 4 USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water 19
Table 5 Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands
Rating System
19
Table 6 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores 20
Table 7 City of Auburn City Code Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Width....... 21
Table 8 Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Habitat Restoration 23
Table 9 Stream and Wetland Restoration Plant Species 25
List of Appendices
Appendix A Critical Area Report Figures
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Critrcal Areas Report II 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
1 APPLICANT INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Name - Robert Lee, City of Auburn Public Works
Mailing Address - 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Phone - (253) 804-5071 .
Email - rlee@auburnwa.gov
CONTACT:
Name - Derek Koellmann
Mailing Address - 1605 Cornwall Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone - (360) 733-4311 x221
Email - dkoellmann@anchorqea.com
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culven Replacement Project june 2009
Draft Cntical Areas Report 1 080554-01
Construction Specifications
2 INTRODUCTION
This Critical Areas Report (Report) provides an evaluation of the existing critical areas in the
vicinity of the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project (Project). It
further provides an evaluation of the impacts to existing critical areas and associated
regulated buffers resulting from the proposed improvements to Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary and its associated wetland areas. The Project area evaluated for critical areas
assessment is approximately 14 acres in size, located in and adjacent to Peasley Canyon Road
and west of West Valley Highway, in the City of Auburn in King County, Washington
(Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Sections 14 and 23). The proposed Project construction
(work) area limits are under 1-acre in size, and that area is located on right-of-way (ROW)
under the ownership of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). A
vicinity map of the study area is shown on Figure 1(see Appendix B).
The City of Auburn (City) is proposing to replace three culverts that carry Mill Creek under
Peasley Canyon Road. The culverts are located approximately 500 feet upstream (west) of
the West Valley Highway crossing of Mill Creek, and approximately 550 feet upstream of the
mainstem Mill Creek confluence. Two existing deteriorating corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
culverts (60 inches and 30 inches in diameter, respectively) will be replaced by a 20-foot-
wide by 90-foot-long 3-sided box stream simulation culvert. The existing culverts act as a
fish passage partial barrier due to their limited size and the extent of sediment aggradation
within them. The third culvert, an 18-inch diameter CMP culvert with damaged end
sections, is located approximately 60 feet to the southeast of the previously mentioned
culverts and is the outlet for the wetland areas on the south (upstream) side of Peasley
Canyon Road. Due to its deteriorated nature, this culvert will be removed and replaced in-
kind. The condition, structural integrity, and watertightness of these culverts are also
suspect due to significant sinkholes that have occurred in the overlying pavement and
roadway prism backfill over the past two winters.
The City has jurisdiction over stream and wetland impacts pursuant to the City of Auburn
City Code (ACC) Title 16 Critical Areas (City of Auburn 2009a). Site investigations were
performed by Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA), wildlife biologists and wetland specialists in
spring 2009 including a Wetland and Ordiriary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
DraR Cntical Areas Repon 2 080554-01
Introducrion
(Anchor QEA 2009a) in support of this Report. Additionally, a Stream Geomorphology
Evaluation (Anchor QEA 2009b) and hydrologic and hydraulic analysis (Anchor QEA 2009c)
were completed.
This Report was prepared in accordance with the Auburn City Code (ACC) Title 16 Critical
Areas (City of Auburn 2009a). This report is organized as follows:
• Applicant Information (Section 1)
• Introduction (Section 2)
• Project Description (Section 3)
• Project Area Description (Section 4)
• Existing Critical Areas and Conditions (Section 5)
• Stream and Wetland Restoration (Section 6)
• ACC Critical Areas Compliance (Section 7)
• Construction Specifications (Section 8)
• Literature Cited for the Critical Areas Report (Section 9)
2.1 Review of Existing information
Anchor QEA wildlife biologists and wetland specialists reviewed the following sources of
information to identify and assess critical areas in the study area and support field
- observations:
• Auburn City Code (City of Auburn 2009a)
• Soil Survey ofKing County, Washington (USDA 1973)
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Series Mapping (USDA 2009)
• Hydric Soil ListforKing County, Washington (USDA 2001)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) Map Information (USFWS 2009)
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat Species
(PHS) maps (WDFW 2009a)
• WDFW SalmonScape Mapper (WDF'W 2009b).
. Habitat Llmiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report.• Gzeen/Duwamish
and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9) (Kerwin and Nelson 1999)
• Existing site photographs (City of Auburn 2009b)
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 20d9
Cntlcal Areas Repon 3 0800056-0I
Introduction
2.2 Assessment Basis
The information contained in this report is based on literature review and field work
performed and conducted by recognized professionals in the fields of wetland ecology,
wildlife biology, and stream restoration science and engineering. All information in this
report is based on the best available science and Project engineering feasibility at the time
the report was generated.
2.3 Assumptions
This report is further based on the following assumptions:
• The goal of the Project is to replace existing culverts under Peasley Canyon Road to
avoid the significant risk of a culvert failure and associated roadway damage or
washout (roadway sinkholes have occurred the past two winters), thus protecting
public health and safety, while also providing improved fish passage and habitat, and
increased flood flow capacity (to a 100-year flood event level of protection based on
simulated future conditions).
• The final constructed project includes elements that will compensate for temporary
impacts to the existing stream and wetland habitats resulting from construction.
• No new impervious surfaces will be created as a result of the Project. After Project
construction, no change in surface water control compared to current conditions will
be needed.
• In order to implement the Project, a temporary reduction in the wetland buffer zone
width will be proposed for construction activities. A temporary reduction of critical
areas and/or their buffers may be allowed by the director and as identified,in the
Mitigation Standards, Criteria, and ACC Requirements Section 16:10.110. '
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Crltical Areas Repon 4 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City intends to replace the existing culverts with a new, clear span box culvert to reduce
the risk of a road crossing failure, while providing improved fish passage and habitat, and
increased flood flow capacity (to a 100-year flood event level of protection based on
simulated future conditions). The existing culverts will be replaced with a 20-foot wide by
6-foot high (4 feet clear height), 3-sided concrete box stream simulation culvert with buried
bottom slab, aligned at a reduced skew angle, and natural substrate cover. The resulting
culvert length will be decreased from approximately 160 feet under existing conditions to
approximately 90 feet for the replacement culvert. A third 18-inch diameter CMP culvert
(with damaged end sections), located approximately 60 feet to the southeast, drains wetland
areas on the south (upstream) side of Peasley Canyon Road. It will be replaced with an 18-
inch diameter, smooth interior wall culvert at the same grade (and with rock headwalls at its
ends).
Upstream and downstream streambed and bank grading will occur in proximity to the
replacement culvert to align the stream with the new culvert and to remove existing
aggraded bed substrate materials sufficient to provide for its proper vertical (profle)
alignment. Additional temporary excavation, primarily within the existing road prism, will
be completed to achieve a subgrade condition suitable for the replacement culvert cast-in-
place bottom slab and pre-cast 3-sided box installation. Impacts to existing vegetation will
limited to the identified work areas, and will be minimized to the extent practicable during
grading. In addition, invasive species within the Project area will be removed or treated
using approved methods. To mitigate for temporary impacts to vegetation resulting from the
Project; riative riparian plantings will be installed post-culvert installation in areas disturbed
by construction. Large woody debris (LWD) will also be installed and securely anchored
within the restored stream channel to provide streambank toe stabilization, to maintain the
natural stream morphology and processes (e.g. pool scour, gravel sorting), and to provide
improved fish habitat (e.g., to supplement food sources and provide refugia habitat and
spawning areas). Figures 2 through 7 illustrate the proposed site plan, profile, and typical
sections for the replacement culvert and associated channel restoration.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Draft Cntical Areas Report 5 080554-01
Project Description
The replacement culvert is being designed as a"stream simulation" culvert (WDFW 2003),
with intent to mimic stream conditions beyond the culvert within it. The culvert will be
significantly wider than the existing culverts (20 feet as coxnpared to less than 5 feet
currently), with greater clear hydraulic height (4 feet compared to less than 1.5 feet
currently) to provide the City-desired culvert hydraulic design capacity (100-year future
condition peak flows) and debris passage, to reduce sediment aggradation locally within and
beyond the culvert, to comply with fish passage design criteria, to improve stream habitat
within and beyond the culvert, and to reduce the length of the creek lacated under Peasley
Canyon Road. Stream simulation elements proposed within the culvert include sloped left
and right stream banks and a roughened channel bed and banks (e.g., closely-spaced, exposed
boulders placed in substrate material). The excess sediment that is located in the existing
culvert and streambed will be removed, and a new well-graded cobble-boulder substrate mix
(meeting WDFW design criteria) will be placed as substrate for the new culvert coupled with
the interspersed, protruding boulders.
Restored stream grading will incorporate lower-velocity stream margin areas where adequate
space allows (e.g., on the inside of ineander bends) to provide refugia for salmonids during
high-flow events. Those areas will also function as sediment aggradation areas, and may
required periodic sediment removal through future permitted maintenance activities.
Engineered log jams are proposed to be placed in those stream margin areas, both upstream
and downstream of the culvert, to provide added stream habitat benefits. Short-term impacts
will occur from grading due to the removal of some small shrubs, one immature cedar, and
invasive species including Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus dlscolor), and Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonlca). This action will be mitigated
in-kind by re-establishment of native plantings that will improve long-term stream shading,
reduce stream temperature, and provide a more diverse, vegetated buffer that produces
allochthonous material for salmonids.
LWD will also be installed upstream and downstream of the new culvert. Approximately 40
pieces of LWD will be placed (individually and as combined units) with partially exposed
rootwads extending into the low water channel. The LWD will be securely anchored and
will include stream bank and pool scour logs, revetment logs, engineered log jams, and
rootwads. These in-water habitat structures are intended to provide more natural stream
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Repon 6 0800056-01
Project Description
morphology and processes, to add channel roughness, to sustain constructed pools, to protect
channel streambanks from erosion, and to provide expanded cover habitat. They will
significantly improve the available habitat for salmonid refugia.
Construction of the Project is expected to be conducted between September 2009 and
October 2009. All instream work (after flow diversion) will be done in an isolated work area
and will occur September 1 to October 15. Instream work is scheduled as such to avoid
potential spawning times of adult listed/proposed salmon species. Adult winter steelhead
runs are known to occur between January and March (WDFW 2006) and adult fall Chinook
are unlikely to be present during the instream work window due to low flows (Foley 2009).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) general work window for the Green and
Duwamish Rivers and associated tributaries is July 1 to September 30 and the in-water work
window is August 1 to August 31: An extension of these work windows will be requested for
construction of the Project as no adult species are known to be present for the duration of
the proposed instream constnxction. Ta accommodate this construction schedule, all
necessary permits and approvals are anticipated to be issued by August 2009.
3.1 Permits Requested
The following permits and approvals will be obtained from the City:
• State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Review)
• Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance
• Fill and Grade Permit
Additionally, the following permits and approvals will be obtained from outside agencies:
• Hydraulic Project Approval (WDFW)
• Section 10 and 404 permits via a Nationwide Permit 27 (Corps)
• Endangered Species Act (ESA)/Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Concurrence (National
Marine Fisheries Service and USFWS)
• Section 106 Compliance (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
[ACHP]/Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation [DAHP])
• Section 401 and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency (Washington
State Department of Ecology [Ecology])
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culven Replaceznent Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Repon 7 0800056-01
Project Description
• Utility Permit (WSDOT)
.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Repon 8 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
4 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The approximately 14-acre Project area is located in the City of Auburn, King County,
Washington (Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Sections 14 and 23). The work area is
located within an existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ROW.
In a broader perspective, West Valley Highway South is the east boundary of the Project area
(see Figure 1). To the south of the Project area, undeveloped forest land borders the work
area on the Peasley Canyon valley floor and on an adjacent north facing hillside. The State
Route (SR) 18 West Valley Highway eastbound off-ramp borders the north side of the
. Project area. The Project area extends less than 100 feet upstream (west) of the existing
culvert inlet. A Park-and-Ride lot is located within the Project area boundary (however, no
transit service is provided through it). Mill Creek traverses the Project area and flows
beneath Peasley Canyon Road South at the proposed culvert replacement. Figure 2 provides
a site improvement plan for the localized construction area overlain on the existing field-
surveyed topographic base map.
The following photographs depict the existing Project area. Photo 1 shows the Mill Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary inlet under Peasley Canyon Road. Photo 2 was taken looking
upstream from the Peasley Canyon Road crossing during the early january 2009 sinkhole
repair. Photo 3 was taken looking downstream from the Peasley Canyon Road crossing.
,I C s
x,
i.
~
,
c~ ~!k'"zt i
, .
Photograph 1: looking photograph 2: looking Photograph 3: Looking
downstream at culvert inlet upstream at crossing downstream from crossing
(lanuary 2009 pothole repair)
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Draft Cntical Areas Repon 9 080554-01
Construction Specificarions
4.1 Topography
The Project area and work site area is fairly flat beyond the stream channel cut, and slopes
gently down (about a 2 percent grade) to the east along the Peasley Canyon Tributary stream.
The steepest slope on the site is approximately 1.5:1 (67 percent), at the road embankment
culvert end sections and in over-steepened channel bank cut areas.
The City completed a detailed, field surveyed topographic map o£ the Project area and
upstream and downstream stream channel as the basis for design development (City of
Auburn 2009c). The mapping includes tie-in of fi.eld delineated wetlands and the ordinary
high water limits along the stream channel. This mapping provided the basis for Project
improvements grading plan development to minimize potential impacts to existing wetlands
and stream habitats and their buffers.
4.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009) identifies six soil series in the vicinity of the
Project area as follows: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC);
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD); Alderwood and Kitsap soils,
very steep (AkF); Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py); Seattle muck (Sk); and Urban Land (Ur).
The Urban Land Soils are the primary constituent within the Project area and the Seattle
Muck soils are mapped along the south boundary of the Project work area and associated
with Wetland B(see Figure 8).
4.3 Hydrology
Hydrology for the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary was evaluated considering review
and analysis of available stream gage data and development of a Hydrological Simulation
Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) continuous simulation hydrologic model of the upper basin.
That analysis was coupled with Hydraulic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-
RAS) hydraulic analysis of the Project area stream reach. Those results suggest that upstream
from the replacement culvert, frequent flooding overflow exchanges occur between the main
channel and its floodplain to the south, and that the channel hydrology is adequate for self-
sustaining channel morphology responses (e.g., bedload transport, pool formation, gravel
sorting). This project will not alter those conditions. When flood overflows do occur over
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Draft Critical Areas Repon 10 080554-01
Study Area Description
the south berm of the channel, they will be routed back to the main channel through south
bank hydraulic control spillway logs near the upstream end of the replacement culvert.
Because no side or off-channel habitat is proposed to be created, hydrologic/hydraulic
analysis was not conducted for that condition.
4.4 Plant Communities
The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for NGVI Map Informatlon identifies Palustrine emergent
(PEM) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) habitat west of West Valley Highway South and
south of Peasley Canyon Road South. Wetland habitat is not identified within the reach of
Mill Creek north of the Park-and-Ride lot (USFWS 2009). WDFW PHS maps identify
wetland habitat in the same area as the NWI maps (WDFW 2009). Wetland vegetation
community types identified during the delineation include palustrine forested (PFO), PSS,
PEM, and palustrine open water (POW) wetland systems. Other vegetation within the study
area includes various tree, shrub, grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland,
wetland, and riparian habitat along Mill Creek. Several non-native and invasive species are
also present and include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus discolor), and Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica). Wetland and upland vegetation
in the study area is described in Section 5.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Cntical Areas Report 11 0800056-01
Construcrion Specifications
5 EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS AND CONDITIONS
Critical areas regulated by the ACC Title 16 Environment section are defined in the Critical
Areas section 16.10.020 (Definitions; City of Auburn 2009a). Critical areas within the
Project area and described in this report include Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary and
associated wetlands. To document and describe stream and wetland characteristics within
and adjacent to the Project area, Anchor QEA reviewed existing information (Section 2.1),
performed an assessment of current and historical aerial photographs, and conducted a
reconnaissance-level site visit on February 25, 2009. During the site visit, Anchor QEA
ecologists documented general information regarding stream and wetland habitats, such as
dominant plant species and communities in the study area. The entire study area was
accessible during the investigation. Stream OHWM limits and wetland habitats delineated
within the Project area are shown on Figure 9.
5.1 Streams
The only waterbodies in the immediate vicinity of the site are Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary and its mainstem channel east of West Valley Highway, along with an adjacent
unnamed open water wetland area to the southeast as shown on Figure 1. Mill Creek is part
of the Green River watershed that originates from Lake Doloff and Lake Geneva and flows
down Peasley Canyon (Peasley Canyon Tributary), a moderate- to steep-sloped ravine that
reaches the Green River valley floor at the east limit of the Project area. At that point, it
joins another southern tributary to Mill Creek, and the mainstem creek slope reduces
significantly to a relatively flat gradient along the western periphery of the Green River
valley floor. Numerous road crossings and culverts (many are restrictive and partial fish
barriers) exist along lower Mill Creek, and in many areas, there is a lack of riparian buffer.
MiII Creek has an uncontrolled outlet to the Green River west of SR 167 and north of the
City corporate limits. Mill Creek is classified as a Type F Water under the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Water Typing and a Class II stream under the ACC (City of
Auburn 2009a).
The Project area contains an approximate 1,000-foot reach of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary. That reach length is limited to approximately 300 feet within the proposed
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Draft Critical Areas Reporr 12 080554-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
construction work area limits. The creek flows through two deteriorating CMP culverts
beneath Peasley Canyon Road in the middle of the Project area.
At the time of the investigation, the wetted width of the channel ranged from about 6 to 14
feet wide, with the wider width generally occurring in areas that have been heavily
aggraded. Overall, the bed and banks of the stream within the study area are clearly defined
and the channel is straight upstream with only minor sinuosity downstream. Both the south
and north banks of the channel are cut through existing sediments (fill in some areas), and
rhe north bank upstream is adjacent to Peasley Canyon Road, and downstream, it is in close
proximity to the SR 18 east-bound ofF ramp to West Valley Highway. The south bank
upstream has been altered by placement of a vegetated low-height berm between the stream
channel and Wetland B, and downstream, it is in close proximity to the north edge of the
Park-and-Ride lot. Substrates within the channel are dominated by a streambed gravel-,
cobble mix, with well-graded smaller size-fraction sediments. The existing streambed
material ranges in size up to approximately 5-inch diameter maximum.
Wetland habitat associated with the stream includes Wetland A. No connections between
the stream channel and Wetland B were observed, primarily because of the south bank berm
that divides those areas under low to intermediate streamflow. Dominant riparian plant
species include reed canarygrass, red alder (alnus rubra), Pacific willow (SaliYlasiandra), and
Himalayan blackberry. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), a highly invasive
species, is also found along the riparian corridor. Dominant features of the riparian habitat
include paved surfaces associated with Peasley Canyon Road, the SR 18 off-ramp, and a Park-
and-Ride lot. A detailed description of wetland habitat is provided in Section 5.2. A list of
plant species observed in the riparian corridor is provided in Table l.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Report 13 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Condirions
Table 1
Summary of Project Area Riparian Vegetation Species
Indicator
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Trees
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC
Pseudotsuga menziesii Dougfas fir FACU
Shrubs
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed FACU
Himalayan
Rubus armeniacus blackberry FACU
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU
Spiraea douglasii Spirea FACW
Ferns & Herbaceous
Equisetum hyemale Scouring-rush FACW
Hedera hibernica English ivy UPL
Lysichiton americanus Skunk cabbage OBL
Oenanthe sarmentosa Water-parsley OBL
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW
Polypodium glycyrrhiza Licorice fern FACU
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+
Mill Creek is a tributary to the Green River, which provides habitat for a variety of fish and
salmon species, including species with state and federal protected status. Table 2 includes
fish species identified in the reach of Mill Creek within the Project area documented by
WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2009a) and the SalmonScape fish mapper (WDFW 2009b).
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culven Replacement Project June 2009
Critical Areas Report 14 0800056-0I
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
Table 2
Fish Species Documented in Mill Creek Project Area
WDFW PHS Maps WDFW SalmonScape
Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
Oncorhynchus kisurch Coho salmon O. kisutch Coho salmon
0. tshawytscha Fall Chinook O. mykiss Winter steelhead
0. Clarki Resident cutthroat
Fall Chinook and winter steelhead salmon are ESA-listed species documented to exist in the
Project area. Of these species, the WDFW PHS maps identify fall Chinook and the WDFW
SalmonScape mapper identifies winter steelhead to exist in the Project area (WDFW 2009a;
WDFW 2009b). This discrepancy was discussed with a WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist,
and it was determined that pres-ence_of adult_fall Chinook_species is unl~kely duiing,the
pro os ' szream_coxistruction period_($eptember l to Octobe..r._15) due to the low flows in
Mill Creek that occur at that time (Foley 2009). Under the low flow conditions, it is_ alsa-
unlikely that adult winter steelhead trout would migrate through Mi11 Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary.
At the time of the investigation, the two small channels that enter Wetland B from the west
were narrow (less than 2 feet wide), shallow (1 to 2 inches deep) systems with no defined
*banks, flowing within an area of Wetland B with saturated and inundated mucky soils. Flow
within the wetland eventually spreads out as sheet-flow and becomes indistinguishable from
the inundated portion of the wetland habitat. These channels appear to be systems with
intermittent flow associated with south bluff and valley floor runoff along with remnant
channels from periodic flood overflows from the stream channel. They do not appear to
provide fish habitat. The channels are not identified on WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2009a).
5.1.1 Stream Ratings and Buffers
Based on observations during the investigation and WAC and City stream typing criteria,
Mill Creek appears to meet the minimum criteria as a Type F Water under the WAC Water
Typing System and a Class II stream under the ACC. The reaches of the two channels
associated with Wetland B appear to meet the criteria of Type Ns Waters under the WAC
Water Typing System and Class IV strearns under the ACC (City of Auburn 2009a). The
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Report 15 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
ACC requires protective buffers to preserve stream and riparian functions. Buffers would ;
apply to the OHWM limits as surveyed. Because the reaches of the two channels within the`
study area are located within a large Category I wetland system and do not have a defined ~
OHWM, it is unlikely stream buffers would be applied to the two channels. The City will _
determine the final stream ratings and minimum buffers. City ratings and buffer widths as
defined in the ACC are provided in Table 3.
Tabie 3 -
City of Auburn City Code Stream Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance
Project Area Streams Water Typing City of Auburn City of Auburn City City of Auburn City
System City Code Rating Code Minimum Code Maximum
Rating Buffer Width (feet) Buffer Width (feet)
Mill Creek F Class II 50 100
Unnamed Channels Ns Class IV 25 30
Mill Creek in the vicinity of and within the Project area presently lacks a fully native
riparian buffer, is channelized and straightened along Peasley Canyon Road (upstream of
crossing), flows through long, significantly aggraded culverts at Peasley Canyon Road, lacks
instream structure, and is partially disconnected (under low to intermediate flows) from its
natural floodplain. 5.2 Wetlands
Wetland ratings were determined using the most current version of Ecology guidance in
Washington State Wetland Rating System - Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004)
and Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington, Version 2(Ecology 2006), and according
to City wetland rating criteria, as defined in the ACC (City of Auburn 2009a).
Two wetlands were identified within the Project area based on field investigations conducted
within the Project area (Anchor QEA 2009a). They are identified as Wetland A and
Wetland B as shown on Figure 9. Wetland A consists of small, streamside wetland areas on
both the north and south fringes of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary (but beyond the
Project work area limits). Wetland B is a large, Category I wetland located adjacent to and
on the south side of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary, upstream of the Peasley Canyon
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Critical Areas Repon 16 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
Road crossing. No direct surface water hydrologic connections between Wetland B and Mill
Creek were observed at the time of the field investigation (i.e., across the vegetated berm
separating them). However, the stream does periodically overflow at various low-lying
locations along the berm to Wetland B under intermediate to high flood flow conditions.
5.2.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is a 0.02-acre (870-square-foot [sf]) riverine, Category III wetland that contains
PFO, PSS, and PEM habitats. The entire boundary of Wetland A was delineated within the
Project area. Wetland A is associated with Mill Creek. Wetland A is located in the reach of
Mill Creek between the culverts beneath Peasley Canyon Road to the west and West Valley
Highway to the east. A Park-and-Ride lot is located to the south and the SR 18 off-ramp is
located to the north. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, Pacific willow,
Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland A
includes red alder and Himalayan blackberry.
Soils in one of the Wetland A plots included very dark gray silt loam to 18 inches deep. Soils
in the second wetland plot consisted of black silt loam to about 3 inches deep, over a layer
about 4 inches thick of dark grayish brown clay loam with light yellowish brown mottles.
Below about 7 inches in depth, soils were very dark gray sandy loam. Soils in the upland
plots were typically dark browri to brown sandy loam with gravel with no mottles within 18
inches of the surface.
Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland A with free-standing water in
the sample plots within about 4 to 8 inches of the surface. In the upland plots, saturation was
absent below 18 inches from the surface.
5.2.2 Wetland 8
Wetland B is an approximately 6.96-acre (303,180-sf) depressional, Category I wetland that
also includes stream features because two small channels flow into the wetland from the
west. The upstream source of these channels was not identified as part of the investigation
but appear to emanate from local drainage sources and periodic stream overflows. The
northern boundary of Wetland B is close to Mill Creek upstream of the Peasley Canyon Road
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Report 17 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
crossing. Wetland B contains PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW habitats, and extends outside the
Project area to the west.
Tree vegetation is dominated by red alder and Pacific willow. Dominant shrub species
include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasil), red-osier
dogwood (Cornus sencea), and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant emergent species include
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), stinging
nettle ( Urtica dioica), and water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa). Dominant buffer
vegetation of Wetland B includes Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesil), red alder, red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and sword fern (Polystichum munitirm). The non-native
invasive species Himalayan blackberry is a dominant buffer species, and japanese knotweed
and English ivy (Hedera hibernica) were also frequently observed.
Due to the large size of Wetland B, eight data plots were established. Soils typically
consisted of very dark gray to black silt loam or dark gray to gray sandy loarn with yellowish
brown mottles. Soils in the upland plots were typically dark brown to brown sandy loam
with gravel with no mottles within 18 inches of the surface.
Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland B with free-standing water in
the sample plots typically within a few inches of the surface. A significant portion of the
wetland was also inundated at the time of the delineation. In the upland plots, saturation
was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
5.3 Regulatory Framework for Wetland Classification
Guidance from USF'WS, Ecology, and the City was used to determine the wetland
classifications under those agency standards. Information and excerpts from the specific
guidance language are provided below.
5.3.1 USFWS Classification
The wetlands identified in the study area have been classified using the system developed by
Cowardin, et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. Table 4lists the USFWS classifications for the
wetlands and their connections to surface waters.
Mlll Cxeek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Cntical Areas Report I S 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
Table 4
USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water
Wetland USFWS Ciassification Connection to Surface Water
A PFO, PSS, & PEM Associated with Mill Creek
B PFO, PSS, PEM, & POW Associated with small, unnamed channels
that flow into the wetland from the west
Notes:
PFO - Palustrine forested
PSS - Palustrine scrub-shrub
PEM - Palustrine emergent
POW - Palustrine open water
5.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores
According to the ACC (City of Auburn 2009a), wetland ratings are determined using
Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System - Western Washington: Revrsed
(Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2006).
Under the Ecology system, Wetland A is rated as a Category III wetland and Wetland B is
rated as a Category I wetland. Table 5lists the Ecology and local (City of Auburn) wetland
ratings and classifications. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values for the
two wetlands are shown in Table 6.
Table 5
Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System
Wetland Area (square Hydrogeomorphic State Rating Local Rating
feet/acres) Classification (Ecology) (City of Auburn)
Wetland A 871 /.02 Riverine III III
Wetland B 303,178 / 6.96 Riverine/Depressionaf I I
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Repon 19 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
Table 6
Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores
Wetland Water Water Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat Total
Quality Quality Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions
Functions Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Scorel
Potential (Yes/No) Score (Yes/No) Score Score
Score
Total 16 No =1 16 No =1 18 18 72
Maximum Yes = 2 Yes = 2
Score
Wetland A 3 2 9 2 5 6 35
Wetland B 10 2 14 2 16 10 74
Notes:
Calculated as (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic
Functions Potential Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential Score
plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score
5.3.3 City of Auburn Wetland Classification Guidance
Wetlands were rated according to City wetland rating criteria in the ACC (City of Auburn
2009a). The City classifies wetlands into four categories (Category I, Category II, Category
III, and Category IV) based on the Washington State Wetlands Rating System - Western
Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004). Therefore, the wetland ratings under the City are the
same as the Ecotogy wetland ratings, as identified in Table 5.
Appropriate minimum wetland buffers have been identified according to the current ACC
(City of Auburn 2009a). The ACC identifies minimum and maximum protective buffer
widths based on the wetland category, per the Ecology rating system, and site conditions
such as intensity of land uses. The City will determine the final wetland ratings and
minimum buffers. City ratings and bufFer widths as they relate to Wetlands A and B are
provided in Table 7.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project Iune 2009
Critical Areas Repon 20 0800056-01
Critical Areas Existing Conditions
Table 7
City of Auburn City Code Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Width
Study Area State Rating Lacal Rating City of Auburn City City of Auburn City Code
Wetlands (Ecology) (Ciiy of Auburn) Code Minimum Maximum Buffer Width
Buffer Width (feet)
(feet)
Wetland A Category III Category III 25 SO
Wetland B Category I Category I 100 200
5.3.4 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations
Wetland identification is an inexact science and differences of professional opinion often
occur between trained individuals. Final determinations for wetland boundaries and typing
concurrence or adjustment needs are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency.
Wetlands are, by definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in
hydrology or land use. In addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a
physical change occurs in the basin or 3 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken,
another wetland survey should be conducted. The results and conclusions expressed herein
represent Anchor QEA's professional judgment based on the inf'ormation available. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project fune 2009
Cntical Areas Report 21 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
6 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
The reach of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary and associated wetlands within the
Project area include degraded habitat conditions and lack characteristics to provide quality
stream and wetland functions. Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary presently lacks a full,
native riparian buffer, is channelized, flows through two main culverts (at West Valley
Highway and Peasley Canyon Road crossings), lacks instream structure, and is partially
disconnected from its natural floodplain (under low to intermediate flows). Wetlands A and
B include several non-native invasive species and contain poor buffer habitat due to the
surrounding land use, except for the upstream south buffer area. To address these limiting
habitat factors, the Project will enhance existing habitat conditions in Mill Creek by creating
new associated off-channel and floodplain habitats, installing instream habitat features, and
establishing a riparian buffer composed of native species. This Project represents a
watershed approach to restoration in WRIA 9 by addressing limiting factors to salmonid
production in both Mill Creek and WRIA 9 as a whole.
To meet these restoration goals, the following criteria will be met:
• Establish native riparian plant communities by planting native species and
removing invasive species
• Use native and naturalized plant species commonly found in stream buffer and
wetland habitats of the Pacific Northwest
• Simulate, with the plantings, Pacific Northwest native plant communities in terms
of composition, cover, and structure
• Restore, at a ratio of 1:1 or better, stream and wetland habitat
• Improve shade/temperature regulation through the establishment of native
riparian plant communities
• Improve organic and insect material inputs through increased plant establishment
and instream LWD placement
6.1 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Existing buffer habitat in the Project area is lacking in width, native plants, and plant species
diversity. After restoration of the stream channel including placement of LWD and
streambed substrate, native riparian and wetland plantings will be installed along the banks
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culven Replacement Project june 2009
Drafr Critical Areas Report 22 080554-01
Stream and Wetland Restoration
of the stream. Restored buffer habitat will include a combination of wetland and upland
vegetation communities composed of native tree, shrub, and emergent plant species. The
total areas of existing stream and wetland habitat and the proposed stream, wetland, and
wetland buffer habitats that will be restored and created within the Project work area are
provided in Table 8.
Table 8
Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Habitat Restoration
Habitat Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
(square feet) (square feet)
Aquatic 3500 5300
Wetland 600 600
Wetland/Stream Buffer 3400 3400
Critical Area Total 7500 9300
Temporary construction impacts will occur to Wetland B, a 6.96-acre (303,180-sf)
depressional Category I wetland that also includes riverine elements because two small
channels flow into the wetland from the west. The temporary impact to Wetland B is
limited to less than 600 square feet (0.014 acres) and represents the only wetland impacts
resulting from the Project. Impacts to Wetland B and Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary
are a result of the clearing and grading required to install the replacement culvert, align the
stream with it, and accommodate other associated restoration activities. The Project will
replace and restore the temporarily impacted wetland soils and hydrology in-kind to a
functional wetland habitat with healthy native emergent wetland vegetation.
Impacts to the stream within the OHWM as a result of clearing and grading, will be limited
to 3,500 square feet (0.080 acre). The restoration of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Triburary
maintains a return overflow connection from Wetland B(floodplain area) to the stream via
spillway logs combined with revetment logs, invasive species removal, planting native
riparian vegetation, and creating wetland habitat adjacent to the channel. The channel will
have some increase in sinuosity, increased width, created pools, and will include LWD and
replaced substrates (see Figures 2 through 7).
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Report 23 0800056-01
Stream and Wetland Restoration
Key benefits from this Project include:
• Installing a significantly wider and shorter replacement culvert with a stream
simulation feature to improve flood flow and debris conveyance and reduce the
potential for roadway flooding and associated damage
• Establishing the replacement culvert on a stream profile grade that will emulate the
longer channel gradient leading to reduced localized channel bed aggradation within
and in proximity to the culvert
• Removing a partial fish passage barrier and replacing it with a stream-simulation
culvert, facilitating year-round salmonid use of approximately 0.65 mile of upstream
rearing and spawning habitats
• Installing approximately 40 pieces of in-channel LWD (ind.ividually and as part of
LWD structures) in the proximity of the replacement culvert to provide multiple
stream process and functional stream habitat benefits
• Removing invasive species, and revegetating disturbed Project areas with native plant
species that will provide long-term improvement in the riparian corridor vegetative
cover, plant diversity, and stream shading.
The Project will result in an overall improvement in stream, wetland, and associated
regulated buffer habitat conditions. Expansion of the aquatic and wetland footprint serves to
reduce overall buffer widths from the uplandlwetland interface; however, reestablishment of
the upland buffer will be adequate to protect habitat functions of the aquatic and wetland
environments. In order to implement the Project, a temporary reduction in the wetland
buffer zone width is proposed for construction purposes. A temporary reduction of critical
areas andlor their buffers may be allowed by the director and as identified the Mitigation
Standards, Criteria, and Plan Requirements Section 16.10.110 (See Section 2.3 of this Report).
6.2 Stream and Wetland Conceptual Planting Plan
A list of the plant species proposed for planting at the Project site is provided in Table 9 and
Figures 10 and 11 show the Conceptual Planting Plan in the Project work area.
Nfill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project - june 2009
Critlcal Areas Report 24 0800056-01
Stream and Wedand Restoration
Table 9
Stream and Wetland Restoration Plant Species
Habitat Type Common Name Scientific Name
Aquatic Edge (Facine and Live Stakes)
Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana
Sitka willow Salix sitchensis
Riparian
Nootka rose Rosa nutkana
Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera
Snowberry . Symphoricarpos alba
Upland
Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus
Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii
Big leaf maple Acermacrophylum
Wetland
Small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus
Slough sedge Carex obnupta
Sawbeak sedge Carex stipata
Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris
Reed mannagrass Glyceria grandis
6.3 Stream and Wetland Performance Measures, Standards of Success, and
Contingency Plans
This section describes the stream and wetland performance measures, standards of success, ,
and contingency plans. Performance measures and success standards describe specific on-site
characteristics that indicate a habitat function is being provided. Contingency plans describe
what actions can be taken to correct site deficiencies. The City is responsible for monitoring
post-Project construction and monitoring protocols will be consistent per the ACC Critical
Areas Ordinance Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan (ACC 16.10.130).
6.3.1 Performance Measures and Standards of Success
Performance measures are used to guide management of the restoration area. Success
standards are thresholds to be measured during the monitoring period that demonstrate the
Mill Greek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Report 25 0800056-01
Stream and Wetland Restorarion
restoration has complied with regulatory requirements and is providing its intended
function. Following construction, restoration activities and culvert performance will be
monitored by the City to demonstrate that intended stream, wetland, and buffer functions
have been achieved. Performance measures and standards of success of these actions are
assessed during monitoring. Monitoring typically occurs in bi-annual increments, including.
monitoring at years l, 3, and 5. Monitoring the performance measures of the replacement
culvert aggraded sediment levels as affecting flood protection and fish passage, LWD
installation, and planting may occur at these intervals. The monitored area should include all
aquatic environment, rehabilitated wetland and buffer habitat within the Project work area.
Standards of success can be used as a reference for monitoring protocol. Monitoring of the
replacement culvert should include checking the available hydraulic opening and
aggradation that is occurring through it to ensure that that the culvert continues to meet
WDFW fish passage criteria (WDF'W 2003). Monitoring of LWD should include counting
the installed pieces and any recruited wood captured by the placed LWD. The anchor
systems integrity should also be observed along with evidence of erosion damage to adjacent
(and opposite) bank areas (some instream scour is expected locally creating beneficial habitat
area). Monitoring should also include observed stability of the restored channel banks where
bioengineered slope reinforcement is placed. Monitoring of the vegetation communities
should include an assessment of the performance of wetland restoration activities (to be
conducted during the growing season) with emphasis regarding maintenance of hydrology,
vegetation, and soils characteristics. A typical standard of success includes an 80 percent
survival rate per planted stem. The Corps Nationwide Permit (expected) to be issued for this
project will likely include vegetative monitoring provisions as conditions of permit approval.
6.3.2 Contingency Plan
Contingency plans describe what actions can be taken to correct site deficiencies. If there is
a significant problem with the restoration area meeting its performance standards, a
contingency plan will be developed. Contingency plans may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Plant substitutions of type, species, quantity, and/or location
• Additional plant installation to address survival or cover problems
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culven Replacement Project June 2009
Critical Areas Repon 26 0800056-01
Stream and Wetland Restorarion
• Watering or providing irrigation during unseasonably dry periods
• Weeding and additional plant installation to address invasive weed cover
• Providing fencing or plant guards around plants to prevent animal damage
• Providing fencing to prevent vandalism or other damage caused by humans
The City will implement contingency plans on an as-needed basis. Contingency plans will
be developed for review and approval by regulatory agencies as appropriate. Success of the
stream buffer restoration will be based on the performance measures and success standards as
previously mentioned.
If, during the monitoring program, other maintenance needs are identified as necessary to
ensure the success of the Project, they will be implemented, unless generated by third parties
or acts of nature.
.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Report 27 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
7 ACC CRITICAL AREAS COMPLIANCE
The Project design complies with the applicable regulatory requirements detailed in ACC
Critical Areas Chapter 16.10 (City of Auburn 2009a). This section contains details on the
ACC sections applicable to the project and provides information as to how the Project meets
these requirements. Regulatory requirements in ACC 16.10 that are not applicable to the
Project (e.g., geologic hazards) are not included in this summary.
ACC 16.10.100 Alteration or development of critical areas - Standards and criteria.
Alteration ofspecific critical areas and/or their buffers may be allowed by the director
subject to the cnteria ofthis section. Alteration shall implement the mltlgation standards as
idenzified in ACC 16.10.110, and the performance standards ofACC 16. 10.120 and the
monitorl'ng requirelnents ofACC 1610.130.
A. Wetlands.
1. Category I Wetlands. Alterations of Category I wetlands shall be avoided subject to
the reasonable use provisions ofthis chapter.
Temporary, rninor construction impacts will occur to Wetland B, a 6.96-acre (303,180-sf)
depressional, Category I wetland that also includes stream features associated with two small
ephemeral channels that flow into the wetland from the west. The temporary impact to
Wetland B is limited to less than 600 square feet (0.014 acre) and represents the only wetland
impacts resulting from the Project.
Impacts to Wetland B are a result of the clearing and grading required to install the
replacement culvert, align Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary with the replacement
culvert, and accommodate other associated restoration activities. The Project will replace
and restore the temporarily impacted wetland soils and hydrology in-kind to a functional
wetland habitat with healthy native emergent and scrub shrub wetland vegetation.
B. Streams.
1. Relocatlon ofa Class II, III and IVstream exclusively to facilitategeneral site design
shall not be allowed. Relocation ofa stream may take place only when It is part ofan
approved mitigatlon or enhancement/restoratlon plan, and will result in equal or
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Draft Critical Areas Report 28 080554-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
better habltat and water quality, and will not diminish the f7ow capacity of the
stream.
2 Culverts are allowable only under the following circumstances:
a. Onlyin Class II, III, and IVstreams;
b. When fish passage will not be impaired;
c. When the following design criteria are met.•
i. Oversized culverts will be installed;
II. Culverts will include gradlent controls and creation ofpools within the culvert
for Class II strealns;
iii. Gravel substrate will be placed in the bottom ofthe culvert to a minimum
depth ofone foot for Class II and Class III streams;
d. The applicant or successors shall, at all times, keep any culvert free ofdebris and
sediment to allow free passage of water and, ifapplicable, fish.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary is a Class II stream. The project is not designed to
facilitate general site design, but to provide for replacement of existing deteriorating roadway
culverts that will result in significantly improved fish passage and access to approximately
0.65 miles of upstream stream and riparian buffer habitats, and will provide overall better
instream and riparian habitat in the improvements reach Ieading to improved fish and
wildlife functions and water quality. The length of the stream within the culvert will be
reduced by approximately 70 feet by replacing the existing 60-inch and 30-inch diameter
culverts with an oversized 3-sided box with buried bottom slab (20-foot span) crossing. A 2-
foot depth of streambed cobble-boulder mix (interspersed with approximately 70 24-inch
diameter boulders) will be placed over the bottom slab (roughened channel design). That
culvert is designed to comply with WDF'VJ stream-simulation criteria. Pools will be installed
upstream and downstream of the replacement culvert with scour logs installed on the
upstream side for gradient control and pool maintenance. Approximately 40 pieces of in-
channel LWD will be installed (individually and as part of LWD structures). Restoration
activities will include removal of invasive plant species, and revegetation of disturbed work
areas with native plant species that will provide long-term improvement in the riparian
corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity, and stream shading.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Report 29 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
16.10.110 Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements.
A. Mitigation Standards. Adverse impacts to cntical area functions and values shall be
mitigated. Mitigation actions shall generally be implemented in the preferred sequence
identiFied in this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory
mitigation shall demonstrate that.•
1. All feaslble and reasonable measures as determined by the departrnent have been
taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avold impacts where
avoidance is required by these regulations;
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 3. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The
mitigation shall be functlonally equlvalent to orgreater than the altered wetland or
stream in terms ofhydrological, biological, physical, and chemical functions.
The Project elements meet the above-mentioned mitigation standards, criteria, and plan
requirements (see response to Item B.2 above), and no additional compensatory mitigation
plans are included with this proposal. Impacts to critical areas have been minimized to the
extent possible through project design development considering all constraints to the culvert
and adjacent stream restoration improvements, and based on field discussion inputs with
WDFW and tribal representatives. The Project will result in an overall improvement to
existing stream and wetland habitats by restoring the channel with numerous habitat
features (e.g., pools, LWD), removing invasive plant species, and replanting disturbed areas
with native emergent wetland vegetation, and riparian corridor native plant species (shrubs
and trees). No permanent impacts will occur to wetlands and the temporary impacts to
wetlands will be mitigated in-kind by improving the existing wetland vegetation
community. Therefore, no net loss in wetland or stream functions and values will occur as a
result of the Project.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Report 30 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
B. Location and Timing ofMitigation.
1. The preferred location ofmitigation is on-site.
All project work including the culvert replacement and associated wetland and stream
habitat improvernents will occur on-site resulting in a net enhancement in stream, wetland,
and associated buffer habitat. No off-site mitigation is proposed.
2. In-kind mitigation shall be provlded except when the applicant demonstrates, and the
department concurs, thatgreater~'unctional and habltat value can be achieved
through out-of-kind mitigation.
Project improvements will result in overall in-kind mitigation (enhancement) for temporary
wetland and stream habitat within the Project work area limits. No out-of-kind or off-site
mitigation is proposed.
3. When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these regulatlons, the
mitigation project shall occur near an adequate water supply (river, stream, ground
water) with a hydrologic connection to the critical area to ensure a successful
mitigation or restoration. A natzrral hydrologic connection is preferential as compared
to one which relies upon manmade or constnrcted features requiring routine
maintenance.
No changes to existing hydrologic connections will occur as a result of this project. All
existing, natural hydrologic connections within and between affected streams and wetlands
will be restored and maintained. The third off-channel 18-inch diameter replacement
culvert that will discharge runoff from Wetland B back to Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary will be restored to existing culvert design conditions (size and invert elevation).
Existing water levels in Wetland B have been artificially elevated in recent years due to the
downstream stream channel aggradation and the damaged condition of the existing culvert
inlet and outlet. Evidence of current temporary elevated Wetland B water level impacts
(e.g., stress and die-back of existing trees) was observed during the site investigation.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Critical Areas Repon 31 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
4. Anymitigation plan shall be completed before initiation ofotherpermitted activities,
unless a phased or concurrent schedule that assures completion pnor to occupancy
has been approved by the department.
The in-kind mitigation is incorporated with the design of the culvert improvement and
channel restoration (Figures 2 through 7). All habitat improvements will be constructed
concurrently with the culvert replacement.
C. Wetland Replacement Ratios.
1. Where wetland alterations are permitted by the director, the applicant shall enhance or create areas of wetlands in order to compensate for wetland losses. The
compensation shall be determined according to acreage, function, type, location,
timing factors and projected success of enhancement or creation.
2. The following acreage replacement and enhancement ratios shall be implemented,
however, the department may vary these standards if the applicant can demonstrate
and the director agrees that the variation will provide adequate cornpensatlon for lost
wetland area, functions and values, or ifother circumstances as determined by the
director juszify the variation. Except as provided for Category IV wetlands in
subsection (C)(3) ofthis section, in no case shall the amount ofmitigation be less than
the area ofafFected wetland. The director may at his dlscretion increase these
standards where mitigation is to occur off-site or in other appropriate circumstances.
The Project includes no permanent wetland impacts, and all temporarily impacted wetland
areas will be restored in-kind with native wetland soils replacement and plantings after the
replacement culvert is installed.
16.10.120 Performance standards for mitigation planning.
The performance standards in this section shall be Incorporated into mitigation plans
submitted to the clty for Impacts to critical areas.
A. Wetlands and Streams.
1. Use plants natlve to the Puget Lowlands or Pacific Nortlzwest ecoregion; non-native,
introduced plants or plants listed by the Washington State Department ofAgriculture
as noxious weeds (Chapter 16-750 WAC) shall not be used;
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culven Replaceznent Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Report 32 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
2. Use plants adapted to and appropriate for the proposed habitats and consider the
ecological conditions known or e,Ypected to be present on the site. For example, plants
assigned a facultatlve wetland (FACW) wetland indicator status should be used for
sites with soils that are inundated or saturated for long periods during the growing
season. Use nearby reference wetlands or aerial photos to identify plants suitable to
the site conditions and hydrologic regimes planned for the mitigation site. Avoid
planting significant areas ofthe site tivith species that have questionable potential for
successful establishment, such as species with a narrowrange ofhabitat tolerances;
3. Utilize plant species'heterogeneity and structural diversity that emulates native plant
communlties described in `Natural Vegetation ofOregon and Washington"(Franklin,
j.F. and C.T. Dyrness, 1988) or other regionally recognizedpublications on native
landscapes;
4. Specifyplants that are commercially available from native plant nurseries or available
from local sources. Ifcollecting some or all native plants from donor sites, collect in
accordance with ecologically accepted methods, such as those described in the
"Washington Native Plant Society's Policy on Collection and Sale ofNative Plants, "
that do not jeopardize the survival or integrity ofdonor plant populations;
5 Use perennial plants in preference to annual species; the use ofannuals species should
be limlted to a temporary basis in order to provide erosion control, support the
establishment ofperennial plants, or ifmitigation monitoring determines that native .
plants are not naturally colonizing the site or Ifspecies diversity, is unacceptably low
compared to approved performance standards;
6 Use plant species hlgh in food and cover value fornative fzsh and wlldlife species that
are known or likely to use the mitigation site (according to reference wetlands,
published information, and professional judgment);
All plantings proposed for the project will meet the criteria specified in ACC 16.10.120 (A)
(1-6) as detailed above.
7. Install a temporary irrigation system and specify an Irrigation schedule unless a
suffi"clent naturally-occurring source of water is demonstrated;
Nflll Creek Peasley Canyon Culven Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Repon 33 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
An irrigation plan is not proposed as planting will occur in October (beginning of the wet
season). A Plant Selection Including Plant Establishment (PSIPE) plant maintenance
requirement will be included in the construction specifications requiring the contractor to
manually water the following year to avoid the risk of replacement. However, once the
plant communities are established, manual irrigation will not be necessary.
8. Identifymethods ofsoil preparation. Forstream substrate or wetland soils, at least one
foot ofclean Inorganic and/or organic materials, such as cobble, gravel, sand, silt, clay,
muck, soil, orpeat, as appropriate, shall be ensured. The stream substrate or wetland
soils shall be free from solid, dangerous, or hazardous substance as defrned by Chapter
70.105 RCW and Implementing rules;
Backfill will be used to restore the impacted areas within the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary channel. The contractor will be required to segregate and stockpile channel bed
substrate materials removed from within the OHWM limits for beneficial reuse within the
realigned channel OHWM limits (beyond the imported substrate material mix placed in the
replacement culvert). A minimum of 1 foot of clean substrate material (per City standards)
will be placed in the substrate and will be free from solid, dangerous, or hazardous substance
as defined by Chapter 70.105 RCW.
Native backfill material will be used to restore the temporarily impacted area within the
Wetland B limits. The contractor will be required to segregate and stockpile surficial soils
removed from Wetland B for beneficial reuse in that disturbed area. Select imported backfill
materials that meet the specified material requirements will also be used if necessary (e.g.,
under surficial wetland soils to be replaced). All soils disturbed in Wetland B will be
replaced at an in-kind depth.
9. Confi'ne temporary stockpiling ofsoils to upland areas. Identlfy construction access
routes and measures to avoid resultant soil compactlon. Unless otherwise approved by
the director, comply with all appllcable best management practices for clearing,
grading, and erosion control to protect any nearby surface waters from sediment and
turbidity;
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon G'ulvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Report 34 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
10. Show densities and placement ofplants; these should be based on the ecological
tolerances ofspecies proposed forplanting, as determined by a qualified consultant;
11. Provlde sufficient specifications and instructions to ensure proper placement and
spacing ofseeds, tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, springs, plugs and transplanted stock, and
other habitat features, and to provide a high probability ofsuccess, and to reduce the
likelihood ofprolonged losses of wetland functrons from proposed development;
I2. Do not rely on fertllizers and herbicides to promote establishment ofplantings; if
fertilizers are used, theymust be applied permanufacturerspecifications to planting
holes in organlc or controlled release forms, and never broadcast on the ground
surface; ifherbicides are used to control invaslve species ornoxious weeds and to help
achleve performance standards, only those approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by
the Washington Department ofEcology shall be used; herbicides shall only be used in
conformance with all applicable laws and regulations and be applied per
manufacturer specifications by an applicator licensed in the state of Washington; and
13. Include the applicant's mitrgation plan consultant in the construction process to
ensure the approved mitigation plan is completed as designed. At a minimum, the
consultant's participation will lnclude site visits to inspect completed rough and ~"inal
grading, installation ofin-water or other habitat structures, and to verify the quality
and quantity ofnative plant materials before and after installation;
14. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Streams Critical Areas.
a. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the critlcal area or buffer and the
Ilmits ofthase areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or
authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no
unauthorized intrusion will occur, and vezified by the department prlor to the
commencement ofauthorized activitles. This temporazymarkingshall be
maintained throughout construction, and shall not be removed until
permanent signs, ifrequired, are in place.
The Project will meet the above mentioned requirements of ACC 16.10.120 (A) (8-14).
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Report 35 0800056-01
ACC Critical Areas Compliance
B. Wetlands. Do not exceed a maximum water depth of6.6feet (two meters) at mean low
water unless approved as part ofa planned interspersion of wetland vegetation classes and
deep-waterhabitats.
1. Do not eYCeed a slope af25percent (4H.•1 V) in the wetland unless it can be clearly
demonstrated by supporting documentation that wetland hydrology and hydric soils
capable ofsupporting hydrophytic (wetland) vegetatlon will be created on steeper
slopes;
2. Do not exceed a slope of25 percent (4H.•1 V) in the wetland buffer; and
3. Llmit deep-water habitat (greater than 6.6 feet at mean low water) in compensatory
wetland to no more than 60 percent of the total area, and approach this limit only
when deep-tivater habitat is highly interspersed with wetland vegetation classes,
including aquatic bed, emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested.
The Project design adheres to the requirements of ACC 16.10.120(B)(13).
ACC 16.10.170 Special exception for public agencies and utilities
D. Public Agency and Utllity Review Cliteria. The criteria for review and approval ofpublic
agency and utility exceptions follow.•
1. There is no other practical alternative to tbe proposed development with less impact
on critical areas;
2. The application ofthis chapter would unreasonablyrestrict the abllity to provide
utility services to the public;
3. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the developrrlent proposal site;
4. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions
and values consistent with other appllcable regulations and standards.
The Project meets the provisions of ACC 16.10.170 (D) (1-4). All Project alternatives have
been reviewed and the alternative set forth minimizes impacts to critical areas and fully
restores all temporary impacts to wetlands. The Project will not unreasonably restrict public
access to utilities and will result in an overall benefit to public health and safety. Critical
area functions and values will be improved by the Project.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvez7 Replacement Project June 2009
Critical Areas Report 36 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
S CONSTRUCTION SPECIFtCATIONS
This Project is intended to address limiting factors in Mill Creek and WRIA 9 and restoration
associated with cumulative Project impacts is expected to provide an enhancement to
existing critical areas. Construction is currently planned to comxnence in September 2009
and be complete by the end of October 2009. All instream work (after flow diversion) will
be done in an isolated work area and will occur from September 1 to October 15. Instream
work is scheduled as such to avoid potential spawning times of adult listedlproposed salmon
species. Adult winter steelhead runs are known to occur between january and March
(WDFW 2006) and adult fall Chinook are unlikely to be present in during the instream work
window due to low flows (Foley 2009). The Corps general work window for the Green and
Duwamish Rivers and associated tributaries is July 1 to September 30 and the in-water work
window is August 1 to August 31. An extension of these work windows will be requested for
construction of the Project as no adult species are known to be present during the duration of
the proposed instream construction.
Final design of the improvements is currently in progress, and construction specifications are
being developed consistent with WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications (2008 version) and
City standard Special Provisions (along with supplemental project-specific special provisions)
that will guide the construction and installation of improvements while protecting or
appropriately controlling impacts to instream critical areas and adjacent wetlands and their
buffers.
The proposed construction sequence is as follows (construction contractor will identify
means and methods):
l. Install signage regarding road closure scheduling in advance of project award
(assumed to be a City activity).
2. Install construction fencing around the work area.
3. Flag clearing limits and install clearing limits and silt fencing where specified (e.g.,
along wetland boundary interface with the work area).
Mlll Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project June 2009
Drah Cntical Areas Report 37 080554-01
Construction Specifications
4. Install temporary stream diversion piping and cofferdam at the downstream and
upstrearn limits of work, and safely evacuate any trapped fish in the work area reach
using methods consistent with WDFW HPA requirements.
5. Implement temporary roadway closure.
6. Install and operate dewatering pumps/wells, and force mains to dispersed flow
treatment (e.g., vegetated area beyond stream and wetlands upstream of culvert
crossing), or to construction phase treatment and discharge facilities.
7. After a dewatered condition is achieved locally within the work area, remove
guardrail, make pavement sawcuts, remove and dispose of pavement, and complete
excavation (including shoring as required) to remove the 60-inch and 30-inch CMP
stream culverts and accommodate the replacement 3-sided box culvert with bottom
slab to subgrade elevations.
8. Place geosynthetic fabrics and compacted stabilization materials to achieve suitable
subgrade bearing capacity £or culvert bottom slab placement.
9. Install formwork and reinforcing steel, and pour bottom slab and wingwall pre-cast
footings; remove formwork.
10. Place culvert bed substrate materials including interspersed boulders; place excess
materials for shaping at walis on top of channel bed fill, and move/shape bed
materials into place incrementally as each section of 3-sided, pre-cast culvert is
placed).
11. Using crane, install 3-sided, pre-cast panels (approximate width of each panel is
expected to be 5 feet); make connections at embeds for each panel section, and install
pre-cast headwalls and wingwalls.
12. Place box culvert and wingwall wall drains and place specified compacted backfill
around and over box culvert.
13. Complete downstream and upstream channel restoration grading, excess substrate
removal, bank shaping, LWD placement and anchorage, and install streambank
bioengineered stabilization materials.
14. Remove cofferdams and streamflow diversion, and route streamflows through the
replacement box culvert.
15. Temporarily obstruct wetland outflows (e.g., place supersack sand bags); remove and
replace/extend 18-inch wetland discharge culvert and install rock headwalls.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project Jane 2009
Critical Areas Report 38 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
16. Place compacted pavement subgrade materials; surface plain remaining pavement
restoration areas, and complete asphalt concrete pavement restoration of the roadway.
17. Install guardrail and complete channelization pavement stripping.
18. Reopen roadway to traffic.
19. Revegetate all disturbed areas with native plantings.
20. Remove Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) facilities, and
generate/respond to punch list items to successfully complete project construction.
Expected construction methods and equipment for the culvert replacement, road restoration,_
and channel modification are as follows:
Culvert Replacement
Three existing and deteriorating culverts will be replaced within the Project area. All road
and culvert construction activities will occur in a dewatered condition within a work area
isolated from the creek. Excavation within the roadway prism will likely be accomplished
using a trackhoe excavator, with on-site stockpiling of native materials meeting
specifications for reuse. Excess excavation and material unsuitable for reuse will be trucked
off-site to an approved upland disposal site. After stabilization of subgrade to an acceptable
bearing capacity, the cast-in-place bottom slab will be installed by conventional methods
(forming, reinforcement installation, casting slab). Streambed substrate over the slab will be
placed using a trackhoe or similar equipment. The 3-sided pre-cast box culvert panels will
then be placed within the slab keyway by mobile crane (streambed material would need to
be adjusted for final channel configuration as each box section is placed). Backfill and
compaction will then be completed using specified subdrainage materials combined with
native or irnported granular fill materials. The third culvert will be replaced separately after
streamflows are re-routed back through the new box culvert. A temporary sandbag
cofferdam will be placed at each end of that culvert during its replacement, and similar
dewatering will occur prior to roadway excavation and replacement of the 18-inch culvert.
It is anticipated that all of this work will be staged from the existing roadway because a full
road closure will be needed during this construction phase.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Cntical Areas Repon 39 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
Road Restoration
Peasley Canyon Road restoration resurfacing activities will be completed using imported
materials (base and top course, AC pavement) and conventional equipment. Road re-
surfacing will include surface planing of a larger area of the disturbed roadway surface, then
repaving it to make slight grade adjustments to the low side of the road and restore disturbed
or degraded pavement sections in proximity to the culvert excavation. Finally, guard rails
and channelization pavement stripping will be installed using conventional equipment prior
to re-opening the road to traffic. Again, alI work in this phase will be staged from the
existing roadway under a full road closure.
Channei Modification
Channel modification activities to adjust the alignment, configuration, and grade of the Mill
Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary channel upstream and downstream of the crossing will be
completed once the replacement culvert is installed and backfi.lled. These activities include
excavating, backfilling, and compacting within the OHWM limits. Grading for channel
restoration activities will also be conducted under a locally dewatered condition, likely using
a trackhoe excavator. Native streambed substrate mix (excavated, segregated, and stockpiled)
will also be placed in the restored channel bed upstream and downstream of the replacement
culvert. LWD will be placed under the direction of a stream habitat biologist based on the
final design layout and permit condition requirements. It will be securely anchored using
convention techniques (e.g., duckbill anchors, buried rock anchors). Beyond the native
planting restoration, erosion control matting will be installed and staked (using manual
methods), and compost bark mulch would be placed to control weeds and enhance moisture
retention for native plantings installed for the completed project. Most of this work will be
staged from the existing roadway. Limited cleared construction access may also be required
along a narrow strip of the restored channel banks to place/anchor the LWD and spillway
logs, and to accomplish the final grading and native planting restoration (small trucks and
small power/hand tools are expected to be used).
8.1 Best Management Practices
During the construction phase of the project, best management practices (BMPs) will be
implemented to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment (inclusive
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Critical Areas Repon 40 0800056-01
Construction Specifications
of WSDOT protocols for the exclusion and removal of fish from the Project work area).
BMPs addressing water quality protection will be included in a TESC Plan consistent with
City and Ecology stormwater manual standards to reduce the risk of construction phase
water quality impacts on Mill Creek. The construction contractor will also be required to
develop a City-approved care and diversion of water plan that will describe the details of the
temporary stream flow diversion around the work area during construction, as well as the
rnethods for safely dewatering the required excavations and treating those flows consistent
with state water quality standards prior to return to the stream channel.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culven Replacernent Project June 2009
Critical Areas Repon 41 0800056-01
References
9 REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA). 2009a. Wetland and Ordinary Hlgh Water Mark
Delineation. Prepared for the City of Auburn.
Anchor QEA. 2009b. Stream Geomorphology Evaluation Memorandum. Prepared for the
City of Auburn.
Anchor QEA. 2009c. Task 13 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses Tech Memo. Prepared
for the City of Auburn.
City of Auburn. 2009a. Auburn City Code http://www.codepublishing.comlwa/auburn/
Accessed on May 25, 2009.
City of Auburn. 2009b. Site aerials and photographs received by Simon Page of Anchor
QEA, LLC. May 2009.
City of Auburn. 2009c. Field Survey Base Map of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary
Within Project Area. City of Auburn Survey Department. Draft January 2009; Final
April 2009.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T. 1979. Classification of Wetlarids
and DeepwaterHabitats ofthe United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., Jamestown,
Ecology - See Washington State Department of Ecology.
Foley, S. June l, 2009. Personal communication via telephone between Steve Foley, WDFW
RHB, and Josh Jensen of Anchor QEA, LLC.
Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment
Report: Greezz/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. Prepared for King
County and the Washington State Conservation Commission; 770 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
USDA. 2001. Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Accessed online at
http://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technical/soils/county_hydric_Iists.html on February
23, 2009.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project june 2009
Drafr Critical Areas Repon 42 080554-01
References
USDA. 2009. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Accessed
online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app on February 23, 2009.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for
National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. Accessed online at
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov on February 23, 2009.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. Design ofRoad Culverts for
Fish Passage. Prepared by Ken Bates, P.E., Chief Environmental Engineer, WDFW;
111 pp.
WDFW. 2006. Steelhead Historical Database. Prepared by the WDFW Fish Management
Headquarters. Revised June 8, 2005.
WDFW. 2009a. Priority Habitat Species (PHS) Nfaps. Maps received: April 2009.
WDFW. 2009b. SalmonScape Mapper. Accessed online at
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ on February 23, 2009.
Washington State Departrnent of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Washington State Wetlands
Rating System - Western Washington: Revised. Publication #04-06-025. Olympia,
Washington.
Ecology. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating Form - Eastern Washington, version 2.
Olympia, Washington. .
Ecology. 2008. Washington State's 2008 Water Quality Assessment 303d webpage
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/PROGRAMS/wq/303d/2008/index.html July 2008. Accessed
on February 23, 2009.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Culvert Replaceznent Project June 2009
Critical Areas Report 43 0800056-01
APPENDIX A
CRITICAL AREA REPORT FIGURES
' x` ~ T~~.~'~',~~~ ~ : > ~~~~~~WZM; ~ ~ ~v~ ~
~ .
; ` ,r- ~ = ` x N'.. ~.w, r
:~c • ..~.ra~.a..; 3. av~.~.s, ~ ~ m ~ + ~ ~ t r~
v~ ` ° r 5
" ~rr x F
. t
- 11 ~c t ` ; a r * i
. ~
: ~ r ~ - Y '
` ~ ~ ~
~.~~z ~ ~ ~ ~ "r
~ M I ~ ~ ~A- l',&~,,' _
"R I£[ 'i t f J q , ~ i .
a ~ Y~ . i Y' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ :
- § . ' ~ .',~.r ~ . N-3' r `yR2 , .'t
_ a
i -r . s rra t ~ .z- ~ . ~
~ , s ~a ' ~
. ~ i ~ .r rvtt~'~e'`f ~ -f~ ~ < r
W^ 1 ~ ~ .~5 ~y
~ ~ 'Y :~4 ? Y
~ 1 9. 'j ~ i ~ s ; .
t e~ s ~ ~+S ~
~ ~ '~~~'w'*,_ ~ ~ ~ r'~' a`. ~P ~
,e5~ -
~ ~"-r~s°'z ~ F : f L'c i~ "q3r J ~ ~ ~C ; ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~
~ a ~y s Sr` y ~ p i
~a-s t ~ ,Y -+r~~
h
~
, : ~ ~ t'~ 4 f
' X . q P ;yr ` ~ ' r~ ~ . t z W~ ~ ~g t ~
1. ~ x ro rr~ .
~ k 2 s° £ ~ ~ z ~
% i r i ~ ~ .
~ r . i _ ~ ,
.
p~.~' .3
- s~ :G'7 ~ S`F :t'' ~ , " ~ ~ ~ ~~{e
~ " ~ y Y N
ap ~ a - 3 ~ ~ f 1
~''1 X"N ~ i /,,_,r y
~ .Y~~ ~ i _ ~f "5j~, ":Y t:
~ P . r- ' s; 1
^ ~ , ~ ;t . s+.'~ ~c ~
~ { ~ ~ r ~ R,,
,r,• I~`~ " , _ : I x fJ 3 ~
~ , ~ k ~ ~ ' ~ i
t`--+ r' r~ f 4. r" . y ,e~~`~,~' r a
:_t~~._ }k :r:. r"~ ~x.~~~ ~4 ~,f ~ 1~+ rz:J 5 t. I'll
' ~ ~ , : : ° Z, . : . f ~ .
t~~e' w _ n ~ G l° y~ 3, ~cr ~s
4 ~ -r . 1 ~ .J. ~ 's 4F
-'~'b r t a ~x a y'~+~ ~k „s ~ y3 -M ey ,a r A
t w-re~,~ ,~,ti,^~. r ,p, n,e a ~
' - . : ~ ~ ~ i : `~w t s'~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~
,x;a. *1~' Lw r .v, ~ a~.p ; ~ C 1 ` t~, ~ , ' ~?a,y-, y 7~
: ~ 3~x~e,~ t - - : ~ si', ' `"~yC M; j ~i ,a,.a,. 7 ~ ;
.
~s t ~ ~"i''. s f - , N j t 74. , W ~~i. ,j J 11 _ . u; ~.t 4 z
" . a `
a 6
I'll ~ ~ i-i~.:x ~ ~ 5' , ~ s : ? f Project • o
Y`~,z 4 ~ 'r~ a~ ~r "F`r,~ ~ Z~'-41~ -
~ 9
g C `1~1` ° s ~ x "~m, ~ : sr ~ , ~r
'^~ras'-~r~' , ~~u
sf~f ~,~^,~~-~t~L f ~s~x'"~~...~~`~~, ' ,r~x ~
~ ,
-L F~ 1,r ~ ~ F .
q . r p av~", fi ~ 9 ~ ~ i
'Y . b E F' ~ta~ F ~ -s ~ ~1. ~
' rv iy F„ s . ,3. w. . ti'~ y 3~ 3 > J ~ ~ . .u-~ ~
a
1^ ~ a T 4q 1 ~ S l f ~s~' t= y- : ,1y~a
~ - l, ~ 1 (y-~:,.1.
} ± Aldi F+ I X ~~'y j
P ;-.r~ ~ i µ ~ . m# l Y
d9
y 1 W
~ ~ ~ 8 ~ , ' % t ~ 5 ~ _ 5~ ~
Z`S~
..pP& ~ ~
g 3'~..~ ~
.>f'~ ~'x} y -
fw<~
.~r - 1~ ds
a " ~
z¢_; °l
x 3 ~ < 7'
4 e F ~~f~ ~ ~ ~
i ; A ~3 ~s ' I ~ " ~
r . ~r~ t ~ - p
£ _ r ` :~~e ~s~~ ~;r. 'a~rO",
~
~ n' : ri Ne 3'j vZM~i , g-+ e ~ u} ~r' ^`k ''X ; , a ~~I ~ ''I ~
rA ~ ~ ~'~3r°Y~`~"_w#r5€~AYI ~ . , Z ~ r
~ ; or~ ~3,.,, . d a ~ ~
~ £ s--• 5, ~ .ssx a ~ ~ y f ~ 1 ° s r e s
- g~.~ ~ ~a~` ~ P. F c ~ ~ s.
~ ~ ~£j.~ * ~ ' _
5. .~.~..,ri _ ` ~ ~ sx ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~
.~s.y.,w . . ,~..~k .r ~ t
>Y~ ~ ~.s a f -~'w` . ~'2", i { a-+'Y .7 `-,~y "k :
• ~ • • : ti'' lr . ~ i r ~i'r x , r
1~ < r~ ~ Y f>
; v t ~ ~ " xf x r ~ ~ 3
4~ a S~ ..,d ~ " 5 i 1 ° zF
$,.,°i ~ ~
t
~'r' ~"~'l a g , A~ f,. t, ,71 a ; r~°' ~
` ~ ' 'r.~'~,T i "'`3` Y f a hr s.
~ fip~'i ~ . ~J ~ .
4 m - - kv"A . " R ` ~ ~ iM1 j 1 Oj 7 :
~ F
`r,^,!f ~ r 3~, fi~z. P , :
~ z : { G ? ` z ,
~~""7 _ , t ~ y $ ~,r S e ! ~
~ ..tf t1 t r 1ra
_ ~
.t 'ia`~`
.'i.o'5ex N~ .
}.~1 ( ]
~ `9~~5~~ ~ • 1 'S ' . - Sf r ~ ~
~ ~ 3_ Tx{K:-r Y•v " 6 _.1 c _'t ,'f'4 ax2. i.+~P" 4 5 £.~ht k ; S ,.31.. ..4:. _ ...cL' _ .C..
• . • , •
~ ~ • ' • • . a I. :
a . • ~ .
0
' z
: 3 F
/ Z
r/!1 r
}r.;~~. c
b
0
/ ct)
M G~ ~
14) 4= N
/ O
0 E
a► a 0)
U.
a ~
« c a
m m
E
4)
~ o ~
ow a ~ 9
a~ ~ O
~
E r-
O
y V
N ~
N
Z ~ a
` J a Y
J ~
Ww,
- zo ,Q ►4).
°
W O` $a ~
a z
1-
U V w = ` ~
L'i
am ~ Q O ~ ~N
\~~q 2W K aQ
U°- OF
\ r N Z NR
atlOL NO NVJ W
~ A3lStl3d X3 `SOa~ LL Q 4 O~
~\\\d a O' ~ N O W
\ \\d ~ D :~:0 ~ V
O
o~ ~
ag \
0
a
\ a x
U I ~
\ L ~
J
I O
U
0 0
° x
1 V ~
~
/
~
C-0
G
~ f 1 ~ 2
1 ~
10
I I ~ 3 2
~x
~ ~ •-"u~,
~ d03 ' 3
F \ ~ m ~
d03 o tn E
JZ
aQ N
=a ~ 0 Q
d
N ` \ y d
°zz (Kc) >
<F 5K- \ NI W ~ ~
a= uQ... ~ C~. V
a f
~ \ I w dro .09 )X:~ ; O
~ aZ a ~ ~W ~
aZ ~ ag 0
Q ZQ TVHI
~Cc♦
K a
MHD 7( ~
s~ ,C N
w5 M 3'X3 p~ W Q V R{
M03 'X3 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ d
° poo l7 C7 C Q.
cc d
00
oO ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ L
0Oa
H
Q~ ~ otlo sII / O p x M ~
~
03M dHL ~ an~ ~ ~ M / v J
oas doad o $ Q
C
03M V1
V O 7.
~ M 3'X3 ~i (4)035 d0 d a 0
~ Lo V o
~
MHO 'X ~ a o
+ O
~ Do 0
w pa a
a I C1
Q N o
0
z
V U v
Q tn
4 F
a~ IA ~ o
lr a ( <Z Z ¢
WF O
Q Z V N V
¢
S I FX a a
~ I ~
~
w V
I
0 3M 7(3
~ w (
~
~ a I
I W ~ O
ON 113M 'X3
( ~ 1
I ~ Uw
I ~ d
I
;z 11 ~ M ~
~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to
O
~ \ Z
I ~ ` =
~
` L a a~
w I \ u- v ~
Wm ~ o m
~ x V N ~ .
Qa 6U N ;
- an .os xa
~ z z ~ y 3
fn p ~ M+
MN V Q• C U
~ -a,
~ 9 4 0~?! y O
~ W m 0 ~
O~
OpW a ~ dW~ .Of 'X3 ' ~ Z
Nv
a t ov w V
a~ I ~ ~ I N~ pp: d " = d
~
Z o ' -Q: O ~ H
dWJ .09 a
v ~ I 4 ~ ~ Y
l ~ L
Z
F a U ~
IL
~
' W poo C 0 wo ~ p ~
~ rvo.o X3 :o cn
~-N
o -
0
, o o~ w° N Js . o
} ^ e W
°ao ~ C
~ o ov a c~ o:
O ~
~o m ~ U b'x3 0 . .
i0
I Oa i '
9 lHhtl
(->103 Od9ad I a
I ~o
I °v
~ a.
1 ~
T 9M ~
z z
z
$W < NtlL3N X3
a
c> / ~
a / O
/
~ FTI
U
wCJ
iz I'D
,
r
0
OZ W
~F i 7,2
z ~
~s
zz ~
SF
Z
~ a to LL ~
L ~ ~
~
4m ~ d
I LLW ~
~ CL
c
~
~ ~ v+
a >
~a mI , z~ m ~ 'a
o I CL 6~ O 0
C
NL g 0
<; c v
~ W- MHO ' 3 Q opo° ~ ~
N o ~
Mo3 '%3 ~ o G ~ N
~ °tr N
IVHl
~ SOdD?J °Q o o ti tC Y
i U0
I N ~oo ~ ~ a o~ ~ao~ ~ ~ ; L
U
I p O ~ ~ ~ J3Ml HL 3
°c'~' °O o ~c
q ~ o~ C ' G
y~ I oo "1 tD I ~ a~9o~ ~
Q ~ 00 ~ n ~ ~ d QU~ ~ M ~
~ 0 M Hl
~ oa $ ~ a3so oad ~o~ ► ~
` o
z ~ ~ ~ °oo Z N
o"t, O v c~r oa ° at~ oQ O
I Qoo ~ I o a oQ~~ ~ o
oL 0000 °~oa V
p°o
N o Z
I Y~ JO
Q~ ~!FQ
I u~i ao~ I °o e~~
C.4 'a °oo W o°ao O` ~l
0oo1
oa,~„ ~
o ~ao~
dNYJ .09 '7(3
0p,~ ~ a ~ -J
\ `J Hl 7( ~ Wc o°C Z a
~ ~UO N O
pQ,o~p 4 ,t U
O ~p~o
%03 '%3 y O pao
Q 03 '%3 W O M F M03
~ F / cz
K~ N~ a V ~a
a ~ NO 'X3
d X~
J
J
Q
3 ~
w ^
O O
~ u
h~
o U~
a~ ~ W
3F " ~
as
~
a
ao ~ ~ n Q r: ~ ~ ao I k ;2 p n CD 10 0
i
0
z
~
F
O
r
` ' ~c4
Ero •x3
MHO 'x3 y C.
38x3 \ o a ~o \ 'a.~~+ ~
oa xa , ye ~ t,~ ~
0
~~p a op~ o M03 'X3 ~ p 0 f. V
o~ ~ ~oo` w }o° a E Q{
o
00 "o°~• y~S ~?y aooo
o° o o .a a"a p~U ~ > O
~
oo< wc°', t~ °O< 0 ~
33ill 'x3 ~ aopDO< °w
Ua°~ oo ~°a i L1. O
° aO°c t0
Ip,~ p p,~,ta
~7' Oopp. ~C tre`~ O°a~0 Q L'ic~a 4) V
p ,,,yyy~~~CCP fO hoe ° A
WVG7
N aa°~ ~ ~ o avo ~ tv 4)
a4o0~ ~ A Vcc
~
03m1V 41 y ~ ~ U o n~ S 'a 0.
a3soa aa y~ I aoo ti o ~ a a, ~o•. a C
o F 93M~V
43SOd Lld c ; U
0'%3 o O o Q O
~ oo 00~` Q
M 'X3
~ v o ao w
/ a .
O ~ o O~ o~
~ a oo~
/ p o0 00
U
1 ~a p c ~
4 Q ~
~ C
< p!D~aj ~
Q= / op ot
03%3 'Oo
0' M 'X3
I ~
U /
¢
m [
a
I ~
I
!
I
V)
¢F I
a
~ J Q ~
JZ I
a ~
u I
~ O
! V ~
I
m ~ ~ dd %3
t0 ~O R1 h h t~ h I~ ~O t0 ~O
- "'Or - Rr : Xr
AgB: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
~ AgC: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
AkF: Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep
1,
Py: Puyallup fine sandy loam -
; ~ ` ~ 4 A~
Sk: Seattle muck
t r°
Ur Urban land
~ F
~y s..
Limit of Excavation
v.
w
~
N,:
Limit af Contractor V11ork Area
• ~
'%074
~
• ~ A
5 ~ •~i ~ ~q5~~y y .bL .
ProjectArea Boundary
SR ;
!
b
i F
. ;i
p
~
y ~{T~SSt
>
3 p
ANCH.OR Figure 8
OEA Project Area Soils Classification AUBU,,R.N
~ Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
a ~',s~~~~,~4
= s
wl-
' ~~✓~~,..s, {~k F'.,,r ~ T ~i- ~ 4"'4 r.x F ~ ~f `c ! t ~~a L ^ a i " . .
A..
v
a . . ~k'^a f ' ~~,~'•~",a,C. a ~y . -y~ x
y 4
, AIII
.,aV.a V
4
x& , -re ~ ~y-$^•yda ~'~',y a .,v
S ~j F •°3~ i ~ 4~ ~z~ ~ t r~ ^ ' ;
0
LiMit 7 e. ti-r : . r{° i~.,,' ~ q• rr . c, r„' .~Y~ . ~
of Exca atio ~ .
<< s.
,
~ ~sx`s- -~>"r ~ ~
Limit
~
c,
of Co • o '
RP
~4 M~~
f ~ + {
~z
~3
~F'~'
rr
. ' . d u L
6.97 ,E . ~z st ~ ~,5~ '~i ~.•i:~ ~ ~ ~,~~p f~ ~9~~~i
g
QW~ W%'Ct . ' • ~ s g v~i~~ y, v t : WM
~y
s ~ ~k,~-
i~
A a ~
1...~' r^ `~v` J i ~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~ - " S
a y" .
~ ~ ~
~ -
~w f Y ~ _ ~ . Y. ~ ~
• j~ ~y ~ ..LL~ ~t r ` , r ~x,~ ~y,~~ n;~ ~.'~Y~ F ~ ,~r~-~ ~
Y ~r
O
k . . S J° -A~ F~ A L~ ~ f~ ,
~
~ .fi N S F .el~ - 9
F ' t 3
• E n ~ i F
. g
• . .
~ . • . ~ ~ ~ .i ~
.
- .
J F
Q / O
2
G~
! ~ .
Q
~
~ \ \ \ \ \ ~
~ d
Lli
C~ ~
~ V O O O O O 2) V~ V
C~ (aA N N N N N iTL D ^
N
a a a a a ~ t''
~ G o, o Noaooo
o A N M U
a ~
N
~ -
N
W D °
` c
>
J Z O Z ~ N Ny f/l 2 ~
~
a
~ ~ I <
C~ o _ W m
~
o A
~ T C
~ V N a f N V C ~ .1 K i o1
C V
G
N N ~1
M
d
(L
N
C-) ; a M ~ N
0
~ a ~u
z 0 Z a a y d
~ ~ M o ~ a < Y
J Z F 7 x x G)
U Z a W W O U 4)
K y W ~ ~ K } 'L+
U lai N y U V W V y
aNbu3tA
o~
0: ZZ ~ : ~ a a
O Z ~i ci 6 0 0 ti Li C3 ci
` \ V O O O O O O O O O
\ ¢
( (ail lV N i2I N in in V1 M M
! \
' ` \ Q Q ~ ~ ~ , ~ Q Q
R N N
C: ~ I
w p d• ~
a
~ :'~z ~ .~~3 • O ~ a ~ o o <
Z In ~ ~ W ~ m W N Li
Z ~
0~5<
7 ° ~ °o w °z o
l ~
~ U N f/f 2 C N ~ m O m
~ f A :iJ / w ~
1/1
~ m Q W
wf <w Q Vl N N ~
W
uj o a
~ Z~ W a o Q Sw~ o
nl I Z ~ v~i rn z 117 o a U O f O
OI 0 ¢ a o o a mM w w x
(n a: L) (n a 0 a a r ~
~ ~ O Q
1
I OX'
S Nviavdia oNVidn
\ S3An
0/9
W
S
I `
~ ~E0 0
I _ o
0 " V'
E c
Q o o ° °
\ ~ ~ =pU U
` ~ 0 a O UI i(I iA M M~1
Q: t 0 ~
I ~ O~ W a a
W W 0
lo N ~f1 ~ ~ L
1 ~ a >
a
m~
{ ~ O o CL~
m M ~ a~°
I ~ Z W 0 N4 6 ~ C
° / 'r ~ O ~ m w yj ~ J 0
I~ `oo 0~w~~ ~
W <
V)
o ~
doo ~ Z
WW~~ o
Z M a
o rY ~ o;Q o ~ Q~~,
0 ~
cD W ~ a Y
Z Zjmo~ d
Wm2 ww
Q U 7 Q Vl U
I 'O O Q U li VI 6.' N d Q V
Q ~S
0 ~ . . .
0 0 ;~aOO~ ~
a O ~ DO~ O aNVldn
a , o
Z U CJ l..i GJ CJ
O / V O O O O O
0 ~ Q
I 1~/1 (V N i(I N in
O O ' I I N o ~ U' U (7
~j o 3
O~c t~
o ~ =N
OO / ~ O 4 O 0 O
a/ Z _ O U ~ O W
0 0 Z
~ U Z ~ (n
N
o a
~ N Q m
II ~ Q
Q ¢ N fi y
~ ' W NZ Q Z
¢ Z w w ¢ O ~
Q O
Q M N U ~ ~ ~ N V
r~ F Z
Z O ~ /1 fa ~
W 7 a ~
~ 4 < 0 V
J
J
o v,
Q
ZE Nviaddia 0/:~
b ~ U
~CHOR 3312 Rosedale Street, Suite 204
~ ~ Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
. Phone 253.858.5552
Fax 253.858.5553
www.anchorqea.com
TEC.HNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Robert Lee, City of Auburn Public Works Date: June 30, 2009
Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn Public Works
From: Caivin Douglas, Anchor QEA, LLC Project: 080554-01
Jerry Bibee, P.E., Anchor QEA, LLC
Cc:
Re: Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project
Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum
This Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum provides the results of an
investigation of an approximate 14-acre project study area located in the City of Auburn,
King County, Washington (Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Sections 14 and 23). A project
location map is provided in Figure 1 that includes an aerial photograph of the study area. Within the study area, the anticipated construction work azea has been identified (Figure 1)
that defines the disturbance limits for installati.on ofthe improvements proposed by the City
of Auburn (City). Those improvements for the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert
Replacement Project (Project) include the replacement of existing culverts that cross Peasley
Canyon Road at the stream crossing and at an adjacent wetland outlet, and associated stream
channel modifications upstream and downstream of the replacement culverts. The
investigation was performed by Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA), ecologists on Fe6ruary 25
and April 16; 2009 (under. Contract Agreement No. AG-C-348):
This memorandum is intended to support the environmental permitting for the.proposed
Project by providing an assessment of wildlife habitat.within the study aazea in accordance
with City criteria, as defined in the City of Auburn City Code (ACC) Critical Areas Chapter
16.10 (City of Auburn 2009). A specific component of this memorandum includes an
analysis, of the status of a great blue heron (Ardea herodlas) rookery; documented near the
Project site. The following sections of this memorandum describe the methods used in the
field investigation and Anchor QEA's findi.ngs.
RECEIVED f-tv.
IJuL► 0 6 2009
CITY OF AUBURN
BU1LD!NG DIV1SiAN
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 2
SUMMARY OF REFERENCES
As part of the analysis to identify critical areas at the Site, Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed
the following sources of information to support field observations:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands
Inventory (VWI) Map Information (USFWS 2009)
• ACC(City of Auburn 2009)
• Soil Survey ofKing County, Washington (USDA 1973)
• Natrrral Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey(USDA 2009)
• Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington (LTSDA 2001)
• Washington Departrnent ofFish aud Wildlife (WDM PriorityHabitat and Species
(PHS) database (WDFW 2009)
• LVDFW PHS List (WDFW 2008)
• Management recommendations for Washington's priority species, T/olume IV.• Birds
(Larsen et al. 2004)
• Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project Wetland Delineation
and Ordinary High WaterMarkDelineation Report (Anchor QEA 2009)
• Aerial photographs
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTtDN.
The 14-acre study area is located in the City of Auburn, King County Washington (Township
21 North, Range 4 East, Sections 14 and 23; see Figure 1). Peasley Canyon Road and the
adjacent project work area are Tocated within an existing Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way (ROV). A separate City of Auburn ROW for Peasley
Canyon Road extends through the south side of the project study area (through Wetland B),
but is not aligned with the aetual Peasley Canyon Road. The majority of the study area
beyond the roadway and adjaeent park-and-ride Iot is undeveloped, with tree, shrub, and
herbaceous vegetation associated with upland, wedand, and riparian habitats. West Valley
Highway forms the east boundary of the study area. Undeveloped forest located on a north
facing hillside forms the south boundary. Peasley Canyon Road South forms the north study
, area boundary to the west before the road bisects the study area and connects with West
Valley Highway. Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary traverses the north side of the study
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
" june 30, 2009
Page 3
area and flows beneath Peasley Canyon Road through the culvert proposed for replacement.
State Route (SR) 18 is located to the north of the study area, and SR 167 is located further to
the east of the study area. A recent aerial photograph of the study area is included as the
Figure 1 base. '
Topography
Overall, the topography within the study area is relatively flat beyond the stream channel
and bank cut slopes, and slopes gently to the east (at about a 2 percent grade), with
depression azeas associated with wedand habitat. To the south, a moderately gentle slope.
increases in elevation towards the forested hillside. The steepest slope on the site is
approximately 1.5:1 (67 percent), at the road embankment culvert end sections and in over-
steepened channel bank cut areas. Mill Peasley Canyon Tributary consists of a somewhat
incised channel cut into the vaIley floor sediments with bed substrate aggraded from
upstream sediment sources. In some cases, fill prisms exist along the channel banks.
The City of Auburn completed a detailed, field. surveyed topographic map of the Project area
and upstream and downstream stream channel as the basis for design development. This
mapping provided the basis for project improvements grading plan development to mi„imize
potential impacts to existing.wetlands and stream habitats and their buffers.
Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009) identifies six soil series in the location of the study
area: "Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC)," "Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD)," Alderwood and Kitsap soils, verysteep (AkF),"
"Puyaliup fine sandy loam (Py)," "Seattle muck (Sk)," and "Urban Land (tJr)." The
Alderwood and ICitsap soils are mapped within the south portion of the study area. Puyallup
soils are mapped in the eastern portion of the study area. Seatde muck soils are mapped in
the central and eastern portions of the study area. Urban Lan.d soils are mapped along the
north boundaries of the study area, inclusive of Peasley Canyon Road and the stream channel
near the crossing.
The Alderwood series develops from consolidated substratums (e.g., glacial till). Alderwood
an.d Kitsap soils are made up of moderately to excessively drained soils typically found on
uplands and terraces. Puyallup fine sandy loam is made up of well drained soils formed in.
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 4
sandy mixed alluvium, under trees, with slopes of 0 to 3 percent. The Seattle series is a very
poorly drained soil derived prunarily from decaying sedges. Urban Land is soil that has been
modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick
to accommodate large industrial and housing installations (USDA 1973).
Hydrology ,
The study area is located in the Duwamish/Green Basin Water Resource Inventory Area
()?VRIA) 9(Ecology 2009a). Hydrologic characteristics in the study area are influenced by
I reg ional groundwater, direct PreciPitation, surface water runoff, and the ad)'acent Mill Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary. The stream and wedands in the study azea receive some runoff
from impervious surfaces associated with roads and the park-and-ride lot witlun the study
area. The ordinarY high water mark (OHWM) of Mill Creek was delineated as Part of the
I Project investigation and is described in Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert
Replacement Project Wetland Delineation and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation
~
Report (Anchor QEA 2009).
Hydrology for the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary was evaluated for this project
considering review and analysis of available stream gage data and results of HSPF continuous
simulation hydrologic modeli.ng of upper basin runoff potential (usuzg the available 158-yeaz
regional precipitation data set). Fxceedance probability data from the stream gage and HSFF
model output were used to determine. expected statistical monthly flow ranges.
Periodie overflows frorn the stream channel upstream from the Peasley Canyon Road
crossing to wetlands located to the south and: east do occur under intermediate to high
stream flows. Collective overflows and loeal drainage inflows from the valley floor and
hillslope areas to the south are returned to Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary throuah an
18-in.ch eliameter culvert that eaetends across Peasley Canyon Road southeast of the main
stream crossing. In recent yeazs, aggradation in the stream channel downstream from the :
Peasley Canyon Road crossing combined with damaged end sections on the wetland oudet
culvert have elevated water leveLs in the upstream wedand areas by up to 2 feet over the
assu.med target water level based on the oudet culvert design. That elevated water level
appears to be causing some mortality in existing trees in the forested area upstream of the
crossing.
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 5
WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The assessment of vegetation communiries, wetlands, streams, great blue heron rookery, and
wildlife habitat within the study area is provided in the following sections.
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation within the study area includes a combination of native and non-native tree,
shrub, grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat
associated with Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary. Wetland habitats are described in the
following section. The forested slopes south of Peasley Canyon Road are identified on
WDFW PHS maps as urban natural open space priority habitat (WDFW 2009).
Dominant tree species include red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra),
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and big-leaf maple (Acermacrophyllum). Trees in the
study area are relatively young near Peasley Canyon Road, with more mature trees further
away from the road.
Dominant shrub species include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spiraea
douglasii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), with Japanese lnoti?veed (Polygonum
cuspidatum) also frequently observed.
,
Dominant emergent species include reed canarygrass (Phalaris,arundinacea), creeping
buttercup (Ranuneulusrepens), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americauus), sti.nging nettle
( Ilrtica d(oica), water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), sword fern (Polystichum munitum),
and English ivy (Hedera hibernica). A complete list of a1T plant species observed during the
investigation is provided in Table 1.
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 6
Table 1
Summary of Vegetation Species Observed within the Study Area
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status'
Trees
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU
Alnus rubra Red a(der FAC
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC
Salix losiandra Pacific willow FACW+
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU
Shrubs
Corn us sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW
Polygonum
cuspidatum Japanese knotweed FACU
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+
Sambucus racemosa Red eiderberry FACU
Spiraea douglasii Spirea FACW
Ferns & Herbaceous
Equisetum hyemale Scouring-rush FACW
Hedero hibernica English ivy UPL
Lysichiton americanus Skunk cabbage OBL
Oenanthe sarmentosa Water-parsley OBL
Phalaris arwndinacea Reed canarygrass FACW
Polypodium glycyrrhiza Licorice fem FACU
Polysticirum munitum Sword fern FACU
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FAC1N
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+
Notes:
1= Wetland indicator status is based on USFWS (Reed 1988 and 1993).
UPl = Occurs almost always (estimated probability 99 percent) under natural conditions in non-wetlands.
FACU = Usually occurs in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99 percent), but occasionaUy found on
• wetlands (estimated probability 1 to 33 percent).
FAC = Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probabifity 34 to 66 percent).
FACW = Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99 percent), bwt occasionally found in non-
wetlands.
OBL = Occurs almost always (estimated probability 99 percent) under naturaf conditions in wetlands.
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 7
Wetlands
Two wetlands, Wetlands A and B, were delineated in the study area as shown on Figure 2.
Results of the wetland delineation are summarized below. A complete description of
Wetlands A and B is provided in the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
Project Wetland Delineation and OrdinaryH3gh WaterMarkDelineation Report(Anchor
QEA 2009).
The USFWS Wetlands MapperforlVWlMap Information identifies Palustrine emergent
(PEM) and palustri.ne scrub-shrub (PSS) habitat west of West Valley Highway and south of
Peasley Canyon Road. In that database, wetland habitat is not identified within the reach of
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary north of the park-and-ride lot (USFWS 2009). WDFW
PHS maps identify wedand habitat in the same area as the NWI maps (WDFW 2009).
Wetland vegetation community types identified during the wetland delineation include
palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM), and
palustrine ppen water (POV) wetland systems. Wetland A is a:0.03-acre riverine wetland
that contains PFO, PSS, and PEM habitat. Wetland A consists of small stream-side wedand
areas on both the north and south fringes of the stream (but beyond the project work area
limits). Wetland A is located in the stream reach between the culverts beneath Peasley
Canyon. Road to the west and West Va11ey Highway to the east. Wetland B is a 6.97-acre depressional wedand that also includes riverine features because
two small channels flow into the vvetland from the west. Wetland B extends outside the
study area to the west; 6.97 acres of.Wetland B was delineated within the study area. The
upstream source of these channels was not identified as part of the investigation, but they
agpear to emanate from Iocal drainage sources and periodic stream overflows. The northern
bouudary of Wetland B is very close to 1VIill Creek upstream from the. Peasley Canyon Road
crossing, but no direct,connections between Wetland-B: and the creek were observed. A low,
earthfill berm is located between the ereek and the wetland. Wetland B contains PFO, PSS,
PE1VI, and POW habitats.
According to the ACC (City of Auburn 2009), wetland ratings are determined using
Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System - Western Washington: Revised
(Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2006).
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 8
Under the Ecology system, Wedand A is rated as a Category III wetland and Wetland B is
rated as a Category I wedand. The ACC identifies minimum and maximum protective buffer
widths based on the wetland category and site conditions such as intensity of land uses.
Under the ACC, Category I wedands have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet and a
maximum buffer width of 200 feet. Category III wetlands have a minimum buffer width of
25 feet and a maximum buffer width of 50 feet. The City will confirm the actual buffers to
be applied.
Strearns
The OHWM boundaries for an approximate 800-foot reach of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary were delineated during the site investigation. The creek flows through the study
_ area from west to east before passing under West Valley Highway just upstream from the
mainstem Mill Creek confluence. The delineated OHWM limits for this section of creek are
shown on Figures 2. A comple"te description of the Mill Creek OHW1V1 delineation is
provided in the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project Wedand
Delineation and OrdinaryHigh WaterMarkDelineation Report(Anchor QEA 2009).
Wetland habitat associated with the stream mcludes Wetland A. No direct connections
between the stream channel and Wetland B were observed, primarily because of the south
bank berm that divides those areas under low to intermediate stream flow. Dominant
riparian plant species include reed canarygrass, red alder, Pacific willow, and Himalayan
blackberry. japanese knotweed, a non-native, invasive species, is also found along the
riparian comdor. Dominant features o€the riparian habitaf include paved surfaces associated .
with Peasley Canyon Road, the SR 18 off-ramp, and a park-and-ride lot. Downstream from the project area, the mainstem 1VIill Creek is a tributary to the Green,
River, which provides habitat for a variety of fish and salrnon species; includiug species with
,
state and federal protected status. Table 2 includes fish speeies identified in the reach of Mill
Creek within the Project area doeurriented by WDFW PHS maps (VUDFW 2009a) and the '
SalmonScape fish mapper (WDFW 2009b).
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 9 Table 2
Fish Species Documented in Mill Creek Project Area
WDFW PHS Maps WDFW SalmonScape
Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon O. kisutch Coho salmon
0. tshawytscha Fafl Chinook O. mykiss' Winter steelhead
0. Clarki Resident cuithroat
Fall Chinook and winter steelhead salmon are ESA-listed species docwnented to exist in the
Project area. Of these species, the WDFW PHS maps identify fall Chinook and the WDFW
SalmonSeape mapper identifies winter steelhead to exist in the Project area (WDFW 2009a;
WDFW 2009b). This discrepancy was discussed with a WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist,
and it was determined that presence of adult fall Chinook species is unlikely during the
proposed instream construction period (September 1 to October 15) due to the low flows in
Mill Creek that occur at that time (Foley 2009). Under the low flow conditions, it is also
unlikely that adult winter steelhead trout would migrate through Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary.
At the time of the investigation, the two small channels that enter Wedand B from the west
were narrow (less than 2 feet wide), shallow (1 to 2 inches deep) systems with no defined
banks, flowing within an area of Wetland B with saturated and inundated, mucky soils.
Flow within the wedand eventually spreads out as sheet-flow and became inciistinguishable
from the inundated portion of the wetland habitat. These channels appear to be systems
with intermittent flow assoeiated with south bluff and valley floor xunoff along with
remnant channels frorn perioclic flood overflows from the rnain stream channel. They do not
appear to provide fish habitat. The channels are not identified on WDFW PHS maps ~
(WDFW 2009a),
Based on observations during the investigation and WAC and City stream typin.g criteria,
Mill Creek appears to meet the minimum.criteria as a Type F Water under the WAC Water
Typing System and a Class II stream under the ACC. T'he reaches of the two channels
associated with Wedand B appear to meet the criteria of Type Ns Waters under the WAC
Water Typing System and Class N streams under the ACC (City of Auburn 2009). The ACC
requires protective buffers to preserve stream and riparian functions. Buffers would apply to
the OI iWM limits as surveyed. Because the reaches of the two channels within the study
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
june 30, 2009
Page 10
area are located within a large Category I wedand system and do not have a defined OHVViVI,
it is unlikely stream buffers would be applied to the two channels. Under the ACC, Class II
streams have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet and a maximum buffer width of 100 feet.
Class IV streams III have a minunum buffer width of 25 feet and a maximum buffer width of
30 feet. The City will confirm the actual buffers to be applied.
GREAT BLUE HERON ROOKERY
WDFW PHS maps identify great blue heron rookery priority habitat on the forested slopes
of the south side of the study area (WDFW 2009). Great blue heron rookeries are nesting colonies that rypically occur in the tallest trees available and can include deciduous or
coniferous tree speeies (Larsen et al. 2004). Breeding activity had been documented at this
rookery from 1980 to 2000 (WDFW 2009). No great blue herons or heron nests were
observed in the study area during the site visits performed in February and April 2009.
Communieation with WDFW area habitat biologists confirmed that no great blue heron
breeding ac.tivity has been documented at the site since 2000, including the current 2009
breeding season (Anderson 2009). While great blue herons can re-establish abandoned
rookeries, the rookery in the study area is currently inactive.
The ACC identifies-great blue heron rookeries as critical wildlife habitat. The ACC does not
identify protective buffers for rookeries but specifies under Chapter 16.10.100 that
"alterations of er-itical habitat shall be avoided: " Even if the great blue heron rookery was
currently active, proposed Project activities would not alter the roakery habitat. WDFW
PHS habitat recommendations for great blue;heron rookeries include "restrieting human
activities likely to eause disturban.ce to nesting great blue herons within a 984-foot buffer
around the periphery of the eolony from February 15 to July 31" (Laxsen et al. 2004).
Because the rookery is currentty inactive, and proposed Project activity would occur adjacent
to and in the vicinity of roads and highways with high traffic volumes, WDFW would be
unlikely to recommend these restrictions to the Project (Anderson 2009).
WILDLIFE HABITAT '
Wildlife rely on vegetation for food, shelter, and cover from predators. Wildlife diversity is
generally related to the structure and composition of plant species within vegetative
communities. In general, vegetation communities that contain few species or vegetative
layers (herbaceous, shrubs, or trees) support a low diversity of wildlife, whereas vegetation
Robert Lee> Tim Carlaw, Ciry of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page• 11
communities that are more complex and contain a wide variety of plant species and
vegetative layers can support a greater diversity of wildlife. Forested, wetland, and riparian
areas with well-developed shrub layers aze likely to support the greatest number of species
and populations of wildlife (Brown 1985).
Habitat nea'r and adjacent to roads within the study area is dominated by non-native invasive
species and generally provides low to moderate wildlife habitat quality. Forested, wedand,
and riparian vegetation communities within the study area away from the roads provide
higher quality habitat for a variety of tenestrial and aquatic wildlife. Those portions of the
study azea with mature, mixed-aged forested habitat provide more habitat value than
younger, even-aged forest stands because of its vegetative diversity and the availability of
forage and nest sites. Snags and downed trees provide potential habitat for perch sites and
nesting areas for raptors and cavity-nesting wiidlife.
Overall, habitat in the study area near the construction work area, where there are major
roads with heavy traffic volumes, provides potential foraging and nesting opportunities for a
variety of amphibian, reptile, manunal, fish, and bird species. Wildlife use of this area likely
includes a variety of native and non-native species typical to urban azeas of western
Washington.
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
June 30, 2009
Page 12
REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA). 2009. Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert
Replacement Project Wetland Delineation and Ordinary High Water Mark
Delineation Report. Prepared for City of Auburn, Washington.
.Anderson, Chris. 2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Area Habitat
Biologist. Personal communication (telephone) with Calvin Douglas, Anchor QEA
LLC. Apri123, 2009.
Brown, E. R., (ed.). 1985. Management of Wildlife Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon
and Washington, Vols. 1 and 2.
City of Auburn. 2009. City of Auburn City Code. Auburn, Washington. Accessed online at
http://www.codepublishi.ng:comlwa/auburn on February 23, 2009.
Ecology - See Washington State Department of Ecology
Foley, S. June 1, 2009. Personal communication yia telephone between Steve Foley, WDFW
RHB, and Josh jensen of Anchor QEA, LLC.
E. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. 2004. Management recommendations for
Washington's priority species, Volume N: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National T.ist of Plant Species that Occur in Wedands: 1988 National
Summary. U.S. Fish' and Wildlif'e Service. Biologieal Report 88 (26.9).
Reed, P., Jr. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wedands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88
(26.9).
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
june 30, 2009
Page 13
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
USDA. 2001. Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Accessed online at
httn://www.wa.nres.usda,govltechnicaUsoils/county hydric lists html on February
23, 2009.
USDA. 2009. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Accessed
online at http://websoilsurvey.nres usda gov/app on February 23, 2009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. USFWS Wedands Mapper for National
Wedands Inventory Map Information. Accessed online at
http://wedandsfws.er.usgs.gov on February 23, 2009
Washi.ngton Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFV). 2008. Priority Habitats and Species
List. Olympia, WA. 174 pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFVV). 2009a. Priority Habitats and
Species (PHS) Maps in the Vicinity of T21, R04E, Section 14. Report Date March 13,
2009.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009b. SalmonScape IVlapper.
Accessed online at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ on February 23,
2009.
Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wedands Rating System - Eastem Washington: Revised.
Publication #04-06-15. Olympia, Washington.
Robert Lee, Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn
june 30, 2009
Page 14
Ecology. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating Form - Eastern Washington, version 2.
Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2009. Environmental Information; Watersheds; WRIA 9 Duwamish/Green Basin.
Accessed online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov4ervices/gis/maps/wria/number/wria9.htm
on February 23, 2009
H~~~~~~u
, . J€~~~ ~ 2 2009
Ct3`Y C1F AUBURN
BUlLDING DIVISION
Restoration Programmatic for the State of Washington
Specific Project Information Form
U.S. Army Corps of Enbineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch
July 29, 2008 version
Table of Contents
I GENERAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................1
II EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR FISH SPECIES USFWS & NMFS ........................................................12
III EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES ....................................................17
IV SIGNATURE ..........................................................................................................................................................22
. APPENDIX A: DEWATERING AND FISH CAPTURE PROTOCOL ........................................................................23
I GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Date: June 8, 2009 Corps reference no.: Pending (Corps)
B. Applicant name (same as in JARPA): Robert Lee, City of Auburn Public Works
Address City of Auburn Public Works
25 West Main Street
Auburn. WA 98001-4998
C. A.gent Name (same as on JARPA): Derek Koellmann, Anchor QEA, LLC
Address: Anchor QEA, LLC
1605 Cornwall Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
. D. Location(s) of activity:
Section: 14/23 Township: 21 N Range: 04E
Latitude (xxx° xx' xx.x"): 47° 18' 11.45"
Longitude (xxx° xx' xx.x")A-'22015=-3~ 54"
UTM: l OT 556156 5239363
Waterbody: Mill Creek (Peasley Canyon Tributary -See Drawing Sheet 1)
County: King County
ESU or IRU: Pu~et Sound Steelhead (O. mvkiss) ESU•
Puget Sound Chinook (O. tshawytscha) ESU
E. Project elements. In the table below, fill in the maximum lenbth of each project element
proposed and the number of structures where applicable. This information will be used by the
Services for calculating your take exemption:
1
~ ~
~
NumbeT Of
Action Categoty Project Length and Width Number of Structures
where applicable
1. Fish Passage:
a. Culvert Replacement and 20-foot span (perpendicular to Replacement of two parallel
Relocation channel); 90-foot length (60-inch and 30-inch)
18-inch diameter; 90-foot length culverts with single, shorter
(at reduced skew angle),
clear-span, 3-sided box
culvert with buried bottom
slab; in-kind replacement of
third 18-inch off-channel
culvert (outlet from an
adjacent wetland)
b. Retrofitting Culverts
c. Culvert Removal 60-inch diameter; 160-foot lenbth Removal of three existing
30-inch diameter; 160-foot length deteriorating culverts filled
approximately 70 percent
18-inch diameter; 90-foot length with aggraded substrate
material
d. Tidegate Removal
e. Removal or Modification of Removal of approximately
Sediment Bars or Terraces 150 cubic yards of aggraded
substrate materiais within
the OHW limits upstream
and downstream of
replacement culvert
f. Temporary Placement of Use of sandbags (assumed)
Sandbags, Hay Bales; and for temporary cofferdams
Ecology Blocks for streamflow diversion
g. Construction of Structures to
Provide Passage over Small
Dams
2
2. Installation of Instream
Structures:
a. Placement of Large Woody Placement of approximately
Debris (LWD) 40 LWD pieces
(individually and as
combined units)
b. Placement of Live Stakes Placement of approximately
120 Iive stakes and 190 lf of
facines in bioengineered
slope revegetation areas
c. Placement of Engineered Placement of two ELJs
Log Jams (ELJs) adjacent to the channel
upstream and downstream of
culvert (part of LWD total
shown under Item 2a)
d. Grade Control ELJs Placement of 2 grade
controllpool scour logs (not
ELJs)
e. Trapping Mobile Wood ELJs will assist in trapping
mobile wood
f. Placement of Boulders Placernent of approximately
70 24-inch diameter
interspersed boulders within
replacement culvert cobble-
boulder substrate mix
(roughened channel)
g. Boulder Weirs and 100-foot length, 12-foot bottom See Item 2f for roughened
Roughened Channels width (20-foot total width) channel within replacement
roughened channel through culvert
replacement culvert
h. Gravel Placement Associated Placement of cobble-boulder
with Structure Placement mix within reptacement
culvert; replacement of
existing streambed gravel
mix within restored channel
and created pools upstream
and downstream of crossing
3
3. Levee Removal and
Modification
4. Side ChanneUOff Channel
Habitat Restoration and
Reconnection
5. Salmonid Spawning Gravel 75 feet upstream; 155 feet Replacement of existing
Restoration downstream streambed gravel mix in
restored channel and created
pools upstream and
downstream of crossing
6. Forage Fish Spawning Gravel Restoration 7. Hardened Fords and
Fencing for Livestock
Stream Crossings
8. Irrigation Screen
Installation and
, Replacement
9. Debris and Structvre Removal of debris within
Removal proposed excavation and
stripping areas including all
construction debris; no
structures removal aside
from existing hydraulic
structures (3 culverts - see
Item I C)
F. Description of the proposed work:
The City of Auburn (City) intends to replace the existing culverts with a new, clear span box
culvert to reduce the risk of a road crossing failure, while providing improved fish passage and
habitat, and increased flood flow capacity (to a 100-year flood event level of protection based on
simulated future conditions). The existing culverts will be replaced with a 20-foot wide by 6-foot
high (4 feet clear height), 3-sided concrete box culvert with buried bottom slab, aligned at a
reduced skew angle, and witli natural substrate cover. The resulting culvert length will be
decreased from approximately 160 feet under existing conditions to approximately 90 feet for the
replacement.culvert. A third 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert (with damaged
end sections), located approximately 60 feet to the southeast, drains wetland areas on the south
(upstream) side of Peasley Canyon Road. It will be replaced with an 18-inch diameter, smooth
interior wall culvert at the same grade (and with rock headwalls at its ends).
4
Upstream and downstream streambed and bank grading will occur in proximity to the replacement
culvert to align the stream with the new culvert and to remove existing aggraded bed substrate
materials sufficient to provide for its proper vertical (profile) alignment. Additional temporary
excavation, primarily within the existing road prism, will be completed to achieve a subgrade
condition suitable for the replacement culvert cast-in-place bottom slab and pre-cast 3-sided box
installation. Impacts to existing vegetation will be limited to the identified work areas, and will be
minimized to the extent practicable during grading. In addition, invasive species within the Project
area will be removed or treated using approved methods. To mitigate for temporary impacts to
vegetation resulting from the Project, native riparian plantings will be installed post-culvert
installation in areas disturbed by construction. Large woody debris (LWD) will also be instalIed
and securely anchored within the restored stream channel to provide streambank toe stabilization,
to maintain the natural stream morphology and processes (e.g. pool scour, gravel sorting), and to
provide improved fish habitat (e.g., to supplement food sources and provide refugia habitat and.
spawning areas). Drawing Sheets 2 through 11 illustrate the proposed site plan and
construction/restoration plans, profile, and sections for the replacement culvert and associated
channel restoration.
The replacement culvert is being designed as a"stream simulation" culvert (Bates ef al. 2003),
with the intent of mimicking stream conditions beyond the culvert within it. The culvert will be .
significantly wider than the existing culverts (20 feet as compared to less than 5 feet currently),
with greater clear hydraulic height (4 feet compared to less than 1.5 feet currently) to provide the
City-desired culvert hydraulic design capacity (100-year future condition peak flows) and debris
passage, to reduce sediment aggradation locally within and beyond the culvert, to comply with fish
passage design criteria, to improve stream habitat within and beyond the culvert, and to reduce the
1"ength of the creek located under PeasIey Canyon Road. Stream simulation elements proposed
within the culvert include sloped left and right stream banks and a roughened channel b.ed and
banks (e.g., closely spaced, exposed boulders placed in substrate material). The excess sediment
that is located in the existing culvert and streambed will be removed, and a new well=graded
cobble-boulder substrate mix (meeting Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW] .
design criteria) will be placed as substrate for the new culvert coupled with the interspersed,
protruding bouiders.
Restored stream grading will incarporate lower-velocity stream margin areas where adequate space
allows (e.g., on the inside of ineander bends) to provide refugia for salmonids during high-flow
events. Those areas will also function as sediment aggradation areas, and may require periodic
sediment removal through future permitted maintenance activities. Engineered log jams (ELJs) are
proposed to be placed in those stream margin areas, both upstream and downstream of the culvert,
to pxovide added stream habitat benefits. Stiort-term impacts will occur from grading due to the
removal of some small shrubs, one immature cedar, and invasive species including reed'
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rulius discolor), and Japanese
knotweed (Fallopia japonica). This action will be mitigated in-kind by re-establishment of native
plantings that will improve long-term stream shading, reduce stream temperature, and provide a
more diverse, vegetated buffer that produces allochthonous material for salmonids.
LWD will also be installed upstream and downstream of the new culvert. ApproximateIy 40 pieces
of LWD will be placed (individually and as combined units) with partially exposed rootwads
5
extending into the low water channel. The LWD will be securely anchored and will include stream
bank and pool scour logs, revetment logs, engineered log jams, and rootwads. These in-water
habitat structures are intended to provide more natural stream morphology and processes, to add
channel roughness, to sustain constructed pools, to protect channel streambanks from erosion, and
to provide expanded cover habitat. They will significantly improve the available habitat for
salmonid refugia.
G. Project timing:
Start date Se tember l, 2009 Start Date In-water Work Se tember 1, 2009
End date October 31, 2009 End Date In-water Work October 15, 2009
H. Anticipated cubic feet per second (CFS) of stream at time of construction:
Hydrology for the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary was evaluated considering review and
analysis of available stream gage data and results of HSPF continuous simulation hydrologic
modeling of upper basin runoff potential (using the available 158-year regional precipitation data
set). Exceedance probability data from the stream gage and HSPF model output were used to
determine expected statistical flaw ranges between September and October (anticipated period of
construction). Based on the cumulative 1988 to 1992 and 2004 through 2008 stream gage data
sets, September and October flows are expected.to range up to 1.9 cfs and 9.6 cfs, respectively, at
the 1% flow duration exceedance (a criteria typically applied for flow diversion consideration).
Comparing that to the HSPF model results (not calibrated for low flows), the comparable
September and October 1% flovv duration values range up to 18 cfs and 34 cfs respectively. This
discrepancy may result from some inaccuracies in the stream gage flow measurement under low
flows (particularly with an aggrading channel condition), and knowledge that at intermediate to
higher flows, flow can bypass the stream gage. Tn addition, since the HSPF riiodel is not calibrated
to low flows, some inaccuracies may exist there (results appear to be on the high side), Therefore,
the expected flow range in the months of construction are likely between the bounds of these two
sets of results.
1. How much area do you propose to clear for temporary access?
The majority of the work would be staged from Peasley Canyon Road assuming a proposed full
closure during the culvert replacement construction period. Clearing will be limited to a variable
width up to an approximate 15-foot width beyond the grading limits for construction equipment
access around the perimeter of the work area (where required). This amounts to approximately 0.2
acre of total vegetative clearing (including invasive species removal), primarily within the
excavation limits, with only a small portion of that required beyond those limits for temporary
access. The contractor staging area will be located within the roadway and on the adjacent Park-
and-Ride lot.
J. How many trees and what sizes wiil be felled for temporary access?
No trees are anticipated to require removal solely for teznporary construction access beyond the
excavation limi#s.
6
K. Will your temporary access traverse across slopes steeper than 30%? ,
The Project area is generally flat with a small gradient (averaging less than 2 percent). The
steepest slopes within the Project area are approximately 67 percent at the road embankment
culvert end sections and in over-steepened channel cut bank (erosion) areas. Larger excavation
equipment will typicaliy work from the top of slope. Smaller equipment will need to access to the
channel bed after diversion of steamflow and local dewatering of the excavation. That access may
be on short slopes that may exceed 30 percent, but those slopes will be fully restored and stabilized
with culvert and channel restoration improvements.
L. How many temporary stream crossings do you propose? List all best mana.gement
practices (BMPs) proposed to avoid and minimize impacts from stream crossings.
A temporary stream crossing of Peasley Canyon Road will be required during the culvert
replacement phase since the new culvert alignment crosses the existing culverts alignment (the
replacement 3-sided box culvert is aligned at a reduced skew angle, but does cross the existing
culverts). For the temporary stream flow crossing it is proposed to use the existing Wetland B
discharge culvert (that will ultimately be replaced) in combination with temporary piping
connections from and back to the stream channel upslream and downstream from the channel
restoration limits (see Drawing Sheet 3). BMPs to be used for the stream diversion include
temporary sandbag cofferdams, temporary diversion pipelines, temporary fish screening (at
diversion inlet and outlet), and energy dissipation/scour protection at the pipeline outlet. Standard
BMPs for protection of existing fish in the construction area will be implemented consistent with
#he Dewatering and Fish Capture Protocol (Appendix A). Because the Project is located within a
WSDOT right-of-way (ROVI), WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards (Appendix B)
will also be referenced during the construction phase.
M. Culvert replacements:
1. Append the.applicable "Summary Form for Fish-Passage Design Data" that can be found in
the WDFW Culvert Manual ((Bates et al. 2003) Appendix F).
Please see attached "Summary Form for Fish-Passage Design Data: Appendix F" (Appendix C)
2. Append maintenance plan that shows that culvert will be in design condition prior to each
fish passage season.
A maintenance plan is not included in this phase of the Project and will be drafted by the City
or responsible a$ency (the City of Auburn or WSDOT) once the Project is completed. It is
expected that the responsible agency will apply their maintenance standards and practices in
maintaining functional performance for flood flows conveyance and fish passage. That will
include applicable BMPs for instream LWD, stream debris, and sediment management as
permitted under those programs in coordination with WDFW.
7
3. If your project is in gradients 6- 10 % and a bridge is not feasible, use stream simulation
option and provide annual monitoring data of substrate, invert elevation, and channel form
(elements of roughened channel: boulders, pools, low flow channeI) including a picture
prior to each migration season. .
The Project is not located in gradients 6 to 10 percent.
4. If your culvert is longer than 150 feet include tribal comments. If you discussed your
design with WDFW, include WDFW comments or a record of your conversation with
WDFW.
The 3-sided box culvert will be replacing the existing pipe culverts (that are longer than 130
feet), but the replacement culvert length has been reduced to approximately 90 feet by aligning
it at a reduced skew angle. Two field visits were conducted with the WDFW regional habitat
biologist to gather input used in tailoring the design solution to comments offered; the second
site visit also included receiving comment on the Project proposal from a representative of the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT).
5. Are you increasing the amount of rip-rap. If so, by how much?
No additional rip-rap will be placed as part of the proposed improvements. All rock placed in
the restored stream channel will be rounded and substrate mixes will' be well-graded, consistent
with WDFW standards.
6. Describe how proper ecological functions (bedload movement, debris movement, flood
flows) in addition to fish passage will be met. "
Stream modeling and assessment work has been completed to evaluate existing culvert and
local stream reaeh ecological functions as the basis for design of improvements that will sustain
or enhance those functions for the completed project. That work has included hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling analysis of the stream system, geomorphic assessment of channel and reach
processes, fish passage and habitat assessment for the affected stream reach, and wetland and
wildlife habitat assessment. The significantly wider-span replacement (stream simulation)
culvert with roughened cha.nnel and the adjacent restored channel with LVdD placement will
facilitate improved fish passage to 0.65 mile of upstream rearing and spawning habitat, will add
fish habitat features in the improvements reach, and will allow natural channel processes to be
sustained or enhanced. Those processes include, at minimum, bedload movement, gravel
sorting, pool and riffle maintenance, and unimpeded flood flows and debris conveyance (to
`100-year level-of-protection). Other Project benefits include a wider and shorter replacement
culvert (with associated added channel length beyond the culvert), removal of invasive species,
and revegetation of disturbed work areas with native plant species that.will provide long-term
improvement in the riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity, and stream shading.
8
7. If you are increasing the length or width of a road:
a. Quantify the increased impervious surface created as a result of this activity.
b. List measures that you propose to use to avoid impacts to resources and water quaIity.
Note: Permanent road improvements that result in increased traffic or development are not
permitted under this PBA.
No road lengthening or widening will occur as a result of this Project. Therefore, there will be
no net increase in impervious area associated with this action (pavement removed for the
replacement culvert installation will be replaced), and pavement areas requiring restoration
beyond the excavation limits will be surface planned and an AC pavement overlay will be
completed. As such, no actions are required (beyond the construction phase) to control water
quality associated with Project area runoff.
N. Rock grade control structures: How much combined rock is proposed for structures?
No grade control structures will be placed in the restored channel aside from pool scour lags. Rock
used for roughened channel creation within the repiacement culvert will include approximately 140
cubic yards of well-graded cobble-boulder mix along with approximately 70 24-inch diameter
interspersed projecting boulders).
0. Removal or modification of sediment bars or terraces: Has there been previous removal of
sediment at this location? If yes when and how much?
It is reported that removal of aggraded sediment within the Project area channel reach has occurred
with maintenance of the existing culverts at Peasley Canyon.Road and West Valley Highway. The
specific location and timing of any past sediment excavation, and the total amount of sediment
removed is unknown. The City received a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW for
sediment removal in 2009; but that action was not completed due to complicatioris with the
handling of stream flow for culverts cleaning.
P. Side Channel/Off Channel Habitat Creation:
1. Has a reach assessment or analysis been conducted for this project?
Reach assessment has been conducted for this Project for the main channel culvert design and
channel restoration, but not for side channel or off-channel habitat creation. A Wetland and
Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation was completed (Anchor QEA 2009a) to assess
topography, soils, hydrology, and plant communities in the Project area. Additionally, a
Stream Geomorphology Evaluation was completed (Anchor QEA 2009b) that summarizes the
results of a reach-level geomorphic evaluation conducted for the upper Mill Creek basin and
Peasley Canyon Tributary. .
9
2 How many years will the project take to complete?
The ProJ'ect will talce less than 1 Year to comP ~ lete• it is anticiPated to be constructed within a 2-
month period from September through October 2009 (pending permits issue).
3. Demonstrate sufficient hydrology for a self-sustaining channel.
Hydrology for the MiII Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary was evaluated considering review and
analysis of available stream gage data and development of an HSPF continuous simulation
hydrologic model of the upper basin. That analysis was coupled with HEC-RAS hydraulic
analysis of the Project area stream reach. Those results suggest that upstream from the
replacement culvert, frequent flooding overflow exchanges occur between the main channel
and its floodplain to the south, and that the channel hydrology is adequate for self-sustaining
channel morphology responses (e.g., bedload transport, pool formation, gravel sorting). This
project will not alter those conditions. When flood overflows do occur over the south bernn of
the channel, they will be routed back to the main channel through south bank hydraulic control
spillway logs near the upstream end of the replacement culvert. Because no side or off-channel
habitat is proposed to be created, hydrologic/hydraulic analysis was not conducted for that
condition.
Q. Will you be isolating the work area? [Explain how your decision on working in the wet or
dry, or partially isolation the area, will minimize impacts to salmonids.]
Construction activities for the replacement culverts and to restore the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary stream channel will be completed after a temporary stream diversion is installed and
operational, and local dewatering of the work area is complete (see Item I.L. for a description of
the stream diversion approach). Safe evacuation of any trapped fish in the work area reach
' resulting from the stream diversion will be completed using methods consistent with agency
requirements (see Appendices A and B) and HPA provisions (WDFW permit pending). In
addition, dewatering water pumped from the work area will be treated as required for compliance
with state water quality standards for construction phase runoff. These cornbined actions will .
minimize the potential impacts to salmonids present within the Project work area at the
commencement of canstruction, and beyond the work area during the construction phase.
R. Give a maximum estimate for the duration and length of downstream turbidity impacts. The Services will use this estimate for giving you your take exemption. (During
construction you will be monitoring downstream sedimentation every 20 min to verify/refine
your given estimate.)
Short-term, temporary downstream turbidity impacts may occur with installation of the in-channel
cofferdams after diversion piping is in place to make the temporary stream diversion operational.
These impacts should be limited to a single day, and would be accomplished during a low
streamflow period. Similarly, during removal of the temporary cofferdams and re-route of flows
through the restored main channel, short-term turbidity impacts lasting less than a day may also
occur. During all other construction phases, turbidity impacts are not anticipated provided the
10
contractor closely adheres to implementation of an approved dewatering/treatment plan and
required Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) BMP measures.
S. Explain what equipment will generate noise above ambient levels and for what period
during the day and for how many days.
The project setting is urban transportation corridor/urban residential, which, as identified by
Cavanaugh and Tocci (1998), typically includes noise levels averaging at approximately 65
decibels (dBA). Noise associated with the Project includes short-term noise from construction
equipment during the construction phase of the Project, but construction noise is not expected to
exceed ambient noise tevels at action area limits. No foundation piles or sheet piling is proposed;
therefore, no impact noise impacts associated with pile driving would occur. The estimated worst-
case scenario noise level for the construction equipment proposed for the Project (at the source)
includes excavators (81 dBA), dump trucks (76 dBA), and back hoes (78 dBA). Equipment will '
only be run as necessary, during allotted hours as detailed in the City of Auburn City Code
8.28.010 (8)(a). No long-term noise impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project as
project operations are passive and will not create noise. Noise impacts are not expected to be
significant, nor will they reach residential or other sensitive receptors as none are located local to
the Project area. As such, the City may choose to approve extended work hours to limit the period
of roadway closure during the construction period.
T. Piease attach HPA or explain why you do not need one.
A Joint Aquatic Resources Permits Application (JARPA) will be submitted to the WDFW
Regional Habitat Biologist (RHB) upon completion of the City State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) process, and a copy of the HPA will be delivered once it is received. Preliminary desibn
plans have been reviewed with the WDFW RHB for input on the layout and type of stream habitat
features proposed for the culverts replacement and adjacent stream channel restoration.
U. If your project does not meet all of the criteria outlined in the PBA, but is a restoration
action of similar scope and impacts, contact the Services with the project's description,
conservation measures and reason(s) it may not currently fit under the PBA. Provide
below any supporting conversations with NMFS and/or USFWS staff, including a list of
the PBA criteria your project won't meet. This is a living document. We are continuously
working on refining the proposed/covered actions and conservation measures.
To the best of the City's and the design consultanY s understanding, the Project does meet all of the
criteria outlined in the PBA.
I1
II EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR FISH SPECIES USFWS & NMFS
Each project should have the appropriate effect determination. The PBA allows for No Effect (NE),
Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA), or Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) determinations for
listed species. Each determination must be adequately documented in this form. If you need
assistance in determining the appropriate effect detertnination, consult the Corps, USFWS, and NMFS
sta ff.
Check all currently listed evolutionarilv sitznificant units (ESUs) or Interim Recovery Units
(IRUs) that may occur in the fifth field watershed where the project is located.
Endangered
Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Snake River Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka)
Upper Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Threatened
Bull trout, CoastaUPuget Sound IRU (Salvelinus confluentus)
Bull trout, Columbia River IRU (Salvelinus confluentus)
Coho salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU (O. kisutch)
Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
X Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Chinook salmon, Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Chinook salmon, Snake River Fall-run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Chum salnnon, Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) ,
Chum salmon, Hood Canal summer ESU (Oncorhynchus keta)
Steelh'ead trout, Lower Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Steelhead trout, Middle Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
X Steelhead trout, Coastal/Puget Sound DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Steelhead trout, Snake River ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Designated
Critical habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout IRU
Critical habitat for Columbia River bull trout IRU
Critical habitat for Columbia River chum salmon ESU
Critical habitat for Hood Canal summer chum salmon ESU
Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU
Critical habitat for Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon ESU
Critical habitat for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook salmon ESU
Critical habitat for Snake River Fall-run Chinook salmon ESU
X Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU
Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead trout ESU
Critical habitat for Upper Columbia River steelhead trout ESU
Critical habitat for Middle Columbia River steelhead trout ESU
Critical habitat for Snake River steelhead trout ESU
12
Lake Ozette Sockeye salmon are not covered by this programmatic at this time.
Directions: Use the Notes section under each question to document your rational and decision making
process for presence or absence of the fish, and the effect determination.
FILL OUT THIS SECTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ESU THAT OCCURS IN THE FIFTH
FIELD WATERSHED
Effecf Determination by Species:
ESU and critical habitat: Steelhead trout, CoastaUPuget Sound DPS; Chinook salmon Puget Sound
ESU and critical habitat
1) Is the project in a fifth - field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain Chinook
salmon, PuQet Sound ESU and critical habitat• Steelhead trout CoastallPuget Sound DPS?
YES X If yes, list fifth field watershed, and go to question 2.
Fifth-field watershed: Mill Creek Peaslev Canyon Tributary
NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on _(insert speciesl. Go to question 5. Notes:
2) Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for Chinook salmon, PuAet
Sound ESU and critical habitat• Steelhead trout Coastal/Puget Sound DPS•?
For bull trout use Tables 1& 2 of Appendix A and/or the draft recovery plans (available at:
hM?://www.fws.goy/pagific/bulitrout/recoveKy.html) and a distribution map the USFWS posted at
http://www.fws..gov/westwafwo/index.html to determine if your project is within critical habitat for
bull trout.
For other salmon you may use the NMFS critical habitat web page at
httn:%/www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/CH-Mans cfm determine if your project is
within critical habitat. -
YES X If yes, what type of habitat is present? Spawning X Rearing X
Migratory Corridor X
Not known Go to Question 3.
NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on (insert species). Go to question 5.
Notes:
3) Approximately how far is the project from the nearest suitable habitat (in river miles, upstream or
downstream) for Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU critical habitat- Steelhead trout Coastal/Puget
Sound DPS;?
13
The Project area is located on Mill Creek Peasle.yy CanYon Tributarv, which contains suitable for
Chinook salmon, Puizet Sound ESU, although presence this far upstream of the Tributarv is
unlikel (~Foley 2009) and contains suitable habitat for Steelhead trout, Coastal/Puget Sound DPS
as a spawnin , r~ earing, and migratorv corridor.
Go to question 4.
Notes:
4) Does the proposed activity have the potential to alter or affect the following indicators:
temperature, sediment, chemical contamination/nutrients, physical barriers, substra.te embeddedness,
large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, off-channel habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth
ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, drainage network, disturbance
history, function of riparian reserves, or disturbance regime?
YES X If yes, briefly explain. which habitat elements will be affected and indicate if the effects
will be short term or long-term. For example, many activities will have increased levels of
turbidity during project implementation, but are expected to result in long-term improvements to
the target indicators.
The Project will temporarily affect temperature, sediment, physical barriers, large woody debris,
pool frequency, pool quality, refugia, wetted width/depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain
' connectivity, disturbance history, and function of riparian reserves. All instream work (after flow
diversion) will be done in an isolated work area and will occur September 1 to October 15. .
Instream work is scheduled as such to avoid potential spawning times of adult listeii/proposed
species. Adult winter steelhead runs are known to occur between January and March (WDFW
2006) and adult fall Chinook are unlikely to be present in during the instream work window due to
low flows (Foley 2009). The ACOE general work window for the Green and Duwamish Rivers
and associated tributaries is July 1 to September 30 and the in-water work window is August 1 to
August 31. An extension of these work windows will be requested for construction of the Project
as no adult species are known ta be present during the duration of the proposed instream
construction.
During construction, short-term minor innpacts to the work area channel functions and habitat are
anticipated to occur; however, fish will be isolated from that reach during construction. The
Project will result in overall benefits to Mill. Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary, and post-
construction long-term benefits will result.
Key benefits from this Project include:
• Installing a significantly wider and shorter replacement culvert with stream simulation
feature that will improve flood flow and debris conveyance and reduce the potential for
roadway flooding and associated damage
14
• Establishing the replacement culvert on a stream profile grade that will emulate the longer
channel gradient leading to reduced localized channel bed aggradation within and in
proximity to the culvert
• Removing a partial fish passage barrier, facilitating year-round salmonid use of upstream
rearing and spawning habitats
• Adding significant quantities of in-channel LWD in the proximity of the replacement
cuivert to provide multiple stream process and functional stream habitat benefits
• Removing invasive species, and revegetating disturbed work areas with native plant species
that will provide long-term improvement in the riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant
diversity, and stream shading
NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on (insert speciesl. Go to question 4.
Notes:
5) Provide rationale for effect determination
The Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors and
Reconnaissance Assessment Report was consulted as part of the watershed approach of the plan. A
recovery strategy for the Green/Duwamish Watershed is included in the report and identifies
restoration of habitat functions for salmonids as a criticaI objective. Mill Creek's riparian buffer in
the Project area is degraded, and the stream channel is channelized and lacks in-stream structure.
Project benefits include a wider and shorter replacement culvert (and associated added channel
length), removal of a partial fish passage barrier, addition of significant quantities of in-channel
LWD, removal of invasive species, and revegetating disturbed work areas with native plant species
that will provide long-term improvement in the riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity,
and stream shading.
Effect Determination: Not Likelv to Adverselv Affect (NLAA) Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU
and critical habitat or Steelhead Trout, Coastal/Puget Sound DPS
To avoid adverse impacts to fish species, instream construction activities will be conducted in an
isolated stream reach after dewatering and fish capture/relocation in accordance with
recommended agency standards and protocols, and within the proposed construction instream work
window for listed/proposed fish species for Mill Creek (September 1 to October 1 S). Fall Chinook
and winter steelhead salmon species are documented to exist in the Project area. Of these species,
the WDFW PHS maps only identifies Fall Chinook and WDFW's SalmonScape mapper only
identifies winter steelhead to exist (WDFW 2009a; WDFW 2009b). This discrepancy was
discussed with a WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist, and it was determined that presence of adult
fall Chinook species is unlikely during the proposed instream construction period (September 1-
October 15) due to the low flows in Mill Creek that occur at that time (Foley 2009). Under low
flow conditions, it is also unlikely that adult winter steelhead trout would migrate through Mill
Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary at the time of Project construction. Therefore, an effect
determination of NLAA listed species (Steelhead trout, CoastaUPuget Sound DPS; Chinook
salmon, Puget Sound ESU) was made for the Project.
15
Note: If you are dewatering an area, electroshocking in an area, or are doing major in-water work
where listed salmonids are likely to be present during the work window, you will probably have a
LAA effect determination.
16
III EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES
1. To determine which listed species may occur in the project area follow the steps below:
a. Obtain a county species list from the USFWS web page.
http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/SE List/endangered Snecies.asp
http://www.fws:gov/easternwashin on/countv%2Ospecies%201ists.htm
b. Site-specific information of listed species occurrences in Washington State may be
obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and
Species Program http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm and from the Washington
Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program at
http://www.dnr.wa. o~ v/nhp/.
c. Remove species from the species list when habitat is not available for the species in the
project area or "vicinity of activity" (generally 1 mile radius around the project site.
The area that may be affected by any project impacts including noise and turbidity.)
2. When filling out the information below consider:
Each project should have the appropriate effect determination. The PBA allows for NE or
NLTAA determinations for terrestrial species, and NE, NLTAA or LTAA for aquatic
species. Each determination must be adequately documented in this form. If you need
assistance in determining the appropriate effect determination, request help from a Corps
ESA Coordinator or the USFWS. The USFWS contact is Tom McDowell at 360-753-9426.
a. Far information on species biology, range and critical habitat use the USFWS web site:
http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/index.html
b. Conservation Measures are listed in Appendix B'
c. If you do not implement all conservation measures related to the species present please
explain.
LISTED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES Please refer to the PBA for actions that may affect these species and conservation measures to protect
tenestrial species. For information on the listed terrestrial and aquatic species that occur in
Washington, visit the following website: ecos.fws.gOV or contact the following FWS field offices:
Western Washington Office in Lacey: (360) 753-6044 John Grettenberger
Central Washington Office in Wenatchee: (549) 665-3508 Jessica Gonzales
Eastern Washington office in Spokane: (509) 891-6839 Suzanne Audet
COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS
Listed Species: Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria
zerene hippolyta), and Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus):
a) Will the activity occur in Grays Harbor, Wahkiakum, Pacific, Jefferson or Clallam Counties?
P Put NE under "Effect Determination" for these three coastal species.
Yes If yes go to b)
17
b) Will the activity alter sand islands or coastal dunes and meadows in Grays Harbor or Pacific
County?
~ Yes
If yes, contact the FWS office in Lacey for coordination.
c) Conservation Measures to be applied: None required for NE
d) Effect Determination for coastal species and rationale: NE
LOWER COLUMBIA Listed species: Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)
a) Will the activity occur on islands or in the floodplain of the lower Columbia River (Wahkiakum and
Cowlitz Counties) and include installing fence?
P~ Yes
If yes, apply conservation measures for the Columbian white-tailed deer
b) Effect Determination and rationale: NE CARNIVORES and CARIBOU
1. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) - The range of the grey wolf includes the Blue Mountains, northeast
Washington (Rocky Mountains) and the Cascade Mountains. There are no confirmed records of
wolves west of the Cascade Crest and no documented den sites in the state.
. 2. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctus horribillis) - The grizzly bear recovery plan identifies high alpine axeas
in the North Cascades (north of Interstate 90 to the Canadian border) as important for recovery of this
species in Washington.
3. Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) - This species occurs in high elevation forests (generally above
4,000 feet) in the North Cascades and northeast Washington.
4. The woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) occurs in high elevation forests (generally
above 4,000 feet) in northeast Washington (Pend Oreille County).
a) Will the activity be conducted in or near mountain meadows or forest openings, high elevation
forests, or unbulate wintering or calving sites in the geographic areas where these listed species may
occur?
~ Yes
If yes, apply the appropriate seasonal restrictions identified in the PBA to minimize disturbance
If you do not know whether your project will affect suitable habitat or feeding areas for these species,
please contact the USFWS office in Spokane.
18
a) Effect Determination for these species and rationale. Document any supporting conversations with
USFWS staff: NE
Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)
1. The pygmy rabbit historically was found in dense, tall sagebrush areas east of the Columbia River
(Douglas, Adams, Lincoln, Grant and Benton Counties).
a) Will the activity occur in native sagebrush areas of the central Columbia Plateau?
p Put NE under "Effect Determination" and proceed to next species.
Yes If yes, contact the USFWS.
d) Effect Determination and rationale: NE
MATURE FORESTS in the CASCA.DE and OLYMPIC MOiTNTAINS:
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
For information on the marbled murretet, See http://www.fivs.gov/pacific/marbledmurrelet/index.html
a) Are you within 50 miles of marine water?
No Put NE under "Effect Determination" and proceed to next species I'e
b) Is there suitable habitat (mature conifer-dominated forests over 80 years old) within 200 feet of the
project vicinity?
~ Yes Not known
c) Will the activity generate noise above ambient levels within 200 feet (1.0 mile if blasting, low-
elevation aircraft operations, or pile driving) of potential suitable nesting habitat?
~ Yes If yes, apply conservation measures to minimize disturbance.
d) Does the activity include low elevation operation of aircraft, pile driving, or blasting within 1 znile
of suitable or occupied nesting or foraging habitat? H Yes If yes, apply seasonal restrictions to zninimize disturbance.
Activities in the marine environment that include pile driving or blasting may need to go through
individual consultation. Contact the USFWS office in Lacey for specific restrictions related to
underwater sound in marine areas.
e) Will the project affect suitable nesting habi.tat or designated critical for marbled murrelets? N~
Activities that remove or kill trees with suitable platforms, remove suitable platforms, or reduce the
suitability of the stand as nesting habitat are not covered under this PBA.
fl Notes: WDFW PHS maps were obtained and no Marbled murrelet nesting areas are located in the
Project area or in proximity of the Project area. This Project is located within a built environment that
is surrounded by trees that have been historically removed and naturally recovered. Marbled murrelets
19
.
are known to exist in mature forests, unlike those surrounding the Project area. Therefore, the Project
is not anticipated to adversely impact marbled murrelet nesting habitat or designated critical habitat.
g) Conservation Measures to be applied: No conservation measures regarding Marbled murrelets will
apply as they are not expected to be present in the Project area.
h) Effect Determination and rationale: NE as Marbled murrelet species do not occur in the Project area
and because no suitable habitat for these species is located in or surrounding the Project area.
Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
For information, including critical habitat designation see
hM2://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B08B
a) Is there suitable habitat (mature conifer forests over 80 years old) within 200 feet of the project
vicinity?
~ Put NE under "Effect Determination" and proceed to next species
Yes Not Icnown
b) What type of forest habitat is present in the vicinity of the activity?
nesting or foraging habitat dispersal habitat designated critical habitat
none
d) Will the activity occur in nesting or foraging habitat?
No Yes If yes, apply seasonal operating restrictions to minimize disturbance.
e) Will the activity generate above ambient noise within 200 feet (1.0 mile if blasting, pile driving or
aircraft operations) of suitable nesting habitat?
No Yes If yes, apply seasonal restrictions. .
fl Will the activity occur in or remove trees from spotted owl designated critical habitat?
No Yes If yes, explain how/if this will affect the function of the stand.
g) Notes: '
h) Conservation Measures to be applied:
i) Effect betermination for northern spotted owls: NE
Effect Deterrriination for designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl: NE
Listed Plants:
No herbicide use, mechanical vegetation management, or construction activities are permitted in areas
that could support listed plants under this programmatic.
20
Information on these species can be found at: httn://ecos.fws.gov, the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program at (360)-902-2543 or their website at
www.wdfw.wa.gov/hqb/phspage.htm, or the Washington Department of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage Program at (360) 902-1667 or their website at www.dnr.wa. og vlnhp/.
l. Hackelia venusta (showy stickseed) this species occurs in Chelan County, between 984 and 1,600
feet in elevation, in the Ponderosa Pine zone
2. Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw's desert-parsley) - this species occurs in wetlands, prairies and
grasslands in Clark County
3. Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow) - this species is found in the
Peshastin Creek watersheds in Chelan County. Information on critical habitat for this species can be
found at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal-register/fr3793.pdf
4. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) - this plant occurs in Island, San Juan, and Thurston
Counties and is found in open grasslands, prairies, and grass dominated coastal bluffs.
5. Howellia aquatilis (water howellia) - this aquatic plant is found in and around seasonal wetlands in
Mason, Pierce, Thurston, Clark, and Spokane Counties.
A Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation (Anchor QEA 2009a) was completed and no
water howellia was documented to exist within or in the vicinity of the two documented wetlands.
6. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaids lupine) - this plant occurs near Boistfort, Lewis County
in native upland prairie habitat.
7. Sidalcea nelsoniana (Nelson's checkermallow)- this plant is found in wetlands, stream corridors,
or wet prairies in Lewis or Cowlitz Counties.
8. Silene spaldingii (Spalding's silene/catchfly)- this plant is also associated with native prairies and
occurs in Asotin, Lincoln, Spokane, and Whitman Counties.
9. Spiranthes diluvialis (iTte ladies'-tresses) - this plant :grows on the margins of springs, wet
meadows, floodplains, and riparian areas in Okanagon and Grant County
Please document conversations with USFWS staff and provide adequate information on botanical
surveys andlor habitat analysis to support your effect determination.
Effect determination for listed plants: N~F
21
IV SIGNATURE
I hereby verify that this work will comply with all applicable requirements of the above-
referenced Biological Opinion should a Department of the Army authorization be issued for
this work.
Certain categories of activities require the permittee to submit-post construction reports to
the Corps and/or the Services. These reports are identified in the PBA. For projects
deviating from PBA criteria, the Services may require additionat post-construction
reporting. These additional reports will be clearly identified and agreed upon by the
Services and applicant during the coordination process. By signing this form, the applicant
agrees to submit within the required time frame all applicable post-construction reports.
Si-gnature of Applicant: Date:
Signature of Agent: Date:
22
•
LITERATURE CITED FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT INFORMATION FORM
Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA). 2009a. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation.
Prepared for the City of Auburn. June 2009.
Anchor QEA. 2009b. Stream Geomorphology Evaluation Memorandum. Prepared for the City of
Auburn. June 2009. ~
Bates, K., B. Bernard, B. Heiner, J.P. Klavas, and P.D. Powers. 2003. Design of Road Culverts for
Fish Passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
http:/lwdfw.wa.gov/hab/enp-ineer/cm/culvert manual final.pdf
Cavanaugh; W.J. and Tocci, G.C. 1998. "Environtnental Noise." E.S.C. USC 7ournal of Public Affairs,
Vol.l Num. 1, Los Anbeles, CA.
Folev, S. Jnne 1. 2009. Personal communication via telephone between Steve Foley, WDFW RHB, and Josh Jensen of Anchor QEA, LLC.
National Weather Service (NWS). 2009. .National Weather Service Internet Weather Source.
Accessed online at http://weather.noaa.gov/ on June 1, 2009.
Washington Deparhnent of Fish and Wildlife (WDFV). 2006. Steelhead Historical Database.
Prepared by the WDFW Fish Management Headquarters. Revised June 8, 2005.
WDFW. 2009a. Priority Habitat Species (PHS) Maps. Maps received: April 2009.
WDFW. 2009b. SalmonScape Mapper. Accessed online at
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ on February 23, 2009.
23
APPENDIX A: DEWATERING AND FISH CAPTURE PROTOCOL
Work to facilitate habitat restoration may occur in isolation from flowing waters or in flowing water
depending on site conditions to minimize impacts to salmonids.
If bull trout or other listed salmonids could be present in the vicinity of the project use the following
dichotomous key to determine which dewatering protocol and timing window you need to implement
for your project. This key references information within the Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-
Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Volumes I and II (USFWS 2004a; USFWS
2004b), and the Draft Recovery Plan for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Bull
Trout (USFWS 2002). http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/recovery.html. If you have questions,
contact the USFWS.
1. Is the project located within a documented or potential bull trout Local Population Area
that is excluded from coverage under this programmatic consultation (see Table 1)?
a. Yes - Dewatering in a documented or potential bull trout Local Population Area
in eastern Washington is not covered under this programmatic consultation.
Complete an individual section 7 consultation for the project. Please contact the
USFWS office in Spokane or Wenatchee for assistance.
b. No - go to 2
2. Is the project located within a water body where any listed salmonids are likely to be
present? For specific bull trout areas where projects are permitted see Table 2.
a. Yes - go to 3
b. No - use "Protocol for Dewatering Outside High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas";
3. Is the stream flow at the time of project construction anticipated to be greater than or
equal to 5 cubic feet per second and is the dewatered stream length (not including the
culvert and plunge pool length, if present) greater than or equal to 33 ft? a. No - use "Protocol for Dewatering Outside High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas";
b, Yes - use "Protocol I Dewatering Within High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas";
and consult with a USFWS bull trout biologist staff on appropriate timing
window.
A-1
Table 1: Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing Areas that are Excluded from the Programmaticl
(Listed in order of WRIA number)
, .
. .
Umatilla-Walla Walla WaIla Core Mill Creek and tributaries
Walia River Basin Area Wolf Fork above Coates Creek
WRIA 32 N Fk Touchet and tributaries u stream of Wolf Fk confluence
S Fk Touchet River and tributaries above Griffin Creek
Snake River Basin Asotin Creek N Fk Asotin Creek including Charley and Cougar Creeks - above
confluence with Charle Cr
Tucannon River Tucannon River from confluence with Little Tucannon
Upper Tucannon River and tributaries above confluence with
WRIA 35 Hixon Creek
Cummin s Creek
Middle Columbia Yakima River Core WRIA 37
River Basin Area N and MFk Ahtanum Creek - above the confluence of S Fk
S Fk Ahtanum Creek - above confluence with N Fk Ahtanum
WRIA 38
Rattlesnake Creek - u stream of confluence with Naches River
WRIA 39
Taneum Creek - upstream of Taneum Campground
Upper Yakima - upstream of Lake Easton Dam
Cle Elum River - upstream of confluence with Yakima River
N Fk Teanawa - u stream of confluence with Yakima River
Upper Columbia Wenatchee River Core Upper Wenatchee and tributaries above confluence with the
River Basin Area Chiwawa, including Nason Cr, Little Wenatchee, White and the
WRIA 45 Chiwawa Rivers
Chiwaukum Creek and Icicle Creek- upstream from confluence
with the Wenatchee River
In alls Creek- u stream of confluence with Peshastin Creek
Entiat River Core Entiat River - above confluence with the Mad River
Area ' Mad River - above confluence with Entiat River '
WRIA 46
Methow River Core Upper Methow tributaries - Lost River, Early Winters Cr, W Fk
Area Methow, Goat Cr, and Wolf Cr
WRIA 48 Chewack River - u stream of Twen . mile Cr
Twisp River and tributaries above confluence of, and including,
Little Brid e Creek
Gold Cr - u stream of confluence with lvlethow River
Northeast Pend Oreille River Le Clerc Creek - upstream of mouth
Washin on WRIA 62
' Spawnin.g and rearing areas on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bur~eau of Land Management are not
tisted because these lands are not included in this Programmatic
A-2
Table 2 List of streams and marine areas that important for bull trout recovery where in-water
work is permitted
,K.., an.S,_., ...,k...,..._..._§Y... 4..SL.i.i. _..v.,v°+,.x ..,.,rn..w.~. r. :
Olympic Peninsula - Hood Canal and independent tributaries
Marine
Strait of Juan de Fuca and independent tributaries (includes Bell, Morse, Ennis,
Siebert Creeks)
Pacific Ocean and independent coastal tributaries (includes Goodman,
Mosquito, Cedar, Steamboat, Kalaloch and Joe Creeks, Raft, Moclips and
Copalis Rivers)
Lower Chehalis River/Grays Harbor and independent Tributaries (includes
Humptulips, Wishkah, Wynoochee and Satsop Rivers)
Olympic Peninsuta - Dun.geness River - mouth to RM 10
Freshwater
Skokomish River - mouth to head of Cushman Reservoir
Hoh River - mouth to headwaters
Queets River - mouth to headwaters
Quinault River - mouth to headwaters
Puget Sound - Marine All marine shorelines including North Puget Sound, Main Basin, Whidbey
Basin, and South Puget Sound
Paget Sound - Samish River, Whatcom Creek, Squalicum Creek, Duwamish and lower Green
Freshwater River, and Lower Nisqually River including the Nisqually River estuary a.nd
McAllister Creek (FMO areas outside of core areas)
Lake Washington including the following: lower Cedar River; Sammamish
River; Lakes Washington, Sammamish, and Union; and Ship Canal
Nooksack River - mouth to National Forest boundary (North and South Forks)
Skagit River - mouth to National Forest boundary
Stillaguamish River - mouth to headwaters of N Fork; Deer Creek - mouth to
National Forest boundary; S Fork and Canyon Cr - mouth to National Forest
boundary
Snohomish/Skykomish - mouth to confluence of Skykomish and Snoqualmie
Rivers; Pilchuck River; Snoqualmie River to falls; Tolt River; Skykomish River
- mouth to National Forest boundary, including Sultan River, Woods Creek and Wallace River; S Fk Skykomish to National Forest boundary
Puyallup River - mouth, including Mowich River, to National Park boundary;
Carbon River - mouth to National Forest boundary;
White River - mouth to National Forest boundary
' t 1 i Y 4 ' . 9~ R
<
. i. _t.. .t.
A-3
r~ .
'a.11; ~
;1~a4~gement iJ~uxt Bi~li
Lower Columbia Lewis River - mouth to RM 75 (Upper Falls), including Swift, Yale, and
Mervin Reservoirs
Klickitat River - mouth to confluence of W FK Klickitat
Mainstems of the Columbia, Snake, Waita Walla, Pend Oreille, and Grande
Ronde Rivers
Middle Columbia River Ahtanum Creek - mouth to confluence of N and S Forks
Basin
Naches River - mouth to confluence of Little Naches and Bumping River
Tieton River - mouth to Rimrock Lake
Yakima River - mouth to Easton (RM 203) and Teanaway River
Upper Columbia River Wenatchee River - mouth to confluence of the Chiwawa; Peshastin Cr -
Basin mouth to confluence of Ingatls Cr; Chewack River - confluence with
Wenatchee to RM 20; Beaver Cr - mouth to Blue Buck Cr
Entiat River - mouth to confluence with Mad River
Methow River - mouth to confluence of Lost River
Northeast Washinb on Pend Oreille River; Tacoma Cr - mouth to Little Tacoma; Small Creek -
Pend Oreille River mouth to forks• Sullivan Creek to and includin Sullivan Lake
Walla Walla River Touchet River - mouth to forks;
Basin
S Fk Touchet River - to confluence of Griffin Cr
N Fk Touchet to Wolf Fork; Wolf Fork to confluence of Coates Cr
Mill Creek and tributaries
Snake River Basin Mainstem Snake and Grande Ronde Rivers;
Asotin Creek - mouth to confluence of N Fk Asotin and Charley Cr;
Tucannon River - mouth to confluence of Hixon Cr
A-4
Protocol I Dewatering Within High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas
A. Fish Capture - Generat Guidelines
1. Fish Capture Methods
a. Minnow traps. Optional. Traps may be left in place prior to dewatering and may be
used in conjunction with seining. Once dewatering starts, minnow traps should only be
used if there is someone present to check the traps every few hours, and remove the
traps once the water level becomes too low.
b. Seining. Required. Use seine with mesh of a size to ensnre entr.apment of the residing
ESA-listed fish and age classes.
c. Sanctuary dip nets. Required. Use in conjunction with other methods as area is
dewatered.
d. Electrof shing. Optional. Use electrofishing only after other means of fish capture have
been exhausted or where other means of fish capture are not be feasible. Applicants
shall adhere to NMFS Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines (NNIFS 2000).
2. Fish capture operations will be conducted by or under the supervision of a fishery biologist
experienced in such efforts and all staff working with the capture operation must have the
necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure the safe handling of all ESA-listed fish.
3. The applicant must obtain any other Federal, State and local permits and authorizations
necessary for the conduct of fish capture activities.
4. A description of any capture and release effort will be included in a post-project report,
including the name and address of the supervisory fish biologist, methods used to isolate the
work area and minimize disturbances to ESA-listed species, stream conditions before and
following placement and removal of barriers; the means of fish removal; the number and size
of fish removed by species and age class; condition upon release of all fish handled; and any
incidence of observed injury or mortality.
5. Storage and Release. ESA-listed fish must be handled with extreme care and kept in water at
all times during transfer procedures. The transfer of ESA-listed fish must be conducted using a
sanctuary net that holds water during transfer, whenever necessary to prevent the added stress
of an out-of-water transfer. A healthy environment for non-ESA listed fish shall be provided
by large buckets (five gallon minimum to prevent overcrowding) and minimal handling of fish.
The water temperature in the transfer buckets shall not exceed the temperature of cold pool
water in the subject stream. Retain fish the minimum time possible to ensure that stress is _
minimized, temperatures do not rise, and dissolved oxygen remains suitable. Release fish as
near as possible to the isolated reach in a pool or area that provides cover and flow refuge.
A-5
B. Dewater Instream Work Area and Fish Capture
Fish screen. Except for gravity diversions that have gradual and small outfall drops directly into water,
all water intake structures must have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with NMFS Guidelines (NMFS 1997; Chapter 11 in NMFS 2008).
The sequence for stream flow diversion will be:
Note: this sequence will take one 24-hour period prior to construction to complete (of which 12 hours
are for staged dewatering with 6 hours overnight). We suggest you start in the morning the day before
project construction is scheduled and leave the reach dewatered overnight according to instruction
below.
1. Install flow conveyance devices (pumps, discharge lines, gravity drain lines, conduits, and
channels), but do not divert flow.
2. Install upstream barrier. Allow water to flow over upstream barrier.
3. Install block net at upstream end of work area. Block nets will be checked every 4 hours, 24
hours a day. If any fish are impinged or killed on the nets they will be checked hourly.
4. Reduce flow over upstream barrier by one-third for a minimum of 6 hours.
5. Inspect as discharge is diminishing and in dewatered areas for stranded and trapped fish and
remove them with sanctuary dip nets.
6. Reduce flow over upstream barrier by an additional one-third for a minimum of 6 hours.
7. Again, inspect dewatered areas for stranded and trapped fish and remove them with sanctuary
dip nets.
Leave the project area in a stable, low flow (one third of flow) condition, overnight, allowing
fish to leave the area volitionally.
9. In the morning, remove any remaining fish fiom the area to be dewatered using seines and/or
hand held sanctuary dip-nets.
10. Divert upstream flow completely.
11. Install downstream barrier if necessary (only in low gradient, backwatered reaches).
12. If water remains within the work area; seine, dip net, and lastly electrofish (if using this .
technique), the project area until catch rates have reached no fish for 3 consecutive passes.
Move rocks as needed to flush fish and effectively electrofish the work area.
13. If needed, pump water out of isolated pools within the project area to a temporary storage and
treatment site or into upland areas and filter through vegetation prior to reentering the stream
channel. Continue to seine, dip net and electrofish while pumping.
14. If fish continue to be captured, shut pump off before average water depths reach one foot.
Continue to seine, dip net and electrofish until no fish are caught for 3 consecutive passes.
15. Pump dry and check substrate for remaining fish.
16. Continue to pump water fram the project area as needed for the duration of the project.
The diversion structure is typically a temporary dam built just upstream of the project site with sand
bags that are filled with clean gravel or stream/floodplain rock and covered with plastic sheeting. A
portable bladder dam or other non-erosive diversion technologies may be used to contain stream flow.
Mining of stream or floodplain rock can be used for diversion dam construction if it does not result in
significant additional floodplain or stream disturbance. Often gravel has to be moved to key in lobs in
which case it makes sense to use this gravel for the diversion structure.
A-6
The temporary bypass system must consist of non-erosive techniques, such as a pipe or a plastic-lined
channel, both of which must be sized large enough to accommodate the predicted peak flow rate
during construction. In cases of channel rerouting, water can be diverted to one side of the existing
channel.
Dissipate flow at the outfail of the bypass system to diffuse erosive energy of the flow. Place the
outflow in an area that minimizes or prevents damage to riparian vegetation. If the diversion inlet is a
gravity diversion and is not screened to allow for downstream passage of fish, place diversion outlet in
a location that facilitates gradual and safe reentry of fish into the stream channel.
C. Rewater Instream Work Area
Remove stream diversion and restore stream flow. Heavy machinery operating frorn the bank may be
used to aid in removal of diversion structures. Slowly re-water the construction site to prevent loss of
surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to prevent a sudden
increase in stream turbidity. Look downstream during re-watering to prevent stranding of aquatic
organisms below the construction site.
All stream diversion devices, equipment, pipe, and conduits will be removed and disturbed soil and
vegetation will be restored after the diversion is no longer needed.
A-7
Protocol II Dewatering Outside High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas
If bull trout or other listed salmonids are captured at any time during the dewatering process,
immediately notify a USFWS bull trout biologist or NMFS biologist and obtain guidance to either
continue to dewater and remove fish or stop activities and re-water the project site.
Normal guidance:
1. If you encounter listed fish at or prior to step 3 switch to Protocol I
2. If you encounter listed fish after step 3, continue to dewater and remove fish, paying close
attention to presence of additional listed salrnonids.
A. Fish Capture - General Guidelines
l. Fish Capture Methods
a. Minnow traps. Optional. Traps may be left in place prior to dewatering and may be
used in conjunction with seining. Once dewatering starts, minnow traps should only be
used if there is someone present to check the traps every few hours, and remove the
traps once the water level becomes too low.
b. Seining. Required. Use seine with mesh of such a size to ensure entrapment of the
residing ESA-Iisted fish and age classes.
c. Sanctuary'dip nets. Required. Use in conjunction with other methods as area is
dewatered.
d. Electrofishin.g. Optional. Use electrofishing only after other means of fish capture have
been exhausted or where other means of fish capture are not be feasible. Applicants
shall adhere to NMFS Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines.
2. Fish capture operations will be conducted by or under the supervision of a fishery biologist
experienced in such efforts and all staff working with the seining operation must have the
necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure the safe handling of all ESA-listed fish.
3. The applicant must obtain any other Federal, State and local permits and authorizations
necessary for the conduct of fish capture activities.
4. A description of any seine and release effort will be included in a post-project report, includin•g
the name and address of the supervisory fish biologist, methods used to isolate the work area
and minimize disturbances to ESA-listed species, stream conditions before and following
placement and removal of barriers; the means of fish removal; the number and size of f sh
removed by species; conditions upon release of all fish handled; and any incidence of observed
injury or mortality.
5. Storage and Release. Fish must be handled with extreme care and kept in water to the
maximum extent possible during transfer procedures. A healthy environment for the stressed
fish shall be provided by large buckets (five gallon minimum to prevent overcrowding) and
minimal handling of fish. The temperature of the water shall not exceed the temperature in
large deep holding pools of the subject system. The transfer of any ESA-listed fish must be
conducted using a sanctuary net that holds water during transfer, to prevent the added stress of
A-8
an out-of-water transfer. Retain fish the minimum time possible to ensure that stress is
minimized, temperatures do not rise, and dissolved oxygen remains suitable. Release fish as
near as possible to the isolated reach in a pool or area that provides cover and flow refuge.
B. Dewater Instream Work Area and Fish Capture
Fish screen. Except for gravity diversions that have gradual and small outfall drops directly into water,
all water intake structures rnust have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with the NMFS Guidelines (NMFS 1997; Chapter 11 in NMFS 2008).
The sequence for stream flow diversion would be as follows:
1. Install flow conveyance devices (pumps, discharge lines, gravity drain lines, conduits, and
channels), but do not divert flow.
2. Install block net at upstream end or work area.
3. Seine and dip net through the entire project area in a downstream direction, starting at the
upstream end; thereby moving fish out of the project area. Then, if necessary electrofish.
4. Install upstream barrier and divert upstream flow completely.
5. Capture any remaining fish using hand held dip-nets.
6. Install downstream barrier if necessary (only in low gradient backwatered reaches).
7. If water remains within the work area; seine and dip net, if necessary electrofish the project
area until catch rates have reached no fish for 3 consecutive passes.
8. Pump water out of isolated pools within the project area to a temporary storage-and treatment
site or into upland areas and filter through vegetation prior to re-entering the stream channel.
Continue to seine, dip net, or electrofish while pumping. '
9. If f sh continue to be captured, shut pump off before average water depths reach one foot.
Continue to seine, dip net, or electrofish until no fish are caught for 3 consecutive passes.
10. Pump dry and check substrate for remaining fish and remove them.
11. Continue to pump water from the project area as needed for the duration of the project.
The diversion structure is typically a temporary d'am built just upstream of the project site with sand
bags that are filled with clean gravel or stream/floodplain rock and covered with plastic sheeting. A
portable bladder dam or other non-erosive diversion technologies may be used to contain stream flow.
Mining of stream or floodplain rock can be used for diversion dam construction if it does not result in
significant additional floodplain or stream disturbance. Often gravel has to be moved to key in logs in
which case it makes sense to use this gravel for the diversion structure.
The temporary bypass system inust consist of non-erosive techniques, such as a pipe or a plastic-lined
channel, both of which must be sized large enough to accommodate the predicted peak flow rate
during construction, In cases of channel rerouting, water can be diverted to one side of the existing
channel.
Dissipate flow at the outfall of the bypass system to diffuse erosive energy of the flow. Place the
outflow in an area that minimizes or prevents damage to riparian vegetation. If the diversion inlet is a
gravity diversion and is not screened to allow for downstream passage of fish, place diversion outlet in
a Iocation that facilitates ;radual and safe reentry of fish into the stream channel.
A-9
C. Rewater Instream Work Area
Remove stream diversion and restore stream flow. Heavy machinery operating from the bank may be
used to aid in removal of diversion structures. Slowly re-water the construction site to prevent loss of
surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to prevent a sudden
increase in stream turbidity. Look downstream during re-watering to prevent stranding of aquatic
organisms below the construction site.
All stream diversion devices, equipment, pipe, and conduits will be removed and disturbed soil and
vegetation will be restored after the diversion is no longer needed.
Literature Cited
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous
Salmonids. NMFS Southwest Region, (January 1997). 12 p.
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcdlfishscrn.pdf
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Containing
Salmonids Listed Under the ESA. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Regulations-
Permits/4d-Rules/upload/electro2000.pdf
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). February 2008. ANADROMOUS SALMONID
PASSAGE FACILITY DESIGN. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-
Hydropower/FERC/upload/Fish Passage_Design.pdf
USFWS (USFWS). 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. Chapter One. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 137 pp.
USFWS (USFWS). 2004a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population
Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I(of II): Puget Sound Management
Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp.
USFWS (USFWS). 2004b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population
Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume II (of II): Olympic Peninsula
Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277 +xvi pp.
A-10
APPENDIX B: WSDOT FISH EXCLUSION PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS
B-i
WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards
Prior to dewatering, all fish and other vertebrate aquatic life will be removed from sites
that will be dewatered. For projects where in-water work is limited to a specific area and
dewatering will not occur, fish will be excluded from the area to the maximum extent
feasible within an isolated work area.
The sequence for fish exclusion is as follows:
• Isolation of the work area.
• Removal of as many fish as.possible.
• Gradual dewatering of the work area (if the work area is to be dewatered).
• Removal of remaining fish.
• Record fish exclusion activities and notify Services as required.
Isolation of the work area, fish removal and release shall be conducted or directed by a
biologist who possesses the competence to ensure the safe handling of all Endangered
Species Act (ESA) listed fish, and who is also experienced with work azea isolation. This
protocol may not apply or may be modified in emergency situations or in certain areas
that have unique site-specific characteristics.
Isolation of the Work Area
Installation of block nets will occur at predetermined locations, based on site
characteristics, to prevent fish and other aquatic wildlife from moving into the work area.
Sites will be selected based on desirable attributes such as slower flows and suitable
locations for stake andlor gravel bag placement. Areas with heavy vegetation, undercut
banks, deep pools, etc. will be avoided due to the difficulty of sealing nets. The
downstream block net will be angled across the stream if possible to prevent
impingement of fish on the net. Additionally, a"mini-pool" may be constructed at the
downstream block net to provide a lower velocity area for fish. to maneuver away from
the net. Whenever conditions allow, the upstream block net shall be placed first. The
downstream block.net shall then be used as a seine to herd fish from the upstream block
nei location downstream to the point selected for the downstream block net installation.
If feasible, this action will potentially.move significant numbers of f'sh downstream, out
of the impact area prior to other removal methods.
Block net mesh size, length, type of material, and depth will vary based on site
conditions. The directing biologist on site will base the design of block nets on specific
site characteristics such as water depth, velocity and channel width. Typical block net
material is 9.5 millimeter stretched mesh. Block nets shall remain in place until in-water
work is completed. Block nets will require frequent leaf and debris removal. An
Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards Page 1
August 2006
individual will be assigned the responsibility of frequently checking the nets to maintain
their effectiveness and integrity. The frequency of such checks will be determined on a
case-by-case basis, dependent upon the system, season and weather conditions. Block
nets need to be secured along both banks and in-channel to prevent failure during
unforeseen rain events or debris accumulation. Some locations may require additional
block net support (examples include galvanized hardware cloth and metal fence posts).
Fish Removal and Dewatering
If the site is dewatered, dewatering and the placement of cofferdams or diversions will be
in accordance with any provisions contained in the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
permit from WDFW.
Pumps used to temporarily bypass water around a work site, or to dewater residual pools
within a dewatered site, shall be fitted with mesh screens to prevent aquatic life from
entering the intake hose of the pump. The screens will also prevent aquatic life from
entering the intake hose if a block net should fail. Screens shall be placed approximately
2-4 feet from the end of the intake hose to assure fish are not pinned upon the screen.
Screening techniques must utilize the specifications in the HPA and be in compliance
with Washington State Laws RCW 77.55.320, RCW 77.55.040 and RCW 77.55.070.
The site will be dewatered slowly enough to allow the efficient removal of all fish species
and avoid strandings. The site will be rewatered slowly enough to prevent the loss of
surface water downstream as the streambed absorbs water and to minimize or avoid a
sudden increase in stream turbidity. During rewatering, the site will be monitored to
prevent stranding of aquatic organisms below the construction site.
Removal Methods:
Methods for exclusion or removal of fish from the area between the block nets are described below. These methods are given in order of preference and for many locations
a combination of inethods will need to be agplied. The use of visual observation
techniques (e.g.. snorkeling, surveying with polarized glasses or Plexiglas bottomed
buckets) should be considered for evaluation of removal method effectiveness and to
identify specific locarions of fish concentrations prior to removal attempts.
■ Seining shall be the preferred method. The remaining methods shall be used when
seining is not possible or to enhance the effectiveness of removal through seining.
Seines made from 9.5 mm stretched nylon mesh shall be used to remove fish from the
isolated stream reach. Seine design will be dependent upon site-specific
characteristics. The on-site biologist will plan seining procedures based on an
evaluation of site characteristics. Seines, once pursed, will remain partially in the
water while aquatic life is removed. Aquatic life will be captured by personnel in
water or on shore using hand held nets.
a Baited minnow traps (typically used in conjunction with seining) may be left in
overnight, but will be checked at least three times daily to minimize predation within
the trap. Traps will be checked more frequently if temperatures are in excess of 15-C.
Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards Paae 2
August 2006
■ Dip Nets and Hand Removal will be used in conjunction with seining and as a site is
slowly dewatered. This usually occurs after other methods.
■ Connecting rod snakes will be used to help move fish out of stream crossing
structures. The connecting rod snake is made of wood sections approximately three
feet in length. When dewatering is to occur a seine may be placed at the downstream
end of the crossing structure. As the water level goes down fish inside the culvert, in
theory, will evacuate downstream into the seine that is in place at the outlet. The
snake may be wibgled slowly through the pipe to encourage evacuation of fish out of
the culvert. Other previously listed capture techniques shall be employed if required.
■ Electrofishing shall be performed only when other methods have been determined to
be unfeasible or ineffective by the directing biolo.gist. Electrofishing studies
document injury rates to fish even at low settings. Therefore, use of this method is
discouraged when unnecessary. For sites that will not be dewatered, the potential for
injury to ESA-listed fish may outweigh the beneft of capture and relocation of all
fish present in the work area. Electrofishing research results reveal a trend that as
number of vertebrae and spine length increase, injury potential also increases.
Therefore, the capture and removal of adult ESA-listed fish by electrofishing will be
avoided when possiblel.
The following conditions shall apply to use of electrofishing as a means of fish
removal:
l. The USFWS will be provided written notification 10 workinb days prior to the
initiation of electrofishing.
2. Electrofisliing shall only be conducted when a biologist with at least 100
. hours of electrofishing experience is on site to conduct or direct all activities
associated with capture attempts. The directing biologist shall be familiar
with the principles of electrofishing including the interrelated effects of
voltage, pulse width and pulse rate on fish species and associated risk of
injury/mortality. The directing biologist shall have knowledge regarding
galvanotaxis, narcosis and tetany, their respective relationships to
injury/mortality rates, and have the ability to recognize these responses when
exhibited by fish.
3. The following chart shall be used as guidelines for electrofishing in water
where the potential to.encounter ESA-listed juvenile fish exists. Only DC or
pulsed DC current will be used. Visual observation of the size classes of fish
in the work area is helpful to avoid injury to larger fish by the mistaken
assumption that they are not present.
~ Timing windows provided by WDFW wiil be used to minimize the chance of encountering adult
proposed or listed fish. However, complete avoidance may not be possible with resident bull trout.
Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards Pa.ge 3
August 2006
Guidelines for initial and maximum settings for backpack electrofishing2.
Initial Setting Conductivity Maximum Settings
( /cm)
Volta e 100 V < 300 800 V
> 300 400 V
Pulse Width 500 s 5 ms
Pulse Rate 15 Hz 60 Hz (In general, exceeding
40 Hz will injure more fish)
Each session shall begin with low settings for pulse width and pulse rate. If
fish present in the area being electrofished do not exhibit an appropriate
response, the settings shall be gradually increased until the appropriate
response is achieved (galvanotaxis). Conducting electrofishing activity at the
minimal effective settings is imperative because as pulse width and pulse rate
increase, fish injury rates increase. Minimum effective voltabe settings are
dependent upon water conductivity and will need to increase as conductivity
decreases. Higher voltages elevate the risk of serious injury to fish removal
personnel. The lowest effective setting for pulse width, pulse rate and voltage
will be used to minimize personnel safety concerns and help minimize fish
injury/mortality rates.
4. Seasonal timing restrictions for conducting electrofishing shall be dependent
upon the river system, fish composition and an analysis of the life history of
documented species. Spawning adults and redds with incubating eggs will not
be subjected to the effects of electrofishing. As ageneral rule, waters with
anadromous salmon should not be electrofished from October 15 to May 15
and resident waters from November 1 to May 15. In waters with potential
bull trout presence, the timing may be more restrictive. It shall be the
responsibility of the directing biologist to research and assess the time of year
(for each river segment) when electrofishing is appropriate.
5. An individual shall be stationed at the downstream block. net continuously
during electrofishing sessions to recover stunned fish in the event they are
washed downstream and pinned against the net.
6. The operator shall avoid allowing fish to come into contact with the anode.
The zone of potential fish injury is 0.5 m from the anode. Netting shall never
be attached to the anode. Techniques employed when using an unnetted
anode keep fish farther from the anode and expose them to significantly less
. time in the zone of potential injury. Extra care shall be taken near in-water
structures or undercut banks, in shallow waters or high-density fish areas. In
these areas fish are more likely to come into close contact with the anode
because fish may be less visible and the voltage gradients may be abnormally
intensif ed. Voltage settings in shallow water sections shall be checked and
ZAdapted from NMFS Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines, June 2000, and WDFW Electrofishing
Guidelines for Stream Typing, May 2001.
Fish Exclusion Protocols ancl Standards Page 4
August 2006
readjusted by the operator if necessary. When electrofishing areas near
undercut banks or where structures may provide cover for fish, the anode will
be used to draw the fish out by placing the activated anode near the area fish
are likely present and slowly drawing the anode away. Fish experiencing
balvanotaxis will be attracted to the anode and will swim away from the
structure toward the anode so that they can be netted. This will not work on
fish that experience narcosis or tetany. Therefore, fish response will be noted
in adjacent areas prior to attempts made near structures. This should help
avoid prolonged exposure of fish to the electrical field while in an
immobilized state.
7. Electrofishing shall be performed in a manner that minimizes harm to fish.
Once an appropriate fish response (galvanotaxis) is noted, the stream segment
shall be worked systematically, moving the anode continuously in a
herringbone pattern through the water without electrofishing one area for an
extended period of time. The number of passes shall be kept to a minimum,
wilI be dependent upon site-specific characteristics, and be at the discretion of
the directing biologist. Adequate numbers of personnel shall be on-site to
minimize the number of passes required for fish removal. Adequate staff to
net, recover, and release fish as soon as possible shall be present. Fish shall
be removed from the electricai field immediately. Fish shall not be held in the
net while continuing to capture additional fish.
8. Condition of captured fish will be carefully observed and documented. Dark
bands on the body and extended recovery times are sib s of injury or handling
stress. When such signs are noted, the settinbs for the electrofishing unit
and/or manner in which the electrofishing session is proceeding need
adjustment. These characteristics may be an indication that electrofishing has
become an inappropriate removal method for that specific site. Each fish shall
be capable of remaining upright and actively swimming prior to release (see
Fish Handling, Holding and Release section).
9. Electrofishing shall not occur when turbidity reduces visibility to less than 0.5
meters, when water conductivity exceeds 350 µS/cm, or when water
temperature is above 18°C or below 4°C.
Fish Handling, Holding and Release:
■ Fish handling will be kept to the minimum necessary to remove fish from the work
site.
■ Fish will not be sampled or anesthetized during removal activities as this protocol is
intended to address fish removal not research. Fish species, number, age class
estimate, and release location will be documented.
■ Individuals handling fish shall ensure that their hands are free of sunscreen, lotion, or
insect repellent.
Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standazds Page 5
Angust 2006
readjusted by the operator if necessary. When electrofishing areas near
undercut banks or where structures may provide cover for fish, the anode will
be used to draw the fish out by placing the activated anode near the area fish
are likely present and slowly drawing the anode away. Fish experiencing
galvanotaxis will be attracted to the anode and will swim away from the
structure toward the anode so that they can be netted. This will not work on
fish that experience narcosis or tetany. Therefore, fish response will be noted
in adjacent areas prior to attempts made near structures. This should help
avoid prolonged exposure of fish to the electrical field while in an
immobilized state.
7. Electrofishing shall be performed in a manner that minimizes harm to fish.
Once an appropriate fish response (galvanotaxis) is noted, the stream segment
shall be worked systematically, moving the anode continuously in a
herringbone pattern through the water without electrofishing one area for an
extended period of time. The number of passes shall be kept to a minimum,
will be dependent upon site-specific characteristics, and be at the discretion of
the directing biologist. Adequate numbers of personnel shall be on-site to
minimize the number of passes required for fish removal. Adequate staff to
net, recover, and release fish as soon as possible shall be present. Fish shall
be removed from the electrical field immediately. Fish shall not be held in the
net while continuing to capture additional fish.
8. Condition of captured fsh will be carefully observed and documented. Dark
bands on the body and extended recovery times are signs of injury or handling
stress. When such signs are noted, the settings for the electrofishing unit
and/or manner in which the electrofishing session is proceeding need
adjustment. These charactezistics may be an indication that electrofishing has
become an inappropriate removal method for that specific site. Each fish shall
be capable of remaining upright and actively swimming prior to release (see
Fish Handling, Holding and Release section).
9. Electrofishing shall not occur when turbidity reduces visibility to less than 0.5
meters, when water conductivity exceeds 350 µS/cm, or when water
temperature is above 1$°C or below 4°C.
Fish Handling, Holding and Release•
■ Fish handling will be kept to the minimum necessary to remove fish from the work
site.
■ Fish will not be sampled or anesthetized during removal activities as this protocol is
intended to address fish removal not research. Fish species, number, age class
estimate, and release location will be documented.
■ Individuals handling fish shall ensure that their hands are free of sunscreen, lotion, or
insect repellent.
Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards Page 5
August 2006
■ Fish or other aquatic life captured shall be immediately put into dark colored
containers filled with clean stream water. Fish removal personnel shall provide a
healthy environment for fish with minimum holding periods and low fish densities in
holding containers to avoid effects of overcrowding. Large fish shall be kept separate
from smaller fish to avoid predation during containment. Water-to-water transfers
shall occur whenever possible. ESA listed fish should not be transfened out of water
to prevent added stress. Holding container temperature and well being of specimens
will be frequently monitored to assure that all specimens will be released unharmed.
Potential shade areas and supplemental oxygen for fish holding shall be considered in
designing fish handling operations.
■ The release site(s) will be determined by the directing biologist and may be based on
specific site characteristics (flow refuge and cover) and type of fish captured (out
. migrating smolt, kelt, prespawn migrating adult, etc). More than one site may be
designated to provide for varying migrational needs and to separate prey size fish
from larger fish. The directing biologist shall consider fish migration requirements,
size classes of fish, and duration of work area isolation when designing fish release
plans. Each fish shall be capable of remaining upright and have the ability to actively
swim upon release. ESA-listed or proposed fish will have priority over other species
for release. One person shall be designated to transport specimens in a timely manner
to the site selected for reiease.
■ All ESA-listed dead fish shall be preserved and delivered to the pertinent regulatory
agency (see documentation below) as outlined in the appropriate permit's conditions.
■ If authorized level of take is exceeded, the pertinent regulatory agency shall be
- notified as soon as possible.
Documentation
■ All work azea isolation, fish removal and fish release activity shall be thoroughly
documented in a log book with the following information: projectlocation, date,
methods, personnel, in-stream temperature, visibility, electrofisher settings, and other
comments.
■ Species, number of each species, age class estimate, and location of release will be
recorded for all fish handled. :
■ Information regarding injuries or mortalities to ESA-listed or proposed species shall
be documented and provided within three working days to NOAA fisheries or
USFWS, depending on which agency has jurisdiction over that species.
Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards Page 6
August 2006
APPENDIX C: WDFW SUMMARY FORM FOR FISH PASSAGE DESIGN DATA
, c-i
Design of Road Cufverts for Fsh Passage 87
Summary Form for Fish-Passage Design Data
No-5lope and Stream-Simulation Design Options
Project Identi.ficatio
Stream name:~. S laWf niV/" Date• W~ A: -
Tributary to:. <Name of road ross ng. '
Road owner: esi ner•
Contact (phone, maiQc .i'+~ q,y~►w'~ea.la:
. Br..i f N rativ of Pro'ect:
. Design Option Used Stream Simulation J No slope ,
.a-
e A"" Gutv Pfw4l4.
T ~~5 ~ Description of Cufvert p;)o ~(,e C~.-~,0G+~°.{iY'l GM ~7
fxistin • Pr p s d
Sh~~: 3-w ~n~~'►~►-•51~.
. .
Material:
•
.~ft ft
Span: ft
Upstneam invert elevation: ►'I ~,l
Downstream invert elevatio:
length: ft ft
ft , . ft/ft .
Slope: ~ 6A.
Culvert counte►sink (uPstream):
Culvert bed width (upstream): ft
Culvert countersirik (downstr8am): G t MU+ . . i
Culvert becl widfli (clownstream): ft ti. ft
Culvet skew angle to stream: ~.3de8 deS i'pG~
Sfope ratio (channe {opeJ~ulvert= ope) "
Height of ro ad fill ~ ~ ft ~
4~0
Bed material within cufvert ( atural or imported; EA00, D84, D50 and O 16, if available, or verbal characterization such
„ ihe-inch 'nus, II-graded riyer rock"}: ` c; .r• ~ t:
' ~t- ~t ~ ~LI~!
Hovv is imported 6 material signe
f OK~:.
. .
~ r~. ~ =c~t~
Add' 'onal culv info tion, other co diUons or concems: ":-1~ : t G t^.` ~ , •
i ~ .
~ , _ • .
Fish
. Species of.fish -likely to be Pr~esent and any special passage requirements #hat the culvert must satisfy: f ~,~:,~.d ~w Gn~ ~.Cw►.~=~;,. ~ ,
_ . .
Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage 88
Hydrology
Estimated Low- and Peak-Flood F►ows (cfs):
Q: Q1oo
Current watersfied conditions ~ WA
Future watershed conditions
Describe. how flaws were estimated and whaf the assumpvon"s are for future conditions (necessary only for Stmam-
Si . ulation Des'an Opti n): . 'I' ~
v~ ET~O~. S
► r
l,cev ~ ~ca a 1 ~~~l~~ S~►~.ul~
Upstream Channel es~ci~ription
Elevation of.streambed at uPstream end of cufvert: V~S~aosA.-~
Upstream -channel slope: V`S
Channel-bed width (average of three measurements over a length of
20 channel widtfis or a minimum of 200 ft. Please see Appendix H) ~tA ft
Stnambed material type-and the basis of vertical control (wood- or rock-daminated): ~
I .;ti~~
Streambed s¢e distribUtion:
~K.
(ottier sizes for Stream=Simwlation Method): D.
, oso
D16 ~~Wel 4(1-k
'Is there evidence of a signficant amount of bed-material transport? ~ N
Is the Cfiannel in equifr'brium (not aggrading or degrading)? Y o
Is there a signiticant amount of ri~obile, woody debris present? Y
P'de p p d rade-control Ofo a' n. cl de e, eleva 'on and di e froin cu *
~ ~
. ~
Sthictu s in bed or channef tha couEcJ be exposed o und ined by u am channel regrade: .
~-{.1YaAwY1 .~-1~•~
Ad 'tional up t eam inforrraatio ot er. on itions or con er . s• • v~ s~i vv►:t ,
Downstream-Cfiannel Description
Elevation of streambed at downstream control point
Downstream channel slope: Channel=bed width: ft
Streambed materiai type
Design of Road Culverts for Fsh Passage 89
Provide pro ose grade ontr info af n. fnclud elevation nd distan e fr•om cul rt: I
lation:
Structu in bed or channel that eould be affected b ert.d id
~ art e~ , .
Additionallnformation
Describe any existing or proposed structurPS or natural features that would be detrimental ta fish passage, interfere
with compliance with regulations or comprornise habitat consideratiorLS. Exampfes of this may inciude trash racks,
sedi nt basins; st rm=water-cohtrol vice e>6sting upstream .'d wrisf arim ba 'er I rts o ek ch s.
a ~veIo~I~
' a
• ~ G►r .
~ . X62 O-{'Yt.li~/ kt~b6'virl'~ (r~YG'I ~ o~~Aap
~ ~ ~ .
CTY OF
* *
VPeter B. Lewis, Mayc
WAS H I N GTON 25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-30t
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
This notice is to inform you that the City of Auburn has received the following application that
may be of interest to you. The application may be reviewed at the City of Auburn Department of
Planning and Community Development, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
Nature of Project or Request: Mill Creek Peaslev Canvon Road Culvert Replacement Proiect.
The proposed action is the site preparation and replacement of three existing culverts conveying
Mill Creek under Peasley Canyon Road SE which are failing, while providing improved fish
passage and habitat, and increased flood flow capacity. Two of the existing culverts will be
replaced with a 20-foot-wide by 90-foot-long 3-sided box stream simulation culvert. A third 18-
inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (with damaged end sections) that outlets from a
wetland and is located approximately 60 feet to the southeast, will be repfaced with an 18-inch
diameter, smooth interior wall culvert at the same grade.
Location: Within city right-of-Way (ROW) of Peasley Canyon Road SE and the WA State
Department of Transportation Limited Access Right-of-Way (ROW) of SR-18 located south of
SR 18 and west ofi West Valley Highway. The SR-18 West Valley Highway eastbound off-ramp
borders the north side of the project area. The site is located within Section 14 and 23
Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M.
Notice of Application Date: August 5, 2009
Notice of Completeness: July 8, 2009
Permit Application Date: June 12, 2009
File No: MIS09-0007 - Public Agency Special Exception to Critical
Area Regulations
Appticant: Robert Lee, Project Manager
City of Aubum - Public Works Department
The applicant has also filed an environmental checkiist application (SEPA File No. SEP09-
0017). Based on the City's review of the environmental checklist and other information on file,
. the City expects to issue a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposal. The
review process for approval of the proposal may include requiring mitigation measures under
applicable codes and imposition of mitigation measures regardless of whether an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared.
Other Permits Required: The project will require a Special Exception from Critical Area
Requirements for Public Agencies and Utilities (File No. MiS09-0007) and City Council
authorization from the City of Auburn, a Utility Permit from Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT); Section 10 and 404 permits via a Nationwide Permit (NWP 27) from
the Army Corps of Engineers, a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington State
Department of Wildlife (WDFV1), an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Concurrence from the National
Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), and a Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) concurrence
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) frorn the NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFV1/S).
~~mbeir Of ?2908 ~
AUBURN'k MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
The proposal may require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the
Washington State Department of Ecology if permanent impacts to wetlands are made.
Public Comment Period: You are invited to comment, request a copy of the decision, when
available, and be made aware of any appeal rights. Comments must be received in writing by
the Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development at 25 West Main, Auburn,
WA 98001-4998.
Any comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 20, 2009. This may be the only
opportunity to comment on environmental impacts of the proposal.
Additional Studies Provided with the Application:
Critical Areas Repa►t-Anchor QEA, ILC. June 2009
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) - Anchor QEA LLC. June 2009
Restorative Programmatic for the State of Washington - Specific Project Information Form
Wetland and Ordinary High Wafer Mark Delineation Report -Anchor QEA, LLC. June 2009
Habitat Assessment Report - Anchor QEA, LLC. June 2009
Public Hearings: A public hearing for the Public Agency Special Exception will be held by the
Hearing Examiner on September 16, 2009, 5:00 pm City Council Chambers, 25 West Main
Street, Auburn WA 98001
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Devetopment Regulations: This proposal
is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Auburn Comprehensive Plan,
Public Works Design and Construction Standards, Building Code and Fire Codes.
If you have further comments or questions related to this application, you may call Stuart
Wagner at the Department of Planning, Building & Community at (253) 804-5031. If you call or
write, please reference SEPA File No. SEP09-0017.
SO,
~ . ~
j
~
a,..,
. . . . <
~ ~ " . .
.
, ~ • z
, ♦ ~ : . # ,
~
1 r' ~
:
~ F-~. ' .
;:~~f } F~ i
, (
~ ~ ' ~
,
,
Project Area Boundary
*
CITOF
B- UI~N Peter B. tewis, Mayoi
Ul
r .
' WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-300t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 at 1:00 pm
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AUBURN CITY HALL
APPLICATlON REQUESTED: Pubfic Agency Special Exception to Critica{ Area Regulations
APPLICATION NUMBER & NAME: MIS09-0007 / Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert
Replacement Project
APPLICANT: Robert Lee, Project Manager
City of Auburn - Public Works Department
25 West Main Street Auburn, WA
PROPERTY LOCATlON: Within city right-of-Way (ROW) of Peasley Canyon Road SE
and the WA State Department of Transportation Limited
Access Right-of-Way (ROW) of SR-18 located south of SR 18
and west of West Valley Highway
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 14 and 23 Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. .
King County, Washington
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed action is the site preparation and replacement of three
existing culverts conveying Mill Creek under Peasley Canyon Road SE which are failing, while
providing improved fish passage and habitat, and increased flood ffow capacity. Two of the existing
culverts wil( be replaced with a 20-foot-wide by 90-foot-long 3-sided box stream simulation culvert. A
third 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (with damaged end sections) that outlets from a
wetland and is located approximately 60 feet to the southeasf, will be replaced with an 18-inch
diameter, smooth interior wall culvert at the same grade. Other applications are SEP09-0017,
environmental checklist.
AUBURN PB&C CONTACT: APPLICATION FILED: June 12, 2009
Stuart Wagner COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 8, 2009
swagner@auburnwa.gov NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 5, 2009
253-931-3020
OTHER PERMITS AND PLANS WHtCH MAY BE REQUIRED: City Council authorization from the City
of Auburn, a Utility Permit from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); Section 10
and 404 permits via a Nationwide Permit (NWP 27) from the Army Corps of Engineers, a Hydrau(ic
Project Approval from the Washington State Department of Wildlife (WDFV1), an Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) Concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), and a Programmatic
Biological Opinion (BO) concurrence under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) from the NMFS and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND LIST OF APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
This project is subject to and shall be consistent with the City of Auburn Zoning Code, Surface and
Stormwater Management Ordinance, International Building Code and International Fire Code.
~a
~~mber
AT TRI TR N* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEE
All persons may comment on this application either in writing to the address below or by submitting
written or oral testimony during the public hearing. Any person wishing to become a party of record and
receive future notices, copies of the Planning, Building & Community report with recommendation
(one week prior to hearing), Hearing Examiner decision or any appeal decision must notify PB&C by
providing their name, mailing address and reference the application number - MIS09-0007
City of Auburn
Planning, Building and Community Department
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA. 98001- 4998
253-931-3090
CITY OF
i. -
WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
NOTICE of APPLICATION andlor NOTICE of HEARING
Application No.: SEP09-0017
Applican#: City of Auburn - Robert Lee
Location of Posting - Board # 1: Park n Ride West side of Lot Peasiey Canyon
Rd
Date of Notice to be Posted on or before: August 5, 2009
: Date of Public Hearing (if applicable):
I certify that on i did erect the land use posting board(s) at
the location(s) above, which inciuded a
Y_Notice of Application, posted within 14 days after the application was determined
.omplete (ACC 14.07.020) and posted a minimum of 15 days prior to a scheduled open
hearing>per 14.07.030 (if applicable),
And/Or,
Notice of Public Hearing, posted a minimum of 10 days prior to a scheduled open
hearing ACC18.66.110 and ACC18.66.130.
F declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
. ~ i.~L► tt ~lS/~y
Name (please print or type) Date
Signature .
11fOTE .
This affidavit must be returned to the Planning, Suilding and Community Department_
. within one week of the notice date to assure your application does not continue on hold
and to assure that a scheduled hearing is not postponed. ACC 1:27.070.
Planning, Building & Community
25 VNest Main Sireet, Aubum, WA 98001
(253) 931-3090
www:aubumwa.gov
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
NOTICE OF APPLICATION and/or NOTICE OF HEARING
Application No.: SEP09-0017. MIS09-0007
Applicant: City of Auburn, Robert Lee, Project Manager
Location: Within City Right-of-Way (ROW) of Peasley Canyon Road SE and the WA State
Depactment of Transportation of ST-18
Date of Notice of Application: 8/5/09
Date of Notice of Public Hearing: N/A
Date of Hearing:
i certify that on i sent the:
X Notice of Application, (within 14 days after the application was determined complete
ACC 44.07.020 and a minimum of 15 days prior to a scheduled open hearing per
ACG14.07.030),
And/Or,
Notice of Public Hearing, (a minimum of 10 days prior to a scheduled open hearing ACC
18.66.110 and 130).
The notice for the above referenced application was mailed to all property owners located within
300 feet of the Subject Property. Said Notice was mailed pre=paid stamped through the United
States Postal Service.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct
,
4Re S
as, Planning Secretary
Planning, Building & Community
25 West Main Street, Aubum, WA 98001
(253) 931-3090
www.aubumwa.gov
scattte C~'itnes `
~
~ 0 ~
seattletimes.com *~~j~p 'Cov,q
PO Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111
AUBURN ATTN CITI('CL RKFINANCE DEPT
25 WEST MAIN
AUBURN, WA 98001
Re: Advertiser Account #30785204
Ad 782433800
Affidavit of Publication
4031083 / 3
STATE OF WASHtNGTON
Counties of King and Snohomish
The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company,
pubiisher of The Seattle Times of generat circulation published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of
Washington. The Seattle Times has been approved as a legal newspaper by orders of the Superior Court of
King and Snohomish Counties.
The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in ihe regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and
distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period.
The Seattle Times 08/05/09
Agent Debble C[ll1 ntPq Signature b-Gt~~.• «
RoT/1/
_ F-Xp'~~ ~ nd s or to before me on `
.
= Zcj PR TE)
:
~R.3 Z ~N6TeRY ATURE) No ry Pu ic•in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle
. o vs ~y s '
~
~
'y~~ ► ! ~~~,9 .~',Z.
~~~'Ilh 4`7E O
.
u~~~~
t~t~ e ,Seat tte Ttmes
~--t''~s~,f' ro
0,~, . ~~~e~
'P
seattletimes.com
Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad # 782433800
Ad TEXT'PROPOSED impact statement (EIS) is not
~DETERMINATION OF required under RCW
NON-StGNIFICANCE (DNS) 43.21C.030(2)(c). This
AUBURN, WASHINGTON decision was made after review
of a completed .
APPLICATION NUMBER: environmentai checklist and ,
SEP09-0017 other information on
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: file with the iead agency. This
Mill Creek Peasley information is
Canyon Rd Culvert avatlable to the public on
Replacement Project Proposed request
action: site preparation &
replacement of 3 You are invited to comment,
existing culverts conveying Mili request a copy of
Creek under the final decision when
Peasley Canyon Road SE which available & be made
are failing, while aware of any appeal rights.
providfng improved fish Comments must be
passage and habitat, and received in writing by the
increased flood flow capacity. Aubum Department of
Two of the ' Planning & Community
existing culverts will be Development at 25 West
replaced with a Main, Aubum, WA 98001-4998
20-foot-wide by 90-foot-long before 5:00 p.m. on
3-sided box stream August 20, 2009. Contact: StuaK
simulation culvert. A ihird 18- . Wagner,
inch diameter Planner,
corrugated metal pipe cuivert e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
(with damaged end Phone: 253-804-5031
sections) that outlets from a.
wetland and is
located approximately 60 feet to
the southeast,
will be replaced with an 18-inch
diameter,
smooth interior wall culvert at
the same grade.
PROPONENT: Robert Lee, City
of Aubum - Aubum
Public Works Department
LOCATION: Within city right-
of-Way (ROVI) ot
Peasley Canyon Rd SE & WA
State DOT Access ROW
of SR-181ocated south of SR 18
and west of West
Valley Nwy. The SR-18 West
Valley Highway
eastbound off-ramp borders the
north side of the
project area. The site is located
wHhin Section
14 and 23 Township 21 North,
Range 4 East, W.M.
The lead egency for this
proposai has determined
that ft dces not have a probable
signiticant
adverse impact on the
environment An
environmental
e ,Seattte Ttmes
seattletimes.com
0PO Box 7Q Seattle, WA 98111 ~0~ ~~y~
AUBURN ClTY OF-FINANCE DEPT
RK
25 ES MAIN
~
AUBURN, WA 98001
Re: Advertiser Account #30785204
Ac! 782436400
Affidavit of Publication
4031111 / 3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Counties of King and Snohomish
The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company,
publisher of The Seattle Times of general circulation published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of
Washington. The Seattle Times has been approved as a legal newspaper by orders of the Superior Court of
King and Snohomish Counties.
The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and
distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period.
The Seattle Times 08/05/09
Agent De bAe C0~~antes Signature 0-r.<-.G,u•1
• RCiY ~~0jtt
and s orn to 6efore me o '
DA E)
x(NOTARY ATURE) tary ic in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle
~
puss~w tv~ ~
I,Q
~
+t+~~~1{• ~
c"i~ e Scattte Ttmes
y~
~
seattletimes.com
Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad # 782436400
A(f TEXT:NOTICE OF APPLICATION (SEPA File No. Fish Habitat (EFH)
SEP09-0017). Based on the Concurrence trom the National
PROJECT: Mili Creek Peasley City's review of the Marine Fisheries •
Canyon Road Cuiveri environmental checklist and Services (NMFS), and a
Replacement Project other information on Programmatic Biolog3cal
APPLICATION NO. MIS09-0007, file, the City expects to issue a Opinion (BO) concurrence
Public Agency Determination under the Endangered
Special Exception to Critical of Non-signiticance (DNS) for Species Act (ESA) from the
Area Regulations the proposal. The NMFS and U.S. Fish
APPLICANT: Robert Lee, review process for approvat ot and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Project Manger, City of the proposal may Proposal may
Aubum Public Works Dept. include requiring mitigation requfre a Sectfon 401 Water
PROPERTY LOCATION: Within measures under Quality
city right-of-Way applicable codes and Certification (WOC) from the
(ROYI) o( Peasley Canyon Road impositfon of mitigation Washington State
SE and the WA State measures regardless of whether Department o! Ecology H
Department of Transportation an Environmentai permaneM impacts to
Limited Access Impact Statement (EIS) is wetlands are made.
Right-of-Way (ROW) of SR-18 prepared. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
located south of SR APPLICATION FILED: June 12, & LIST OF APPLICABLE
18 and west of West Valley 2009 DEVELOPMENT
Highway. The SR-18 COMPLETE APPLICATION: July REGULATIONS: Proposal is
West Valley Highway eastbound 8, 2009 subject to
off-ramp borders NOTICE OF APPLICATION and shall be consistent with the
the north side of the project DATE: August 5, 2009 Auburn City
area. The site is STUDIES SUBMIiTED WITH Code, Auburn Comprehenslve
located within Section 14 and 23 APPLICATON: Criticai Plan, Pubiic Works
Township 21 Areas Report -Anchor QEA, Design and Construction
North, Range 4 East, W.M. llC June 2009;Joint Standards, Building Code
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Aquatic Resources Permit and Fire Codes.
Site preparation and Application PUBUC COMMENT PERIOD:
replacement of three existing (JARPA)-Anchor QEA LLC June You are invited to
cuiverts conveying 2009; Restorative comment, request a copy oE the
Mill Creek under Peasley Programmatic for the State of decision, when
Canyon Road SE which WA-Specific available, and be made aware of
are failing, while providing Projeci information Form; any appeal
improved fish Wetland and Ordinary rights. Comments must be
passage and habitat, and High Water Mark Delineation received in writing by
increased flood flow Report-Anchor QEA, the Aubum Department ot
capacity. Two of the existing LLC June 2009; Habftat Planning and Community
culverts will be Assessment Report-Anchor Development at 25 West Main,
replaced with a 20-foot-wide by QEA, LLC June 2009 Auburn, WA
90-foot-long OTHER PERMITS & PLANS 980014998. Contact: Stuart
3-sided box stream simulation WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED: Wagner, (253)
cutvert A third Speciat Exception from Critica! 804-5031. Any comments must
18-lnch diameter corrugated Area be submitted by 5:00
metal pipe culvert Requirements for Pubiic p.m. on August 20, 2009.
(with damaged end sections) Agencies and Utilities & Reference SEPA Fle No.
ihat•.ou31ets,from a City Councii autharization from SER09-0017
wetland and is located the City of PUBLlC HEARINGS: A pubiic
approximately 60 feet to Aubum, a Utility Permft from hearing for the Public
the southeast, wiil be repiaced WA State DOT Agency Special Exception
with an 184nch (WSDOT); Section 10 and 404 w1137
diameter, smooth interior wall permits via a
culvert at the Nationwide Permit (NWP 27)
same grade. from the Army Corps
of Engineers, a Hydraulic
The applicant has aiso filed an Project Approvaf from
environmental the Washington State
checklist appiication Department of Wildiife
(WDFVV), an Essentiaf
~
CITY OF
Peter B. lewis, Mayo
W
WAS H I NGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.aubumwa.gov * 253-931-300
FINAL
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIF(CANCE (DNS)
SEP09-0017
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Mili Creek Peasle Can on Road Culvert Re lacement
Project: The proposed action is the site preparation and replacement of three existing
culverts conveying Mili Creek under Peasley Canyon Road SE which are failing, while
providing improved fish passage and habitat, and increased flood flow capacity. Two of the
existing culverts will be replaced with a 20-foot-wide by 90-foot-long 3-sided box stream
simulation culvsrt. A third 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (with damaged end
sections) that outlets from a wetland and is located approximately 60 feet to the southeast,
will be replaced with an 18-inch diameter, smooth interior wall culvert at the same grade.
PROPONENT: Robert Lee, City af Auburn - Public Works Department
LOCATION: Within city right-of-Way (ROW) of Peasley Canyon Road SE and the WA
State Department of Transportation Limited Access Right-of Way (ROW) of SR-18 located
south of SR 18 and west of West Valley Highway. The SR-18 West Valley Highway
eastbound off-ramp borders the north side of fhe project area. The site is located within
Section 14 and 23 Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Auburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmenfal impact statement (EIS) is not
required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other informafion on file with the lead agency. This information
is available to the public on request.
RESPONSlBLE OFFICIAL: Cindy Baker, A.I.C.P.
POSITION/TITLE: Director of the Department of
Planning & Community Development
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001
(253) 931-3090
DATE ISSUED: August 21. 2009 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 will be required to meet all applicable regulations.
Any person aggrieved of this final determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City
Clerk within 14 days of the date of issuance of this notice. All appeals of the above
determination must be filed by 5:00 P.M. on September 4, 2009 with the required fee
12
~~&M
~~mber mf Ift" ~
AUBURN 'k MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
STnTEo~ , 4 E-CEIVED
,
o ~
AUG 2 0 2009
1889 a
STATE OF WASHINGTON Chy of Aubuen
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESEWO(6WENT
1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501
Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343
(360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov
August 18, 2009
Mr. Robert Lee
City of Auburn Public Works Department
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
In future correspondence please refer to:
Log: 081809-26-KI
Property: City of Auburn, Culvert Replacement at SR 18 and W Valley Highway
Re: Executive Order OS-OS Review - No Effect
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for contacting our office and providing a copy of the EZ-1 form for the project. Because other
cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the immediate area of your project and have failed to
identify any intact cultural resources, we feel that your project will have no effect on cultural resources.
We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties
that you receive as you consult under the requirements of Executive Order 05-05. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the
• State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Executive Order OS-OS as signed by the Governor
in 2005.
Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event that
archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate
vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this office and the concerned tribes notified.
Sincerely,
Matthew Sterner, M,A.; RPA
Transportation Archaeologist
(360) 586-3082
matthew.stemer@dahp.wa.gov
~
~ a PARTMfNT OF ARCNAEC)LOGY 3 HISTORIC PRESERYATION
~
Protect fhe Past Shope fhe Future
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
IHnraH Fisheries Division :
R[BE j i 39015 - 172"d Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 ~1g~
i Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752
;
~
f
August 20, 2009
Cindy Baker, A.I.C.P.
Director of the Department of
Planning and Community Development
25 W. Main St.
Auburn, WA 98991
Re: Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road
Culvert Replacement Project-SEP09-0017
Dear Ms. Baker: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the above referenced project and has a
couple of concerns. First, we appreciate the City's efforts to employ the State's "Stream Simulation"
design criteria (Bates et al. 2003) in the design of this proposed culvert on Mill Creek. Currently, this is
the best design method available for fish passage in this manual; however, we want to be certain that this
method is properly applied. In particular, there may be some discrepancy with bank-full width estimates
described in the State's culvert manual as compared to the methods determining "Ordinary High Water
Mark" (OHWM) as used by the City. Bank-full width rather than OHWM is the proper metric used to
calculate the Stream Simulation culvert width according to the culvert manual, and there are likely
differences compared to OHWM where a stream has a flood plain. Mill Creek has a flood plain in the
project vicinity. WAC222-16-010 defines bank-full width as:
"the measurement of the lateral extent of the water.surface elevation perpendicular to the
channel at bankfull depth. In cases where multiple channels exist, bankfull width is the sum
of the individual channel widths along the cross-section."
where bank-full depth is defined in the same WAC as:
"the average vertical distance between the channel bed and the estimated water surface
elevation required to campletely fill the channel to a point above which water would enter the
floodplain or intersect a terrace or hillslope. In cases where multiple channels exist, the
bankfull depth is the average depth of all channels along the cross-section."
The point at where the water "spills out onto the floodplain" (bank-full) is likely greater than the OHWM
in Mill Creek. During an interagency field meeting in May, I measured the bank-full width to be an
average of 18 feet just downstream of the proposed culvert where the channel is mostly unconfined and
associated with a flood plain. Recoanizing that the channel could be altered from its natural potential due
to road fill, channelization, dredging, etc., we verified this field measurement with a regression developed
by WDFW (Bamard 2007) that predicts the geomorphic potential channel width. We confirmed that this
bank-full width field measurement is in fact near the natural geomorphic potential, as the regression
calculation produced an estimate of 17 feet. Using 17-18 feet as the bank-full width, we applied the
Stream Simulation methods to calculate that the culvert width should be approximately 23- 24 feet,
slightly larger than the 20 foot culvert the City proposes. Therefore, we recommend that the City use a
bank-full width measurement rather than OHWM to be consistent the Stream Simulation Design Method.
This will likely provide a better opportunity for a culvert design that better reflects the stream
geomorphology as well as offer a greater range of conditions that provide fish passage.
Second, the City proposes to connect a wetland (Wetland A) to the creek using an 18-inch, smooth-walled
culvert. Depending on how it is placed, there is likelihood that this type of culvert would not provide fish
access to this wetland during all flows, particularly during flood stages. The smooth culvert walls provide
little roughness and accelerate water velocities to speeds too great for some fish to migrate upstream.
During floods, fish require access to off-channel sites such as wetlands for high-flow refuge, which is
particularly important for juvenile salmonids. We recommend that the culvert is placed with zero slope
and counter-sunk to a depth of at around 40%. This may be difficult to accomplish with an 18 inch pipe;
therefore, placing a bottomless arch or a larger culvert that can accommodate the counter-sinking
(backfilling) of the pipe will better enable a more natural stream bottom inside the culvert, providing a
better fish-passage connection to Wetland A. This wili provide greater roughness, slower water velocities,
and a higher likelihood that fish can navigate through the structure over a greater range of flows.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss
these comments further at 253 876-3121.
Sincerely,
/II~~',~,~'"""" •~'~rS`~
~ i
Martin J. Fox, PhD.
Cc: Larry Fisher, WDFW Russ Ladley, Puyallup Tribe of Indians
References
Barnard, B. 2008. Hydraulic Engineer with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished data set.
Bates, K, Barnazd, B., Heiner, B., Klavas, J.P., Powers, P. 2003. Design of road culverts for fish passage. Washington
. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
,
Z O O(~ o7 ~ , ' - - 'A~iENCY USE ONLY '
a~ US Arm Cor ~
of Engfneers ps ~ `Date ~received+' i
WASHINGTON STATE SeattleDlsvia
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form
USE BL.ACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN WHITE SPACES BELOW.
Part '1-Project Identification
Unique project information that makes it easy to identify. heM N
~
~
~
;:~~~`sa~~c • ,~v..d.« _ ..z. ~x~_~ r',c_:~~..~ ~'~~«i~w.,~ ..x~'~~aa~> _ r _.~~';^i,~..
930843-09-01
..,r
? ;~:r t
~~~~~im~~y;
~~.si~il'Y .';~:~Lt~•.a.~~N..~~ T~~ ~6'..~tiF,yr t s 'Ya4 "`^qy'M~if "~~4"' yL:~~ y ~ '~K~~ ~,~y~.~~~'~~~ ~~y+it"
No
...h~ .
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement Project
Part 2-Applicant
The person or organization legally responsible for the project. n~ ~JUN 12 2009
s ~ ~ ~ ,~s ' ~ ~ ~ ws ~^-.ar r~
~
~Q l~~f~' ~ ~ ~tr Y l nE ~ dr k" 4"~4a^ f ~ a ~ 7 ~fr3fy;?'i'
~
Robert Lee, City of Auburn Public Works
.c~r^'
~F.s y
~
25 West Main Street
~ .~;~;~~~~~~t'iC'~ -c z ~..~b'~'~: ~ ..:z~k . a~a` .``k~ .r*k~ a::~vsX~ a~,``"},.c , ~,~i
. . . . ~i~.. . . .~.,,x s., . ~„-RC'. . - ..•r;
Auburn, WA 98001-4998 ~
~,f,..i y~Y" s+~. ,~_y~«F Y ~ 1~ m z ~ fi
h~ <',P'i,~~~~ b.~; ~'7~ ~ sk.~" h~~ lQIQi~9x k~? 5~ sK~.~.~,~% u~~•~~~~~' `s E k-~~~~ ~
~
..vW v.. .v.~sy a~. ~ ic✓~3 ,.x ~ . . ~ { . - _ S
- ..F, .a~~r
(253) 931-3010 (253) 804-5071 (253) 931-3053 rlee@auburnwa.gov
Part 3-Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) musf sign 11 b. of this
application.) heM
•-t ~ i "r ; y~ S i~ '~d c r
Derek Koellmann, Anchor QEA, LLC
..~#.n,.~....
. .v.w_~.,. . .
. _ , , c. , , x .
. , , , ,....:i,a
NOW-1111P
1605 Cornwall Avenue
L/~
~V SaJ~I~y)
,.,e ,c
. , . . , . ~ H ~,,.s . F..:. , . e..~. . : . . . . . . . ~
Bellingham, WA 98225
3d Ptiohe (i> ~e ,Phon'e , > 3~' F~`x- , E raia,~l
. . . ,
2 . , _ . . . _
g{
(360) 733-4311 x221 (360) 303-4106 (360) 733-4312 dkoellmann@anchorqea.com
JARPA 2009
f
?4,ZffibeL° of Page 1 of 18
Part 4-Property Owner(s) mm
Contacf information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project wifl occur. h~
❑ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
~ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ There are multiple property owners. Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment A for each
additional property owner.
r t )n ` .
y~~G'~.. P ~
, t~
:`~`m. ....o*~..r<.5.,. ~_,~€__.a ...~z, ~n , v...~:A~3~~..c• - .,a.~a-s~.~1' ~
Gallinger, Gerry, Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Real Estate Division
~ ~fi^a ,S~~y/~ ~ ,c,~ „-~~f+' 't'3 v~?' ~ s? ~-,ca,}z~ pf : t ~ s yr ~ '~s~` F . ~ < ? ~ az *y~•° s ~f . ~ -5 . ~ ~~°f . , r=~%'.
"~4br SS~-trget~0~~~,~DflX'k
P.O. Box 47338
S`.' sr r g, r.,. ? <a$\A ~
i
~ X~ '
4.5 x ~~1~~
r
~'"~`1~~
ti~t,.m,..»:ti~
~a
.~.s'~~u.~
. ,,.,.K . , . „ . ,
Olympia, WA 98504-7338
M
X~~~~~~'dXs ,-5~ ~,3 ~ ~'~~c~ 171~f~ ss~$ ~~s ~ 1~~:~~.~- r~'•,
360 705-7305
(360) 705-6811 galling@wsdot.wa.gov
Part 5-Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. h
❑ There are multiple properties or project locations (e.g., linear projects). Complete the section below and use
JARPA Attachment B for each additional property.
i.:y~~.- C -s ~_,-s`x'".,~=~u .°,c=,, ~r~,,,`~,~ ~ ~ ~:~s,r' h r ?s.~s / : S F'~`ra ~3 . `s~ a.t`r~;.~. s i~ ' .~i ~`'a' ~Y',,.,:!f, ~-F .si?ib 5`- F ' ~~i •~F"k`~a`u F~`' }~>,:i ~ i~ ~ u . 4 X6 S''P _~b~ Y / £ ~ .Yx Y`~l. Y-3u~~ -
~ ✓ ,./.,„5 s.. ..;>:...,r, ~~,s , as. ~x-;w ~ s' ~T6. ~.ti ~ ..T~r.~ . :'P;~ k~~r
1
Peasley Canyon Road
.
1,112 ~~ti,1
.:.2.~ ~r~~t
~ ~ ~
~
. > . , t . . , ,
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
r~~:~ ~ W~{~.,e'~1.y.:~ 5~~ i~~,~ a ~,•.:~a~ ~ t r~ e § c-.. * k,*.. ~ M s. g . . Ss ~~:*s ; n
01
.
~ ..:r Y ~ S3c
w
~
King County
~~G#~o :Fo
:vn ~ y~"`~a . E~ a l~ } . •r y.~,G~n,-_. . "'`x.~ ~
10'`~*` 'N!"-.a L~x~w;; ~,n~ ~ a`~f•,~ 1; ~ ~~'v,~-m ~ d y4. %'''4^yy~^
r ~"~~r~~
~i~er-
SW 14 21 N 04 E
NE 23 21 N 04 E
- 1~~4~,'~'~b y.ts?se .r`~'„"~µ Ysx^',,z~r~4~+.~, r. Fv ~ ' > ? x~ ;,~~~"'E .r'"i.A:",Ef~'s~m;y~!~~;g"a r a3.y, .r,rr.~s! ~ "v' - ✓ z.:r
. - ~ s~. ~s~~'va:. 'a~ i~% • E ~~'~~v~, ~ >,,:r~~~ .;'~~t"~~e~-sk ~ ~~r - ~ i.t.~ t' 'cz r.`; 4+rorefi~; ,e _ ~3,~
~sE~S`•~~ c~ ~Y 1~~~+7 ..a*.lai'°a 1. 0 ~^~f.,~~"5:~w ~y>, .~,.K, "~^e~ .fA:~"~ h +'x:i~~ e` i, ~j~"r ~~k~'?s'4.'~~y,~~ J .
. , . a:.. 'N..td.
, . .._s...... ' . ' ,
. .,c..~~._,,._~.e . ~ . _a.:k •
~
47.303181 N lat. /-122.259594 W long. .
~f 1.rst~ ,e taX`p~r~~~l n~1mb r s Zfi,or~tfie ro ect loe~atian~~ ~ k~} A~~ ~~~x ~ v,~r~ ,~y ~ t~ d~
~ h
y- r,.
~g ~M>
a~x~~~~ e
, •>s= ~The,#4ca1 c~,c~~t~ty assess~r sab~~~ cah proyi~e fh~~ ~rifn~lp~~~n ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,k~ _ ~ ~
~ . ~
The Project is located within the WSDOT Right-of-Way (ROW) inclusive of SR-18, West Valley Highway, and
Peasley Canyon Road.
5 Indica#e'ythe t' s of'owners
, g ; ~p htp ofi the property. (Ch~~k ai~ that p1,y=?
,
❑ State Owned Aquatic Land ❑ Tribal ❑ Private
Z Other publicly owned (federa(, state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) - WSDOT Right-of-Way
JARPA 2009 ~ Page 2 of 18
vh. Con#ac# inforrnation for ali ad~oining;property owners, lessees, ~tc (If you ne more spaceruse JARPA ~Attachment C
t E ~ ,
~ * rr~ ~ ~ ~ ess
P # ~
~f~
A x`~F
.
. _ . . . . . .T. . x Cit of Auburn , . . ..:_.:r
Y 602 W Vatley Hwy S 142104-9008
WSDOT 633 W Valley Hwy S ^ ! 142104-9012
Pullum, Earl J. No address - adjacent to S Peasiey Canyon Road 142104-9021
Spencer, Elmer L. 605 W Vailey Hwy S 142104-9038
WSDOT 600 W Valley Hwy 142104-9063
44 ~v ,x~"` c s .-,.di~'c~ y s+2~»- .s~ z''3.~•,s,,, ~ & ' u'0~ v'~ : , : : n.., ~ ~ 4' .rs, ~v.
s.. .y
f. ~ z,~~R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~i~i~►r~, a ~.~Q~.~~ Year~
.
. . _ d... .k.,,., .
Yes No loocfz~gfaira~ -
❑ Don't know The culvert eplacement and portions~ ~\~~~~~s
❑ ~ of the adjacent channel
restoration will be within the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary stream channel, but are beyond the
regulated FEMA 100-year floodplain that does not extend upstream beyond the mainstem Mill Creek
confluence (FEMA 1995). xz= s*
^7i ~a~~'~.'~vi ^"'j'~",~~+~~+~s~°.~*Fi~~+a'`, ns~s.~'.+>'~'d+.1 E~7"~.- ~ . :.,~i ge ~u~rt'•m~ftk~ `Sm~ ' ~7,42.
5 ,Br~efly~,e~s`crtbe~t~~u~ ~ta#~~~~ar~~~a~ba
~~.'a'~i~`~~~:ai._}~'~~:;:r~'~~~^z:
Trees existing at the project site include big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum), red alder (A/nus rubus), black
cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata).
Shrubs include red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Red elderberry
(Sambucus racemosa), and spirea (spiraea douglasir). Dominant non-native vegetation species include
Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea).
A Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark.Delineation report has been completed (Anchor QEA 2009a), and two
wetlands were identified in the Project area, identified as Wetland A and Wetland B. Wetland A is a.02 acre
(872 square foot) Category III wetland located directly adjacent to the stream channel OHWM limits for a portion
of the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary reach between Peasley Canyon Road to the west and West Valley
Highway to the east. Wetland B is a 6.96 acre (303,178 square foot) Category I wetland located parallel to and
partially isolated from Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary (except under intermediate to high overflow
conditions) by a low height, vegetated earth berm.
Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary is aligned parallel and adjacent to Peasley Canyon Road upstream of two
existing culverts (deteriorating 60-inch and 30-inch diameter CMPs) that convey the creek under the road.
Those culverts are significantly obstructed (greater than 70%) with aggraded creek bed sediments, resulting in a
risk to frequent roadway flooding and associated possible roadway damage (from flooding as well as culvert
leakage into the road backfil{). The existing conditions also pose a partial fish passage barrier. A third nearby
18-inch diameter CMP culvert conveys Wetland B outflows across Peasley Canyon Road to the downstream
channel, but it also has damaged end secfions, its condition is also suspect, and if currently operates under a
submerged condition due to the aggraded channel bed downstream from its outfall.
Mill Creek's riparian buffer in the project area is degraded with little to no buffer on the road (north) side
upstream of the crossing (a large vegetated buffer exists on the south side). Downstream of the Peasley Canyon
Road stream crossing, only a limited buffer exists between the channel, SR-18 to the north, and the park-and-
ride !ot to the south. Invasive vegetation species (see above) are also present in portions of the stream buffer.
The stream channel is also lacking in in-stream habitat structure (e.g., large woody debris [LWD] and bank
vegetation cover) under its aggraded condition.
Mill Creek and its Peasley Canyon Tributary are classified as a Type F Water under the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Water Typing and a Class II stream under the Auburn City Code (ACC) (City of
Auburn 2009). Accordin to the ACC, a Class II stream is a natural stream that is either erennial or intermittent
JARPA 2009
Page 3 of 18
and either contains fish habitat or has significant recreational value, as determined by the Director.
" c r i.. v ..3, r-'* ..,c~F ~ r '''S;f.D ,f .
ro.- ~~..,'F~ . ~ .C Y"r _,,^Y P` r r.ak~n S., ,~t ~,K'3~~- #n .>..as...''a.,~1;
VI~Ue
The property where the culvert to be replaced is located is used primarily as a transportation route between
Auburn and the surrounding municipalities. Land uses in the Project vicinity include major arterial roads and
highways, a WSDOT Park-and-Ride lot, and undeveloped forest and shrub habitat. Those roads include Peasley
Canyon Road, West Valley Highway, SR-18, and SR-167.
~w e . 'y . ~,t;. -c A~r ~ xti~ r a~:::~e x t ` .kG''` Y' <e s .4'r v £i+ i
~'F
t, 'Z:'.. , . :,R?„` r -l a: t`. E~'4,~',~~' ~j~,~:. E1, ! ..'3 -M . w.✓ r F f.n e a r
, . ~ a~l acent ro e
~ ~4y ~e
, ~e t.;x .4...1..F.,R z~,,. ~--•~.`€i-...r.. .`f..:. ..af u,,.,, F :.,,.;.:.x~._.>. v..~'as:~''k:,.Y?~M~`i~.~i.Y"i.,.:..a.a~a'.*....c~;c3d
The property is located adjacent to several major arterials roads and highways as mentioned in section 5k. The area to the south of the Project is mostly undeveloped and forested land with some residential areas located on
the bluff area above Peasley Canyon further to the southwest. Centennia( Viewpoint Park and Mountainview
Cemetery, a low density residential area, and mostly undeveloped forested land are located to the north of the
Project (north of SR-18). West Valley Highway and the mainstem Mill Creek confluence with the Mill Creek
Peasley Canyon Tributary exist to the east of the Project area. To the west, uses are predominantly
undeveloped forested land beyond the Peasley Canyon Road.
tf~,~ 8~=~ ut -4s+~ R e t¢k dr:r~ k a43+c z'r r
. ~r?~P a.
>
. > . ~
~5,m em~~ru~tur~~F(abovend~~be ut~d. ~ ~ a
_"~~..H ~s.~,n..l„A
Three culverts (buried hydraulic structures) currently exist within the Project area (no other above ground
structures exist). Two existing deteriorating CMP culverts (60-inch and 18-inch in diameter, respective(y) exist at
the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road stream crossing. Those culverts are a hydraulic restriction to fload flows
and a partial fish passage barrier due to their limited size and the extent of sediment aggradation within them.
The third culvert, an 18-inch diameter CMP with damaged end sections, is located approximately 60 feet to the
southeast of the previously mentioned culverts. It functions as the outlet for the wetland areas on the south
(upstream) side of Peasley Canyon Road and conveys local drainage from Wetland B to the stream. The
condition, structural integrity, and watertightness of these culverts are also suspecf due to significant sinkholes
that have occurred in the overfying pavement and roadway prism backfil( over the past two winters.
w
,
i~~~ ~
_~8-~_'s.G„
From Interstate 5 take exit 142A and merge onto SR-18 E and head east for approximately 3 mifes. Prior to the
intersection of SR-18 E and SR-167 take the West Valley Highway exit and turn right onto 1Nest Valley Highway,
then right onto Peasley Canyon Road a short distance to the south. The project is located north and west of the
Park and Ride lot adjacent to Peasley Canyon Road (see Dcawing Sheet 1).
Part 6-Project Description
:"~-yr ~e '"...'L"e~.~"~ ~•t,~"~~' x..a. :a+;fixx~t'ht
a_MW~.G~ ...~i
f ;~w ,u" ~a k' ~ i i-• ~ n~6 fl.wT'~`~' a
~I x . y ,sr~ r~
..~e...,"... «
fi ~ r 7.:::,..~r,~~`~ ~F3~.; . c'.`.... :.t~.R`'.~;.
The City intends to replace the existing culverts with a new, clear span box culvert to reduce the risk of a road
crossing failure, while providing improved fish passage and habitat, and increased flood flow capacity (to a 100-
year flood event level of protection based on simulated future conditions). The existing culverts will be replaced
with a 20-foot wide by 6-foot high (4 feet cfear height), 3-sided concrete box stream simulation culvert with
buried bottom slab, aligned at a reduced skew angle, and natural substrate cover. The resulting culvert length
will be decreased from approximately 160 feet under existing conditions to approximately 90 feet for the
replacement culvert. A third 18-inch diameter CMP culvert with damaged end sections), located approximatel
JARPA 2009 Page 4 of 18
60 feet to the southeast, drains wetland areas on the south (upstream) side of Peasley Canyon Road. It will be
replaced with an 18-inch diameter, smooth interior wall cutvert at the same grade (and with rock headwalls at its
ends).
Upstream and downstream streambed and bank grading will occur in proximity to the replacement culvert to
align the stream with the new culvert and to remove existing aggraded bed substrate materials sufficient to
provide for its proper vertical (profile) alignment. Additional temporary excavation, primarily within the existing
road prism, wifl be completed to achieve a subgrade condition suitable for the replacement culvert cast-in-place
bottom slab and pre-casf 3-sided box installation. (mpacts to existing vegetation will limited to the identified
work areas, and will be minimized to the extent practicable during grading. In addition, invasive species within
the Project area will be removed or treated using approved methods. To mitigafe for temporary impacts to
vegetation resulting from the Project, native riparian plantings will be installed post-culvert installation in areas
disturbed by construction. LWD will also be installed and securely anchored within the restored stream channel
to provide streambank toe stabilization, to maintain the natural stream morphology and processes (e.g. pool
scour, gravel sorting), and to provide improved fish habitat (e.g., to supplement food sources and provide refugia
habitat and spawning areas). Drawing Sheets 2 through 11 illustrate the proposed site, TESC, and grading
plans along with profile, typical sections, and landscape restoration plan for the replacement culvert and
associated channel restoration.
The replacement culvert is being designed as a"stream simulation" culvert (WDFW 2003), with intent to mimic
stream conditions beyond the culvert within it. The culvert will be significantly wider than the existing culverts
(20 feet as compared to less than 5 feet currently), with greater clear hydraulic heighf (4 feet compared to less
than 1.5 feet currently) to provide the City-desired culvert hydraulic design capacity (100-year future condition
peak flows) and debris passage, to reduce sediment aggradation locally within and beyond the culvert, to
comply with fish passage design criteria, to improve stream habitat within and beyond the culvert, and to reduce
the length of the creek located under Peasley Canyon Road. Stream simulation elements proposed within the
culvert include sloped left and right stream banks and a roughened channel bed and banks (e.g., closely-
spaced, exposed boulders placed in substrate material). The excess sediment that is located in the existing
culvert and streambed will be removed, and a new well-graded cobble-boulder substrate mix (meeting WDFW
design criteria) will be placed as substrate for the new culvert coup(ed with the interspersed, protruding
boulders.
Restored stream grading will incorporate lower-velocity stream margin areas where adequate space al(ows (e.g.,
on the inside of ineander bends) to provide refugia for salmonids during high-flow events. Those areas wilf also
function as sediment aggradation areas, and may required periodic sediment removal through future permitted
maintenance activities. Engineered log jams are proposed to be placed in those stream margin areas, both
upstream and downstream of the culvert, to provide added stream habitat benefits. Short-term impacts will
occur from grading due to the removal of some small shrubs, one immature cedar, and invasive species
including Reed canarygrass (Phala(s arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and Japanese
knotweed (FaUopia japonica). This action will be mitigated in-kind by re-establishment of native plantings that
will improve long-term stream shading, reduce stream temperature, and provide a more diverse, vegetated
buffer that produces allochthonous ma'terial for salmonids.
LWD will also be insfalled upstream and downstream of the new culvert. Approximately 40 pieces of LWD will
be placed (individually and as combined units) with partially exposed roofinrads extending into the low water
channel. The LWD will be securely anchored and will include stream bank and pool scour logs, revetment logs,
engineered log jams, and rootwads. These in-water habitat structures are intended to provide more natural
stream morphology and processes, to add channel roughness, to sustain constructed pools, to protect channel
streambanks from erosion, and to provide expanded cover habitat. They will significantly improve the available
habitat for salmonid refugia. '
.
~6b lridicat~ the prQ)~C~ C~#~~Oty ~Cheok ~I~that aPPIY ~ h~l < ; !
. . . . . _ , . . , .
. , . _ : . :
❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ~ Transportation ❑ Recreational
~ Maintenance ~ Environmental Enhancement '
JARPA 2009 Page 5 of 18
6c „(ndicate the.major elements of,you"r pro~ect. (cneck aW that appIy.) hf eipl
❑ Aquaculture ~ Culvert ❑ Float ~ Road
❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Scientific Measurement
❑ Boat House ❑ Dike / Levee / Jetty ❑ Land Clearing Device
❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs
❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility
❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimrning Pool
❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Piling ❑ Utility Line
❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Retaining Wall (upland)
~ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway
❑ Other:
; s. .~it~~ ~2 ~~r~``~` s..;~~, s ;p-..-s c~~~~~' kz~ a # 3~ 'N ,,r,„ .•z
qA`~
~ • e fi : h r~euea e ~ ~ ,v~il~ , `i n e _r:est~a :e ~ ~ ~
~
~
. a v~.~•
The Project will occur within and in the immediate vicinity of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary. The culvert
replacement and portions of the adjacent channel restoration will be within the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary stream channel, but are beyond the regufated FEMA 100-year floodplain that does not extend
upstream beyond the mainstem Mill Creek confluence (FEMA 1995). Generally, heavy construction equipment,
including trackhoe excavators, loaders, a mobile crane (for 3-sided pre-cast box installation), trucks, other
smaller earthwork equipment, and temporary pumps, will be used to perform construetion activities.
Construction staging areas are proposed along and within the adjacent Park-and-Ride lot, which is located
partially within the City of Auburn stream and wetland buffer areas that have been previously altered for the
existing transportation uses.
CARE AND DIVERSION OF WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION
A temporary gravity stream diversion will be used to convey Mil! Creek around the work area while construction
is being done below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) limits (some short-term pumping may also be
required). This is currently envisioned to include use of cofferdams and diversion piping (a temporary pipeline
laid overland) to bypass streamflow during construction from upstream of the work area to the Wetland B outlet
culvert (while maintaining connection with Wetland B), and with downstream extension of that culvert through a
similar temporary pipeline connected back to the channel at the downstream limit of work (see Drawing Sheet
3). Dewatering of the isolafed work area (and treatment of those flows as required) would be conducted by the
construction contractor to achieve a locally dewatered subgrade condition for the replacement culvert installation
and for channel restoration grading. Therefore, Project construction activities, except for installation of portions
of the temporary streamflow diversion and dewatering system, would occur in an isolated, dewatered condition.
These activities include all roadwork, culvert replacement, grading, and LWD/anchors place.ment. WDFW fish
exclusion protocols will be adhered to for all care and diversion of water actions. Additionally, best management
practices (BMPs) will be included in a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan consistent
with the City and Ecology stormwater manual standards to reduce the risk of construction-re(ated water quality impacts to Milt Creek.
JARPA 2009
Page 6 of 18
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SEQUENCE
The proposed consfruction sequence is shown below. Generai methods for major project components are
described beyond that. The construction contractor will be responsible for the specific construction means and
methods.
1. Install signage regarding road closure scheduling in advance of project award (assurned to be a City
activity).
2. lnstall construction fencing around the work area.
3. Flag clearing limits and install clearing limits and silt fencing where specified (e.g., along wetland
boundary interface with the work area).
4. Install temporary stream diversion piping and cofferdam at the downstream and upstream limits of work,
and safely evacuate any trapped fish in the work area reach using methods consistent with WDFW HPA
requirements.
5. Implement temporary roadway closure.
6. Install and operate dewatering pumps/wells, and force mains to dispersed flow treatment (e.g., vegetated
area beyond stream and wetlands upstream of culvert crossing), or to construction phase treatment and
discharge facilities.
7. After a dewatered condition is achieved locally within the work area, remove guardrail, make pavement
sawcuts, remove and dispose of pavement, and complete excavation (including shoring as required) to
remove the 60-inch and 30-inch CMP stream culverts and accommodate the replacement 3-sided box
culvert with bottom slab to subgrade elevations.
8. Pface geosynthetic fabrics and compacted stabilization materials to achieve suitable subgrade bearing
capacity for culvert bottom slab placement.
9. Install formwork and reinforcing stee{, and pour bottom slab and wingwall pre-cast footings; remove t
formwork.
10. Place culvert bed substrate materials including interspersed boulders; place excess materials for shaping
at walls on top of channel bed fill, and move/shape bed materials into pface incrementally as each
section of 3-sided, pre-cast culvert is placed).
11. Using crane, install 3-sided, pre-cast panels (approximate width of each panel is expected to be 5 feet);
make connections at embeds for each panel section, and install pre-cast headwalls and wingwalls.
12. Place box culvert and wingwall wall drains and place specified compacted backfill around and over box
culvert.
13. Complete downstream and upstream channel restoration grading, excess substrate removal, bank
shaping, LWD placement and anchorage, and instatl streambank bioengineered stabilization materials.
14. Remove cofferdams and streamflow diversion, and route streamflows through the replacement box
cu(vert. ~
15. Temporarily obstrucf wetland outflows (e.g., place supersack sand bags); remove and replace%xtend 18-
inch wetland discharge culvert and install rock headwalls.
16. Place compacted pavement subgrade materials; surface p(ain remaining pavement restoration areas,
and complete asphalt concrete pavement restoration of the roadway. !
17. Install guardrail and complete channelization pavement stripping. '
18. Reopen roadway to traffic. '
19. Revegetate all disturbed areas with native plantings. '
20. Remove Temporary Erosion and Sedimenfation Control (TESC) facilities, and generate/respond to
punch list items to successfully complete,, project construction. ,
CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND EQUIPMENT
Expected +construction methods and equipment for each Project element checked in Section 6c follow:
Culvert Replacement
Three existing and deteriorating culverts are to be replaced within the Project area (a complete description of
these hydraulic structures is included in section 5m. A41 road and culvert construction activities will occur in a
dewatered condition within a work area isolated from the creek (see Care and Diversion of Water Section
JARPA 2009
Page 7 of 18
above). Excavation within the roadway prism will likely be accomplished using a trackhoe excavator, with on-
site stockpiling of native materials meeting specifications for re-use. Excess excavation and material unsuitable
for reuse would be trucked off-site to an approved upland disposal site. After stabifization of subgrade to an
acceptable bearing capacity, the cast-in-place bottom slab would be installed by conventional methods (forming,
reinforcement instalfation, casting slab). Streambed substrate over the slab would be placed using a trackhoe or
similar equipment. The 3-sided pre-cast box culvert panels would then be placed within the slab keyway by
mobile crane (streambed material would need to be adjusted for final channel configuration as each box section
is placed). Backfill-and compaction wou(d then be completed using specified subdrainage materials combined
with native or imported granular fill maferials. The third culvert would be replaced separately after streamflows
are re-routed back through the new box culvert. A temporary sandbag cofferdam would be place at each end of
that culvert during its replacement, and similar dewatering would occur prior to roadway excavation and
replacement of the 18-inch culvert. It is anticipated that all of this work would be staged from the existing
roadway since a full road closure will be needed during this construction phase.
Road Restoration
Peasley Canyon Road restoration resurfacing activities will be completed using imported materials (base and top
course, AC pavement) and conventional equipment. Road re-surfacing wilf include surface planning of a larger
area of the disturbed roadway surface, then repaving i# to make slight grade adjustments to the low side of the
road and restore disturbed or degraded pavement sections in proximity to the culvert excavafion. Finally, guard
rails and channelization pavement stripping would be installed using conventional equipment prior to re-opening
the road to traffic. Again, all work in this phase would be staged from the existing roadway under a full road
closure.
Channel Modification Channel modification activities fo adjust the alignment, configuration, and grade of the Mill Creek Peasley
Canyon Tributary channel upstream and downstream of the crossing will be completed once the replacement
culvert is installed and backfilled. These activities include excavating, backfilling, and compacting within the
OHWM limits. Grading for channe( restoration activities will also be conducted under a locally dewatered
condition, likely using a trackhoe excavator. Native streambed substrate mix (excavated, segregated, and
stockpiled) will also be placed in the restored channel bed upstream and downstream of the replacement
culvert. LWD would be placed under the direction of a stream habifat biologist based on the final design layout
and permit condition requirements. It would be securely anchored using convention techniques (e.g., duckbill
anchors, buried rock anchors). Beyond the native plantings restoration, erosion control matting will be installed
and staked (using manual methods), and compost bark mulch would be placed to control weeds and enhance
moisture retention for native plantings instal(ed for the completed project. Most of this work will be staged from
the existing roadway. Limited cleared construction access may also be required along a narrow strip of the
restored channel banks to place/anchor the large woody debris and spillway fogs, and to accomplish the final
grading and native planting restoration (small trucks and small power/hand tools.expected to be used).
~a',~z a r `'-r` ~ ~m ~'',ks.~'.*.q°. n ~,?£~l~y,.r ~ ~;a.j~ ~=:^;3 si" . ~r4:,ss ; - ~.a p.'^ y 4:.~q.z,~. ?ti . ~ zt~` Y'`~.~`-`'~.. ,
4M ,Wi~~ a`~c`
R~.; ~~-.?r','~iv, ~ .3, ~~~~,r a ..r ,~i„r'` -sxw ~'~~r•.~ti..
M. .:..~:.011
a .~✓r,~' ~ i' ~r~ 2w~`,t.<
~
x
Start date: September 1, 2009 End date: October 31, 2009 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D
JARPA 2009 Page 8 of 18
6f Descrtb6 the~purpose ofi fhe work and~why you want or need to,perform it he~ ` ,f 4
This multi-objective Project is proposed to protect the health and safety of motorists traveling afong Peasley
Canyon Road (reduces the risk of potential roadway failure), to reduce the potential for frequent roadway
flooding and associated f(ood damages, and to improve fish passage and stream habitat within the locally
affected Project stream reach. Peasley Canyon Road was shut down and underwent emergency repairs after
problems with the existing culverts caused a major sinkhole in January 2009 during a high-flow event. Another
similar problem occurred in the winter of 2007/2008. Peasley Canyon Road supports a large traffic volume; with
an Average Daily Trip (ADT) rate estimated by the City in 2007 of approximately 23,100. A delay in the Project
beyond the fish window to construct it in 2009 could potentially result in a major roadway failure in the winter
2009/2010 that could endanger the health and safety of the large number of commuters travefling through the
corridor daily. That type of potentia( failure could also cause damage to the West Valley Highway arterial
roadway crossing downstream in addition to stream channel habitat between the crossings, and would likely
result in significant disruption to regional traffic patterns and flow. Beyond reducing this public health and safety
and damage risk, the City of Auburn desires to improve fish passage and restore in-stream and riparian habitat
along Mill Creek.
N4"~-:'`'«4z'z~ rst .tia nd vsvA.L -^2 4 .
~ r~~ ~ R'-:
~ 9~in ~
r
:~a~r_ r r o ~ - clt=~cl g I~ a t~` e n,L~t :
)~1~
..~u?~.~;~^
$900,000; Preliminary (50% design) construction cost opinion
as
~ " ~ ::;,~o ~of~ t~ ,~_z e.:~~~ ~~le~' ;1~ ►~c~~,. ;:e1 ~ ~ f y ~ ~rk ~ ~
v~`~
~
~
El Yes 0 No ❑ Don't know
E
Part 7-Wetlands: Impacts and Mitiga#ion
~ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) a
e
. 1 ~
. . 7 ,
. . . _ . ~
❑ Not applicable
To avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands, a site investigation was conducted for potential wetlands in
the Project area. Wetlands were accurately tied in by City surveys and mapping; and were avoided to the extent
possible given the collective design requirements and constraints. Through the design development process,
Wetland A was avoided entirely, and the Wetland B te.mporary impact was- limited to approximately 600 square
feet (0.014 acres). These impacts will be a result of the clearing and grading required to install the replacement
culvert and to align Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary with it, and the need to accommodate ofher associated
restoration activities. The Project will replace and restore the temporarily impacted wetland soils and hydrotogy
in-kind to a functional wetland habitat with health native emer ent and scrub shrub wetland vegetation
s
:.~'•'y~1
~
El Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know (Limited to temporary impacts to be restored by restoration actions)
a-. r~
~ i.5:.'5ti 4F~.=%
b `z,~. g 2 ° . av . "n 5i g
ii~~~h~~~ra,~~ct ~
-'h , .cx ' ~~r~ U ¢ : x Z t S ' 6 y c.
:;...r..`:.~ .~?z~~
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
~7d H~s~a w~~l~nd del~nea~fiion re~fort been p~'epared? h~ei~°
,
If es; submtt the re~iort ~nci'u~l~og ~I~ta ~heets atV~~h th~ ~~1RPA package ;
;
> . . ; y. . . . .t. _ .
, s.,
. . _ . . .
. . _ _ . _ . . .
~ Yes ❑ No
See Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report, Anchor QEA, LLC, June 2009
JARPA 2009 Page 9 of 18
7e Have the wetlands been rated usir~g the Western ~~lVashmgt~r~ or Easter~ Washington Wetland Rating'Sys~em~
• : 1# yes'subm►~ the wefland ratin forms and fgures with #he JARPA=package ` ' , ' , ` `
.7 .n , . , . . . . . . . . . . . _
_ . . . ....3 . _.:0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
See Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report, Anchor QEA, LLC, June 2009
r.:,'~~- ~ . ..~c~~ ,z~~ ~ ~ ~r~^ ~ ~ z ~ ~ r { v e ~k.'~ . , - a• r~~ ~ ~ . ~4~~_
'1.... v '*~yi~~nk~ „~j`~r s..;'?~.:; s'xr~,.ia 'k"4 ,v..~ .fi':~3~-,~~,+~ x,~.~`ia~ ~ : F. ~~e e ~S'e y 4#:nY~';"'~~-•?-~
,
❑ Yes M No ❑ Not applicable
The only wetiand area to that wili be temporarily impacted by the excavation required for the replacement
culvert installation is Wetland B, adjacent to Mill Creek and near the replacement culvert entrance. No
permanent wetland impacts will occur. Because only 0.014 acres of wetland area will be temporarily impacted
by Project construction, a formal wetland mitigation plan is not required (wetland restoration will be in-kind to
existing conditions for the minimal disturbance area).
:tti. 1 2, k `v ~ 1~T b ,a.:r3<". ~:1tt... W-. J' f' t•
'Y P~ , T J Y ~~:i• ~~y re6.. Rx+ Ff.i ~ 4. a v y l~s ,Y Jx . ~.~.A.e y L~ `f• ~ ~S: ~M+~ ~
el-+ua o~lista-he.~ = e.~.~nd~ratir~. e~ea
' ~ 1
~~~n#~~~,co
e
g.~t f ~r c~v }{k`&.F .sciY~~ :a '~~r~~rf. ~~~~~~~~'~n~~ 3`:~"~l'~
. . . ' ~
. ' ",,.6,.2». . , A . .e, . . , . . .
Activity causing Wetland type Impact area Duration of Proposed Wetiand
impact (fill, and rating (sq. ft. or acres) impact2 mitigat3on mitigation area
drain, excavate, category' type (sq. ft. or acres)
flood, etc.)
Excavation PFO, PSS, PEM, 0.014 acres < 2 months R 0.014 acres
and POW; (for Temporary
Cate o I Im act
Filling PFO, PSS, PEM, 0.014 acres < 2 months R 0.014 acres
and POW; (same impact (for Temporary
Category I footprint area as Impact)
for excavation
~ Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastem Washington Wetiand Rating System. Provide the wetfand
rating forms with the JARPA package.
2 Indicate the time (in months or years, as appropriate) the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if
applicable.
3 Creation (C), Re-establishmenURehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
o'~
" ~~r~~r ~ ~ ~ ~
:..~am.:
Native backfilt material will be used to restore the temporarily impacted area within the Wetiand B limits. The
contractor will be required to segregate and stockpile surficial soils removed from Wetiand B for beneficial reuse
in that disturbed area. Select imported backfill materials that meet the specified material requirements will also
be used if necessary (e.g., under surficial wetland soils to be replaced). Approximately 25 cubic yards of total fill
placement are expected to be needed within the wetland area limits.
JARPA 2009 • Page 10 of 18
7~ ;Fror all excavating actau~ties ideptified rn 7g , descf~be the ~excavation rnetho#ype'-and amount"of rnat~rial in
Y cub~c yards you l remove, and where the material w~ll b~ disposed h[~ s !
. , r . " .
. . ,
. , . . . . . . . . ~ _ .
. ......E...
Excavation activities will be completed using a track hoe excavator after creek diversion and local dewatering of
the work area. Because of the reported wetland soil type (Seattle Muck), the surficial sails are expected to be
highly cohesive and have a high moisture content; as such, they will need to be segregated and stockpiled
separately from other native excavated materials. The required Wetland B temporary excavation is expected to
total approximately 25 cubic yards. The stockpiled surficial wetland soifs will be replaced after channel re-
grading upstream and in proximity to the replacement culvert as part of the restoration activities. Any surplus
soils or soils unsuitable for fill placement will be disposed of off-site at a permitted upland disposal site.
- ~ ~
a ~
»F~ ~ ~ .1 ~*:~a ~ .GC•' °,e2 z H'~~ sy'~ ' i . ~
3~~.
s,
. , . . ',e'~ S L" <
. r. .;"~s.
The Project does not include a compensatory mitigation plan as one is not required for this Project according toN
the ACC Critical Areas Title 16 (City of Auburn 2009). A Critical Areas Report was drafted for the City of Auburn
per the ACC Critical Areas ordinance that reflects the overall improvement to Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary in regards to fish passage and stream/riparian areas habitat features and functions (Anchor QEA
2009b). No permanent impacts will occur and all temporary impacts will be restored and enhanced by the
Project.
The Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report (2000) was consulted as part of the Project assessment. A recovery strategy for the
Green/Duwamish Watershed is included in the report and identifies restoration of habitat functions for salmonids
a critical objective. Mill Creek's riparian buffer in the Project area is degraded and the stream channel is lacking
in in-stream habitat structure. Project benefits include a wider and shorter replacement culvert (resulting in
added channel length and OHW and riparian corridor area), removal of a partial fish passage barrier, addition of
habitat pools, installation of approximatefy 40 pieces of in-channe! LWD, removal of invasive species, and
revegetation of disturbed work areas with native plant species that will provide long-term improvement in the
riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity, and stream shading.
Part 8-Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation ,
In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) hei
~ Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
^ ~~~.v~".r
~'.aOr . 5. F~a'~~~.
~~~~a~ ~~b ~a~► ti t ~ ~~a tio ~ ~ ~s . n~d:~~c~~ ~~i~~ e a > ~e s~ xa: : s~ o £ a - ~ z ~ ~
.es3 ~.`:~'.~'i..:..r.<~~.::. P. . ~ .~m... a"g'''~;1 F"'a;. ~y,a~~,~^ L ~,~,t,,,," ~.i~~i .v s*~~"- -
~ 4~au3; , iH~4'r~;'^.. ~~.'~.`3?a~l..~...~ 3 ..xlz. f3 '~•s„:~,
❑ Not applicable
The Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary OHWM limits were delineated by field investigation, were accurately
tied in by City surveys and mapping; and the extent of instream impact to those areas was limited to the extent
possible given the collective design requirements and constraints. Through the design development process,
the non-wetland waterbody impact area was limited to approxima#ely 3500 square feet (0.080 acres). That "
excavation is needed to remove aggraded channel bed materials adequate to establish an appropriate channel
profile grade for the replacement culvert. Excavation from Mill Creek will occur only after streamflow is
temporarily diverted and the Project work area is locally dewatered, so :excavation should normally occur above
the water table. During the construction phase of the project, BMFs will be implemented to avoid and minimize
adverse impacts to the aquatic environment (inclusive of WDFW protocols for the exclusion and removal of fish
from the Project work area). BMPs addressing water quality protection will be included in a TESC Plan
consistent with City and Ecology stormwater manual standards to reduce the risk of construction phase water
quality impacts on Mil! Creek.
Key benefits from this Project include:
• Installing a significantly wider and shorter replacement culvert with a stream simulation feature that will
improve flood flow and debris conveyance and reduce the potential for roadway flooding and associated
damage
• Establishin the replacement culvert on a stream profile grade that will emulate the lon er channel
JARPA 2009 Page 11 of 18
gradient leading to reduced localized channel bed aggradation within and in proximity to the culvert
• Removing a partial fish passage barrier, facilitating year-round salmonid use of approximately .65 mifes
of upstream rearing and spawning habitats
• Adding significant quantities of in-channel LWD in the proximity of the replacement culvert to provide
multiple stream process and functional stream habitat benefits
• Removing invasive species, and revegetating disturbed Project areas with native plant species that will
provide long-term improvement in the riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity, and stream
shading.
~~~t ~ ~
~¢;%wr'*.'~z~ "~~A. ~F~~: ~5a`: ~ .~,s
ss
~68b ";1~1~11 ~o~r~p c~am aa~~`a;Wa~~rbod o ~ ~ar.ea ar~ou`~ ci a~
. ~Y ~ Y ,n..
a.i,..~'.... .r;~, .a,.
oj-{~,9"&
a..3..,.,:~nr..4.~
~
~ Yes ❑ No
~.t
~y.
~~~Cr~O' ^fl
a-~ ~
Activity Waterbody Impact ~ Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or
. causing impact name location' of to be placed in or linear ft.) of
(clear, dredge, impact2 removed from waterbody
fill, pile drive, waterbody directly
etc.) affected
Excavation Mill Creek Within and < 2 150 cubic yards 3,500 sf
Peasley adjacent to months
Canyon existing
Tributa culverts
Filling Mill Creek Within and < 2 200 cubic yards 3,500 sf
Peasley adjacent to months (includes substrate fill
Canyon existing within wider
Tributary culverts replacement culvert
that is beyond the
existin OHWM limits
Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the
waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain:
2 Indicate the time (in months or years, as appropriate) the waterbody will be measurably impaeted by the work. Enter "permanent" if
a licable.
-:5*.~w` r« he•~''9s' . .,,.o.:.. .r ~
~ .~.p~..w~~r 3
o.~~p
~
~g.~ ~ ~ ,r;k c , c a• ,i~ ~g t s ~4 1
~
e
u ~•nt...:,. ~a`~a m~~~`~~.A~4~X d ~~y 3~,!...~..' ?,rN,.~,~_.;~.`,F .u~C^~~~~;rk i,. ^,Y3~^'~f " sa-:x.'~"FR,~€ic s;'~', '"~.~~'ti ~~f.5_c:
~ >a L . es;.s~ ~ p1an w~# ....q........ pa~k^~
n <
' ❑ Yes Z No ❑ Not applicable
~3
& 2~r
~•;`at,~,u.;~~t.- ~r~L''s3.~-. a l',~. . 1`. ~'y9% ,7~~.r s^. ' fS:t.L"~~~~5'.c \~„Y .~'!`b%
r ~ w
3"'+ ~ .f Sh~i'~` E Y
The Project does not include a compensatory mitigation plan as one is not required for this Project according to
the ACC Critical Areas Title 16 (City of Auburn 2009). A Critical Areas Report was drafted for the City of Auburn
per the ACC Critical Areas ordinance that reflects the overall improvement to Mill Creek Peasley Ca.nyon
Tributary in regards to fish passage antl stream/riparian areas habitat features and functions (Anchor QEA
2009b). No permanent impacts will occur and all temporary impacts will be restored and enhanced by the
Project.
The Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report (2000) was consulted as part of the Project assessment. A recovery strategy for the
Green/Duwamish Watershed is inctuded in the report and identifies restoration of habitat functions for salmonids
a critical objective. Mill Creek's riparian buffer in the Project area is degraded and the stream channel is lacking
in in-stream habitat structure. Project benefits include a wider and shorter replacement culvert (resulting in
added channel len th and OHW and ri arian corridor area), removal of a partial fish assa e barrier, addition of
JARPA 2009 ' Page 12 of 18
habitat pools, installation of approximately 40 pieces of in-channel LWD, removal of invasive species, and
revegetation of disturbed work areas with native plant species that will provide long-term improvement in the
riparian corridor vegetative cover, plant diversity, and stream shading.
r. ..s... . a`.,,:.
Backfill will be used to restore the impacted areas within the Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary channel. The
contractor will be required to segregate and stockpile channel bed substrate materiafs removed from within the
OHWM limits for beneficial reuse within the realigned channel OHWM limits (beyond the imported substrate
material mix placed in the replacement culvert). Approximately 140 cubic yards of well-graded cobble-boulder
mix wiU be placed within the new 20-foot span by 90-foot long 3-sided box culvert (along with approximately 70 2-
foot diameter interspersed, projecting boulders). Another approximate 60 cubic yards of native (excavated)
streambed substrate material will be placed in the upstream and downstream restored channel sections in
proximity to the replacement culvert inlet and outlet.
.g~,~ a'~l,~e~cau ~ir~ ~~rd• -d in =aiuti:-~r~de.: i ~ ~a; ~ ~y,__ s~rb~~.?°`~ e:'. 'et." ~o~e c v~`}~ Y` {
Excavation activities will be completed using a trackhoe excavator and the native substrate material will be
segregated and stockpiled on-site for placement in the restored stream channel bed. Approximately 150 cubic
yards of material within the OHW limits will be excavated. Any surplus excavated streambed substrate material
will either be placed locally around LWD or disposed of off-site at a permitted upland disposal site.
Part 9-Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project.
3a"iW
AA~aU~ ~
J
~
?t, .~"ES~.r'Xf. K~_~;~,.?F"~,~":.::. .?.~2.~..~a.°~,r:,K~~~ ~~b~,".~i';.L~..v~;;ra:eEf3~F,fi.4'`~,~'; ,.~~``•4~,~~:~.n N'r'(~..?.~'~~~~t:;+..~~'5+b~ ,~a,. ,a~3~~ti
WDFV1/ Larry Fisher (425) 313-5683 May 11, 2009
Muckleshoot Indian Martin Fox (253) 876-3121 May 11, 2009
Tribe Fisheries Division
City of Auburn Planning Kelly McLain Aardal (253) 288-7432 May 11, 2009
r~ a
r~~ F.'~rx: ~ F;r^ ; .;s~-,~' a r~ ,r E~.~~~. F' " ~ e . ; ~kyy ;t ,~...~^.~i ~ ~ f, ,;y . }y~ n~~''-
_til:~
"v"~ ,
~-yy~~.
a'~ti'
F~:9r~~~~
~F" I
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a e,~ ~ ss~~:,'s~►"~~i~~EQQ rx. ~
. s~.
a_ , i4
~ Yes ❑ No '
Sections of Mill Creek upstream from the Project area are currently identified on Ecology's 303(3) List (January
2009). Listed parameters include Category 5 fecal coliform levels and Category 2 high temperature and low
dissolved oxygen levels. The wetlands located in the Project area are not currently identified on the 303(d) List.
~9~ ~IVhat"l~;S ~Ge`ologi,~ai Sunrey Hyc#rofog~~a1~tJn~t i' th~ pro~ect M~
9 .
• Go to h,tq //cfpub epa govlsurfllocate'li nd ex,cfm 4rVhe1p ideri#ify the F~U~ `y
. . , ,
. .R
~--,-7. -
. . _ . .
17110019 - Puget Sound Watershed
JARPA 2009 Page 13 ot 18
9d What V1/ater Resource inventoryArea Numb.er.(WRIA #)`is the,project in?
Go to htt :/p /:www ecy wa:qoV/services/ais7maps/wriaLwria.~itm fo fnd the 1NRIA
WRIA 09
w UVillxtheYm water ~o:r~struction work comply with the State of Washin ton ater qual~ty s#~nda~ds=for~~~~~`
ti-O
y g s ~ "3 ~I'1 t * x E ~`€'z~X:< t .r',. ~,~C~'x'`.`{a ro r~'+~i '~'x" .--'y a ~~a~ ,
~ Go to http llwww ec wa qov~pro rams/w Iswps/crttena html for the st~nd~rd`s ~ ~ 3
~
~"ta~a' *!°s.~..~ t .<tc ~Txz z,•.,
_ .1.:.~. ,t
. . , ~ .
~ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
r~Brf'-.i ~tx.t; ,snr ~,~x~
:~9f ~,~If ~tae pCopect is v~ithtn the di ction~f #he 5~jo eoN~ana~gem~nt~A6t, wha`~~as~t~e (o~a#._shorelrr~e~~=~~
. , ~ 'i s~ ' • ; { d^a : r .L~ ~ k . x E . a"~ d.~~'~,z~~~,.~°7~'y; ^
~ vir;onme
nt°~desig~at»n? hel > Not Ap0U~able~~~ U
tf y4u tlan t know cor~ta~t the tocat, plat~n~r~g d~~~rtm~n~~ $ ~ { ~ x < x ~ ~ .
~~P,~~ ~ ~ ~ °-For:more infdrmation go to http llwww:e~v wa govlp~~ogramsfsea~sma/la'~ni's~~r<ule"s/173:26/2<3'f. des~qnatf~n'~s #~;tml~ ~ ~s ~ ~ €~~.J~ ~
❑ Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other
Y 3: r,~~'~ ~ s. ~k ~ ~ .i... s , .;.Y.` z ,°`x r si ae * +i`~',,.,~-y;er ys.,i'a~ +ri'' . . ti~ ~~a~ '~.~,t a ~.w. ~~~~'~'ir-s°s& ~5~~ "a""~. ?8e~t9 e~.`~.~. . 3~ +
Gokto htt llwwv~r.c~nr~wa ov/BusmessPerm~ts/T~'a ie'~.~~~~or.e~fFrac'tic~~A ' = icafrons/P~""es/.# :wa~te'rt 'm° • ~~s x'fio~`~t ~?y,'(~o, ~ ~~~,~F,
,
~*~.\a a'S. / w--r.o .'s`!1.4 , e's'., ~ nf ..:.5 1t `*^~'~'~,~1+. - . ''e~ ~ ✓ ~m ~"eR~ ~ ~
j ~~racticeS Water Typir-g ~Ystem ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~z } ~ E~- s ~
❑S ~F ❑Np ❑Ns
P~. . . h ,+?+00 :.i ffi 4+..~'~~
~ . 4:v r4 ' . 7T ~'sw~`6 ~C,• ~ s :.~%h~ ~ .:3~ r.e€,,. sT. ";X; ~"q , n ~y~ f~ . ..Iy L ,.%~~~„s~, rf4.~„F&.;.. ~ ~ .'`m:sa 2 f '
e design sfi cu~ ~f~t stor'r~AT~~~
bed to meet the asfi`ingto ~Qepa ~iient o#~olog~ s~,}io
s~,..,.t.~r £ ~y'
~t~'4~' ~ ~ ~,~4~ w ~vs? n'` +@^v.✓x k ~ 3' ~
7k' Sti
~C~rIUqu~P's'~ hL ~fn ' ~ ~ ff .5 + E ~ : ~~-~•-^~.7 ~ ~wYx3 ~.qt~}~`,~~a„"~aY,, a ~
u,~.v~..q, 8
a? - ~c 2 • < '5.,~ v sr a<, s .
rY
~a
_ ~I~1~.o'~; pro~ide #he~n~rLte of #he rnanual
0 Yes ❑ No
Name of manual: Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005).
gg s# v'.~ tiz ..ar ' f i~.~~ -''tv xyanc. ~ - ~ 5:~ t
.~`-u~knou~r u~c~tat the er~ ~as us~ ~f,. r~~ e:be~ow'`: ner z:: ~j.
~u .~.._~...,~~~~pro ..y ~
~x.~~.~ ~
The current and past use of the Project area includes Peasley Canyon Road as an arterial route for
transportation purposes. More recently, the park-and-ride lot between Peasley Canyon Road and West
Valley Highway has been added as a supplemental transportation use. Historic aerial photos of the
area show potential pasture land in the upstream floodplain area of Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
Tributary where logging and clearing was done to provide for such uses. These land uses were
abandoned in the early 1970s and the floodplain has since been allowed to naturally recover to its
current condition. Aerial photos reviewed with design development suggest that a building (a possible
service station) may have existed between about 1972 and 1981 in the Project area adjacent to West
Valley Highway (in the area of the current Park-and-Ride lot).
;Y7 ~~'~r~" s~ F ~,,7 3~3...: ~.R`.,Y y"~,a ,,,3i..,~ ;..-~.~f.k~4x :r^`r`t ks 1 .,+s ~ a~.:- t~ 3f,:,,:~.k y i.r's^.~~ r~,.~.✓es*~' ~ M.,~i~~.
~H~r.f ~al~ural ~esource~ archa olo ~cal sunr~ k~een erfarm~: .o t~ea r_o ecy~r~` he1: ~ ;
~ l . t'1~♦ aLa a~~ :.y. , 2 4~ .~i~F...,r.~;~l~~; a,~f'^~*...z _ 4~ ; y;~;e;.. ,3 ~ N 1r yja~.~~H~1 ~,~3 ~Yy~}~ k.T _
_ ,.G <<t!s... ..3$.,..
❑ Yes E No (An application was submitted by the City for ACOE permitting of another nearby site, and ~
there was no requirement for such a survey for that project)
►',~~y f,~ p r s ~ ~e~er ~nda ge`ced ,~pecte~ ~,ct t)~at Q,c~~~s~~r~r~~e ~u ci~ity. ~ ~~e~,~~~j~,~t
.
}~~~area or m~ght be a~fected by the prop~s~d work ~ ` ~ ~ r ~ ~F ~ ~ ; X~`~~~~.s~~ ~
~t
, . . . . S.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species occurring in the vicinity of the Project are limited to winter
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Steelhead and Chinook are
both listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and are known to occur within or
near the site. Steelhead use Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary in the Project area for rearing and as a
migration corridor; no stee(head spawning is known to occur within Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Tributary in the
Project area. Fal! Chinook salmon, if present, would use the area solely as a migration corridor. No other ESA
listed species are known to occur at or in the vicinity of the Project area.
JARPA 2009 ' Page 14 of 18
Name each s;pecies or ~iab~tat on #he 1Nashmgton Department of Fish and Wildl~fPriority Habitats ari`d,
Sp~ec►es Ltst that mi gh# be affected b y the pro po~sed work h[ e l p~
WDF1/V PHS maps identify the reach of Mill Creek Peasley CanyonlTributary within the Project area as having priority fish presence, with documented use by fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and resident cutthroat trout.
The WDFW SalmonScape fish mapper identifies the presence of coho salmon and winter steelhead. Two
federally listed species, fall Chinook and winter steelhead, are missing in each of these maps. This discrepancy
regarding fish species presence was discussed with a WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist (RHB) and it was
determined that there is an overall lack of documentation of fish species in the area and presence of fall Chinook
is unlikely during the proposed instream construction window (September 1 to October 15) due to low flows in
Mill Creek that occur at that time (Foley 2009).
The following table (Table 1) includes a list of the priority habitat species that might be affected by the proposed
work. The priority habitaf that will be affected by the proposed work includes on(y in-stream habitat.
Table 1
King County Listed WDFW Priority Habitat Species Potentially Affected by Project
Species Latin Name State Federal
Vertebrates
River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi C SOC
Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch C SOC
Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss C T
Resident Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki clarki none none
Fall Chinook Oncorynchus tshawytscha C T
' Birds
Great Blue Heron Ardea Herodias none none
Legend
E = Endangered
T = Threatened
SOC = Species of Concern
C = Candidate
None = not included
Part 10-Identify the Permits You Are Applying For
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
• Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecv.wa.qov/opas/.
• Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help _ora.wa.aov.
'"f ~ ~;~.•UF~ rA~t M1 ' A~~ .K '~g"£~~ ri' ~~y~~~ t.m'~', f 6 ~,,,''R_'^
. 0 avva o~'/ rt~~fsre f e ~~i t ~
_r. _a,.<M: ~ . . -~+a,,.,, ' -<g°'_7 :"'..T'u.~~~,~.»~H-. ,.,.e F~. .am. _ o,n.ie.~<a,.3/ In tR:i.~.~~:~.~..'vs'' , ~.k, .
❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
~ A SEPA determination is pending with the Citv of Auburn. The expecfed decision date is mid-July 2009.
❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (check the box below in 10b.)
• Submit the Fish Habitat Enhancement Project form with this application. The form can be found at
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/Portals/ Jar aResourceCenter/ima es/defaulUfishenhancement.doc
❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
JARPA 2009 Page 15 of 18
❑ Other:
❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. hf eid
h: Ob,.~.n1n r~ #e t ~e~~e~'.~ itsf.You~ar~~a • Y~~ ~~fl f~.f~ ~ a {,~~z ~ ~ ~ .
,
Local Government Shoreline permits:
❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance
❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other city/county permits:
❑ Floodplain Developmenf Permit ~ Critical Areas Ordinance
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
~ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption
Washington Department of Ecology:
❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Project has no permanent wetland impact)
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
❑ Aquatic Resources Use Authorization
United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
0 Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ~ Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard permits:
❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects)
Part 11-Authorizing Signatures
Signatures required before submitting the JARPA package.
11 a. Applicant Signature (required) nf elp]
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and, belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete,
and accurate. I also certify that I have the aufhority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work
only after I have received all necessary permits.
I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this
application. (initiaq •
By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the
permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work
related to the project. (initiai)
Applicant Date
JARPA 2009 Page 16 of 18 '
11 b. Authorized Agent Signature hel
I certify that to #he best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete,
and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I.agree to start work
only after all necessary permits have been issued.
Authorized Agent Date
11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) hei
I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site
or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the
landowner. Property Owner Date
18 U.S.C §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss
can ca11711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disabiliry can call (877) 833-6341.
ORA publication number: ENV-019-09
JARPA 2009 Page 17 of 18
References
Anchor QEA, LLC. 2009a. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation. Prepared for the City of Auburn
Pubfic Works Department. June 2009.
Anchor QEA, LLC. 2009b. Critical Areas Report. Prepared for the City of Auburn Public Works Department.
June 2009.
City of Auburn. 2009. Auburn City Code http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/auburn/ Accessed on May 25,
2009.
Ecology. 2008. Washingfon State's 2008 Water Quality Assessment 303d webpage
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/PROGRAMS/wq/303d/2008/index.html January 2009. Accessed on February 23,
2009.
Foley, S. June 1, 2009. Personal communication via telephone between Steve Foley, WDFW RHB, and Josh
Jensen of Anchor QEA, LLC.
Kerwin, J and Nelson, T. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report:
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. Prepared for King County and the Washington
State Conservation Commission; 770 pp.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage.
Prepared by Ken Bates, P.E., Chief Environmental Engineer, WDFW; 111 pp.
WDFW. 2009a. Priority Habitat Species (PHS) Maps. Maps received: April 2009.
WDFW. 2009b. SalmonScape Mapper. Accessed online at http://www.wdfinr.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ on
February 23, 2009.
JARPA 2009 Page 18 of 18
< t- , .
Ferk
. { 4 i ' t ~
r
-8288IhSl1~~ ~j
p
C. • i-. il ~t ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ r~ „-.i.~~6
-
~7
~ r~ L G~Ulaebt 1 ) J ~ ~c~ . m~1 ~~"L(~
~-JV~ Ni[rk j t • f } .F ~ D
-j I--~lr~ ~L~~ I E-,b ~F' ak~
~JL.~~7 ` ~".t..t`
~
~i a~ 3 aes9, ~
:Y 3 ~...................t
2~~~'F i ~ - ~'A~~W ~
c
W0.111. Bkb~Ad: venePgk
_ ~4 ti !~~l ~ Z ~.F~k ~ • .zut~~Jl
e~ I t"~ ' 11.+~a .J C' i ~ ~ e ~ ( . ✓
R'
. {f~~f."~ `atFederel Wey . M ~ ti~ f . 4 ~ E, J~~ ~
~ .~J
''y~,
.+~.5' CeWsbradan ~ R
;
.o C
3i orth'Leke{ .c,3[x6~179~ ~
..i~'~. 1 ~G~ 9G' 1~ ! r
,,,~~94
IIC48
t` . " x S ~
[~`-~y{~
16t F1 ° X
6118
~ ,4 Eerlsented,'~ .Fiiw►Ate ~ ' . ~b -.;e~- F..`~ ~`"F~ ~ x r~'~~
a ~ f Pe(~f . ~ ~ e ~ • ~ ~
~.~1
~ Y ~M, ~ > i67 ~ , ~f;~u ~
C-3
0
o VICINITY MAP
U
~ 0 1/2 1 MILE
U
~ DIRECTIONS TO SITE SCALE: 1"=1 MILE
E
e From interstate 5 Q-5J:
g • Take exit #1428 (Aubum/North Bend)
~ • Go east on WA-98 - 2.7 miles
~ • Take Wesf Valley Hwy exif - go 02 miles
~ • Tum righf (south) on West Valley Hwy - go 300 feet
g • Tum right (west) on Peasley Canyon Road - go 250 feef
• Tum right into Park and Ride
• Site located 200 feet northwest from Park and Ride entrance
s
PURPOSE: Flood Damage Reducfion; Fish NAME: City ofAubum PROPOSED: Mill Creek Peasley Canyon
~ Passage/Habitat Enhancement Public Works Dept. Road Culvert Repalcement
~ Project
DATUM: Latitude: 47.303181 REF
~ Longitude:122.259594 -
N Datum: IYAVD 88 /N: Aubum
~ S-T-R: Secs 14&23, T21N, R4E COUNTYOF: King
N ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCA T/ON ADDRESS: STATE: Washington
o See Sheet 2 Peasley Canyon Rd 8 West Valley Hwy
; Aubum, Washington 98001 DATE: 06103109 SHEET.• 1 of 11
~
ANCHOR
, WASH7N~ Qi:A ~.irtl
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
' Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
V` FISH and RCW 77.55.181 - Appeal to Hydraulic Appeais Board Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDUFE RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal Pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW (425) 775-1311
issue Date: August 24, 2009 Control Number: 118160-1
Project Expiration Date: August 23, 2014 FPA/Public Notice N/A
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Auburn City of Public Works Department Anchor QEA, LLC
ATTENTION: Robert Lee ATTENTION: Derek Koelimann
25 West Main Street 1605 Cornwail Avenue
Auburn, WA 98002 Bellingham, WA 98225
253-931-3010 360-733-4311(221)
Fax: 360-733-4312
Project Name: Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert Replacement
Project Description: Replace 60 inch and 30 inch diameter CMP culverts with a 20 foot wide three
sided concrete box culvert using a stream simulation design on Mill (official
name is Hill) Creek on Peasley Canyon Road near the park and ride lot.
PROVISIONS
1. Work below the ordinary high water line (OHWL) shall occur only between June 16 and
September 30.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below (e-mail to
fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov) and the Enforcement Program Officer (e-mail to brazirsb@dfw.wa.gov) shall
receive e-mail notification from the persan to whom this Hydraulic Project Approva! (HPA) is issued
(permittee) no less than three working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of
completion of work to arrange a compliance inspection. The notification shall include the
permittee's name, project location, starting date of work or completion date of work, and the control
number of this HPA.
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) entitled, "MILL CREEK PEASLEY CANYON ROAD
CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT", dated June 3, 2009, except as modified by this HPA. A
copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Streambed material shall be distributed inside the new culvert in a manner which simulates a
natural stream, with banks against the sides of the culvert being the highest point of the material,
with larger boulders along the sides of the culvert.
5. A temporary bypass to divert flow around the work area shalt be in place prior to initiation of
other worlc in the wetted perimeter.
6. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the bypass inlet to divert the entire
flow through the bypass.
7. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at_the ownstream end of the bypass to
prevent backwater from entering the work area. SAb~~° ~
Page 1 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.181 - Appeal to Hydraulic Appeals Board Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal Pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW (425) 775-1311
Issue Date: August 24, 2009 Control Number: 118160-1
Project Expiration Date: August 23, 2014 FPA/Pubiic Notice N/A
8. The bypass shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris for the duration of the project.
9. Prior to releasing the water flow to the project area, all instream work shall be completed.
10. Upon completion of the project, all material used in the temporary bypass shall be removed
from the site and the site returned to preproject or improved conditions.
11. The permittee shall capture and safely move food fish, game fish, and other fish life from the job site. The permittee shall have fish capture and transportation equipment ready and on the job site.
Captured fish shall be immediately and safely transferred to free-flowing water downstream of the
project site. The permittee may request that WDFW assist in capturing and safely moving fish life
from the job site to free-flowing water, and assistance may be granted if personnel are available.
12. Any device used for diverting water from a fish-bearing stream shall be equipped with a fish
guard to prevent passage of fish into the diversion device pursuant to RCW 77.57.010 and
77.57.070. The pump intake shall be screened with 1/8-inch mesh to prevent fish from entering the
system. The screened intake shalf consist of a facility with enough surface area to ensure that the
velocity through the screen is less than 0.4 feet per second. Screen maintenance shall be
adequate to prevent injury or entrapment to juvenile fish and the screen shall remain in place
whenever water is withdrawn from the stream through the pump intake.
13. The culvert shall be installed to maintain structural integrity to the 100-year peak flow with
consideration of the debris likely to be encountered.
14. Fill associated with the culvert installation shall be protected from erosion to the 100-year peak
flow.
15. The culvert shall be installed and maintained to avoid inlet scouring and to prevent erosion of
stream banks downstream of the project.
16. The culvert facility shall be maintained by the owner per RCW 77.57.030 to ensure continued,
unimpeded fish passage. If the structure becomes a hindrance to fish passage, the owner shall be
responsible for obtaining an HPA and providing prompt repair. Financial responsibility for
maintenance and repairs shall be that of the owner.
17. Distur6ance of the streambed and banks and their associated vegetation shall be limited to that
necessary to perform the project. Affected streambed and bank areas shall be restored to
preproject or improved habitat configuration. Prior to December 31 of the year of project installation,
the approved planting plan (Provision 3) shall be installed. Plantings shall be maintained as
necessary for three years to ensure 80 percent or greater survival of each species or a contingency
species approved by the AHB.
Page 2 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.181 - Appeal to Hydraulic Appeals Board Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal Pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW (425) 775-1311
Issue Date: August 24, 2009 Control Number: 118160-1
Project Expiration Date: August 23, 2014 FPA/Public Notice N/A
18. Equipment used for this project shall be free of external petroleum-based products while
working around the stream. Accumulation of soils or debris shall be removed from the drive
mechanisms (wheels, tires, tracks, etc.) and undercarriage of equipment prior to its working below
the OHWL. Equipment shall be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be
completed prior to commencing work activities along the stream.
19. If at any time, as a result of project acfivities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or
water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be
made to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990, and to the AHB.
20. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering the stream.
These may include, buf are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds,
check dams of pea gravel-filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of
exposed areas.
21. Prior ta starting work, the selected erosion control methods (Provision 20) shall be installed.
Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the erosion
control methods after completion of work.
22. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed
to an area tandward of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to
being discharged to the stream or to wetlands associated with the stream.
23. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this
project shall be deposited above the limits of floodwater in an approved upland disposal site.
24. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall
stop until the flow subsides.
25. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement,
sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed
to enter or leach into the stream or into wetlands associated with the stream.
PROJECT LOCATIONS
Location #1 Mill Creek Peasley Canyon Road Culvert
WORK START: August 24, 2009 WORK END: August 23, 2014
WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to:
09.0051 iHill Creek Green River
114 SEC: Section: Township: 122n2t: Latitude: Longitude: County:
SW 1/4 14 21 N 04 E N 47.30318 W 122.25959 King
Location #1 Driving Directions
from West Valley Freeway south of Hwy 18, go west on Peasley Canyon Road
Page 3 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Miil Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.181 - Appeal to Hydraulic Appeals Board Mill Creek, WA 980 1 2-1 296
WILDLIFE RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal Pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW (425) 775-1311
Issue Date: August 24, 2009 Control Number. 118160-1 ,
Project Expiration Date: Augusf 23, 2014 FPA/Public Notice N/A I
APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULfC PROJECT APPROVALS '
This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, I
specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be
necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying
for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be
necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions fo(lowed by the
person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work.
This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held
liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this
Hydraulic Project Approval.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one
hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
Alt Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.021 (EXCEPT agricultural irrigation, stock watering or
bank stabilization projects) or 77.55.141 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department
of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal
such decisions. All agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization Hydraulic Project Approvals issued
pursuant to RCW 77.55.021 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wifdlife due to changed conditions after
consultation with the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such
modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 77.55.301.
. APPEALS INFORMATION
If you wish to appeal the issuance or denial of, or conditions provided in a Hydraulic Project Approval, there are
informal and formal appeal processes available.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021,
77.55.141, 77.55.181, and 77.55.291: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department
actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department
of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and shall be
RECEIVED by the Department within 30 days of the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an
order imposing civil penalties. If agreed to by the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party is the Hydraulic Project
Approval applicant, resolution of the concerns will be facilitated through discussions with the Area Habitat Biologist and
his/her supervisor. If resolution is not reached, or the aggrieved party is not the Hydraulic Project Approval applicant,
the Habitat Technical Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision
to the Director or his/her designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may
be filed.
Page 4 of 5
wasnin9ton HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
' FISH and RCW 77.55.181 - Appeal to Hydraulic Appea{s;Board Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal Pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW (425) 775-1311
Issue Date: August 24, 2009 Control Number: 118160-1
Project Expiration Date: August 23, 2014 FPAJPublic Notice N/A
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021
(EXCEPT agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization projects) or 77.55291:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request a formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other'agency action' for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure
Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals
Coordinator, shall be plainly labeled as'REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL' and shall be RECEIVED DURING
OFFICE HOURS by the Department at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, within 30-days of
the Department action that is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during
consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal
appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021 (agricultural irrigation,
stock watering or bank stabilization only), 77.55.141, 77.55.181, or 77.55.241: A person who is aggrieved or adversely
affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
Hydraulic Project Approval may request a fonnal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to
the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two -
Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 43.21 L RCW: A person
who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or
provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The FORMAL APPEAL shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21 L RCW and Chapter 199-08 WAC. The request for FORMAL APPEAL
shall be in WRITING to the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board at Environmental Hearings Office,
Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, P.O. Box 40903,
Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
E. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS results in forfeiture of all appeal rights. If there is
no timely request for an appeal, the department action shall be final and unappealable.
ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P2E
Habitat Biologist for Director
Larry Fisher 425-313-5683 WDFW
CC:
Page 5 of 5