HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2020 HE Packet 9.16.2020
HEARING EXAMINER
September 16, 2020
5:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
25 West Main Street
The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for September 16, 2020 at
5:30 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please
click the link or enter the meeting ID into the Zoom app or call into the meeting at the phone
number listed below.
Per the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from
holding an in-person meeting at this time.
Per City of Auburn Resolution No. 5533, the location for Hearing Examiner meetings will
be virtual until King County enters into Phase 3 of the Governor's Safe Start Reopening
Plan.
The link to the Virtual Meeting or Phone number to listen to the Hearing Examiner is:
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join:
Join Zoom Meeting (COA Hearing Examiner)
https://zoom.us/j/96768499088
Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088
877 853 5257 US Toll-free
I. Case No: SHL18-0001
Applicant/Property
Owner(s): Dan & Janilee Jeffery
32267 104th Pl SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Agent: EnCo Environmental Corporation
Jonathan Kemp
PO BOX 1236
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Request: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future
construction of a new single-family residence within the
Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation.
Page 2
Project Location: The site is located along the right bank of the Green River,
directly to the north of 32267 104th Pl SE.
Parcel Number(s): The King County parcel number is 3341000140.
II. Case No: SHL20-0006
Applicant: Jeff Misuik
Puget Sound Energy
PO BOX 97037 M/S EST04W
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
Property Owner: City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
Request: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to allow for
the installation of an underground electric feeder tie within
the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation.
Project Location: The site is located along the left bank of the Green River at
Brannan Park, directly to the east of the baseball fields.
Parcel Numbers: King County Assessor Parcel No. 0001000081.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
HEARING EXAMINER
Agenda Subject/Title:
SHL18-0004, Guyll Residence
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
Date:
September 16, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
DESCRIPTION:
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future construction of a new single-family
residence within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit request.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant seeks to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel located along
the right bank of the Green River within the City’s Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation.
The site has a zoning designation of R-5 Residential Zone, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre. The
residence will be setback 100 feet from the Ordinary High W ater Mark (OHWM) of the Green
River and be designed to meet all of the setback and development requirements of the Urban
Conservancy Shoreline Designation and the R-5 Zone.
LOCATION:
The site is located along the right bank of the Green River, directly to the north of 32267 104th Pl
SE; The King County parcel number is 3341000140.
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER:
Dan & Janilee Jeffery, 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE:
EnCo Environmental Corporation, Jonathan Kemp, PO Box 1236, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 2 of 17
The Comprehensive Plan designation, Shoreline environment designation, zoning classification
and current land uses of the site and surrounding properties are:
Location Comprehensive
Plan Designation Zoning Classification Shoreline
Environment
Designation
Current
Land Use
Subject Site “Single Family” R-5 Residential, 5 du
per acre
Urban
Conservancy Vacant
North “Single Family” R-5 Residential, 5 du
per acre
Urban
Conservancy
Single family
residential
South “Single Family” R-5 Residential, 5 du
per acre
Urban
Conservancy
Single family
residential
East “Single Family” R-5 Residential, 5
du per acre
N/A Public Road
West “Open Space” Open Space Urban
Conservancy
Green River
Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Designation Map:
Subject Site
Open Space
Single-Family
Single-Family
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 3 of 17
Excerpted Zoning Designation Map:
2017 Aerial Vicinity Map:
Subject Site
Open Space
R-5 Residential
Zone, 5 dwelling
units per acre
R-5 Residential
Zone, 5 dwelling
units per acre
Subject Site
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 4 of 17
Shoreline Environment Designations
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
Green River
Subject Site
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 5 of 17
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Proposal Description
1. Janilee Jeffery (now Guyll) and Dan Guyll, applied on October 26, 2018 for a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) to allow for the construction of a new single-family
residence and associated site development activities within the Urban Conservancy
Shoreline Designation, at King County parcel number 3341000140. A copy of the Site
Plan, prepared by Chelladek Studios, Inc., dated May 18, 2020 is included as Exhibit 6.
2. The proposed residence would be two stories and be approximately 2,293 square feet in
area. The residence will be setback 100 feet from the Green River Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM).
3. As part of the proposal, 14 existing high risk trees and vegetation disturbance would
occur on the entire site. With the exception of the removal of invasive plant species and
six high-risk trees, no vegetation disturbance is proposed within 100 feet of the OHWM
of the Green River.
4. To offset the loss of the removed trees, six new trees will be planted in the northwest
corner of the site. The six trees will be at least six feet tall at time of planting and consist
of two Western Red Cedars, one Douglas Fir, one Red Alder, one Pacific Willow, and
one Oregon Ash Additionally, the removed trees will be converted to terrestrial habitat
features including snags and perches.
Site Characteristics
5. The project site is a 9,949 square foot vacant parcel that abuts 104th Pl SE. The site is
located along the right bank of the Green River. Because the Green River abuts the
site, the entire site is located within 200 feet of the Green River Ordinary High Water
Mark and is within the ‘Urban Conservancy’ shoreline designation.
6. The Green River, which abuts the site directly to the west, is a mapped floodway with a
small portion of the special flood hazard area (SFHA) extending onto the site.
Additionally, this portion of the Green River has a mapped Channel Migration Zone,
meaning that the river could change its course long term and diverge into the mapped
area. Because of the proximity of the Green River, a small portion of the site is also
located within a Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ), a type of regulatory floodplain area per
Chapter 15.68 ACC, “Floodplain Development Management”. The limits of the RBZ ends
at the edge of the SFHA. See Exhibit 3 for a Copy of the City’s Critical Area map.
7. In addition to being a Shoreline of the State, the Green River is also classified by the
City as regulated “Critical Area” and more specifically as a Type S Stream per ACC
16.10.080, “Classification and rating of critical areas”. As outlined in SMP 4.5, Table
1, Type S Streams within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation have a 100
foot setback from the OHWM.
8. The applicant provided a Wetland & Stream Delineation with Habitat Impact Assessment
Report, prepared by EnCo Environmental Corporation, dated August 24, 2018 and an
addendum, dated April 8, 2019, in order to identify any additional wetland or other critical
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 6 of 17
areas on the property and address any impacts associated with development within the
RBZ. The Report concluded that there are no wetlands on the project site. However, a
Category III Wetland, located directly to the southwest of the site along the Green River
contains a 25-foot buffer that extends onto the project site. Per the report and the plans
submitted with the application, no work is proposed within the wetland buffer area.
Regarding impacts to the RBZ, the applicant provided an analysis concluding that the
proposal “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” any federal or state listed
threatened or endangered species or their respective habitats. Further, habitat that
contributes to federal or state listed threatened or endangered species would be
enhanced through new tree plantings closer to the shoreline and the incorporation of
snags and stumps left over from the removal of hazardous trees on the site. This
determination was made in accordance with the Puget Sound BiOp, Regional Guidance
documents, prepared FEMA Region X. See Exhibit 11 for a copy of the Report. Further,
a site plan of the delineated wetland and other critical areas prepared by EnCo is
included as Exhibit 12.
9. The property is located within a mapped Landslide Hazard area due to its location at the
bottom of a steeply sloped hill, directly across 104th Pl SE to the east. These areas are
regulated under the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, ACC 16.10. See Exhibit 3 for a
copy of the City’s Critical Area map and Exhibit 12 of the critical area map prepared by
EnCo.
10. The applicant provided a Geotechnical Study, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc.,
dated March 6, 2019 and an Addendum, dated May 18, 2020, addressing the mapped
Landslide Hazard area on the site and directly to the east. Based on the
recommendations within the report, including the provision of a 45 foot setback from the
toe of the slope to the newly proposed residence, development of the site will not result
in a risk to the safety, health, or welfare of the of future inhabitants of the new residence.
See Exhibit 13 for a copy of the Geotech Report and Addendum.
11. The area within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) along the Green
River is within the “Urban Conservancy” designation and thus, is within the jurisdiction of
the Auburn Shoreline Master Program (Auburn SMP, Section 4.2.A). Unless otherwise
exempt, the construction of a new single-family residence in the ‘Shoreline Conservancy’
designation will require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP). The language of
this Section provides:
“4.2 Applicability.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all shorelines, shorelands
and associated wetland areas covered by the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971 as follows:
1. All rivers and streams and their associated wetlands downstream
from a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second
or greater.
2. All lakes and their associated wetlands which are 20 surface acres
in size or larger.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 7 of 17
3. Shorelands and associated uplands extending 200 feet in all directions
as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark;
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet
from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with
their streams, lakes, and tidal waters subject to the provisions of Chapter
90.58 RCW.”
Characteristics of the Surrounding Area
12. The project and adjacent properties are located within the jurisdiction of the City of
Auburn. All proposed work will occur on private property. No in-water work is proposed.
13. The surrounding areas have Comprehensive Plan designations of: “Single Family” and
“Open Space”. The surrounding zoning designations include “R-5” Residential Zone and
“OS” Open Space.
14. The existing land use surrounding the site includes single-family residences and open
space.
Shoreline Management Program
15. The City of Auburn currently uses its 2019 City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) to regulate development and management of the City’s shoreline.
Under the Shoreline Management Act, all development occurring within the shoreline
jurisdiction area must be consistent with policies and regulations of the local Shoreline
Management Program (SMP), as well as with the policies of the State Shoreline
Management Act.
16. Because the project requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, the Project must be
found consistent with the criteria established in WAC 173-27-160 and City of Auburn
SMP 6.1.8.
17. The City’s rules and procedures for shoreline permits are contained in the SMP; more
specifically Section 6.0. The section provides the following general purpose and intent:
“6.1.1 Chapter purpose and intent.
It is the intention of the city council that the provisions of this chapter will
promulgate and adopt a program for the administration and enforcement of a
permit system that shall implement by reference the State Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW; the State Department of Ecology
regulations and guidelines adopted as Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC; the
Auburn shoreline master program attached to the ordinance codified in this
chapter, together with amendments and/or additions thereto, and to provide for
the implementation of the policy and standards as set forth in the aforesaid laws
and regulations which are by reference made a part of this chapter with the force
and effect as though set out in full in this chapter.”
18. Pursuant ACC 6.1.12, the Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on the
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the following:
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 8 of 17
“6.1.12 Application – Hearing – Required.
A. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on each
application for a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline
conditional use permit, or shoreline variance on shorelines within the city. The
public hearing shall be held not less than 30 days following the final
publication of the notice required by ACC 16.08.050.
B. The notice and conduct of the public hearing shall be in accordance with
Chapter 2.46 ACC.”
19. The City’s rules provide the following requirements for public notice:
“6.1.6 Application – Notices.
The director shall give notice of the application in accordance with the applicable
provisions of ACC 14.07.040, no less than 30 days prior to permit issuance.
The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to present his view
to the director with regard to the application may do so in writing to the director,
and any person interested in the hearing examiner's action on an application for
a permit may submit his views or notify the director of his interest within 30 days
of the last date of publication of the notice. Such notification or submission of
views to the director shall entitle said persons to a copy of the action taken on the
application.”
Public Notice, Comments and Procedures
20. The City issued a combined Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and Notice of
Application (NOA) on June 25, 2020 with an associated 15-day comment period (File #
SHL18-0004 & SEP18-0024). The notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet
of the project site, published in the newspaper and posted on site (See Exhibit 8.1).
21. One public comment was received in response to the DNS and NOA from the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT). In summary, the MIT raised concerns that removal of
trees from the site will result in a loss of shade coverage on the Green River and as a
result, have a negative impact on salmon and their habitat. In response, the applicant’s
consultant, EnCo Environmental Corporation, indicated that new trees will be planted
along the northwest corner of the site and that shade coverage will be minimally
impacted due to the location of the abutting hillside to the east already limiting the
amount of shade available on the Green River. This response comment was forwarded
to the MIT, with no further response from the MIT at the time of the preparation of this
report. The MIT’s comment and the response from EnCo are marked as Exhibits 9.1
and 9.2, respectively.
22. The City issued the Notice of Hearing (NOH) on August 6, 2020. The notice was
provided 30 days prior to the hearing date as required by SMP 6.1.6, “Application –
Notices”. The notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site,
published in the newspaper, and posted on site (See Exhibit 8.2). At the time of the
preparation of this report, no comments have been received in response to the NOH.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 9 of 17
23. The contents of the case file for this project (SHL18–0004 & SEP18-0024) are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of the record of this hearing.
24. The decision on SCUP shall be final with the Hearing Examiner and subject to the
Washington State Dept. of Ecology review period as required by the following code
section:
“SMP 6.1.18 Grant or denial decision – Notifications.
The director shall notify the following persons in writing of the hearing examiner’s final
approval, disapproval or conditional approval of a substantial development permit,
shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance application within eight days of
its final decision:
A. The applicant;
B. The State Department of Ecology;
C. The State Attorney General;
D. Any person who has submitted to the director written comments on the application;
E. Any person who has written the director requesting notification.”
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff concludes that a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit should be approved in that the project
and use are consistent with the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation, as well as with
the approval criteria for the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
What follows is the criteria for decision-making provided in italics, followed by an analysis by
staff of the project’s consistency with the criteria (in bold).
1. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) provides the following review criteria for Shoreline
Conditional Use Permits:
“6.1.8 Application – Shoreline conditional use permit – Review criteria.
A. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-210, the criteria below shall constitute the minimum criteria for
review and approval of a shoreline conditional use permit. Uses classified as conditional
uses, and not uses prohibited by the regulations of this SMP, may be authorized; provided,
that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:”
“1. That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020, the
policies of this SMP, the City of Auburn comprehensive plan and other applicable plans,
programs and/or regulations;
The project is found to be consistent with policies and provisions of both the
Shoreline Management Act and the local SMP. The application has demonstrated
compliance with the applicable requirements of the City’s Shoreline Master
Program. The new residence is a conditionally permitted use within the “Urban
Conservancy” environment designations.
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use or access to public
shorelines;
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 10 of 17
The project will not adversely affect the scenic quality of the shoreline
environment since the work is being completed on private property and that the
western portion of the site directly abutting the Green River will generally remain
undisturbed. The future dwelling will be constructed at a similar size, scale, and
character as the single-family residences near and abutting the project site.
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with
other permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
The project involves the construction of a new single-family residence. Such use
is compatible with the surrounding area, as the right bank of the Green River
along 104th Pl SE is primarily developed with single-family residences.
4. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline,
will not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and will not be incompatible with the
environment designation or zoning classification in which it is to be located;
No net loss in ecological function is anticipated from the project. No in-water
work is proposed. While some trees will be removed that pose a safety hazard to
the new residence, new trees and habitat enhancements will be incorporated into
the project. The new trees and habitat features will help contribute to shade
coverage, woody debris, snags, and perches along the Green River. With the
exception of the tree removals, the only vegetation removal proposed would be
invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry.
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect;
It is not anticipated that the public interest will suffer a detrimental effect. Public
access to the shoreline will remain consistent with how it is today, visual impacts
will be similar to what is currently present along 104 Pl SE, and no adverse
ecological impacts are anticipated.
6. That the proposed use is in the best interest of the public health, safety, morals or
welfare; and
The proposal involves the construction of a new single-family residence in an area
that is zoned for such uses. The proposal has been designed to meet various
local, state, and federal regulations, including those pertaining to landslide
hazardous, floodplain management, and vehicular access. Provided that the
proposal is conditioned accordingly, it is in the best interest of the public health,
safety, morals, and welfare.
7. That consideration of cumulative impacts resultant from the proposed use has
occurred and has demonstrated that no substantial cumulative impacts are anticipated,
consistent with WAC 173-27-160(2).
Nothing in the record indicates that any substantial cumulative impacts would
occur. While the proposal involves a new residence, no in-water work is
proposed. Further, with the exception of the hazardous tree removals previously
discussed, the west one hundred feet of the site will remain undisturbed.
B. The director may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure
consistency of the proposal with the above criteria.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 11 of 17
C. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be the final decision of the city. The
Department of Ecology shall be the final authority authorizing a shoreline conditional use
permit consistent with WAC 173-27-200.”
2. The Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173-27-140) set forth the following two criteria for
all developments within the shoreline jurisdiction.
“(A) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be
granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined
to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the
master program.”
“(B) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than
thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the
view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where
a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations
of the public interest will be served.”
The proposed project is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the City’s
Shoreline Management Program (SMP). The City's program identifies the project area
to be the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designations. Section 3.3.1, of
the SMP describes the purpose of the shoreline environment designations as:
“Urban Conservancy
The purpose of the “Urban Conservancy” environment is to protect and restore
ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist
in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.”
The project will be consistent with the designation by allowing a new residence that
will have minimal impact on the surrounding properties. Public access to the
shorelines will not be impacted. While there may be a visual impact due to the
construction of a new residence, such impact will be minimal due to vegetation
being retained along the west one-hundred feet of the site and the incorporation of
new tree plantings and habitat features.
3. Section 3.3.3 of the SMP provides the following related Management Policies applicable to
the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation:
“1. Primary allowed uses and their associated development standards should preserve
the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or
sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, either directly or over
the long term. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if
the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting.”
“2. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation
conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy"
designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values.”
“3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever
feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.”
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 12 of 17
“4. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For
shoreline areas with commercial development or adjacent to commercially navigable
waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.”
“5. Existing mining and related activities may be an appropriate use within the urban
conservancy environment when conducted in a manner consistent with the environment
policies and the provisions of WAC 173-26-241 (3)(h) and when located consistent with
mineral resource lands designation criteria pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-
190-070. No new mining uses or expansion of existing mines should be permitted within
the shoreline jurisdiction.”
The proposed project is consistent with the Management Policies of the “Urban
Conservancy” Environment. The project will maintain native vegetation and new
plantings along the westerly portion of the site abutting the green river. Ecological
functions will be preserved or enhanced through the mitigation that the applicant is
proposing along the river. The project will not change the nature of uses present in
the immediate area.
4. Section 4.4.2 of the City’s SMP contains various policies and regulations pertaining to
shoreline vegetation conservation.
Policies
1. Developments and activities in the City’s shoreline should be planned and designed to
retain native vegetation or replace shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net
loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation.
2. Woody debris should be left in the river corridors to enhance wildlife habitat and
shoreline ecological functions, except where it threatens personal safety or critical
infrastructure, such as bridge pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should
be dislodged, but should not be removed from the river.
The proposal will result in the removal of 14 high risk trees from the site, six of which
are located within 100 feet of the OHWM. The critical area report (Exhibit 11) provided
by the applicant notes that replacement trees will be planted within the northwest
corner of the development while snags and stumps will be retained. Provided that the
proposal is conditioned to provide a detailed mitigation plan, the impacts resulting
from the removal of the hazard trees will be mitigated appropriately.
5. The Permitted Use Table of the SMP, as a summary of the use regulations, allows
conditional uses including “New Single-Family Residences” in the “Urban Conservancy”
environments.
6. Section 4.7.8 of the City’s SMP specifically allows for residential uses to be located within
the “Urban Conservancy” environments. Additionally, the program provides the following
policy guidance applicable to residential uses:
1. New over-water residences, including floating homes, are not a preferred use and
should be prohibited.
2.New multi-family residential development and land subdivisions for more than four
parcels should provide community and/or public access in conformance to the City’s
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 13 of 17
public access planning and this Shoreline Master Program. Adjoining access shall be
considered in making this determination.
3.Accessory development (to either multi-family or single-family) should be designed and
located to blend into the site as much as possible.
4.New residential developments and land divisions should avoid the need for new
shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures that would cause significant
impacts to other properties or public improvements or a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions
The proposed project is consistent with the SMP policies applicable to residential
uses. No overwater work is proposed. The proposal involves a single family
residence on an existing lot of record. No accessory development is proposed.
Shoreline stabilization and flood hazard reduction measures that would cause
impacts to other properties or public improvements are not proposed.
7. Section 4.7.8 of the City’s SMP specifically allows for residential uses to be located within
the “Urban Conservancy” environments. Additionally, the program provides the following
development regulations applicable to residential uses:
1. Residential development shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Auburn
Zoning Code (Title 18 ACC). In case of a discrepancy between the requirements of this
Master Program and the Zoning Code, or other regulations, consistency with the SMP,
the SMA, and its provisions shall prevail.
2. The creation of new lots shall be prohibited unless all of the following can be
demonstrated.
a. A primary residence can be built on each new lot without any of the following
being necessary:
i. New structural shoreline stabilization;
ii. New improvements in the required shoreline buffer or required critical
area buffer;
iii. Causing significant vegetation removal that adversely impacts ecological
functions;
iv. Causing significant erosion or reduction in slope stability; and
v. Causing increased flood hazard or erosion in the new development or to
other properties.
b. Adequate sewer, water, access, and utilities can be provided.
c. The intensity and type of development is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
d. Potential significant adverse environmental impacts (including significant
ecological impacts) can be avoided or mitigated to achieve no net loss of
ecological functions, taking into consideration temporal loss due to development
and potential adverse impacts to the environment.
3. Channel Migration Zones and floodplain areas should be avoided if possible when new
residential lots are being created.
4. Prior to the granting of a Substantial Development Permit or Building Permit, the City
shall make a determination that the proposed project is consistent with the policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program including the following standards:
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 14 of 17
a. The proposed development site is suited for residential use and is not located in
areas having significant hazard to life and property and likely to require future public
funds to protect and rehabilitate. Adequate methods of erosion control will be utilized
during and after project construction.
b. Disturbance of established, native shoreline vegetation will be minimized.
c. Solutions will be provided to the problem of contamination of surface waters,
depletion and contamination of ground water supplies and generation of increased
runoff into water bodies.
5. Residential development over water including garages, accessory buildings, and
boathouses shall not be permitted unless otherwise specified in this chapter.
6. New multi -family residential development, including the subdivision of land for more
than four parcels, shall include public access in conformance with Section 4.4.6 “Public
Access” and the City’s public access planning.
7. The following lot coverage, setback and height limitations shall be applicable to
residential development in all shoreline environments:
a. Lot Coverage. Not more than 33 and 1/3 percent of the gross lot area within the
regulated shoreline shall be covered by impervious material including parking
areas but excluding driveways.
b. Setbacks. All setbacks, with the exception of the setbacks from the OHWM, shall
be as required by the City of Auburn Zoning Code or other City regulations.
c. The required setbacks for buildings and structures on from the OHWM in the
Urban Conservancy and Shoreline Residential environment designations shall be
measured from the OHWM or lawfully constructed bulkhead or revetment,
whichever is further upland, shall be 100 feet except that the shoreline setback
shall not apply to approved docks, floats, buoys, bulkheads, launching ramps,
and similar structures.
d. The required setbacks for from the OHWM in the Natural environment
designation shall be 200 feet. Residential development is allowed on property
with a Natural designation, provided the lot size and configuration can
accommodate such use without locating buildings, structures, impervious
surface, or other improvements within the 200-foot setback.
8. Site Preparation. It shall be the intent of this Chapter to require the maintenance,
enhancement, and preservation of the natural site amenities. To this end, the City may
limit the extent of grading and clearing to the extent deemed necessary for the
reasonable and necessary use of the site or tract.
9. Height Limitations. The maximum height above average grade level of any building or
structure shall be 35 feet.
10. Fences.
a. No fence shall extend waterward of the OHWM; and,
b. Fences waterward of the furthest waterward extension of the house shall be
limited to four feet in height or less.
c. Fences shall not be constructed in the floodway.
i. For instances where a floodway boundary changes, existing legally
established fences may be maintained and repaired in place.
Replacement fences shall be relocated outside of the floodway.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 15 of 17
11. The following uses shall be permitted provided they are accommodated by residential
facilities and are allowed by the underlying zoning as a permitted use (i.e., does not
require a Conditional Use Permit per the applicable zoning regulations): Home based
daycare; and Supportive housing.
The proposed dwelling will meet the requirements of the R-5 Residential zone,
including meeting the minimum setbacks, height limit, lot coverage, and parking
requirements. Removal and disturbance of vegetation near the shoreline will be
minimized. While the residence will be located in an area mapped as a landslide
hazard area per the City’s critical area inventory, the project twill meet the
recommendations provided within a Geotechnical Report that will ensure the life,
safety, and welfare of the future residential inhabitants is protected. No development
will occur within the floodway, Special Flood Hazard Area, or Channel Migration Zone.
8. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies – Volume 1, Land Use Element:
“Policies:
LU-17 Provide a variety of housing typologies to suit the needs of various potential
residents.”
Through meeting the requirements of the R-5 Residential Zone, an implementing
zoning district of the site’s “Single-Family” Comprehensive Plan Map designation, the
project will be directly implementing the above policy.
9. The proposed project is consistent with or is capable of being consistent with the Municipal
Code.
As noted previously, the site will be developed to meet the requirements of the SMP
and the ACC, including ACC 15.68 Floodplain Development Management, AC C 16.10
Critical Areas, and ACC 18 Zoning.
10. The Shoreline Management rules in WAC 173-27-160 set forth the following criteria that
must be met for approval of a Shoreline conditional use permit. The project must be
consistent with:
• “That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the
master program;
• That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
• That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other
authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
• That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is to be located;
• That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect”
As noted above, the proposed project and use complies with the stated policies and
procedures of the Act and Rules and, complies with the local Shoreline Master
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 16 of 17
Program. The proposal will not interfere with the normal public use of public
shorelines since it will mainly limited to the eastern portion of a privately owned
single-family parcel. The project will not result in significant adverse effects to the
shoreline environment. Any removal of vegetation will be mitigated through the future
tree plantings and habitat features proposed by the applicant. The public interest will
be served by providing a new single-family residence on a residentially zoned parcel.
The proposed project is consistent with the criteria outlined in WAC 173-27-160.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the application, findings and conclusions of the Staff report, Staff recommends that
the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SHL18-0004) subject
to the following conditions:
1. The residence shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan,
prepared by Chelladek Studios Inc, dated May 18, 2020 (Exhibit 6).
2. The applicant shall secure the necessary floodplain development permit approval(s)
from the City of Auburn, if applicable.
3. A detailed mitigation plan, incorporating the tree plantings and habitat features proposed
for the project, as outlined in the Wetland and Stream Delineation report (Exhibit 11)
shall be provided to the City of Auburn and reviewed as part of the building and civil
permit review for the project.
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.
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 City of Auburn Critical Area Map
Exhibit 4 Completed Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Application Form, Received
October 26, 2018
Exhibit 5 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form, Jan Jeffery, October
24, 2018
Exhibit 6 Site Plan, Chelladek Studios, Inc, May 18, 2020
Exhibit 7 Written Statement, Jan Jeffery, undated
Exhibit 8 Combined Determination of Non-Significance and Notice of Application (File No.
SEP18-0024), June 25, 2020 and Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 9 Comment from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe & Applicant Response
Exhibit 10 Completed Environmental Checklist Application, Jan Jeffery, October 24, 2018
(updated, May 20, 2020)
Exhibit 11 Wetland & Stream Delineation with Habitat Impact Assessment and Addendum,
EnCo Environmental Corporation, August 24, 2018 and April 8, 2019
Exhibit 12 Wetland & Stream Delineation Map, EnCo Environmental Corporation, August
13, 2020
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 17 of 17
Exhibit 13 Geotechnical Report and Addendum, Geotech Consultants Inc, March 6, 2019
and May 18, 2020
Exhibit 14 Public Notice Affidavits and Confirmation of Postings
166.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet166.783.30
Vicinity Map 8/26/2020Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
166.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet166.7
Notes
Type any additional notes- delete text to
leave blank
Legend
83.30
1:1,000
City Critical Area Map
1 in =83.3 ft
8/26/2020Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general
reference purposes only and does not
necessarily represent exact geographic
or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to
its accuracy.
Scale
City of Auburn Channel Migration Zone
Delineation
Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ)
2020 FIRM Floodway
2020 FIRM Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
Wetlands
Landslide Hazard
Parcel Boundaries
11
CITY OF AUBURN
Planning & Development Department
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Tel: 253.931.3090
Fax: 253.804.3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov
www.auburnwa.gov
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Use mailing address for meeting notification. Check box if Primary Contact
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
PHONE: _____________ FAX:__ _ E-MAIL: ______________________________
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME:
(Signature Required)
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Check box if Primary Contact
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
PHONE: _____________ FAX:__ _ E-MAIL: ______________________________
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME:
(Signature Required)
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Attach separate sheet if needed. Check box if Primary Contact
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
PHONE: _____________ FAX:__ _ E-MAIL: ______________________________
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME:
(Signature Required)
Note: Applicant or representative must have property owner’s consent to file this application form in order for it
to be accepted
PROPERTY INFORMATION (REQUIRED)
SITE ADDRESS:
$66(6625¶63$5&(/,'# LOT SIZE ZONING DISTRICT
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
AREA TO DEVELOPED (s.f.):
EXISTING USE OF SITE:
PROPOSED USE OF SITE:
O F F I C E U S E O N L Y
FILE #:_______________________________
FILE NAME: _____________________________________
_________________________________________________
TYPE:____________________ RECEIVED BY: ________
FEES PAID:_______________ CHECK/CASH: ________
SUBMITTAL DATE:_________________________________
LAND USE DESIGNATION: __________________________
x x
JANILEE A. JEFFERY AND DANIEL R. GUYLL
32267 104TH PL SE
AUBURN, WA 98092
JAN 206-755-8516
DAN 206-478-5360 JANJEFFERY@COMCAST.NET
JANILEE A. JEFFERY
N/A
JANILEE A. JEFFERY
32267 104TH PL SE
AUBURN, WA 98092
JAN 206-755-8516 DAN 206-478-5360 JANJEFFERY@COMCAST.NET
JANILEE A. JEFFERY
322?? 104TH PL SE, AUBURN, WA 98092
3341000140 9,949 R5-URBAN
3,026 SQ. FT.
VACANT LAND
RESIDENTIAL
(SFR)
ORIA-16-011 Page 1 of 14
WASHINGTON STATE
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form
1,2 [help]
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
Part 1–Project Identification
1.Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith’s Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help]
Part 2–Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help]
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Jeffery, Janilee A. & Guyll, Daniel R.
2b. Organization (If applicable)
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
32267 104th Pl. S.E.
2d. City, State, Zip
Auburn, WA 98092
2e. Phone (1)2f. Phone (2)2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
206-755-8516 206-478-5360 janjeffery@comcast.net
1Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
x If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495.
x If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or
prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx.
x Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias__resourcecenter/jarpa_jarpa_form/9984/jarpa_form.aspx.
For other help, contact the Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
AGENCY USE ONLY
Date received:
Agency reference #:
Tax Parcel #(s):
JEFFERY&GUYLL SFR
ORIA-16-011 Page 2 of 14
Part 3–Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this
application.) [help]
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
3b. Organization (If applicable)
3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
3d. City, State, Zip
3e. Phone (1)3f. Phone (2)3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
Part 4–Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help]
܈ 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 upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
܆ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don’t know, contact
the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to
apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
4b.Organization (If applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
4d. City, State, Zip
4e. Phone (1)4f. Phone (2)4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
ORIA-16-011 Page 3 of 14
Part 5–Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help]
܆ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help]
܈ Private
܆ Federal
܆ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
܆ Tribal
܆ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help]
5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help]
Auburn, WA 98092
5d. County [help]
King County
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help]
¼ Section Section Township Range
A Portion of the NW ¼
of the NW ¼ of
Section 17 Township 21 North Range 5 East, W.M.
5f.Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help]
x Example: 47.03922 N lat. / -122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83)
47.1847.21 N lat / -122.1213.00 W long
5g.List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help]
x The local county assessor’s office can provide this information.
3341000140
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help]
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known)
Janilee A. Jeffery 32267 104th Pl SE 3341000145Auburn, WA 98092
Ed & Christine Arreola 32211 104th Pl SE 3341000135Auburn, WA 98092
ORIA-16-011 Page 4 of 14
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
Green River
5j.List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
Green River
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [help]
܈ Yes ܆ No ܆ Don’t know (Development area above 100-year floodplain)
5l. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help]
Undeveloped forested woodland dominated by a Cowardian tree class community that consists of black
cottonwood with non dominant stands of red alder, bitter cherry, big leaf maple and sequoia. There are no
standing buildings utilities, concrete foundations, paved streets, driveways or trails on the site. No on-site
wetlands, off-site wetlands within about 330 feet from project site. The Green River 100 year floodway is located
about 45 feet west of the project site.
5m.Describe how the property is currently used. [help]
Undeveloped land
5n.Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help]
North: Single family dwelling, then residential
East: Forested terrestrial woodland (steep upward sloped ridge), then residential
South: Single family dwelling, then forested terrestrial woodland
West: Floodplain and floodway of the Green River, then residential
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition.[help]
None
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help]
From Hwy 167 take the 15th St. N.E. Exit, then travel east on 15th approximately 2 miles over Auburn Way South,
continue as 15th changes to Harvey Rd. Continue to take left on 8th St. N.E., over Green River, then take right
on 104th Pl. S.E. Property is located between last two houses on the right.
ORIA-16-011 Page 5 of 14
Part 6–Project Description
6a.Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help]
Construct Single Family Residence upland of Green River.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help]
We live in the SFR located south of the property and purchased the property to construct a smaller home as
we downsize for retirement.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help]
܆ Commercial ܈ Residential ܆ Institutional ܆ Transportation ܆ Recreational
܆ Maintenance ܆ Environmental Enhancement
6d.Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
܆ Aquaculture
܆ Bank Stabilization
܆ Boat House
܆ Boat Launch
܆ Boat Lift
܆ Bridge
܆ Bulkhead
܆ Buoy
܆ Channel Modification
܆ Culvert
܆ Dam / Weir
܆ Dike / Levee / Jetty
܆ Ditch
܆ Dock / Pier
܆ Dredging
܆ Fence
܆ Ferry Terminal
܆ Fishway
܆ Float
܆ Floating Home
܆ Geotechnical Survey
܆ Land Clearing
܆ Marina / Moorage
܆ Mining
܆ Outfall Structure
܆ Piling/Dolphin
܆ Raft
܆ Retaining Wall
(upland)
܆ Road
܆ Scientific
Measurement Device
܆ Stairs
܆ Stormwater facility
܆ Swimming Pool
܆ Utility Line
܈ Other: Home Construction
ORIA-16-011 Page 6 of 14
6e.Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. [help]
x Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
x Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
Standard construction procedures using best practices. The majority of construction activity will take place
outside of the 100 foot buffer, and all outside the 100-year floodplain. Please see site plan.
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [help]
x If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase
or stage.
Start Date: 06/2018 End Date: 12/2018 ܆ See JARPA Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help]
Approx. $300,000
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help]
x If yes, list each agency providing funds.
܆ Yes ܈ No ܆ Don’t know
Part 7–Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
܈ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help]
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help]
܆ Not applicable
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help]
܆ Yes ܈ No ܆ Don’t know
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help]
܆ Yes ܆ No ܆ Don’t know
Also please see ENCO Report, Section 21. Mitigation Approach
X9 x9
Please see ENCO Report, Wetland & Stream Deliniation with Habitat Impact Assessment,
Section 8, Mitigation Sequencing
Section 21, Mitigation Approach
x
ORIA-16-011 Page 7 of 14
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help]
x If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package.
܈ Yes ܆ No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System?[help]
x If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
܈ Yes ܆ No ܆ Don’t know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [help]
x If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
x If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
܆ Yes ܈ No ܆ Don’t know
There are no expected adverse impacts to wetlands. A planting plan is anticipated to enhance the native
habitat.
7g.Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [help]
7h.Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [help]
Activity (fill,
drain, excavate,
flood, etc.)
Wetland
Name1
Wetland
type and
rating
category2
Impact
area (sq.
ft. or
Acres)
Duration
of impact3
Proposed
mitigation
type4
Wetland
mitigation area
(sq. ft. or
acres)
1 If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as “Wetland 1”). The name should be consistent with other project documents,
such as a wetland delineation report.
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms
with the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
4 Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
ORIA-16-011 Page 8 of 14
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in
cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help]
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
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.) [help]
܈ Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
[help]
܆ Not applicable
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody?[help]
܆ Yes ܈ No
The project is located adjacent to the Green River
Please see ENCO Report, Wetland & Stream Deliniation with Habitat Impact Assessment, including:
Section 8, Mitigation Sequencing
Section 21, Mitigation Approach
, the development site is located outside the 100ft. buffer,
ORIA-16-011 Page 9 of 14
8c.Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project’s adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies?[help]
x If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
x If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
܆ Yes ܆ No ܆ Don’t know
8d.Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan.
x If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help]
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help]
Activity (clear,
dredge, fill, pile
drive, etc.)
Waterbody
name1
Impact
location2
Duration
of impact3
Amount of material
(cubic yards) to be
placed in or removed
from waterbody
Area (sq. ft. or
linear ft.) of
waterbody
directly affected
1 If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as “Stream 1”) The name should be consistent with other documents
provided.
2 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.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help]
x
ORIA-16-011 Page 10 of 14
8g.For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
Part 9–Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help]
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
City of Auburn-Planning
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology’s 303(d) List? [help]
x If Yes, list the parameter(s) below.
x If you don’t know, use Washington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment tools at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/.
܈ Yes ܆ No
Green River, Impaired Water – Category 4a: Temp. & Dissolved Oxygen, TMDL for Temp. & Dissolved
Oxygen.
9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help]
x Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110013
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [help]
x Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/wria/index.html to find the WRIA #.
09
ORIA-16-011 Page 11 of 14
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for
turbidity?[help]
x Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/criteria.html for the standards.
܆ Yes ܆ No ܈ Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline
environment designation? [help]
x If you don’t know, contact the local planning department.
x For more information, go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws_rules/173-26/211_designations.html.
܈ Urban ܆ Natural ܆ Aquatic ܈ Conservancy ܆ Other:
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help]
x Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-practices-water-typing for the Forest Practices Water Typing System.
܈ Shoreline ܆ Fish ܆ Non-Fish Perennial ܆ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology’s most current stormwater
manual?[help]
x If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
܆ Yes ܆ No
Name of manual:
9i.Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help]
x If Yes, please describe below.
܆ Yes ܈ No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help]
Undeveloped land, An old abandoned overhead wire cable that was historically used to monitor water levels in
the Green River that traversed the air space of the project site was recently removed.
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help]
x If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
܆ Yes ܈ No
x
ORIA-16-011 Page 12 of 14
9l. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the
project area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Off Site – See Enco report page 43
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Off Site – See Enco report page 43
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Please see ENCO Report, Section 9. Environmental Baseline and Section 18,
Federal & State Listed Habitat & Species.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Please see ENCO Report, Section 9. Environmental Baseline and Section 18,
Federal & State Listed Habitat & Species.
ORIA-16-011 Page 13 of 14
Part 10–SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
x Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.oria.wa.gov/opas/.
x Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
x For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help]
x For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html.
܆ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
܈ A SEPA determination is pending with City of Auburn (lead agency). The expected
decision date is Unknown .
܆ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help]
܆ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
܆ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
܆ Other:
܆ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
܆ Substantial Development ܈ Conditional Use ܆ Variance
܆ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other City/County permits:
܈ Floodplain Development Permit ܆ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
܆ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ܆ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption – Attach Exemption Form
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
܆ Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
܆ Section 401 Water Quality Certification
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
܆ 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)
GREEN RIVER50.0' SE
T
B
A
C
K
100.0' S
E
T
B
A
C
K
~UPLAND SAND BAR ISLAND~~WETLAND A~
25.0' SE
T
B
A
C
K
646362606063646566646463646463626162646
4
6
3 6869696
9
707070
70
64
200.0' SHORELINE JURISDICTION SETBACK
22.4' TO GARAGE
10.0'
11.8'5.0'0.9'
0.6'
0.3'6.0'BASE FLOOD
ELEV = 67.017'
EX'G
STONE
WALL
OHWMOHWMOHWM
250.0' FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT SETBACK
100' SETBACK
200' SHORELINE
JURISDICTION SETBACK
250' FLOODPLAIN
RIPARIAN HABITAT
SETBACK104TH PLACE SEOVERHEAD CABL
E
EXISTING HOME 32267 104TH PL SE
PARCEL #33410001479.0'7.1'13.5'NEW SFR w/
ATT'D GARAGE
COVERED
PATIO
COVERED
PORCH
WALK
W
E
G
WATER
u/G ELECT
GAS
HEAT
PUMP
S SEWER6.1' O/H8.1' O/H12.5' O/H10.8' O/H
5.0' O/H3.9' O/H9.0' O/H
21.4' O/H
DRIVEWAY
TOE OF
SLOPE
45' STEEP SLOPE
SETBACK
EASTERN LIMITS OF
CHANNEL MIGRATION
AREA PER CITY OF
AUBURN GIS DATA
50' CHANNEL
MIGRATION SETBACK
EASTERN LIMITS OF
CHANNEL MIGRATION
AREA PER CITY OF
AUBURN GIS DATA
50' CHANNEL
MIGRATION
SETBACK
50' STEEP SLOPE
SETBACK
NOTE: EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO AVOID INACCURACY IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN. HOWEVER, THE DESIGNER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMANERROR. IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE BUILDER TO CHECK ALL INFORMATION, DIMENSIONS, AND DETAILS ON THE JOB AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME.ANY USE OR REPRODUCTIONS
ARE STRICTLY LIMITED TO
MEHL HOMES, INC. CHELLADEK
STUDIOS, INC (CSI) SHALL NOT
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
DEPARTURE FROM THESE
DRAWINGS ADVISED BY ANY
OFFICIAL, APPROVING
AUTHORITY OR PROFESSIONAL
CONSULTANT AT ANY TIME.
FURTHER, ANY SUCH
DEVIATION OR CHANGES TO
THESE PLANS NULLIFIES ANY
RESPONSIBILITY THAT CSI MAY
HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THIS
PLAN OR CONSEQUENT
CONSTRUCTION. CUSTOM HOME DESIGN CHELLA D E K S T U D
I
O
S
I
NC LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT DATA / APPROX BUILDING LOT COV'G
OWNER
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION – WRITTEN MATERIALS, ITEM J.
Dan Guyll and Jan Jeffery propose to build a single-family residence on a site that lies within the
shoreline jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program.
1. The shoreline designation is Urban Conservancy.
2. The water body is the Green River.
3. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,750 sq. ft. single family residence, to be built behind a
100’ buffer to the OHWM. The plan provides for a single story, 3 bedroom, 2 bath home with two
car attached garage, on crawl space and cement slab to provide a residence for two people.
The site has been evaluated by an environmental consultant and two arborists and a combined
critical area report and habitat impact assessment report title “Wetland & Stream Delineation with
Habitat Impact Assessment” (ENCO Report) has been prepared to provide the reader a discussion of
the proposed project, mitigation sequencing, environmental baseline conditions present, an
analysis of effects and the mitigation approach proposed. The mitigation proposed includes habitat
enhancement correcting nonnative vegetation to riparian habitat and native vegetation
4. The site is currently vacant land consisting of undeveloped forested woodland with no
improvements or structures. Please see ENCO Report Section 2.0 – Background, 6.3 – Site Survey,
9.0 – Environmental Baseline, Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 for additional information.
5. Directly adjacent to the north and south of the site are single family residences, Green River to the
west and 104th Pl. S.E., then forested terrestrial woodland to the east. Please see ENCO Report
Section 6.8 - Contiguous Land Use and Plans & Graphics – Item B Vicinity Map for additional
information.
In Summary, it is the applicants intention to cause no unnecessary hardships, have compatible use and
ensure the public suffers no detrimental effect due to the proposed project.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
JEFFERY / GUYLL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
SEP18-0024
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be
reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at One E Main St., 2nd Floor,
Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001.
Proposal: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future construction of a single-family
residence within the R-5 Residential Zone and Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The
proposed dwelling will be located 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green
River.
Location: The site is located at between the east bank of the Green River and directly to the
west of 104th Pl SE, approximately 750 feet south of the SE 320th St and 104th Pl SE
intersection, King Co. Parcel No. 3341000140.
Notice of Application: June 25, 2020
Application Complete: October 26, 2018
Permit Application: October 26, 2018
File Nos. SEP18-0024
SHL18-0004
Applicant: Janilee Jeffery & Daniel Guyll
32267 104th Pl SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Property Owner: Janilee Jeffery & Daniel Guyll
32267 104th Pl SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:
Critical Area Report, prepared by EnCo, dated August 24, 2018
Critical Area Report Addendum, prepared by EnCo, dated April 8, 2019
Wetland and Stream Delineation, prepared by EnCo, dated April 13, 2020
Geotechnical Report, prepared by Geotech Consultants , Inc., dated March 6, 2019
Geotechnical Report – Addendum, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated May 18, 2020
Chanel Migration Study, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated December 28, 2018
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Building Permit(s), Grading Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is
subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public
Works Design and Construction Standards.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP18-0024 (Continued)
Page 2 of 4
Lead Agency: City of Auburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and
other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under
WAC 197-11-355; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued
below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 pm on July 10, 2020 to the mailing
address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing
to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and
participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25
West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001- 4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by
5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2020.
For questions regarding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence, AICP, Senior Planner, at
planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3092.
Public Hearing: TBD
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate
POSITION/TITLE: Director, Department of Community Development
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001
253-931-3090
DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE:
Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can
only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is
required to meet all applicable regulations.
June 25, 2020
NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP18-0024 (Continued)
Page 3 of 4
Project Site
NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP18-0024 (Continued)
Page 4 of 4
Proposed Site Plan (Draft)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GUYLL JEFFERY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
SHL18-0004
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Hearing for the following described project. The permit
applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community
Development at 1 E Main ST, 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001.
Proposal: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future construction of a single-
family residence within the R-5 Residential Zone and Urban Conservancy Shoreline
Designation. The proposed dwelling will be located 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) of the Green River.
Location: The site is located at between the east bank of the Green River and directly to the
west of 104th Pl SE, approximately 750 feet south of the SE 320th St and 104th Pl SE
intersection, King Co. Parcel No. 3341000140.
Notice of Application: June 25, 2020
Permit Application: October 26, 2018
Complete Application: October 26, 2018
File No. SHL18-0004
Applicant & Owner: Janilee Jeffery & Daniel Guyll
32267 104th Pl SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Studies/Plans Submitted with Application:
Critical Area Report, prepared by EnCo, dated August 24, 2018
Critical Area Report Addendum, prepared by EnCo, dated April 8, 2019
Wetland and Stream Delineation, prepared by EnCo, dated April 13, 2020
Geotechnical Report, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated March 6, 2019
Geotechnical Report – Addendum, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated May 18, 2020
Chanel Migration Study, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated December 28, 2018
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Building Permit(s), Storm Permit(s), Grading Permit
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal
is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and
Design and Construction Standards.
Public Comment Period: All persons may comment on this application. Comments must be in
writing and received by the end of the comment period at 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2020 to
the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001-4998. Any person wishing to become
a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and
participate in any hearings, if relevant, request a copy of decisions once made, and be made
aware of appeal rights. For questions regarding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence,
AICP, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or (253) 931-3092.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SHL18-0004 (Continued)
Page 2 of 2
Public Hearing: The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for September
16, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually
please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number
listed below.
Per the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from
holding an in-person meeting at this time. All meetings will be held virtually and telephonically.
City of Auburn is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/96768499088
Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088
One tap mobile
1 646 558-8656,,96768499088# US
Dial by your location
1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
888 475 4499 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/amR9JCvBq
VICINITY MAP:
Subject Site
From:Karen Walter
To:Dustin Lawrence
Subject:RE: City of Auburn - DNS/NOA - Guyll/Jeffery Single-Family Residence
Date:Friday, July 10, 2020 2:38:58 PM
Attachments:Green River TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report 2011.pdf
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be
careful opening links and attachments
Dustin,
We have reviewed the NOA/ODNS for the Guyll/Jeffery new single family residence along the Green River in Auburn.
We have initial questions and comments about this project:
1. Current floodplain map
It is not clear that the current extent of the regulated floodplain and floodway are shown on the site plans or
discussed in the Critical Areas Report. A 2005 floodplain map was referenced; however, it is our understanding that
FEMA has been systematically updating flood maps throughout King County. Please verify that the floodplain and
floodway are correctly shown.
2. Channel migration zone
The Critical Areas Report shows a rather extensive channel migration zone on the project site. How is Auburn
regulating this area? It is an important feature as it not only could affect the stability of the Green River riverbank
adjacent to the property leading to concerns for the future single family residence but it would also affect the
success of the proposed riparian planting and wood recruitment to the river needed to support salmon. Please
clarify how Auburn is regulating this important river process that creates and maintains salmon habitat.
3. MITFD shade maps/Shading/Tree Removal
The discussion about the MITFD shade maps is not fully accurate. These shade maps were created to demonstrate
how areas and individual properties contribute to providing effective shade to the river to support water
temperatures and dissolved oxygen conditions for salmon. They are rated on a scale from critical to low for their
importance in providing shade. Properties deemed as “medium” and “low” have a lower likelihood of providing
effective shade to the river than “high” or “critical”. Their effectiveness is lower but it is not “zero”. Removing trees
within the zone determined to needed to provide effective shade is a concern. The site is in a reach of the Green
River that was determined to be below effective shade targets to improve water temperature (see Table 13 in
WDOE’s Green River TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report; attached). Several of the 14 trees to be removed
from within 200 feet of the Green River are fairly large and their removal will arguably reduce effective shade
conditions at the site. The shade analysis discussion in the Critical Areas Report suggests that the removed trees do
not provide shade to the river; however, we did not see data or photos to substantiate the statements.
4. Wood recruitment
The Critical Areas Report fails to consider impacts to salmon habitat from the removal of the trees that may
otherwise recruit to the Green River or the side channel and provide instream habitat for adult and juvenile salmon.
Wood recruits to streams and rivers in a variety of ways, including, bank erosion, windthrow, ice/snow damage, and
transport from upstream sources. Given the site’s location on a moderate channel migration zone, there is a higher
potential for some of the trees to be removed able to recruit to the river/side channel via bank erosion processes.
To partially mitigate for the permanent removal of the larger native trees and due to the significantly smaller sized
trees to be planted in the 100 foot buffer, any native conifer or deciduous tree that is removed from within 200 feet
of the Green River should be put back into either the side channel (which was noted to lack wood in the CAR) or the
Green River, which is known to lack wood for most of its length per the WRIA 9 Limiting Factors report and many
other sources.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to the City of Auburn’s written
responses to these concerns.
Thank you,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Habitat Program
39015-A 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253-876-3116
From: Dustin Lawrence [mailto:dlawrence@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 8:21 AM
To: Planning-1
Subject: City of Auburn - DNS/NOA - Guyll/Jeffery Single-Family Residence
Attached and at the below link, please find the Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) for the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) to allow for the future
construction of the Guyll/Jeffery Single-Family residence, proposed near 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn,
WA. The comment deadline on this determination is set for July 10th, 2020 at 5 PM. The public
hearing for this matter will be scheduled at a later time.
Link to Notice and Project Files:
https://www.auburnwa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=11470638&pageId=16833043
Please email any comments regarding this proposal to planning@auburnwa.gov.
Thank you,
Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM
Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3092 | dlawrence@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps
This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this
message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone
else.
Following the recommendations of Public Health – Seattle & King County, the Washington
State Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control, the City of Auburn is
implementing safety protocols and modifying our services to prevent the spread of COVID-
19.
As a result, we are requesting that our customers limit their in-person interactions as much as
possible. This practice is intended to help protect our customers and staff from potential
exposure to the virus. If you are able to conduct business with the City remotely by phone or
email, we would urge you to do so. A directory of City contacts can be found at
auburnwa.gov/city_hall/contact_us.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
1
Mr. Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM, Sr. Planner July 23, 2020
Department of Community Development
25 West Main Street
Auburn WA 98001
RE: City of Auburn Project #SEP-0024
Jeffrey / Guyll Single Family Residence
32267 104th Place SE, PN 334100-0140
Auburn WA 98092
EnCo Response to Muckleshoot Tribe Email Dated July 10, 2020
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
Thank you for presenting the applicant with the one comment that was presented in
response to the SEPA Determination for the above-referenced project. EnCo
Environmental Corporation (EnCo) presents this letter to address the two concerns
related to shading and wood recruitment to the Green River, as presented by the
Muckleshoot Tribe via their email dated July 10, 2020.
The EnCo response for mitigation to the City of Auburn and to address the Tribe’s
concerns are limited to the project site parcel in order to prevent trespassing, to limit the
involvement with other regulatory agencies, and to limit the length of time involved in
attaining access to off-site properties.
Muckleshoot Comment on Shading / Existing Tree Removal
Removing trees within the zone determined to needed to provide effective shade is a
concern. The site is in a reach of the Green River that was determined to be below
effective shade targets to improve water temperature. Several of the 14 trees to be
removed from within 200 feet of the Green River are fairly large and their removal will
arguably reduce effective shade conditions at the site. The shade analysis discussion
in the EnCo Critical Areas Report suggests that the removed trees do not provide shade
to the river; however, we did not see data or photos to substantiate the statements.
EnCo Response to Shading / Existing Tree Removal
Mr. Steve Cushing, Certified Arborist was contracted by the landowner to perform
a tree inventory and to determine the species, height, diameter, drip line, and the
PO Box 1236
Gig Harbor WA 98335
Telephone: 253.841.9710
www.encoec.com
jkemp@encoec.com
EnCo Environmental Corporation
2
shade contribution to the OHWM of the Green River and the side channel. He
stated in his January 22, 2018 report that there is no environmental baseline
shade benefit to the OHWM of the Green River from the existing inventoried
trees on the project site parcel due to being shaded out by the hillside located
east of project site. Based on his professional opinion and based on the
professional opinion of this writer, the removal of 14 trees on the project site
parcel will not significantly affect the existing baseline shadiness to the OHWM of
the Green River as explained below.
The sun’s trajectory over the east horizon of the steep slope during the
summer months moves from the southeast / east to the southwest / west.
The most intense periods of energy loading from the sun occurs when the
sun is south and west of the project site parcel. The shadows cast by all
23 of the inventoried project site trees, including all trees that are planned
for removal, do not reach the OHWM of the Green River because of the
steep upward sloping hill that is located about 36 feet to 39 feet east of the
eastern most edge of the project site. The steep slope is inclined at about
40 degrees. These data were provided by Geotech Consultants, Inc. in
their report dated May 18, 2020. According to topographic map
interpretation the top of elevation of the upward sloping steep hill to the
east approaches 240 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is about
170 feet higher in elevation than the east elevation determined on the
project site parcel, given at about 70 feet.
This steep hill to the east casts a shadow over the project site parcel and
over the OHWM of the Green River in the early morning hours. As the
sun proceeds west over the steep hill, in the early afternoon hours, the
trees located on the project site do not cast shadows over the OHWM of
the Green River; the shadows of the on-site trees during this time period
extend northerly and northwesterly towards upland areas that are located
east of the Green River OHWM. As the sun proceeds further west, in the
later afternoon hours, all of the existing trees on the project site cast
shadows northeasterly; away from the Green River OHWM.
The Certified Arborist determined height of the 9 trees that will be left in
place range in height from 115 feet to 24 feet with an average height of 54
feet. The Certified Arborist determined height of the 14 trees that will be
removed range in height from 65 feet to 28 feet with an average height of
43 feet. The 14 trees to be removed range in distance from 67 feet to 155
feet from the OHWM of the Green River.
Proposed Action
To compensate for the unlikely, however potential loss of shadiness to the OHWM of
the Green River from the 6 removed significant trees the applicant, via vegetation
enhancement mitigation, will plant a mix of 6 native trees in the far northwest corner of
EnCo Environmental Corporation
3
the parcel. The northwest corner of the parcel will provide the best shade benefit to
areas close to the OHWM of the Green River due to the existing bare and exposed
beach that is located contiguous to the OHWM of the Green River; north of the
northwest corner of the property. Cast shadows during midday from these plantings,
over time, will cast shadows over the exposed beach area in close proximity to the
OHWM of the Green River.
These 6 newly planted trees in the northwest corner will supplement the 3 existing live
trees within the northwest corner of the 100-foot setback from the OHWM of the Green
River. The planted 6 trees will be at least 6 feet tall and will consist of a diverse mix of 2
western red cedar, 1 Douglas fir, 1 red alder, 1 pacific willow, and 1 Oregon ash.
The remaining removed trees on the parcel will be converted to terrestrial habitat
features. The 1 existing dead tree on the parcel will be converted to a perch. The 4
non-significant black cottonwood hazard trees will be converted to 3’ to 4’ tall stumps.
Two of the 6 significant trees to be removed will be converted to a snag and a perch.
Muckleshoot Comment on Wood Recruitment
The Critical Areas Report fails to consider impacts to salmon habitat from the removal of
the trees that may otherwise recruit to the Green River or the side channel and provide
instream habitat for adult and juvenile salmon. Wood recruits to streams and rivers in a
variety of ways, including, bank erosion, windthrow, ice/snow damage, and transport
from upstream sources. Given the site’s location on a moderate channel migration
zone, there is a higher potential for some of the trees to be removed able to recruit to
the river/side channel via bank erosion processes.
To partially mitigate for the permanent removal of the larger native trees and due to the
significantly smaller sized trees to be planted in the 100 foot buffer, any native conifer or
deciduous tree that is removed from within 200 feet of the Green River should be put
back into either the side channel (which was noted to lack wood in the CAR) or the
Green River, which is known to lack wood for most of its length per the WRIA 9 Limiting
Factors report and many other sources.
EnCo Response to Wood Recruitment
A total of 23 live trees exist on the project site parcel. A total of 14 existing live trees are
to be removed within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction setback (all within the project
site parcel). A total of 7 existing live trees are to be removed within the 100-foot
setback from the OHWM of the Green River and within the 50-foot Channel Migration
Zone setback. These 7 existing trees to be cut down will be converted to terrestrial
habitat features. A total of 0 existing live trees will be removed within the December
2018 updated Channel Migration Zone which may be able to recruit to the side channel
or to the Green River main channel during extreme flood events. A total of 9 existing
live trees will remain in place. Currently, there are no priority logs and there are 2 down
wood features (black cottonwood) on the project site parcel.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
4
Proposed Action
To compensate for a potential loss of wood recruitment to the Green River from eroding
out the existing trees growing within the Channel Migration Zone and within its’ 50-foot
setback, the applicant, via mitigation, will place a total of 3 priority logs (>12” diameter
on its widest end and >20’ long) and a total of 2 down wood logs (<12” diameter on its
widest end and <20’ long) will be strategically placed as close as possible to the
northwest corner of the property parcel boundary with an emphasis of log placement to
be near the northwest corner and waterward of the eastern limit of the Channel
Migration Zone and base flood elevation to the Green River.
These logs will be readily available for wood recruitment should a severe flood event
occur waterward of the Green River Channel Migration Zone, its 50-foot setback, and
base flood elevation. The logs will be stripped of branches and will lay crisscrossed to
provide habitat for terrestrial wildlife. The source of the logs will be from the removed
trees on the project site and will consist of hardwoods such as big leaf maple and wild
cherry. Care will be taken so as to not cause rutting and damage to the existing native
vegetation when placing the logs in their final position.
DISCUSSION
As part of the Shoreline Permit the City of Auburn will require the submittal of a detailed
Mitigation Plan for the trees and shrubs that are proposed for removal within the 200-
foot Shoreline Jurisdictional setback. In order to be more effective in reducing the time
and resources for this endeavor EnCo will prepare the detailed Mitigation Plan after the
shoreline permit has been approved for this project.
CONCLUSION STATEMENT
It is the opinion of this writer and concluded that the two concerns presented by the
Muckleshoot Tribe have been adequately addressed by EnCo as presented in this
letter. With these proposed actions the project, with enhancement mitigation, will not
negatively impact salmon and salmon habitat within the Green River. I look forward to
receiving a positive response from the Muckleshoot Tribe.
Sincerely,
Jonathan M. Kemp
President, EnCo Environmental Corporation, PWS No. 2110
JEFFERY/GUYLL SFR
JANILEE A. JEFFERY AND DANIEL R. GUYLL
32267 104TH PL SE, AUBURN, WA 98092
JAN CELL 206-755-8516, DAN CELL 206-478-5360
OCTOBER 15, 2018
CITY OF AUBURN, WA
SUBMIT SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SEPA SUBMITTAL APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST ANDFLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. UPON CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, SUBMIT BUILDING, PLUMBING &MECHANICAL PERMIT.
NONE
WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION CRITICAL AREA REPORT WITH HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
NO
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SEPA SUBMITTAL, FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION,
BUILDING PERMIT, PLUMBING PERMIT, MECHANICAL PERMIT.
CONSTRUCT 1,750 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH 3 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHS AND TWO CAR
GARAGE ON THE UPLAND PORTION OF THE LOT, ABUTTING THE 100 FT. SETBACK BUT WITHIN THE
RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE.
NO
N/A
YES, GREEN RIVER, CLASS I STREAM
YES, WORK WILL BE REQUIRED WITHIN 200 FEET, PLEASE SEE ENCO REPORT, APPENDIX A, FIGURE
5 AND FIGURE 18 FOR SITE PLAN.
NONE
NO
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION 67.017 FEET, SEE APPENDIX A, FIGURE 11, 693.24 SQ FT IN NW CORNER,
ALL DEVELOPMENT AREA ABOVE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
NO
STORMWATER FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WILL BE ROUTED TO INFILTRATION DITCH OR
DISPERSION, TO BE DETERMINED.
THE HOUSE WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE AUBURN SEWER SYSTEM, 1 SFR, 1-6 INDIVIDUALS.
PLEASE SEE ENCO REPORT SECTION 21. MITIGATION APPROACH.
ELECTRIC, NATURAL GAS, PELLET STOVE
NO
ENERGY STAR APPLIANCES
NONE
N/A
NO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS.
NONE
CONSTRUCTION NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
PLACE ACTIVITY THAT GENERATES NOICE AWAY FROM THE WETLAND, RIVER AND ASSOCIATED
BUFFERS.
THE PROJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED VACANT LAND, WITH SFR TO NORTH, 104TH &
FORESTED WOODLAND EAST, SFR TO SOUTH, FLOODPLAIN TO THE GREEN RIVER WEST.
UNKNOWN
NONE
NO
R-5 RESIDENTIAL
URBAN CONSERVANCY
SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA, RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE
YES, SITE LIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF GREEN RIVER (NOT ON SITE), WITHIN 330 FEET OF CLASS III
WETLAND (NOT ON SITE), PLEASE SEE ENCO REPORT TABLE 3.
TWO PEOPLE PLAN TO RESIDE IN THE COMPLETED SFR.
NONE
NOT APPLICABLE
ONE SFR
NONE
NOT APPLICABLE
TBD, NOT TO EXCEED 35 FT., CUSTOM CRAFTSMAN
NONE
NOT APPLICABLE
PARKING, SECURITY, DRIVEWAY, DWELLING, PATIO, AND LANDSCAPING LIGHTING.
NO SAFETY HAZARD. NO INTERFERENCE WITH VIEWS.
NONE
DIRECT LIGHT AWAY FROM WETLAND, RIVER AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS.
FISHING, SWIMMING, FLOATING THE RIVER
NO
NONE
NO
LITTLE TYKE, THE VEGETARIAN LION, WAS KNOWN TO LIVE NEXT DOOR.
NONE
104TH PLACE S.E.
AT 104TH & 320TH, APPROXIMATELY 1500 FT.
TWO CAR GARAGE, TWO TO FOUR CARS COULD PARK ON DRIVEWAY. NONE ELIMINATED.
YES, PER AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF IMPROVEMENTS SDR19-0011, PAVEMENT IN 104TH PL SE
SHALL BE WIDENED FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD TO THE EAST PROPERTY BOUNDRY.
NO
TEN TRIPS PER DAY, WITH ONE OCCURRING DURING THE AM PEAK AND ONE DURING THE PM PEAK
PAYMENT OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION
WITH HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Jeffery Property
North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092
Parcel Number: 3341000140
City of Auburn File Number: PRE-15-0045
Prepared for:
Mr. Dan Guyll & Ms. Jan Jeffery
32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092
Prepared by:
EnCo Environmental Corporation
POB 1212
Puyallup WA 98371
Professional Wetland Scientist Number 2110 __________________
Job Number: WTJK-Jeffery-Auburn-1
Field Work Date: March 22, 2016
Report Date: August 24, 2018
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 WATERS ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES ........................................................................................... 3
1.4 HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.0 DATA COMPILATION ................................................................................................................................ 10
4.0 CODE CITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ......................................................................................................... 11
4.2 CRITICAL AREAS PERMIT ............................................................................................................................ 12
4.3 SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ...................................................................................................... 12
5.0 SCHEDULE & WEATHER CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 13
5.1 SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.2 WEATHER ................................................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION ............................................................................................... 14
6.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 14
6.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 14
6.3 SITE SURVEY .............................................................................................................................................. 15
6.4 SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................................... 15
6.5 PROJECT SITE PARCEL & BUFFER AREAS ................................................................................................... 16
6.6 BUILDING SETBACKS .................................................................................................................................. 16
6.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 16
6.8 CONTIGUOUS LAND USE ............................................................................................................................. 17
6.9 REGIONAL LAND USE ................................................................................................................................. 18
6.10 HISTORICAL LAND USE ............................................................................................................................... 18
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................... 19
7.1 ACTION AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 19
8.0 MITIGATION SEQUENCING ..................................................................................................................... 19
8.1 AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION .................................................................................................................... 19
8.2 RECTIFICATION & REDUCTION ................................................................................................................... 20
8.3 COMPENSATION .......................................................................................................................................... 20
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................................................................................ 21
9.1 BASELINE GREEN RIVER HABITAT CONDTIONS .......................................................................................... 21
9.2 BASELINE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 23
9.2.1 Federal Listed Critical Habitat ......................................................................................................... 23
9.2.2 State Listed Priority Habitat ............................................................................................................. 23
9.2.3 Federally Listed Threatened & Endangered Species ........................................................................ 23
9.2.4 State & Local Listed Priority & Sensitive Species ............................................................................ 23
9.3 BASELINE VEGETATION COMMUNITY ......................................................................................................... 24
POB 1212
Puyallup WA 98371
Telephone: 253.841.9710
www.encoec.com
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
9.4 BASELINE TREE INVENTORY & CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................ 24
9.4.1 Tree Inventory ................................................................................................................................... 24
9.4.2 Tree Classification ............................................................................................................................ 25
9.4.3 Heritage & Legacy Trees .................................................................................................................. 26
9.5 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION CHECKLIST ................................................................................. 27
10.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS, HABITAT NEEDS, & BIOLOGY .................................................................... 28
11.0 TOPOGRAPHY & DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................. 31
11.1 TOPOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 31
11.2 DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................................................. 31
12.0 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC & SOIL SETTING ............................................................................. 31
12.1 DRAINAGE BASIN ........................................................................................................................................ 31
12.2 SUB-DRAINAGE BASIN ................................................................................................................................ 33
12.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 35
13.0 LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGIC & SOIL SETTING ..................................................................................... 35
13.1 SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................................................ 35
13.1.1 Natural Waters .................................................................................................................................. 35
13.1.2 Channel Migration Area.................................................................................................................... 36
13.1.3 Floodway ........................................................................................................................................... 36
13.2 GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................................... 36
13.3 SOIL ............................................................................................................................................................ 37
14.0 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................. 38
14.1 FIELD VERIFIED ON-SITE WETLANDS ................................................................................................... 38
14.2 FIELD VERIFIED OFF-SITE WETLANDS ........................................................................................................ 39
14.3 WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................................... 39
14.4 CLIMATIC, NORMAL, DISTURBED, & PROBLEMATIC AREAS ....................................................................... 39
14.5 WETLAND & UPLAND DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 39
14.6 WETLAND UNIT, CATEGORY, & BUFFER .................................................................................................... 41
14.6.1 Wetland Unit ..................................................................................................................................... 41
14.6.2 Wetland Category .............................................................................................................................. 42
14.6.3 Wetland Buffer ................................................................................................................................... 42
14.7 SOIL ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
14.7.1 Soil Type ............................................................................................................................................ 43
14.7.2 Hydric Soil Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 43
14.7.3 Penetration Resistance ...................................................................................................................... 44
14.8 VEGETATION ............................................................................................................................................... 44
14.8.1 Dominant Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 44
14.9 WETLAND HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 45
14.9.1 Wetland Hydrology Indicators .......................................................................................................... 45
14.9.2 Hydrology Input ................................................................................................................................ 46
14.9.3 Hydrology Output .............................................................................................................................. 46
14.10 FUNCTIONS & VALUES ........................................................................................................................... 46
14.10.1 Water Quality Function – Riverine Wetlands ...................................................................................... 47
14.10.2 Hydrologic Function – Riverine Wetlands ........................................................................................... 48
14.10.3 Habitat Function for All Classes of Wetlands ...................................................................................... 49
14.11 AGENCY MAPPED WETLANDS ................................................................................................................ 50
14.11.1 Wetland Inventory Map – Federal ....................................................................................................... 50
14.11.2 Wetland Inventory Map – State ............................................................................................................ 51
14.11.3 Wetland Inventory Map – County ........................................................................................................ 52
14.11.4 Wetland Inventory Map – City ............................................................................................................. 52
15.0 WATERS ....................................................................................................................................................... 52
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
15.1 FIELD VERIFIED ON-SITE WATERS ........................................................................................................... 52
15.2 FIELD VERIFIED OFF-SITE WATERS ............................................................................................................ 53
15.3 WATER TYPE, FISH PRESENCE, & BUFFER .................................................................................................. 53
15.3.1 Water Type ........................................................................................................................................ 53
15.3.2 Fish Presence .................................................................................................................................... 53
15.3.3 Water Buffer ...................................................................................................................................... 53
15.4 RATIONALE FOR WATER DETERMINATION ................................................................................................. 54
15.5 AGENCY MAPPED WATERS ......................................................................................................................... 54
15.5.1 Stream Inventory Map – State ........................................................................................................... 54
15.5.2 Stream Inventory Map – County ........................................................................................................ 55
16.0 FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY .................................................................................................................... 55
16.1 FIELD VERIFIED FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY ................................................................................................ 55
16.1.1 Base Flood Elevation ........................................................................................................................ 55
16.1.2 Floodplain Riparian Habitat Zone .................................................................................................... 56
16.2 AGENCY MAPPED FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY .............................................................................................. 56
16.2.1 Floodplain / Floodway Map – Federal ............................................................................................. 56
16.2.2 Floodplain / Floodway Map – County .............................................................................................. 56
17.0 SHORELINES .............................................................................................................................................. 57
17.1 FIELD VERIFIED SHORELINES ...................................................................................................................... 57
17.1.1 Shoreline Ordinary High Water Mark ............................................................................................... 57
17.1.2 Shoreline Buffer / Setback ................................................................................................................. 57
17.1.3 Wetlands Directly Connected to Shoreline ........................................................................................ 57
17.2 AGENCY MAPPED SHORELINES ................................................................................................................... 57
18.0 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES ........................................................................... 57
18.1 FIELD VERIFIED FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES ....................................................... 58
18.1.1 Wetland.............................................................................................................................................. 58
18.1.2 Amphibian ......................................................................................................................................... 58
18.1.3 Reptile................................................................................................................................................ 59
18.1.4 Bird .................................................................................................................................................... 60
18.1.5 Fish .................................................................................................................................................... 62
18.1.6 Mammal ............................................................................................................................................. 63
18.1.7 Mollusk .............................................................................................................................................. 64
18.1.8 Invertebrates and Annelids ................................................................................................................ 64
18.2 STATE MAPPED PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES ..................................................................................... 65
18.2.1 Priority Habitat & Species Inventory – State .................................................................................... 65
18.3 PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES INVENTORY – CITY ..................................................................................... 66
18.4 WILDLIFE HABITAT – CITY ......................................................................................................................... 66
19.0 ANALYIS OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................................. 68
19.1 DIRECT EFFECTS .......................................................................................................................................... 68
19.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................................... 72
19.3 COMMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................................................. 72
19.4 INTERRELATED EFFECTS ............................................................................................................................. 73
19.5 INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS ......................................................................................................................... 73
20.0 EFFECT DETERMINATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... 73
21.0 MITIGATION APPROACH ......................................................................................................................... 74
21.1 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION .................................................................................................................... 74
21.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................ 74
21.3 BUFFER MINIMIZING IMPACT MEASURES ................................................................................................... 83
22.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................... 85
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
23.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................... 85
23.1 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................. 85
23.2 WATERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 85
23.3 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES ......................................................................................... 86
23.4 FLOODPLAIN ............................................................................................................................................... 86
23.5 HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 87
24.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 87
25.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 87
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
APPENDIX B
TABLES
APPENDIX C
FIELD DATA FORMS
ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS – 2004
APPENDIX D
STANDARD OFFICE & FIELD PROCEDURES
APPENDIX E
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
RESUMES
APPENDIX F
LIMITATIONS
APPENDIX G
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
FIGURES
(APPENDIX A)
FIGURE 1 VICINITY
FIGURE 2 PARCEL & AERIAL
FIGURE 3 TOPOGRAPHY – FEDERAL
FIGURE 4 SOIL INVENTORY – FEDERAL
FIGURE 5 WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION
FIGURE 6 WETLAND INVENTORY – FEDERAL
FIGURE 7 WETLAND INVENTORY – STATE
FIGURE 8 WETLAND INVENTORY – CITY
FIGURE 9 STREAM INVENTORY – STATE
FIGURE 10 STREAM INVENTORY – COUNTY
FIGURE 11 FLOODPLAIN INVENTORY – FEDERAL
FIGURE 12 FLOODPLAIN INVENTORY – COUNTY
FIGURE 13 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITATS & SPECIES INVENTORY
FIGURE 14 IMPAIRED WATERS – TMDL & 303(d) LIST – STATE
FIGURE 15 LAND USE – 1 KILOMETER, 150 FEET, & ADJOINING
FIGURE 16 WATERSHED BASIN – STATE
FIGURE 17 GREEN RIVER SHADE ANALYSIS
FIGURE 18 SITE PLAN
FIGURE 19 EXISTING TREE INVENTORY
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
TABLES
TABLES REPORT TEXT TABLES
TABLE 1 WETLAND & BUFFER DATA
TABLE 2 WATER & BUFFER DATA
TABLE 3 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES DATA
TABLE 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION & OTHER DATA
TABLE 5 CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY – OBSERVED LAND USE
TABLE 6A SIGNIFICANT TREES
TABLE 6B NON-SIGNIFICANT TREES
TABLE 7 WETLAND & UPLAND DETERMINATION RATIONALE
TABLE 8 WETLAND BUFFERS
TABLE 9 SOIL TYPE OBSERVED IN TEST PLOTS
TABLE 10 HYDRIC SOIL INDICTORS IN TEST PLOTS
TABLE 11 WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS IN TEST PLOTS
TABLE 12 HYDROLOGY INPUT INTO WETLAND
TABLE 13 HYDROLOGY OUTPUT OUT OF WETLAND
TABLE 14 WATER BUFFERS
TABLE 15 WETLAND, RIVER & BUFFER MINIMIZING IMPACT MEASURES
TABLES APPENDIX B TABLES
TABLE 16 WETLAND & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS
TABLE 17 WATER & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS
TABLE 18 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS
TABLE 19 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE & EFFECT OF PROPOSED ACTION ON
CRITICAL HABITAT FOR LISTED T&E SPECIES
TABLE 20 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE & EFFECT OF PROPOSED ACTION ON
FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED T&E SPECIES
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 0
This part of the page was left blank for a section break
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 1
WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION
WITH FLOODPLAIN & HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mr. Dan Guyll & Ms. Jan Jeffery
North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092
Parcel Number: 3341000140
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EnCo Environmental Corporation (EnCo) has conducted a Routine Level Wetland and
Stream (River) Delineation with an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHW M) determination
and a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) assessment to determine the presence and
extent of wetlands, streams, riparian zones, and floodplains and their associated buffers
on and in the near vicinity to the above referenced property, herein known as the project
site parcel. This report also includes a Floodplain Development Permit Habitat Impact
Assessment (HIA) as required by FEMA and under the City of Auburn Municipal Code
(AMC 15.68.135J).
The work was completed as part of the permit review process for a proposed single-
family dwelling. The purpose for performing the critical area determination and HIA was
to:
1. Determine the presence or lack of presence of critical areas and their standard
buffers on the project site parcel and on contiguous off-site property located
within a linear ranging from about 330 feet for wetlands and waters (river) and
ranging up to 800 feet for federal and state listed habitat and species.
2. Meet the requirements of a FEMA HIA as required by the City of Auburn’s
Floodplain Development Permit to determine the project impacts to water quality
and to aquatic and riparian habitat and species associated with the Green River.
3. Meet the requirements to obtain a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit by
presenting mitigation measures that will be implemented to improve and restore
habitat within the 100-foot buffer of the Green River.
4. Protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community by protecting the
identified critical areas and associative buffers or setbacks.
PO Box 1212
Puyallup WA 98371
Telephone: 253.841.9710
Cell: 253.377.8027
www.encoec.com
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 2
1.1 WETLANDS
Field verified wetlands were not identified on the project site parcel and were identified
within 330 feet from the project site parcel as depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND &
STREAM DELINEATION and as listed on TABLE 1 – WETLAND & BUFFER DATA.
Wetland characteristics (if any) are presented in more detail on TABLE 16 – WETLAND
& BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS in APPENDIX B – TABLES . Copies of the
completed ECOLOGY wetland rating forms are presented in APPENDIX C.
TABLE 1
WETLAND & BUFFER DATA
Wetland ID
Cowardin
(System)
HGM
(Class)
Minimum
Buffer
Maximum
Buffer Shoreline
Total Function
Score
Category
Special Characteristics
Proposed Use
Water
Quality Score
Function Level
Hydrology
Score
Function Level
Habitat
Score
Function Level
Wetland
Area
(On-Site)
(Off-Site)
(Total)
Small Size
Exempt
Buffer
Area
(On-Site)
Buffer
Averaging Buffer Reducing
Buffer Aggressive
(>10%)
Accessible
Habitat
(Abutting)
Undisturbed Habitat
(1 KM)
A
(Off-Site)
Cowardin
Riverine
Lower
Perennial HGM
Riverine
50 Feet
Yes
35
III
No
Residential
10 10 15 0 SF
20,010 SF
20,010 SF
No
No
50’ - 1,513 SF
Up to 35%
Variable
Yes
(RC Grass) (HB Berry)
13%
11%
1.2 WATERS
Field verified waters (i.e. stream, river, pond, or lake) were not identified on the project
site as depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION and as listed
on TABLE 2 – WATER & BUFFER DATA. Water characteristics are presented in more
detail on TABLE 1 7 – WATER & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 3
TABLE 2
WATER & BUFFER DATA
Water ID
Shoreline Watershed
Sub-Basin
Water Type
(WDNR)
(City)
Fish Presence
Shoreline
Setback Floodplain Riparian Habitat
Setback
River Buffer
Averaging
Reducing
Buffer Aggressive
(>10%)
Stream Buffer Area
(On-Site)
Shoreline Setback Area
(On-Site)
Water Identification: Green River Shoreline: Yes Watershed: Duwamish / Green Rivers
Sub-Basin: Lower Green River Reach
Type S
Class 1
Yes
200 Feet
250 Feet
100 Feet
None
Up to 35%
(With enhancement) Yes
(RC Grass)
(HB Berry)
6,249 SF
10,855 SF
1.3 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
Federal Listed
Based on the professional opinion of this writer from the information gathered during the
wetland and stream delineation, federally listed endangered or threatened species were
not identified on the project site parcel and were identified within about 800 feet from the
project site parcel. Based on the professional opinion of this writer, federal defined
critical habitat as defined by the Endangered Species Act were not identified on the
project site parcel and were identified within about 800 feet from the project site parcel.
The documented fish presence in the Green River is listed below.
Species Federal Status State Status
• Fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened PHS Listed
• Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Candidate PHS Listed
• Fall Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) Not Warranted PHS Listed
• Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Threatened PHS Listed
• Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) N/A PHS Listed
• Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) N/A PHS Listed
• Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) N/A PHS Listed
• Bull Trout (Salvetinus malma) Threatened PHS Listed
• Coastal Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki) N/A PHS Listed
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 4
State Listed
Field verified federal and state listed habitat and species identified on the project site
parcel and within about 800 feet from the project site parcel are depicted on FIGURE 13
– FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITATS & SPECIES. A summary of the Federal
and State listed habitat and species are presented on TABLE 3 – FEDERAL & STATE
LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES DATA. Habitat and species characteristics are
presented in more detail on TABLE 18 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT &
SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS (APPENDIX B). A check (√) in the column indicates
that element was observed in the field or indicators of such elements were observed to
provide evidence for a positive determination.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES DATA
Element On-Site Off-Site Map Legend
WDFW MAPPED
Species and Habitat Polygon No Yes - Biodiversity Area Yes - Terrestrial Habitat Zone
120’ South & 150’ East Yes - Aquatic Habitat (West)
Purple polygon
Species and Habitat Line
No Yes
(Fish – See SECTION 1.3)
Green River
Purple line
Species and Habitat Point No No Purple dot
Waterfowl Concentrations No No Text notation
Other Mapped Elements No No Text notation
FEDERALLY LISTED
Threatened Species Yes (Fish) Purple line
Endangered Species No Purple line
Candidate Species No Yes (Fish) Purple line
Federal Critical Habitat No Yes (Green River) Purple line/polygon
STATE LISTED
PHS Listed No Yes (Fish - Green River) Purple line
WDNR MAPPED Database Search
High Conservation Value No No NWQ of NWQ of
SEC 17, TWN 21N, RGE 05E
Rare or Endangered Plants No No NW¼ of NW¼ of
SEC 17, TWN 21N, RGE 05E
FIELD VERIFIED Description Location Reference
Aspen Stand No No
Biodiversity Area & Corridors No Yes 120’ South & 150’ East
Caves No No
Cavities & Dens No No
Cliffs No No
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 5
TABLE 3
FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES DATA
Element On-Site Off-Site Map Legend
WDFW MAPPED
Down Wood / Runner Log Yes Yes Plots 1, 5
Snags Yes
Tree 2035 No
Herbaceous Balds No No
Talus No No
High Conservation Value No Yes Green River
Biodiversity Area
Mature Growth Forest No No
Old Growth Forest No No
Heritage Stump or Tree No No
Oregon White Oak No No
Plants – Rare / Endangered No No
Species – Threatened/Endangered No Yes Green River (Fish)
Species – Priority / Candidate No Yes Green River (Fish)
Species – Sensitive No No
Stream No Yes Green River
Stream – Instream Habitat No Yes Green River
Stream - Riparian Zone Yes Yes Green River
High Terrestrial Wildlife Density No No
High Wildlife Species Richness No No
Significant Wildlife Breeding Habitat No No
Significant Movement Corridors No Yes Biodiversity Area
Significant Wildlife Seasonal Ranges No Yes Biodiversity Area
Federal Critical Habitat No Yes Green River
Waterfowl Concentrations No No
Westside Prairies No No
Wetland (Aquatic Habitat) No Yes Wetland A
35 Feet West of SW Corner
Wetland Special Characteristics No No
1.4 HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Based on the detailed analysis as presented in this HIA, it is the professional opinion of
this writer that the proposed action, as proposed (without mitigation), May Affect but is
Not Likely to Adversely Affect any identified federal or state listed threatened and
endangered species or their federal defined critical habitat to include: Fall Chum, Fall
Chinook, Coho Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Pink Salmon, Dolly Varden / Bull Trout,
Steelhead, Rainbow Trout, and Coastal Cutthroat.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 6
By implementing BMPs to be described in the forthcoming Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, by implementing a forthcoming riparian habitat re-vegetation and
unique habitat features enhancement plan, and by implementing mitigation measures
as presented in SECTION 21.0 – MITIGATION APPROACH the project action would
Likely Not Adversely Affect any federal or state listed threatened or endangered
species or their federal defined critical habitat.
The diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators that were determined to possibly
degrade the baseline habitat and species due to the proposed project are summarized
in TABLE 19 & TABLE 20 (APPENDIX B). The diagnostic pathways and sub-scale
indicators that were determined not to degrade the baseline habitat and species have
not been presented in this HIA because these indicators are considered negligible or
discountable.
To compensate for impacts to the riparian and river buffers by the proposed single-
family dwelling, compensatory mitigation will be undertaken as presented in SECTION
21.0 – MITIGATION APPROACH.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Background
Several large diameter black cottonwood trees were cut down several years ago west of
the existing home via a City of Auburn tree removal permit. These trees were
determined by the City to be “dangerous hazard trees” and were therefore allowed to be
removed even though they were within the 100-foot buffer of the Green River and in the
50-foot wide wetland buffer of Wetland A.
An initial site visit was performed with Mr. and Ms. Jeffery, Landowner, and Mr.
Jonathan M. Kemp, Professional Wetland Scientist of EnCo on January 29, 2016. The
purpose for performing this initial site visit was to perform a meander survey of the
project site to determine the types of vegetation communities, soil type, drainage
patterns, topography, surface hydrology, and wetland indicators in need of further
investigation and study. Test plots were not established on the project site during this
initial visit. Based on this cursory assessment, Mr. Kemp proceeded with a complete
wetland delineation, stream OHWM determination, special flood hazard area
assessment, floodplain riparian habitat determination, federally-listed threatened or
endangered species, federal defined critical habitat assessment, and a state-listed
priority habitat species assessment on March 22, 2016.
Several meetings and correspondences were held with City of Auburn land planning
department in 2016 and again in 2017 to clarify and explain what was required to meet
City of Auburn critical area regulations, shoreline regulations, and federal FEMA
floodplain regulations.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 7
Critical Area Determination & Habitat Impact Assessment
The critical area determination and HIA involved the interrelated steps listed below.
1. Preliminary research and review of available agency natural resource maps
2. Field visit to determine the presence or absence of critical areas
3. Determination of baseline environmental conditions
4. Wetland delineation with category and buffer width determinations
5. Stream (river) delineation with OHWM, type, and buffer width determinations
6. Special Flood Hazard Area research, survey, and determination
7. Professional land survey
8. Floodplain riparian habitat zone determination
9. Federal defined critical habitat and federally listed threatened and endangered
species assessment
10. State listed priority habitat and species and species of local importance
assessment
11. Significant, Non-Significant, Heritage, and Legacy tree inventory (performed by a
Certified Arborist)
12. Critical areas report and figure preparation
13. Habitat Impact Assessment (FEMA compliance)
Critical Areas
The work for this project included assessing the project site parcel for the following
critical areas; wetland, water (i.e. stream, river, pond, or lake), mapped floodway and
floodplain, significant, non-significant, heritage, and legacy trees in critical areas and
buffers, mapped and observed federally-listed threatened or endangered species,
federal defined critical habitat, and state-listed priority habitat, and other habitats and
species considered locally to have special, sensitive, or important status. The work was
undertaken to prevent adverse impacts to these critical areas and buffers and to protect
public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
A total of six test plots were established in areas of homogeneous vegetation and
variations in topography with particular emphasis in areas where facultative or wetter
plants exist. The test plots and the boundaries of identified critical areas and in some
cases unique habitat features were marked with consecutively numbered colored flags.
These elements were professionally land surveyed and plotted onto a computer-
generated exhibit. A summary of the findings is presented in SECTIONS 1.1 through
1.3.
Habitat Impact Assessment
The HIA was prepared to meet the requirements and criteria of the Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) as required under the FEMA National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). The HIA will be reviewed to determine if the project action is
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 8
concurrent with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
The HIA provides information on methods utilized to assess the impacts of land
management actions on ESA-listed species and their designated federal defined critical
habitat within the floodplain riparian habitat zone setback. The HIA was prepared to
ensure that new development within this protected area will not adversely affect the
populations, habitats, or species listed by the ESA as threatened or endangered, and
that any adverse impacts from action occurring beyond the protected area will be
mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
In Puget Sound the protected area consists of those lands that lie within the outermost
boundary of the total area comprised by the floodway, and the riparian habitat zone
(RBZ), and the channel migration area (CMZ).
The RBZ is a non-disturbance zone, other than for activities that will not adversely affect
habitat function. Any property or portion thereof that lies within the RBZ is subject to the
restrictions of the RBZ as well as any zoning restrictions that apply to the parcel in the
underlying zone. Some actions are allowable within the RBZ. Only those actions that
would Adversely Affect habitat functions for threatened and endangered species are not
allowed.
The HIA is required for the delta area, which is defined as the difference between the
City of Auburn’s 100-foot river buffer and the 250-foot floodplain riparian habitat zone
setback. This delta area encompasses 4,606 SF of land on the project site parcel. The
HIA must demonstrate that any potential development activity allowed within the delta
area will not have an Adverse Effect to habitat functions that support federally listed
threatened and endangered species and federal defined critical habitat.
The assessment included estimating the impacts of the proposed project to see if it will
adversely affect current existing habitat functions and potential future instream or
riparian improvements in functions via active or passive improvements in riparian
vegetation or other actions within the RBZ. Habitat was assessed by reviewing and
studying the variations in geomorphology, hydrology, and site potential tree heights and
drip line diameters (vegetation potential).
This HIA provides sufficient data and evaluation and analysis to describe baseline
environmental conditions and likely effects on ESA-listed species and their designated
federal defined critical habitat and conclude with an effects determination that is well
supported by the analysis presented in this report. The assessment includes
incorporating mitigation measures to minimize function loss to the point where potential
negative impacts are either negligible or discountable. A summary of the findings of the
HIA is presented in SECTION 1.4.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 9
Scope of Work
The Scope of Work for this project included performing the following subtasks:
1. Reviewed parcel maps, color aerial photographs, national and local wetland
inventory maps, stream and shoreline maps, soil type maps, topography maps,
floodplain / floodway maps, priority habitat and species maps, federally listed and
state listed threatened and endangered species, vegetation cover maps, shade
analysis maps, and other readily available physiographic, geographic, LiDAR, or
natural resource maps.
2. Reviewed previously completed professional environmental and geological sensitive
reports for information and data related to the study.
3. Assessed the landscape, aspect, and drainage features on the project site parcel
and to a limited extent on land located within a linear distance up to about 800 feet
from developable or developed sections of the project site boundary for the
presence or absence of critical areas.
4. Established six (6) test plots in representative ecological communities.
5. Collected and evaluated test plot data for the degree of human disturbance,
topography, aspect, surface water drainage patterns, soil and substrate, near
surface hydrology, vegetation patterns, habitat, wildlife, and observed or indicators
of other animal and plant species.
6. Determined whether or not wetlands are located on the project site parcel, and if
present, marked the edges with consecutively numbered pink flags.
7. Determined whether or not streams are located on the project site parcel, and if
present, marked the OHWM with pink or red flags.
8. Determined if the field verified wetland(s) and/or stream(s) are regulated for
protection and buffering.
9. Determined the class, category, type, and buffer widths for field verified and
regulated wetlands and waters according to the jurisdictional government agency
regulations.
10. Performed a limited field reconnaissance for observed indicators of off-site wetlands
and waters within a distance up to about 330 feet from the project site boundary,
including making an opinion on the potential for buffer encroachment onto the
developable or developed sections of the project site parcel.
11. Determined whether or not federally listed and state listed habitats and species are
located on the project site parcel and within a distance up to about 800 feet from the
project site parcel.
12. Prepared a HIA to meet requirements of the City’s Floodplain Development Permit.
13. Prepared a series of FIGURES (APPENDIX A) depicting a site plan and the
presence or absence of critical areas, unique habitat features, geography, and
natural resources on and in the near vicinity to the project site parcel.
14. Prepared a photographic log (PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG – APPENDIX G) depicting the
test plots, observed landscape features, vegetation, soil, and ecological communities
that were investigated.
15. Reviewed a professional land survey (to scale) with delineated wetlands, streams,
buffers, setbacks, inventoried trees, observed federal and state listed habitat and
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 10
species, floodplains, base flood elevation, and other relevant man-made and natural
habitat features (FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION).
16. Prepared a report documenting the findings.
3.0 DATA COMPILATION
Before initiating the field work a desk top assessment was performed after reviewing
readily available maps depicting parcels, color aerial photographs, soil types,
topography contours, wetlands, streams, shoreline, floodway, floodplain, priority habitat
and species, watershed, sub-basin, surrounding land use, impaired waters, and other
readily available physiographic, geologic, LiDAR, or natural resource maps. These
maps were reviewed for indicators or known presence of critical areas on the project
site parcel and within about 800 feet from the project site parcel. In addition, the
Threatened and Endangered Species by County Report was reviewed as published by
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife’s Environmental Conservation Online System (SUPPORT
DOCUMENTS – APPENDIX E).
A formal consultation with the WDFW is required only if a proposed action is “likely to
adversely affect” federally listed threatened and endangered species and designated
federal defined critical habitat. Based on the opinion of this writer, this condition is not
applicable to the proposed project. For this reason, a formal written consultation to the
WDFW was not initiated at this time.
The site visit included traversing and transecting the property to compare field conditions
to readily available natural resource maps. The test plots were randomly selected to
represent variabilities in plant communities, topography, soil type, near surface hydrology,
land use, and habitat. Sample plots were selected where the boundary of upland plants
start changing to facultative or facultative wet plants, where there was evidence of
extended standing or pooled surface water, suspect or observed saturated soils at or near
the surface, topographic depressions, flats, at the edge and/or bottoms of streams, rivers,
watercourses, ditches, and drainage ways, and at the toe of steep slopes, valleys, or
ravines.
The assessment included documenting observed sightings and indicators, such as but
not limited to, sightings, food caches, animal remains, vocalizations, scat, ruts, dens,
tree cavities, nests, wallows, animal remains, animal tracks, traveled pathways, and
other evidence or indicators of elk passage. The assessment also included interpreting
readily available maps, and in some cases, performing interviews with persons who
have knowledge of the project site parcel. The determination for presence or absence
of federal and state listed habitats and species is based on the time and date when in
the field and does not reflect diurnal or seasonal variances.
The office assessment and field procedures followed acceptable industry practices.
More detailed information pertaining to the methods employed are presented in
STANDARD OFFICE & FIELD PROCEDURES – APPENDIX D.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 11
4.0 CODE CITATIONS
This report has been prepared as part of the permit review process for the project. It is
our understanding that the following permits / reviews are required: Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, SEPA Environmental Review, Critical Areas Review, Floodplain
Development Permit including HIA, Building & Plumping permits, and Water & Sewer
Permits.
The City of Auburn Municipal Code (AMC) referenced in this report are listed below.
1. Title 15 – Buildings and Construction
2. Title 16 – Environment
3. Title 18 – Zoning Code
4. Chapter 15.68 – Flood Hazard Areas
5. Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas
6. Chapter 16.08 – Shorelines
7. Chapter 18.50 – Significant Trees
4.1 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
This project will require a HIA as required under AMC Section 15.68.135 – Floodplain
Development Permit Application, Part J, Habitat Impact Assessment since the
proposed project will reside within the regulatory 250-foot floodplain riparian habitat
zone. The primary goals of flood hazard regulations for the Green River are to limit or
condition development within the regulatory floodplain to avoid substantial risk of
damage to public and private property and that results in significant costs to the public
and individuals; to avoid significant increases in peak storm water flows or loss of flood
storage capacity; and to protect federal defined critical habitat for fish and wildlife. The
HIA has been performed to determine impacts to water quality and to aquatic and
riparian habitat associated with the federal defined critical habitat associated with the
Green River. The goal of this HIA is to obtain a Floodplain Development Permit from
the City of Auburn.
The proposed project has been assessed to determine its impact on those factors that
contribute to increased flood hazard and degradation of natural critical habitat
associated with the federally-listed threatened and endangered fish in the Green River.
If the assessment concludes that there will be an adverse effect, the permit will be
denied, unless the project is redesigned to mitigate the adverse effects.
According to AMC 15.68.161 – Standards of the Planning and Development
Department, Part (D) – Native Vegetation a site re-vegetation plan is required for
development in the regulatory floodplain. This plan shall show existing native
vegetation:
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 12
1. In the riparian habitat zone, native vegetation shall be left undisturbed, except if
in connection with an activity allowed in the regulatory floodplain without a permit,
and except for activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring or enhancing
natural functions associated with floodplains, streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries,
marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet federal and state standards,
provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or impervious
surfaces.
2. Outside the riparian habitat zone, removal of native vegetation shall not exceed
35 percent of the surface area of the portion of the site in the regulatory
floodplain. Native vegetation in the riparian habitat zone portion of the property
can be counted toward this requirement.
If the proposed project does not meet the criteria of this chapter (listed above), a HIA
shall be conducted pursuant to AMC 15.68.135 (J) and, if indicated by that assessment,
a habitat mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented pursuant to AMC
15.68.135 (K). Note: A site re-vegetation plan and /or a habitat mitigation plan is not
part of the scope of work for this phase of the project.
4.2 CRITICAL AREAS PERMIT
This report also includes assessing the project site for the following critical / sensitive
areas; wetland, water (i.e. stream, river, pond, or lake), mapped floodway and
floodplain, inventoried and surveyed significant trees, mapped and observed
threatened, endangered, and priority wildlife and fish habitat, mapped and observed
threatened, endangered, and priority species, federal defined critical habitat, and other
habitats and species considered locally to have special, sensitive, or important status.
4.3 SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The City of Auburn has two shoreline designations as listed below.
1. Urban Conservancy
2. Natural Environment
Urban conservancy zone is defined as an area to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban
and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent with the
jurisdictional agency “Comprehensive Plan”. This area is also known as the shoreline
jurisdiction area under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).
The project will require a Shoreline Condition Use Permit because the proposed project
will be constructed within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 13
100-Foot Buffer Setback
This area is known as the Urban Conservancy Buffer Setback. Very limited uses are
allowed within the 100-foot setback buffer landward from the OHWM of the shoreline. A
Shoreline Variance will be required to build within the 100-foot buffer of the Green River.
This area needs protection to restore shoreline ecological function of open space,
floodplain and other critical lands where they exist in urban and developed settings,
while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive
Plan and SMP. Buffers should consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation. No
buildings or structures are allowed in the buffer unless specifically permitted by the
SMP. Development activities allowed in the buffer are limited to uses such as unpaved
trails and habitat enhancement projects. If development exist, revegetation or
enhancement may be required when the property redevelops or changes use.
100-Foot to 200-Foot Buffer Setback
This area is known as the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Residential Designation. Uses
and activities are allowed with conditions from 100-feet to 200-feet landward from the
OHWM of the shoreline. Single-family residential development is considered a priority
use under the State Shoreline Management Act. The purpose of the Shoreline
Residential Designation is to preserve shoreline areas for residential development. An
additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
5.0 SCHEDULE & WEATHER CONDITIONS
5.1 SCHEDULE
The wetland and river determination and delineation of the project site parcel, collection
of data, and critical area flagging was performed on March 22, 2016. The field work
was performed by Mr. Jonathan Kemp, Professional Wetland Scientist of EnCo. The
professional land survey was completed by Beyler Consulting on April 4, 2016. The HIA
section of this report was added to the Scope of Work in the fall of 2017. Resumes of
key personnel who worked on the project are presented in APPENDIX E (SUPPORT
DOCUMENTS).
5.2 WEATHER
The weather conditions when in the field for the wetland delineation was mostly cloudy.
Ambient air temperatures ranged from 45°F to 52°F. Recorded precipitation (rain)
which fell at the nearest local weather reporting station (SeaTac) during the time period
from December 1, 2015 through March 22, 2016 is presented below (Weather
Underground).
The data collected at the local weather station recorded precipitation at 12.51 inches
above average for the below-referenced time period. This amount of rainfall was the
highest amount of rainfall ever recorded. The recorded amount of precipitation over the
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 14
below-referenced time period is not a typical climatic weather pattern when compared to
recorded average precipitation data. The corresponding weather data sheets are
presented in APPENDIX E – SUPPORT DOCUMENTS.
WEATHER REPORTING STATION – FEDERAL WAY
Month (2015-16) Actual Total Average Total Departure from Average
December 11.21” 5.35” +5.86”
January 7.45” 5.57” +1.88”
February 6.00” 3.50” +2.50”
March to 22nd 4.98” 2.71” +2.27”
Total 29.64” 17.13” +12.51”
6.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
6.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The landowner wishes to construct a two-story, craftsman style, 1,750 square foot
single-family dwelling with attached garage, screened patio, covered walkway,
driveway, and landscape amenities on the project site parcel. The approximate footprint
of the proposed dwelling would be 50 feet wide (north to south) by 35 feet wide (east to
west) feet and the footprint of the detached garage would be about 20 feet wide by
about 27 feet deep.
The project site parcel consists of undeveloped forested woodland dominated by a
Cowardin tree class community that consists of dominant stands of black cottonwood
(FAC) and red alder (FAC) with non-dominant stands of wild cherry (FACU), big leaf
maple (FACU), ponderosa pine (FACU), northern red oak (FACU), sweet gum (FAC),
and giant sequoia (NI). There are no standing buildings, known utilities, concrete
foundations, paved streets, driveways, or engineered trails on the project site parcel.
6.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site parcel is located completely within the jurisdiction of the City of Auburn
in King County. The project site parcel is located contiguous to the west of 104th Place
Southeast as shown on FIGURE 1 – VICINITY. This street is a dead-end, two-lane,
secondary roadway that extends a few hundred feet south and then terminates at the
river’s edge. Foot access to the project site parcel is provided off of 104th Place
Southeast. There is no existing approach, ditch, or driveway located along the east
property boundary.
The new dwelling will be located on a 0.25-acre parcel (King County Tax Parcel Number
3341000140). The legal description of the project site parcel is listed in TABLE 4 –
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 15
LEGAL DESCRIPTION & OTHER DATA. A more detailed legal description of the
project site parcel is presented in APPENDIX E – SUPPORT DOCUMENTS. The
project site parcel is depicted on FIGURE 2 – PARCEL & AERIAL (APPENDIX A –
FIGURES).
TABLE 4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION & OTHER DATA
Tax Parcel(s) Jurisdiction City/County Address and Current Owner or Taxpayer Zoning or Use Code Land Use Size (Acres) Legal Lat/Long
3341000140 City of
Auburn
King County
No Current Address
Vacant, Undeveloped
Residential
R-5
5 Dwelling Units/Acre
~92’ N to S
~121’ E to W
(0.25 Acre)
NW¼ of NW¼ of
SEC 17, TWN 21N, RGE
05E
Lat. 47o 18’ 47.21” N
Long. -122 o 12’ 13.00” W
Total Acres: 0.25
6.3 SITE SURVEY
A professionally surveyed, to-scale, exhibit (FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM
DELINEATION) has been prepared by Beyler Consulting for the proposed project. This
figure depicts the following features:
1. The location, dimensions, and professionally surveyed elevations (1.0 contours)
on the project site parcel.
2. Names and location of water bodies (streams and rivers) and wetlands within
300 feet of the project site parcel.
3. The surveyed elevation of the SFHA base flood elevations as required in AMC
15.68.060 (C)(3).
4. Flagged edges of the OHWM of the Green River and Wetland A.
5. The boundaries of the riparian habitat zone, shoreline jurisdiction, river buffer,
and 25-foot (minimum) and 50-foot (maximum) wetland buffers.
6. Tree inventory with tree table.
6.4 SITE PLAN
A sketched, to-scale, Site Plan (FIGURE 18 – SITE PLAN) has been prepared by the
landowner for the proposed single-family home. A professionally drafted site plan will
be prepared (if required) upon approval of the proposed project by permit authorities.
The site plan depicts the following features:
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 16
1. The location, dimensions, and features of the proposed dwelling, decking,
driveway, and sidewalks on the project site parcel, including pervious and
impervious surfaces and access road (104th Place SE).
2. The boundary of the 100-foot standard Green River buffer.
3. The proposed stormwater management system to include the infiltration gallery
or dispersion trench and down spouts.
6.5 PROJECT SITE PARCEL & BUFFER AREAS
Project Site Parcel Total Size (as surveyed): 10,855 SF
Developable Land Landward of 100’ Green River Buffer: 4,606 SF
Impervious Surfaces (house, driveway, walks, decking): 3,026 SF
Proposed Percent Impervious Surfaces on Project Parcel: 27.9%
Closest Distance of Wetland A to Project Parcel: 34 Feet
Closest Distance of Green River to Project Parcel: 34 Feet
Project Parcel River Area: 0 SF
Project Parcel Wetland Area: 0 SF
Project Parcel Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): 693 SF
Project Parcel Wetland A Maximum Buffer (50’): 1,513 SF
Project Parcel Green River Buffer (100’) from OHWM: 6,249 SF
Project Parcel OHWM 200’ Shoreline Jurisdiction Setback: 10,855 SF
Project Parcel Floodplain Riparian Habitat 250’ Setback: 10,855 SF
6.6 BUILDING SETBACKS
A setback is the minimum required distance between any structure and a specified line
such as a lot, public or private right-of-way, easement, future street right-of-way as
identified through an official control or buffer line that is required to remain free of
structures. The capital structure and building setback was determined from the
referenced jurisdictional government agency regulations. The capital structure and
building setback from the edges of critical area buffers is presented below.
Building & Capital Structure Setbacks: 100’ (rear for OHWM of Green River)
10’ (front for house)
20’ (front for garage opening)
5’ (side for house)
6.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed project will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
stormwater that will not pollute or degrade the functions and values of Wetland A,
Green River, and the floodplain riparian habitat buffer setback. In addition, the functions
and values of these critical areas will not be impacted by stormwater because the runoff
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 17
and the infrastructure and buildings will be designed according to the City of Auburn
Municipal Code and will incorporate Low Impact Development techniques.
The project stormwater runoff will be designed to meet the following criteria:
1. It will not adversely affect water quality to the wetland and to the river.
2. It will not adversely affect the existing function and values of the wetland, river,
and associated floodplain and critical area buffers
3. It will not adversely affect federally listed threatened and endangered species
and federal listed critical habitat.
4. It will result in no net loss of wetland area and no net loss of river area.
5. It will not adversely affect stormwater drainage increase to the wetland and to the
river.
6. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards.
7. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the project
site nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space without
incorporating mitigation measures.
8. The project has been designed to be in the best interest of the public health,
safety, or welfare to the community.
9. The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory
capability to carry out the project with buffer mitigation, inspection of BMPs, and
long-term monitoring (if any).
10. The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections
(adaptive management) if the project fails to meet the projected goals and
objectives.
6.8 CONTIGUOUS LAND USE
A brief description of the observed current land use on contiguous properties from the
project site parcel is presented below in TABLE 5 – CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY –
OBSERVED LAND USE.
This part of the page left blank
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 18
TABLE 5
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY – OBSERVED LAND USE
Direction Discussion Topographic Slope
North Transportation Corridor: None
Land Use: Single-family dwelling
Business: (None)
Type of Structures: Wood frame
Further North: Residential and woodland
up down level
East Transportation Corridor: 104th Place SE
Land Use: Forested terrestrial woodland (steep upward
sloping ridge)
Business: None
Type of Structures: None
Further East: Residential
up down level
South Transportation Corridor: None
Land Use: Single-family dwelling
Business: None
Type of Structures: Wood frame
Further South: Forested terrestrial woodland
up down level
West Transportation Corridor: None
Land Use: Flood plain to the Green River
Businesses: None
Type of Structures: None
Further South: Green River then Residential
up down level
6.9 REGIONAL LAND USE
The mapped land use that abuts, exists within 150 feet, and within 1 kilometer of the
project site parcel is presented on FIGURE 15 – LAND USE: 1 KILOMETER, 150
FEET, & ADJOINING.
6.10 HISTORICAL LAND USE
The property has been undeveloped in recent history. The project site parcel including
adjacent lands were once part of the Hidden Valley Farm. The farm was reportedly
used as a cattle ranch and as a home for other animals to include a lion. The wide
variety of trees (TABLE 6A – SIGNIFICANT TREES & TABLE 6B – NON-
SIGNIFICANT TREES) on the parcel were planted by the former landowners when the
property was a farm.
An old abandoned overhead wire gauge cable that was historically used to monitor
water levels in the Green River traversed the air space of the project site parcel from a
fixed anchor tower that was positioned on the parcel located east of 104th Place
Southeast. The water gauge cable has been removed by the Army Corp of Engineers
in November 2017. An Environmental Assessment was not required for this action, just
a Record of Environmental Consideration with a determination that removing the cable
qualified as a categorical exclusion from further NEPA documentation requirements.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 19
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
7.1 ACTION AREA
The action area is defined as the area to be potentially affected by the proposed project.
This includes the Green River, the Green River 100-foot standard buffer, the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdiction setback, the 250-foot floodplain riparian habitat setback, Wetland
A, and the 50-foot maximum riverine Wetland A buffer.
8.0 MITIGATION SEQUENCING
The proposed single-family dwelling will result in unavoidable impacts (cut, fill & grade)
to part of the 250-foot-wide floodplain riparian habitat setback to the Green River.
Floodplain riparian habitat setback impacts resulting from the construction of the
dwelling are presented in SECTION 19.0 – ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS. A summary of
the proposed compensatory floodplain riparian habitat setback mitigation (including
incorporating avoidance and minimization measures in the project design) for these
impacts is quantified and presented in SECTION 21.0 – MITIGATION APPROACH.
The project, as designed, avoided all impacts wetlands and rivers and minimized
impacts to floodplain, river, and wetland buffers to the greatest extent feasible.
8.1 AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
The design team incorporated wetland, river, and associated buffer / setback avoidance
and minimization measures as listed below.
1. Avoiding impacts to Wetland A and the Green River. The proposed project will
avoid impacting these two critical areas. There are no activities or development
proposed within wetlands or within streams / rivers (no in-water construction).
2. Minimizing impacts to the floodplain and shoreline setbacks within the footprint
of the single-family dwelling by reducing the originally planned size of the home
from 2,300 SF down to 1,750 SF.
3. Minimizing impacts to the floodplain and shoreline setbacks by placing the
dwelling as far as possible to the east, along 104th Place SE. Originally the
home was going to be placed further west for aesthetic, privacy, and security
reasons.
4. Minimizing impacts caused by construction access and material staging for the
proposed project will be provided on the west shoulder of 104th Place SE and in
the new driveway of the proposed dwelling. The placement of materials will be
placed as far as possible from the Green River OHWM. No equipment or
material will be stored within wetlands and rivers.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 20
5. Minimizing impacts to the floodplain and shoreline setbacks by designing and
installing the stormwater management facilities in the outer 10 feet of the 100-
foot Green River buffer. Stormwater management facilities will include
constructing an outfall infiltration gallery or dispersion trench. The flow
velocities and sediment loadings from the development will be reduced by
constructing these engineered features.
6. Minimizing impacts to the riparian habitat floodplain zone and the Green River
buffer by saving 6 baseline trees (2060, 2061, 2072, 2072-B, 2192, 2193)
located within the 100-foot Green River buffer. These 6 trees are a giant
sequoia, ponderosa pine, northern red oak, Douglas fir, domestic plum, and
wild cherry. The most unique tree on the parcel that will be saved is a giant
sequoia tree (2060). This tree has a height of 115 feet, a drip line of 45 feet in
diameter, and a diameter at breast height of 49 inches. This tree will provide
excellent habitat to birds, insects, and small mammals.
7. Minimizing impacts to the Wetland A buffer by not removing any baseline
inventoried trees in or within about 50 feet of the Green River and Wetland A.
8. Minimizing impacts to the riparian habitat floodplain zone and Green River
buffer by incorporating measures that will minimize impacts caused by the
proposed single-family dwelling. The project will incorporate wetland, river, and
buffer minimizing impact measures as presented in TABLE 15 – WETLAND,
RIVER & BUFFER MINIMIZING IMPACT MEASURES.
8.2 RECTIFICATION & REDUCTION
Wetland, river, and associated buffer / setback impacts were rectified and reduced by
using site-specific design techniques as listed below.
1. Implementing BMPs by reducing sediment and erosion impacts to wetlands,
river, and buffers / setbacks during construction.
2. Reducing impacts to wetland and river by directing lights away from these
areas.
3. Conveying treated stormwater runoff from the development to groundwater
rather than directly to Wetland A and the Green River.
8.3 COMPENSATION
To off-set unavoidable river buffer and floodplain riparian zone impacts mitigation will
include buffer enhancements as presented in SECTION 21 – MITIGATION
APPROACH.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 21
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Baseline environmental conditions were examined and evaluated for the potential
effects of the project, the project activities, as well as the physical and natural site
conditions (i.e. habitat, trees, vegetation patterns) and the current status of the
subpopulation of the identified and listed species.
9.1 BASELINE GREEN RIVER HABITAT CO NDTIONS
The Green River system provides an effective wildlife corridor on east side of the river,
especially in areas south of the project site parcel. This extensive area of relatively
undisturbed habitat (south of the project site) will not be affected by the proposed
project.
The project site parcel is sandwiched in between two parcels that are currently
developed into existing single-family dwellings with landscaped yards and driveways.
An existing two-lane roadway (104 Place SE) provides access to these structures. This
area is highly disturbed due to human proximity (2 dwellings) and severe invasion of
aggressive opportunistic plant species such as English ivy, American holly, reed canary
grass, and Himalayan blackberry. These existing baseline conditions provides limited
habitat to terrestrial wildlife.
The baseline vegetation growing on the east waterward bank and vegetated island
located on property located contiguous to the south of the project site parcel consists of
well-established and dominant stands and patches of red alder, pacific willow, Sitka
willow, common snowberry, and salmonberry. The forested actual cover in this area
about 100 percent. The willows on the waterward bank overhang over the open
floodway of the Green River provide fast water refugia for fish in the river.
The waterward bench near the river’s edge supports a well-established stand
and patches of black cottonwood, red alder, and willows which also provide good
shading to the OHWM of the river. The diameters at breast height of the red
alders on the southern island range from 1.5 foot to 2.0 foot and the heights of
these trees are approximately 45 feet to 50 feet. The mature pacific and Sitka
willows are about 20 feet tall along the waterward bank which provide good
shade to the OHWM of the river. These willows on the waterward bank and
waterward bench have stood the test of time and remain well-established even
through severe floods that have occurred over the years in the river. There are
several hundred willow saplings growing along the waterward bank and
waterward bench near the river’s edge, which when mature will bring more shade
to the OHWM.
The environmental baseline main habitat limiting factors and impacts to salmonids on
the Lower Green River reach (including adjacent to the project site parcel) is caused by
urbanization, water diversions, and revetments. These limiting factors are listed below.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 22
1. Lowering of the floodplain and disconnecting off-channel habitats such as
sloughs and adjacent wetlands and therefore decreasing insect input and fish
spawning areas. Limiting floods to bank-full conditions potentially exacerbates
fry displacement and denies juvenile salmonids access to floodplain refugia that
would normally be available. The loss of large floods along the river degrade the
long-term productivity of the salmonid population by reducing the processes of
side-channel formation (and connection) and the recruitment of wood and
gravels.
2. Reducing large woody debris (refugia) and associated instream complexity, such
as pools and riffles. Large woody debris provides critical structure to stream
channels. It influences coarse sediment storage, increases habitat diversity and
complexity, and gravel retention for spawning habitat, provides long term nutrient
storage and substrate for aquatic invertebrates, and provides refugia for aquatic
organisms during high and low-flow events. Large woody debris and the
associated logjams that follow allows for the creation of side channels, back
waters, and other off-channel habitat features.
3. Creating some adult salmon migration problems due to low flows. The low flows
the occur in the summer and fall along the river degrade the long-term
productivity of the salmonid population by reducing the processes of side-
channel formation (and connection) and the recruitment of wood and gravels.
4. Causing chronic water quality problems from early summer through fall when
salmon migrate upstream and spawn in the river (i.e. temperature and dissolved
oxygen). Protecting and improving water quality (i.e. temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, and chemical contamination) will be accomplished by
addressing point and non-point pollution sources. This will enhance habitat
quality and lead to greater juvenile salmonid growth, disease resistance, and
survival. Improved water quality will also enhance survival of adult salmon,
incubating salmon eggs, and salmon prey resources, such as forage fish.
5. Severely reducing riparian habitats (invasiveness, aggressiveness, reduced
forest cover, and reduced shading) and associated functions. The riparian
habitat zone contiguous to the floodway and landward of the Green River
contains dominant thickets of Himalayan blackberry and large patches of reed
canary grass and English ivy. English ivy has caused severe damage to several
mature trees to include western red cedar, big leaf maple, black cottonwood, and
red alder. Many of the trees invaded with the English ivy are dead or dying.
Patches of aggressive opportunistic American holly plants are also thriving in this
area.
The side channel (Wetland A) located just east of the main floodway of the Green River
and contiguous to the south of the project site parcel does not support salmonid
spawning and rearing habitat. The substrate in the upper foot of soil (Test Plot 4)
consists of fine alluvial sand with a few roots. There is no evidence of gravel beds or
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 23
shallow pools with gravel to support salmonid spawning in this area. The flow of river
water through the side channel during high flows is very swift and flume-like. There are
no logjams or other water-blocking features in the side channel that provide still or slow-
moving water needed for fish refugia contiguous to the project site parcel.
The floodway of the Green River contiguous to the project site parcel also does not
support salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. The banks on the east side of the river
are incised indicating erosion and evidence of very swift flows. The substrate in the
upper foot of soil (Test Plots 5 & 6) consists of fine alluvial sand with roots. There is no
evidence of gravel beds or shallow pools with gravel to support salmonid spawning.
The flow of river water in this area is very swift. There are no logjams or other features
that provide still or slow-moving waters for fish refugia. The top of the river bank in this
area supports a mixture of scrub shrub and emergent vegetation consisting of Sitka
willow, Pacific willow, Himalayan blackberry, common snowberry, salmonberry, reed
canary grass, common horsetail, creeping buttercup, Mexican hedge nettle, and
creeping bentgrass.
9.2 BASELINE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES CONDITIONS
Mapped federal and state listed habitat and species on the project site parcel are
depicted on FIGURE 13 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITATS & SPECIES
(APPENDIX A). More detailed information pertaining to baseline environmental
conditions for habitat and species on and in the vicinity of the project site parcel is
presented in SECTION 18.0 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES.
9.2.1 FEDERAL LISTED CRITICAL HABITAT
Federal defined critical habitat, as defined under the Endangered Species Act, was
not identified on the project site parcel.
9.2.2 STATE LISTED PRIORITY HABITAT
State listed priority habitat was not identified on the project site parcel.
9.2.3 FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES
Federally listed threatened and endangered species were not identified on the
project site parcel.
9.2.4 STATE & LOCAL LISTED PRIORITY & SENSITIVE SPECIES
State listed priority and sensitive species were not identified on the project site parcel.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 24
9.3 BASELINE VEGETATION COMMUNITY
The project site parcel vegetation community is classified as forested upland. This
community is located on the entire footprint of the site parcel. This community consists
of a moderately to highly disturbed Cowardin tree class of vegetation. The community
is dominated in the Cowardin tree class by black cottonwood (FAC) with non-dominant
stands of red alder (FAC), wild cherry (FACU), big leaf maple (FACU), ponderosa pine
(FACU), red oak (FACU, sweet gum (FAC), and giant sequoia (NI). The shrub class is
dominated by aggressive opportunistic Himalayan blackberry (FACU) and English ivy
(FACU) with non-dominant stands of native common snowberry (FACU) and aggressive
opportunistic American holly (FACU). The emergent class is dominated by aggressive
opportunistic reed canary grass (FACW) and native creeping buttercup (FAC). The
western segment of the project site is heavily overgrown with very dense thicket scrub-
shrub vegetation of aggressive opportunistic Himalayan blackberry. The mapped
forested vegetation community is depicted on FIGURE 2 – PARCEL & AERIAL.
9.4 BASELINE TREE INVENTORY & CLASSIFICATION
9.4.1 TREE INVENTORY
As part of the HIA and critical area report a tree inventory on the project site parcel was
performed by Mr. Steve Cushing, Certified Arborist of Federal Way in January 2018.
The inventoried trees by Steve Cushing were originally surveyed by Beyler Consulting.
The trees inventoried by Mr. Cushing are depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND &
STREAM DELINEATION.
The landowner decided to hire another Arborist to determine tree condition and include
a few other trees that were not included in the Steve Cushing report. The second tree
inventory was performed by Mr. Alan Haywood, Arborist & Horticulturist of Enumclaw in
June 2018.
The arborist reports (APPENDIX E – SUPPORT DOCUMENTS) include a unique tree
identification number, genus species, common name, height, drip line diameter (canopy
cover diameter), shade to Green River analysis, and overall condition (risk trees).
Based on the Alan Haywood – Arborist tree survey the overall condition of the existing
23 trees are listed below.
Overall Condition Tree Number Tree Count
Good 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23 13
Fair 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 7
Poor 19, 20 2
Dead 4 1
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 25
The six trees considered to be High Risk (hazard) trees in the City of Auburn on the
project site parcel are listed below.
Tree Number Common Name
03 (2036) American Sweet Gum
15 (2065) Black Cottonwood
16 (2066) Black Cottonwood
17 (2067) Black Cottonwood
18 (2068) Black Cottonwood
19 (2069) Big Leaf Maple
The inventoried trees range in height as listed below.
Height of Tree (feet) Number of Trees
>100’ 1
80’ to 100’ 2
60’ to 79’ 2
40’ to 59’ 12
<39’ 6
TOTAL TREES 23
9.4.2 TREE CLASSIFICATION
Significant Trees
The City of Auburn defines a significant tree as a healthy evergreen tree, 6 inches or
more in diameter measured four feet above grade, or a healthy deciduous tree 4 inches
or more in diameter measured four feet above grade. Red alders and black
cottonwoods are excluded from the significant tree definition. If the grade level
adjoining a tree to be retained is to be altered to a degree that would endanger the
viability of a tree or trees, then the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well
around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be capable of protecting the tree.
Arborist identified significant trees on the project site parcel are listed in TABLE 6A –
SIGNIFICANT TREES.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 26
TABLE 6A
SIGNIFICANT TREES
Tree ID# Species (Common Name) DBH (“)
2029-B European White Birch 10
2033 Norway Maple 14
2034 Northern Red Oak 18
2036 American Sweet Gum 15
2037 American Sweet Gum 9
2038 Dawn Redwood 33
2054 Big Leaf Maple 20
2059 Cherry (Domestic) 13
2060 Giant Sequoia 49
2061 Northern Red Oak 23
2067-B Cherry (Domestic) 17
2069 Big Leaf Maple 16
2072 Ponderosa Pine 13
2072-B Douglas Fir 11
2192 Plum (Domestic) 6
2193 Plum (Domestic) 6
Total Significant Tree Count: 16
Note: One additional tree (2193) was not identified by the two Certified Arborists, as
depicted on FIGURE 19 – EXISTING TREE INVENTORY. Tree 2193 is a domestic
plum and this tree will remain in place and will not be cut down.
Non-Significant Trees
Arborist identified non-significant trees on the project site parcel are listed in TABLE 6B
– NON-SIGNIFICANT TREES.
TABLE 6B
NON-SIGNIFICANT TREES
Tree ID# Species (Common Name) DBH (“)
2028 Red Alder 10
2029 Red Alder 13
2059-B Red Alder 8
2065 Black Cottonwood 14
2066 Black Cottonwood 19
2067 Black Cottonwood 26
2068 Black Cottonwood 13
Total Tree Count: 7
Note: Tree 2035 is a dead tree (False Cypress) with an 8-inch diameter. This dead
tree is not presented in the live tree tables.
9.4.3 HERITAGE & LEGACY TREES
Heritage and legacy trees were not identified on the project site parcel.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 27
9.5 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION CHECKLIST
Based on field visits and study, researched documents, knowledge from persons
familiar with the project area, city planners, and readily available data and maps, the
aquatic and terrestrial baseline environmental conditions and project-specific impacts to
habitat and species considered for this HIA are presented on the tables listed below.
TABLE 19 – ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECT OF PROPOSED
ACTION ON CRITICAL HABITAT FOR LISTED T&E SPECIES
(APPENDIX B).
TABLE 20 – ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECT OF PROPOSED
ACTION ON FEDERAL & STATE LISTED T&E SPECIES
(APPENDIX B).
The compilation of this checklist was based on the matrix of pathways and indicators
developed for Pacific salmon by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries Division and by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). EnCo
amended these referenced checklists by deleting and adding diagnostic pathways and
sub-scale indicators to aid in the effectiveness of the HIA.
The determination of effect on identified and listed species depends on whether a
proposed action hinders the attainment of relevant environmental conditions and further
impacts the status of subpopulations in the region. This determination includes
assessing the listed species to the diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators as
presented in TABLE 19 & TABLE 20. The objective of the matrix diagnostic pathway
(i.e. Habitat Elements) and sub-scale indicators (i.e. Large Woody Debris) table is to
integrate the biological and habitat conditions to arrive at a determination of the
potential effect that land management activities may have on the identified and listed
species in a given area.
Note: The effect of the proposed action on fish critical habitat and fish species in
TABLE 19 and TABLE 20 does not include effect after installation and maintenance of
mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project design.
The subpopulation and baseline environmental conditions for the identified and listed
habitat and species were evaluated at the project site parcel scale and at a regional
scale (i.e. Auburn area). A determination of effect of the proposed action was made
specifically to the project site parcel when appropriate.
The functionality of each diagnostic pathway and sub-scale indicator inclusive of the
listed indicators was evaluated, as listed below.
1. Functioning Appropriately
2. Functioning at Risk
3. Functioning at Unacceptable Risk
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 28
The potential effect of the proposed project action on the functionality of each diagnostic
pathway and sub-scale indicator inclusive of the listed sub-scale indicators was then
determined. This determination consisted of evaluating whether the project action has
the potential to affect the functionality of each sub-scale indicator for the identified
and/or listed species was rated as listed below.
1. Restore or Improve
2. Maintain
3. Degrade
10.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS, HABITAT NEEDS, & BIOLOGY
Essential Fish Habitat
The Pacific Fishery Management Council, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Commerce, defines Essential Fish Habitat for freshwater salmon as “the aquatic
component of streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or
historically accessible to Chinook, Coho, or Puget Sound pink salmon (O. gorbuscha)
(except above certain impassable barriers) in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California identified by USGS hydrologic units” (PFMC 1999). This includes the waters
and benthos necessary to a species’ spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended
through October 11, 1996) include a mandate that the National Marine Fisheries
Service identify essential fish habitat for federally managed marine fishes. The
mandate also requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries
Service regarding all activities or proposed activities that are authorized, funded, or
undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat.
There are 83 marine species managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service for
which essential fish habitat is considered, including Chinook and Coho salmon stocks in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, as well as pink salmon stocks of Puget
Sound (PFMC 1999).
Riparian Zones
Riparian zones are transitional, semi-terrestrial, areas regularly influenced by fresh
water, normally extending from the edges of water bodies to the edges of upland
communities. Riparian areas function to protect instream fish habitat through control of
temperature and sedimentation in streams, preservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and
connection of riparian habitat to other habitats. Riparian zones are multidimensional
systems shaped by some basic principles such as:
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 29
1. Water saturation gradients are determined by topography, geologic materials,
and hydrodynamics.
2. Biophysical processes are driven by dynamic water saturation and energy
gradients.
3. Surface and subsurface entities provide feedbacks that control organic energy
and material fluxes.
4. Biotic communities are structured arrayed in space and time along gradients in
three dimensions: longitudinal, lateral, and vertical.
Approximately 86 percent of the wildlife species native to the Puget Sound area resides
in riparian zones. Many species of migratory wildlife require a contiguous riparian zone,
rather than the patchwork of natural and impacted stream reaches typical of urban
streams. The quality of instream habitat is highly dependent upon the integrity of the
riparian zone. Riparian habitat could be impaired by the following:
• Fragmentation of the corridor by streamside development, roads, and utilities
• Mass wasting and subsequent replacement of coniferous tree species with lesser
quality vegetation such as red alder or black cottonwood
• Alteration of the hydrologic regime of the riparian area such as from ditching
Green River Shade Analysis Study
In the support of the Green River System Wide Improvement Framework Project the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has completed a sun / shade analysis of the Lower Green
River during the summer/fall months of 2013. The Tribe’s analysis serves as the best
available science for identifying priority shoreline locations where establishing tall shade
trees and shrubs will improve chronic temperature problems on the Lower Green River
for several salmon species including chinook, bull trout, Coho, chum, pink, sockeye,
steelhead/rainbow, and cutthroat trout. High temperatures can have many detrimental
effects on the health of salmonids, including blocking or delaying migration, causing a
decrease in dissolved oxygen increasing susceptibility to disease, hinder or stopping the
development of egg, fry and smolt, reducing the natural food supply, and killing both
mature and immature fish. Vegetation planted near the OHWM provides excellent
potential to establish multi-canopied (trees and shrubs) riparian vegetation which meets
multiple habitat objectives (shade, high flow refuge for fish, invertebrate prey,
microclimate, wildlife habitat, erosion control, wood supply, and nutrients.
The Tribe’s analysis is being used to prioritize parcels to acquire as shoreline buffer
easements for tree and shrub planting. The priorities for areas to plant shade trees and
shrubs have been identified as “low”, “medium”, “high”, and “critical” priority for shade.
Lack of shade along the Lower Green River reach is the main driver for increased
summer / fall water temperatures and highlights the importance of riparian vegetation
along the riverine banks.
The results of the Tribe’s shade analysis for the project site parcel and adjoining
property is depicted as a “medium” priority for shade as represented on FIGURE 17 –
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 30
GREEN RIVER SHADE ANALYSIS. A “medium” priority indicates fair to good shade
waterward of the OHWM at the project site parcel.
In addition, the project team and advisor of the System Wide Improvement Framework
Project developed a GIS model that analyzes the potential shade cast by existing trees
during daylight hours within a 150-foot riparian zone. Model outputs for this model
summarizes the potential for various vegetation scenarios to shade the river and
assigns a categorical value of “Poor”, “Fair”, “Good”, or “Very Good” to potential shade
conditions. According to this GIS model the project site parcel reported a “Fair” shading
potential waterward of the Green River OHWM. A “Fair” rating represents a 41 percent
to 60 percent of maximum shade to the river.
According to the study, the percentage of forest cover on the east side of the Lower
Green River reach is presented below.
Year Percent Forest Cover
1992 31.14
1996 28.75
2001 28.09
2006 27.26
TOTAL -3.88
The primary source of forest loss is channel migration during high flows, not from
clearing. Almost 10 times as much forest area was converted to river channel as was
converted through human impacts. This is a hallmark of a well-functioning river system;
channel migration is a vital process for capturing wood necessary to build logjams and
the associated pools and cover. The river is able to access and capture wood from
standing forests. This is a good sign that the river and floodplain are connected.
According to the study, the percent imperviousness on the east side of the Lower Green
River reach is presented below.
Year Percent Imperviousness
1992 19.74
1996 21.05
2001 22.56
2006 24.29
TOTAL +4.55
Basins dominated by forest class vegetation had the best habitat ratings conditions in
most categories of land use. When habitat conditions are related to land use, urbanized
basins have generally worse habitat conditions in most categories. Land uses
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 31
dominated by agriculture had ratings that were not as good as forestry-dominated
basins, but generally not as bad as the overall ratings in the more urbanized drainages.
11.0 TOPOGRAPHY & DRAINAGE
11.1 TOPOGRAPHY
Elevation contours are depicted on FIGURE 3 – TOPOGRAPHY – FEDERAL and on
the professional land survey exhibit presented as FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM
DELINEATION in APPENDIX A. The professional land survey was surveyed with 1.0-
foot elevation contours using the mean sea level as the referenced benchmark.
The surveyed elevation of the project site parcel ranges from a low of about 62 feet
above mean sea level along the west boundary to a high of about 70 feet along the east
boundary. The total relief across the project site parcel approaches 8 feet over a linear
distance of about 120 feet for an overall downward slope of 6.7 percent.
The topography on the area proposed for development into a single-family dwelling is
relatively flat. The total relief across the proposed development area on the parcel
approaches 1 foot over a linear distance of about 62 feet for an overall downward slope
of 1.6 percent.
The topography on the far west portion (not to be developed) of the parcel slopes
downward to a small alluvial depression that rises up to a sand deposited bar to the
west before it slopes down again to the OHWM of the Green River. The maximum
slope downward in at the OHWM approaches about 21 percent.
11.2 DRAINAGE
Surface water generated on the project site flows into one drainage basin identified as
the Lower Green River reach. Surface water trends across the site downward towards
the west. Almost all of the surface water enters the property by direct precipitation and
to a lesser degree by runoff from a two lane, narrow, secondary dead-end street (104th
Place Southeast) and two residential properties. There are no man-made ditches or
natural waterways that release surface water onto the project site from off-site sources.
12.0 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC & SOIL SETTING
12.1 DRAINAGE BASIN
The project site parcel is located in Water Resources Inventory Area Number 09
(Duwamish / Green Rivers). Located in western Washington State, this basin drains
about 484 square miles of land area and includes portions of King County and the cities
of Auburn, Black Diamond, Covington, Enumclaw, Kent, Maple Valley, Renton, Sea-
Tac, and Tukwila.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 32
The Green River is a 93-mile long river in the state of Washington arising on the
western slopes of the Cascade Mountains south of Interstate 90. The river originates in
the high Cascade Mountains nearly 30 miles northeast of Mount Rainier. Immediately
below the North Fork confluence, at approximately river mile 53, is the Howard Hanson
Dam. The Howard Hanson Dam is an earthen embankment dam. The dam was
completed in 1961 and its primary purpose is flood control along with a water supply for
the City of Tacoma.
The drainage contains a single main river system, the Green-Duwamish River. The
lower 10 miles of the river, between Tukwila and the river’s confluence with Puget
Sound in Elliot Bay, is known as the Duwamish River. The watershed includes Black
River, Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek, Soos Creek, Jenkins Creek, Covington Creek,
Newaukum Creek, Crisp Creek, and many other small tributaries. There are 367
identified streams in the Green – Duwamish basin, providing over 643 miles of
drainages.
Between 1880 and 1888, the Northern Pacific Railway explored and surveyed the
Green River. The railway constructed the first direct rail link across Washington's
Cascade Range with the opening of the Stampede Tunnel in 1888.
The upper Green River valley was once home to many small railroad and logging towns
such as Weston, Lester, Green River Hot Springs, Nagrom, Maywood, Humphreys,
Eagle Gorge, Lemolo, and Kanaskat. Shortly before World War I the City of Tacoma,
filed for water rights on the Green River. Today, much of the upper valley has become
a gated water supply watershed for Tacoma and access is heavily restricted.
Owing to its rich alluvial soils, flat topography, and easy access to first by river and later
by railroad and road transportation, this part of the watershed has undergone multiple
transformations since 1870. After being cleared of forests, it became rich agricultural
land. Following World War II, the Kent Valley became a center for manufacturing,
warehousing, commerce, and residential.
Until 1906, the Green River flowed into the White River in downtown Auburn. In 1906,
however, the White River changed course above Auburn following a major flood and
emptied into the Puyallup River as it does today. The lower portion of the historic White
River, from historic confluence of the White and Green Rivers to the historic confluence
with the Black River at Tukwila that forms the Duwamish, is now considered part of the
Green River. W ith the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916, the lake's
level dropped nearly nine feet and the Black River dried up. From that time forward, the
point of the name change from Green to Duwamish is no longer a confluence of rivers,
though it has not changed location. Thus, the Green River now becomes the Duwamish
River, flowing into the industrialized estuary known as the Duwamish Waterway and
thence Elliot Bay in Seattle.
When the White River was diverted to the Puyallup in 1906, it resulted in a decrease in
water flow and sediment and a lowering of the floodplain. Upstream activities in the
Middle Green, which includes the Howard Hanson Dam operations and water
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 33
withdrawal at the Tacoma Headworks, have led to an unnatural flow regime in which
flood flows were reduced and summer flows were lower. Other significant habitat
alterations have been the construction of a series of levees along most of the length of
the Green River mainstem in this sub watershed. These levees cut off salmon access
to side-channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands where young salmon
fed and took shelter.
Currently this reach of the river is utilized for the upstream and downstream migration
and rearing for native salmon species. It has limited spawning habitat for Chinook, pink,
sockeye, chum, and steelhead.
Current land use in this area varies considerably from a mix of residential, commercial
forestry, and agricultural land uses around the Middle Green River, to residential,
industrial, and commercial land uses in the Lower Green River.
12.2 SUB-DRAINAGE BASIN
The project site parcel is located within the Lower Green River Watershed as shown on
FIGURE 16 – WATERSHED BASIN – STATE. This sub drainage basin starts at River
Mile 11 (the upper limit of the Duwamish estuary) and winds 32 river miles south and
east to the Highway 18 bridge. Its major tributaries include Mill Creek (Auburn) and Mill
/ Springbrook Creek (Renton and Kent).
The diversion of the White River in 1911 has led to a decrease in flow and sediment and
a lowering of the floodplain. Howard Hanson Dam operations and water withdrawal at
the Tacoma Headworks have led to an unnatural flow regime (reduction in flood flows
and lower summer flows). One of the most significant habitat alterations has been the
construction of a series of revetments that has resulted in the disconnection of off and
side-channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands.
Removing vegetation and soil, grading the land surface, and constructing drainage
networks increase runoff to streams from rainfall and snowmelt. As a result, the peak
discharge, volume, and frequency of floods increase in nearby streams to the Green
River.
The Lower Green River sub drainage basin has been dramatically transformed over the
last 130 years but still performs a vital role for the salmon in the watershed. Currently
this reach of the river is utilized for the upstream and downstream migration, spawning,
and rearing for all native anadromous salmonid species. It provides some chinook,
pink, sockeye, and chum salmon and steelhead spawning habitat. The Lower Green is
the vital migration corridor used by Middle Green River fish going to and from the
Duwamish estuary. It also provides limited rearing habitat for fish produced upstream.
Despite much good restoration work happening over the past several years, the Green /
Duwamish River recently received the dubious honor of being named fifth on the list of
the most endangered rivers in the United States. According to a news release (Puget
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 34
Sound Partnership Newsletter – April 2016) from the national river advocacy group,
American Rivers, the designation is the result of "decades of pollution, floodplain
development, and harmful dam operations that have taken their toll on the river and its
salmon and steelhead."
Water Quality
Portions of the Green River and Newaukum Creek exhibit unhealthy temperature and
oxygen conditions that cause them to fail to meet Washington State water quality
standards. The mapped status of impaired waters within the drainage basin of the
project site is presented on FIGURE 14 – IMPAIRED WATERS –TMDL & 303(d)
LISTED – STATE .
Ecology developed a water quality improvement report (WQIR), also known as a TMDL,
to address water temperature issues in the Green River that were identified in the spring
of 2006. The Green River TMDL was approved by EPA in August 2011. The WQIR
consists of the results and recommendations of a TMDL study on the Green River and
an implementation strategy to determine what needs to be done, and who will carry out
the recommendations, to bring the water temperature to meet state water quality
standards. The report is a major step toward adopting a water-quality improvement
plan for the Green River basin from Tukwila and Renton to just below the Howard
Hanson Dam in eastern King County.
Fish breathe oxygen in the water (dissolved oxygen). Cooler water holds more oxygen
and warmer water results in less oxygen for fish and other aquatic organisms. When
water has too little oxygen or its temperature is too warm, local fish can face thermal
stress and harm. These streams serve as important migration corridors and spawning
and rearing areas for several salmon species, including Puget Sound Chinook; bull
trout; Coho; chum; pink; sockeye; kokanee; steelhead/rainbow, and coastal cutthroat
trout. These species all need cold waters for optimum health during various stages of
their lives.
Flood Status
Major flood control features along the Green River include the Howard Hanson Dam,
which is in the upper Green River sub-watershed, and the levee system that lines
almost all riverbanks of the lower Green and Duwamish Rivers. The Howard Hanson
Dam and the levee system combine to reduce flooding in the lower river to a fraction of
its historical magnitudes.
With major historical flooding largely controlled by a dam and levees, commercial and
industrial land use in the largely flat and generally accessible lower Green and
Duwamish River valleys has proliferated in what were formerly rural and agricultural
communities. Agriculture endures in some parts of the lower Green River around the
Cities of Auburn and Kent, and agriculture and rural residential development are the
primary land uses in the middle Green River.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 35
Residents, businesses, and farms below the Howard Hanson Dam in the Green River
valley have prepared for a higher risk of flooding due to damage that occurred to an
earthen bank next to the dam after record high water in January 2009. While temporary
improvements made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers successfully lowered the risk
of flooding in the Green River valley, the dam continued to operate at a limited capacity
during the 2010/2011 flood season, creating a heightened risk of flooding in the lower
valley.
In March 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced the return of full
operational capacity at the Howard Hanson Dam. However, this functioning dam and
levee system does not eliminate all risks of flooding. The dam was formerly thought to
control water up to a 500-year flood event. Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
recognizes the dam capacity can control water up to a 140-year flood event.
12.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Eco Region
The project site lies in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion (Central Puget Lowland
– Zone 2g). Central Puget Lowland is in the heart of Puget Sound. Its undulating glacial
drift plains are heavily urbanized in the east and more rural and forested in the west. Well-
drained, gravelly soils are common and exhibit limited moisture holding capacity and
rather low agricultural productivity.
The physiography includes undulating glacial drift plains with lakes and small, sinuous
streams. The coastline is irregularly shaped and is characterized by many bays and
some cliffs. Elevation ranges from sea level to 1,000 feet. Potential natural vegetation
includes Western hemlock, western red cedar, Douglas-fir, and some red alder and big
leaf maple. Land use and land cover includes urban/suburban/industrial activity,
especially in east. Elsewhere in the ecoregion the land use includes Douglas-
fir/western hemlock forests, forestry, limited agriculture, and rural residential
development.
13.0 LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGIC & SOIL SETTING
13.1 SURFACE WATER
13.1.1 NATURAL WATERS
Natural water sources such as seeps, springs, streams, ponds, lakes, or other natural,
dry weather water features were not observed on the project site except for the alluvial
silt and fine sand deposits observed along the floodway of the Green River, near the
west property boundary.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 36
13.1.2 CHANNEL MIGRATION AREA
The City of Auburn defines the channel migration hazard area as the area within the
lateral extent of likely stream channel movement due to stream bank destabilization and
erosion, rapid stream incision, aggradation, avulsions, and shifts in location of stream
channels plus 50 feet. Specifically, the channel migration hazard area is the total area
occupied by the Green River channel, the severe channel migration hazard area, and
the moderate channel migration hazard area as delineated in the Green River Channel
Migration Study published by King County dated December 1993 plus 50 feet.
Severe Channel Migration Zone
During periods of high water flows in the winter and spring the natural channel migration
zone located to the southeast of the parcel fills with river water that flows downward to
the northwest towards the main channel of the Green River. The mapped Severe
Channel Migration Hazard Zone (FIGURE 8 – WETLAND INVENTORY – CITY) is not
located on the project site parcel.
Moderate Channel Migration Zone
Approximately one quarter (east quarter) of the project site parcel to be developed into
the single-family dwelling is located in the mapped (FIGURE 8) Moderate Channel
Migration Hazard Zone. Larger floods and movement of channels within the Moderate
Channel Migration Zone and outside of mapped channel migration areas can and will
occur on rare occasions. For this reason, it may be beneficial to obtain Flood Protection
Insurance prior to construction of the single-family dwelling.
13.1.3 FLOODWAY
The mapped floodway of the Green River (FIGURE 8 – WETLAND INVENTORY –
CITY) is not located within the footprint of the proposed single-family dwelling, nor is the
floodway landward of the 100-foot wide Green River buffer from its OHWM.
13.2 GROUNDWATER
The project site vegetation depends primarily on direct precipitation and to a moderate
degree from the varying flows of water in the Green River. The seasonal water table on
the project site does fluctuate significantly, depending on the amount of precipitation,
snow melt, and release of waters from the earthen Howard Hanson Dam.
This near surface groundwater level across the project site parcel is primarily dependent
on the artificially controlled release of waters from the Howard Hanson Dam during
periods of high precipitation and heavy snow melts. The Green River flows are heavily
managed to prevent flooding in the lower parts of the watershed. According to the land
owner, water is released from the Howard Hanson Dam 2 times to 3 times per year in
the winter and early spring. This release of flood waters causes the river to rise
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 37
significantly for relatively short periods of time. This flood control measure creates an
artificial flow regime during this time period.
The near surface groundwater table at the lowest elevation (near the northwest corner)
on the project site parcel is likely to be less than 1 foot below ground surface in the
alluvial depression during periods of high river flows, which occurs during the winter,
early spring, and late fall. The upper groundwater table in the area proposed for the
single-family dwelling can be expected to be about 3 feet to 4 feet below ground surface
during this time period.
Based on inference from the topographic gradient and local drainage patterns it is
estimated that the shallow-seated groundwater table beneath the project site parcel
migrates in a westerly direction (not confirmed), toward the Green River.
13.3 SOIL
Information pertaining to the soil characteristics observed in the test plots is presented
on the FIELD DATA FORMS (APPENDIX C). Based on interpretation from the on-line
(Web Soil Survey) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) County Soil
Survey map, the original, undisturbed, mapped soil series identified at the ground
surface and down to a maximum depth of about 60 inches below ground surface (bgs)
have been mapped as indicated below. Agency mapped soils are depicted on FIGURE
4 – SOIL INVENTORY – FEDERAL.
Mixed Alluvial Land (Ma)
The soil mapped on 100 percent of the parcel is classified as Mixed Alluvial Land.
This soil is classified as well drained. Slopes range from 0 percent to 2 percent.
Included soils in the composition were identified as being “similar soils”.
The mean annual precipitation ranges from 25 inches to 90 inches and the mean annual
air temperature ranges from 46 to 54 degrees F. The average frost-free season ranges
from about 160 to 210 days.
In a typical profile the surface layer consists of sand from the ground surface down to
about 8 inches that is underlain with fine sand from 8 inches to 20 inches below ground
surface. Soils beneath this layer consist of sand from 20 inches down to 60 inches that
is underlain with loamy fine sand and gravelly sand down to 70 inches below ground
surface.
The depth to a restrictive layer is more than 80 inches below ground surface. The
capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water is high to very high. The available
water storage in the profile is very low.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 38
The depth to the upper groundwater table is about 12 inches down to 36 inches below
ground surface. The frequency of flooding is frequent and the frequency of ponding is
none.
Water (W)
The soil mapped on 0 percent of the parcel is classified as Water. This soil consists of
100 percent water. This mapped soil type is located off-site to the west of the project
site and consists of lands known as the Green River.
Discussion
The typical soil profiles depicted on the soil maps were obtained by field soil scientists
from reference sites as documented by NRCS. It is important to note that the typical
profiles, colors, depths, and textures presented on the soil maps and associated
descriptions may not be specific to the soils actually present on the project site. In
many cases the original top soil layers has been disturbed, cut, filled, removed, or
otherwise changed due to human influence.
Based on observations of soil texture, compaction levels, and from an interview with the
current landowner, the project site has not been developed with the exception of an old
abandoned overhead cable that was historically used to monitor water levels in the
Green River.
Upland Community
Field observations indicate that the mapped primary soils within the studied upland
community generally do match the indicated NRCS County Soil Survey profiles and are,
therefore, assumed not to be an inclusion within the mapped soil type(s).
Wetland Community
A wetland community was not identified on the project site parcel.
14.0 WETLANDS
14.1 FIELD VERIFIED ON-SITE WETLANDS
A summary of the data collected for the verified on-site parcel wetlands is presented in
TABLE 1 – WETLAND & BUFFER DATA (SECTION 1.1) and in more detail in TABLE
16 – WETLAND & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS (APPENDIX B). Field verified on-
site wetlands are listed below.
• None
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 39
14.2 FIELD VERIFIED OFF-SITE WETLANDS
A summary of the data collected for the verified off-site parcel wetlands is presented in
TABLE 1 – WETLAND & BUFFER DATA (SECTION 1.1) and in more detail in TABLE
16 – WETLAND & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS (APPENDIX B). The distance from
the off-site delineated wetland edge to the project site parcel was professionally land
surveyed. The estimated reach of the off-site wetland buffer does encroach onto the
project site parcel as listed on the table presented below. Field verified off-site wetlands
are listed below. Wetland A is located about 35 feet southwest of the southwest corner
of the project site parcel.
• Wetland A
14.3 WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS
The delineated and flagged wetland edge and determined buffer width were surveyed
and plotted as depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION. The
wetlands were rated using the 2004 Ecology Wetlands Ratings Manual for Western
Washington according to the most recent edition of the Auburn City Code at the time of
the delineation.
14.4 CLIMATIC, NORMAL, DISTURBED, & PROBLEMATIC AREAS
The determined status for climate, environmental conditions, significantly disturbed
(atypical), and problematic areas at each established test plot are presented on the
FIELD DATA FORMS – APPENDIX C. Significantly disturbed areas were identified,
which include heavy disturbance to native vegetation. The project site was considered
as having normal circumstances since hydrology, soils, and vegetation have remained
stable for five years or more. A summary of these conditions is presented on TABLE 7
– WETLAND & UPLAND DETERMINATION RATIONALE.
14.5 WETLAND & UPLAND DETERMINATION
A summary of the rationale used in making the wetland determination or upland
determination for the plotted communities is presented in TABLE 7 – WETLAND &
UPLAND DETERMINATION RATIONALE.
This part of the page left blank
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 40
TABLE 7
WETLAND & UPLAND DETERMINATION RATIONALE
Test Plot Number
Climatic Condition Typical
Atypical Not Normal Problematic
Disturbed
Hydric Soil Indicators
Dominant Hydrophytic Vegetation
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland or Upland or Shoreline
1 No
(Record Rainfall)
Cut Trees
Aggressive
Species
Yes No Yes
(Alluvial
Deposits)
Upland
2 No No Yes Yes No
(Alluvial
Deposits)
Upland Bar
3 No Aggressive
Species Yes No No
(Alluvial
Deposits)
Upland
4 No No Yes Yes Yes
(Alluvial
Deposits)
Shoreline
Secondary
Channel
Wetland A
5 No No Yes Yes Yes
(Alluvial
Deposits)
Shoreline
Floodway
Wetland A
6 No No No Yes No
(Alluvial
Deposits)
Upland Bar
Discussion
Test Plot 1 is not in a wetland because the hydrophytic vegetation is not dominant at 50
percent. Hydrophytic vegetation criteria must be over 50 percent to be considered
dominant.
Test Plot 2 is not in a wetland because the sediment deposits are due to the buildup of
the conveyed silt and sand during the short duration of high water flows due to the
artificial release of flood waters from the Howard Hanson Dam. The accretion of this
conveyed soil limits soil horizon development and the buildup of organic material at the
surface that is found in wetlands.
Test Plot 3 is not in a wetland because the hydrophytic vegetation is not dominant at 50
percent. Hydrophytic vegetation criteria must be over 50 percent to be considered
dominant. In addition, there were no primary and secondary wetland hydrology
indicators present in the test plot.
Test Plot 4 is in a wetland because all three characteristics were met. This plot is
located in the side channel. Since there is over 30 percent aerial coverage of
hydrophytic vegetation in the draw, below the OHWM this area is classified as being
wetland.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 41
Test Plot 5 is in a wetland because all three characteristics were met. This plot is
located along the main channel of the Green River. Since there is over 30 percent
aerial coverage of hydrophytic vegetation below the OHWM this area is classified as
being wetland.
Test Plot 6 is not in a wetland because the sediment deposits on the sand bar are due
to the buildup of the conveyed silt and sand during the short duration of high water flows
due to the artificial release of flood waters from the Howard Hanson Dam. The
accretion of this conveyed soil limits soil horizon development and the buildup of
organic material at the surface that is found in wetlands.
14.6 WETLAND UNIT, CATEGORY, & BUFFER
14.6.1 WETLAND UNIT
The wetland was category rated using the referenced ECOLOGY wetland rating forms.
The footprint of the wetland is depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM
DELINEATION. The wetland was not rated based on the level of disturbance, property
lines, plant communities, or if the wetland had different hydrogeomorphic classes. The
field verified wetland was not separated into a “sub-unit” for functional rating because:
There was not a significant change in the water regime in the wetland.
There was no direct evidence to support the movement of water between the
wetlands in only one direction (i.e. at least 6 inches lower for the high-water mark
on the lower elevation wetland as compared to the high-water mark on an up-
gradient wetland)
There was not a 25 percent change in water volume from a tributary
There was not a series of rapids in a riverine wetland
There was a lack of wetland plants for at least 50 feet along an un-vegetated bar or
bank of a stream or river
The wetland community is less than 30 feet wide along the shore of a stream or
river for at least 100 feet
The wetland plants along a lake do not thin out to less than a foot in width for at
least 33 feet
There was not a small freshwater area (<10%) of an old-growth forest wetland or a
small area (<10%) of freshwater bog wetland in the wetland being rated.
There was not a patchwork of at least 3 wetlands on the landscape meeting the
definition of a mosaic. The total area of the wetlands was not greater than 50
percent of the total combined area of wetland and upland for the patchwork to be
categorized as one wetland.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 42
14.6.2 WETLAND CATEGORY
Wetland categories are defined in the ECOLOGY rating manual (REFERENCES –
SECTION 25). The determined category for wetlands is based on conservation value,
water quality functions, hydrologic functions, habitat functions, presence of priority
habitat and / or species, and special characteristics. The determined category for the
project site wetland or off-site wetlands less than 330 feet from the project site are listed
below.
Wetland ID Category Total Function Points
WETLAND A Category III 35
14.6.3 WETLAND BUFFER
The wetland buffer was determined in accordance with criteria established in the
referenced Critical Area Ordinance and is based on the rated category, function scores,
and on the degree of the existing or proposed land use (high, moderate, low). Wetland
buffers are measured perpendicular to the delineated wetland edges. In cases where
critical area buffers differ in width and overlap each other (i.e. stream buffers versus
wetland buffers) the more restrictive buffer width applies. Note: Modifications to buffer
widths may be allowed by the City Hearings Examiner by following the code
requirements for a Conditional Use Variance.
The determined width of the wetland buffer for the identified off-site wetland is
presented on TABLE 8 – WETLAND BUFFERS. The estimated reach of the off-site
wetland buffer does encroach onto the project site parcel as shown on FIGURE 5 –
WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION.
TABLE 8 – WETLAND BUFFERS
Wetland ID Category Proposed
Land Use
Maximum Buffer Averaging
A III Residential 50’ Up to 35%
The minimum 25-foot wetland buffer established by the City of Auburn for a Category III
wetland will not adequately protect the riparian habitat and water quality of the Green
River and its’ associated wetland. Therefore, the maximum 50-foot wide wetland buffer
is necessary to provide the needed habitat function and to protect water quality and the
hydrologic functions of the wetland. The 50-foot buffer is deemed necessary to protect
wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, land use intensity,
and proposed and operational characteristics of the development and land use. The
50-foot buffer is also necessary to maintain the shading needed to provide viable
populations of federally listed endangered and threatened and state priority species in
the Green River.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 43
14.7 SOIL
14.7.1 SOIL TYPE
The primary soil types and observed layers observed in the near surface (within 18
inches bgs) in each established test plot are presented in the attached FIELD DATA
FORMS – APPENDIX C. General soil types (√) for the test plots are presented in
TABLE 9 – SOIL TYPE OBSERVED IN TEST PLOTS.
TABLE 9
SOIL TYPE OBSERVED (√) IN TEST PLOTS (<18” bgs) Test Plot Number Wetland Identification Mucky Peat / Peat Muck Mucky Clay Loam Mucky Silt Loam Lean or Fat Clay Silty Clay w Gravel Clayey Silt Silty Clay Loam Fine Sand Silty Fine Sand Silty Sandy Gravel Gravelly Silt w Clay Gravelly Silt Loam Gravelly Sandy Loam Sandy Gravel Ashy Sandy Gravel Assumed Hydric 1 n/a √
2 n/a √
3 n/a √
4 A √
5 A √
6 n/a √
Wetland Test Plots = 4, 5
14.7.2 HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Hydric soil indicators observed in the near surface (within 18 inches bgs) at each
established test plot are presented in the attached field data forms. Hydric soil
indicators (√) in wetlands are presented in TABLE 10 – HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS IN
TEST PLOTS.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 44
TABLE 10
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS (√) IN TEST PLOTS (<18” bgs) Test Plot Number Wetland Id Number No Indicators Histosol Histic Epipedon Black Histic (Peat/Muck) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor Depleted Below Dark Sfc Thick Dark Surface Depleted Matrix Loamy Mucky Mineral Redox Dark Surface Depleted Dark Surface Sandy Redox Primary Soil Type Mixed Alluvial Land (Ma) Listed Hydric Soil 1 n/a √ √ No
2 n/a √ √ No
3 n/a √ √ No
4 A √ √ √ √ No
5 A √ √ √ √ No
6 n/a √ √ No
Wetland Test Plots = 4, 5
14.7.3 PENETRATION RESISTANCE
Hydrophytic herbs and shrubs usually have very shallow root depths (Less than 1-foot
bgs) in order to obtain the limited amount of dissolved oxygen in anoxic soils. Oxygen
in hydric soils is limited due to anaerobic conditions caused by a reducing environment
after long periods of standing water. If 50 percent of the root mass for herbs and shrubs
is less than 6 inches below ground surface this highly indicates the presence of hydric
soils and anaerobic conditions. Plants growing in these conditions will have shallow
root systems in order to obtain the limited amount of oxygen near the ground surface.
Penetration readings at the established test plots which exceed 150 pounds per square
inch (psi) have been shown by accredited university research to limit root growth (root
inhibition). Penetration resistance levels measured at each test plot hole are listed on
the attached FIELD DATA FORMS – APPENDIX C.
14.8 VEGETATION
14.8.1 DOMINANT VEGETATION
Dominant plant species observed in the wetland and upland test plots are presented on
the attached FIELD DATA FORMS – APPENDIX C. Dominant plants species identified
in the plant communities on the project site are presented in SECTION 9.3 –
BASELINE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES. Plant dominance was determined using
the ACOE 50/20 rule. The 50/20 rule identifies those species that contribute more to
the character of the plant community than the other less dominant species present.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 45
Hydrophytic plants are those plants listed with indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or
FAC.
14.9 WETLAND HYDROLOGY
14.9.1 WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Wetland hydrology was determined by estimating the degree of moisture in the near
surface soil, degree of inundation, depth to the near surface groundwater table and
saturation, and by observing other hydrology indicators in hand-dug test pits. Wetland
hydrology during seasonally dry weather conditions can be inferred without the
presence of near surface hydrology indicators when there is clear evidence of positive
hydric soil indicators and dominant hydrophytic vegetation. Field verified positive
wetland hydrology indicators observed in the wetland test plots are presented in the
attached FIELD DATA FORMS – APPENDIX C.
Positive wetland hydrology indicators (√) that were field verified in the wetland test plots
are listed in TABLE 11 – WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS IN TEST PLOTS.
Note: G.S. in the table refers to the “Growing Season”.
TABLE 11
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS (√) IN TEST PLOTS (<18” bgs)
Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators Other Indicators Test Plot Number Wetland ID Number Surface Water (G.S.) High Water Table (G.S.) Saturation <12” (G.S.) Sparse Vegetated Concave Surface Water Marks Drift and/or Sediment Deposits Hydrogen Sulfide Odor Oxidized Rhizospheres / Roots Surface Soil Cracks Water Stained Leaves Drainage Patterns Shallow Aquitard Geomorphic Position FAC-Neutral Test Surface Scouring Aquatic Invertebrates Morphological Adaptations Observed Hydrology Connection Shallow Root Systems 4 A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
5 A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Wetland Test Plots: 4, 5
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 46
14.9.2 HYDROLOGY INPUT
Hydrological input is summarized in TABLE 12 – HYDROLOGY INPUT INTO
WETLAND.
Wetland ID TABLE 12: HYDROLOGY INPUT INTO WETLAND Artificial – irrigation Culvert Precipitation – direct Sheet Flow Undulating Landscape Stream – perennial Stream – intermittent Stream – rivulets Waterway – ephemeral Hyporheic Flows Ditch – road, farm, rail Lacustrine – lake, pond Adjoining Wetland Impervious Surfaces Swale Ravine or Steep Slope Dam – beaver Dam/dike – man-made Groundwater – spring Groundwater – migration Groundwater – seasonal A L L L H M L L M
L = Low Input; M = Moderate Input; H = High Input; Empty Cell = Insignificant; ? = Unknown
14.9.3 HYDROLOGY OUTPUT
Hydrological output is summarized in TABLE 13 – HYDROLOGY OUTPUT OUT OF
WETLAND.
Wetland ID TABLE 13: HYDROLOGY OUTPUT OUT OF WETLAND Percolation / Infiltration Evaporation Transpiration Sheet Flow Stream – perennial Stream – intermittent Stream – rivulets Waterway – ephemeral Ditch – irrigation/canal Ditch – road, other Culvert Lacustrine – lake, pond Adjoining Wetland Pumped Out Swale Ravine or Steep Slope Dam – beaver Dam/dike – man-made Catch Basin Groundwater - migration Man-Made Waterbody A L L L L H L
L = Low Output; M = Moderate Output; H = High Output; Empty Cell = Insignificant; ? = Unknown
14.10 FUNCTIONS & VALUES
Wetlands can provide essential habitat for fish and wildlife, can provide storm protection
and flood control due to temporary storage and absorption of runoff, can improve water
quality by retention and adsorption of sediments and toxics, can help decrease water
temperature in shaded wetlands, and can increase groundwater recharge to underlying
groundwater tables. Wetlands provide value to mankind such as by providing scenic
diversity, aesthetic value within a natural landscape, and help with wellness initiatives
that support mind and body.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 47
The function rating for water quality, hydrologic, and habitat for the delineated
wetland(s) were made using the referenced wetland rating manual as listed below.
“Delineation manual,” “wetland delineation manual,” or “wetland delineation
methodology” means the manual and methodology used to identify wetlands in the field,
as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
(Publication No. 96-94), adopted by the Department of Ecology in 1997 (pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380), and which is based on the U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). Use of this manual is required by RCW
36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. (AMC 16.10.020)
Caution: The ECOLOGY wetland rating system is not an accurate method for
determining water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions when compared to using the
more detailed Washington State Function Assessment method or other approved
methods. The limited functional analysis presented in this report is strictly a qualitative
rating for high, moderate, and low levels of function in a wetland and is not to be used
as a numerical quantitative method. The qualitative rating of functions was designed
to help determine buffer widths and/or buffer width modifications needed to protect the
identified functions and values in wetlands. The determined functions for each of the
wetlands are presented below and are summarized in TABLE 1 – WETLAND &
BUFFER DATA (SECTION 1.1).
14.10.1 WATER QUALITY FUNCTION – RIVERINE WETLANDS
The range of water quality function scores for three general levels of protection is based
on the qualitative scores obtained by using the referenced ECOLOGY rating manual.
The function ranges for water quality are listed below.
Water Quality Function (Riverine/Fresh Tidal) Wetland Rating (2004) Points
Maximum Points Attainable: 32 points
High Level of Function 24 to 32 points
Moderate Level of Function 16 to 23 points
Low Level of Function <16 points
Field Verified Wetland Function Levels:
High: points
Moderate: points
Low: Wetland A 10 points
Water quality function scores are rated based on the potential and opportunity to
improve water quality as rated from selected factors and conditions. These factors
include wetlands with varying areas of depressions that can trap sediments during a
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 48
flooding event, the characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (degree of trees, shrubs,
herbs, and hummocks), degree of grazing, untreated stormwater discharges, drainage
from tilled fields, orchards, golf courses, developed urban and residential areas, roads,
clear-cut logging, or from human impacts that has raised levels of sediment, toxic
compounds, or nutrients into the waterway. Water Quality Function points are recorded
on the ECOLOGY rating form used to rate the wetland.
1. These characteristics relate to wetland size, water storage capacity, ability to trap
sediments, retention time of surface water flow through, percent coverage of
persistent vegetation, structure and location of vegetation and hummocks to
impede surface water movement, slope, aspect, surface water input from the
surrounding landscape, type of outlet, type of soil (mineral or organic), and
hydroperiods (i.e. seasonal ponding).
14.10.2 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION – RIVERINE WETLANDS
The range of hydrologic function score for three general levels of protection is based on
the qualitative scores obtained by using the referenced ECOLOGY ratings manual. The
function ranges for hydrology are listed below.
Hydrologic Function (Riverine/Fresh Tidal) Wetland Rating (2004) Points
Maximum Points Attainable: 32 points
High Level of Function 24 to 32 points
Moderate Level of Function 16 to 23 points
Low Level of Function <16 points
Field Verified Wetland Function Levels:
High: points
Moderate: points
Low: Wetland A 10 points
Hydrologic function scores are rated based on the potential and opportunity to reduce
flooding and stream erosion as rated from selected factors and conditions. The
factors to potentially reduce flooding and stream erosion include characteristics and
ratio of the overbank storage in the unit as related to the width of the stream to the width
of the associated wetland, characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities
during floods (trees, shrubs, herbs), and the degree of human structures and activities
downstream that can be damaged by flooding (roads, bridges, buildings, farms), or
degree of natural resources downstream that can be damaged by flooding (i.e. salmon
redds). Hydrologic Function points are recorded on the ECOLOGY rating form used to
rate the wetland.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 49
14.10.3 HABITAT FUNCTION FOR ALL CLASSES OF WETLANDS
The range of habitat function scores for nine general levels of protection is based on the
qualitative scores obtained by using the referenced ECOLOGY ratings manual. The
function ranges for habitat for all classes of wetlands are listed below.
Habitat Function (All Wetland Classes) Wetland Rating (2004) Points
Maximum Points Attainable: 36 points
High Level of Function 29 to 36 points
Moderate Level of Function 20 to 28 points
Low Level of Function <20 points
Field Verified Wetland Function Levels:
High: points
Moderate: points
Low: Wetland A 15 points
Habitat function scores are rated based on selected environmental factors and conditions.
The factors for habitat function include the type of vegetation structure, hydroperiods,
richness of plant species, interspersion of habitats, special habitat features, condition and
disturbance level of buffers, the size and width of corridors and connections, number of
adjacent or nearby priority habitats, and the condition of the wetland and upland
landscape. Habitat Function points are recorded on the ECOLOGY rating form used to
rate the wetland.
Wetlands with high to moderate habitat function scores provides good and adequate
cover for song birds, and small mammals including squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, moles,
raccoon, possum, porcupine, and mice. Wetlands also can provide excellent habitat for
amphibians such as the Pacific tree frog and reptiles such as the Gardner snake. Having
several different classes of vegetation structure in a wetland provides an opportunity for
a diverse group of animals to reproduce, prey, move, rest, eat, and live due to the
patchiness, density, and height of the plants.
Wetlands with several hydroperiods throughout the growing season provide an
opportunity for a more diverse population of invertebrates, birds, amphibians, and reptiles
to reproduce, feed, and live. Increased richness of plant species provides a wide variety
of fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb
and corm material for animals to feed on. Interspersion of vegetation classes in a wetland
provides opportunity for many species of plants to thrive which provides many habitat
niches for the needs of many types of wildlife and fish.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 50
Special habitat features such as snags, perches, down wood, runner logs, stumps,
brush piles, undercut and stable steep banks, and overhanging branches over open
water provides very good and unique habitats for a diverse group of invertebrates,
mammals, amphibians, reptiles, passerine birds, woodpeckers, and raptors. Areas
infested with aggressive opportunistic plant species provides less opportunity for
establishment of native plants and animals due to the mono-typic nature of aerial cover
of the aggressive opportunistic species. Undisturbed corridors provide quality urban
habitat for movement of larger mammals such as deer, coyote, and elk.
14.11 AGENCY MAPPED WETLANDS
14.11.1 WETLAND INVENTORY MAP – FEDERAL
Mapped NWI wetlands are depicted on FIGURE 6 – WETLAND INVENTORY –
FEDERAL. Note: The depiction of Federal NWI wetlands does not verify the presence
of wetlands. Mapped Federal NWI wetlands on the project site and within about 330
feet of the project site are listed below.
NWI – On-Site
Mapped NWI wetlands are depicted on the project site as listed below.
A mapped PSSC NWI wetland is depicted about 35 feet west of the southwest corner of
the project site boundary.
Description for code PSSC:
P System PALUSTRINE: The Palustrine System includes all non-tidal
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, mosses or lichens, and all
such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived
salts is below 0.5 ppt. Wetlands lacking such vegetation are also included if
they exhibit all of the following characteristics: 1. are less than 8 hectares (
20 acres ); 2. do not have an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline
feature; 3. have at low water a depth less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in the
deepest part of the basin; 4. have a salinity due to ocean-derived salts of less
than 0.5 ppt.
SS Subsystem: Class SCRUB-SHRUB: Includes areas dominated by woody
vegetation less than 6 m (20 feet) tall. The species include true shrubs,
young trees (saplings), and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted because
of environmental conditions.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 51
Modifier(s):
C Subclass: WATER REGIME Seasonally Flooded: Surface water is present
for extended periods especially early in the growing season but is absent by
the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding
ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table
well below the ground surface.
NWI – Off-Site
Mapped NW I wetlands are depicted within about 330 feet of the project site as listed
below.
A mapped R2UBH NWI wetland is depicted about 35 feet northwest to about 70 feet
southwest of the project site boundary. This wetland is associated with the main
channel of the Green River.
Description for code R2UBH :
R System RIVERINE: The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deep-
water habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or
continuously containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link
between the two bodies of standing water. Upland islands or Palustrine
wetlands may occur in the channel, but they are not part of the Riverine
System.
2 Subsystem LOWER PERENNIAL: This Subsystem is characterized by a low
gradient and slow water velocity. There is no tidal influence, and some water
flows throughout the year. The substrate consists mainly of sand and mud.
The floodplain is well developed. Oxygen deficits may sometimes occur.
UB Class UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM: Includes all wetlands and deep-water
habitats with at least 25% cover of particles smaller than stones (less than 6-
7 cm), and a vegetative cover less than 30%. Subclass:
Modifier(s):
H WATER REGIME Permanently Flooded: Water covers the land surface
throughout the year in all years.
14.11.2 WETLAND INVENTORY MAP – STATE
Mapped Ecology wetlands are depicted on FIGURE 7 – WETLAND INVENTORY –
STATE. The depiction of Ecology mapped wetlands on the project site does not verify
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 52
the presence of wetlands. Mapped Ecology wetlands on the project site and within
about 330 feet of the project site are listed below.
Ecology – On-Site
Mapped Ecology wetlands are not depicted on the project site.
Ecology – Off-Site
Mapped Ecology wetlands are not depicted within about 330 feet of the project site.
14.11.3 WETLAND INVENTORY MAP – COUNTY
Mapped County wetlands were not researched because the project site is not located
within a jurisdictional boundary of an unincorporated county.
14.11.4 WETLAND INVENTORY MAP – CITY
Mapped City wetlands are depicted on FIGURE 8 – WETLAND INVENTORY – CITY.
The depiction of City mapped wetlands on the project site does not verify the presence
of wetlands. Mapped City wetlands on the project site and within about 330 feet of the
project site are listed below.
City – On-Site
Mapped City wetlands are not depicted on the project site.
City – Off-Site
Mapped City wetlands are not depicted within about 330 feet of the project site.
15.0 WATERS
The delineated and flagged stream ordinary high-water mark and the stream buffer
width were surveyed and plotted as depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM
DELINEATION. A summary of the data for field verified off-site parcel waters is
presented in TABLE 2 – WATER & BUFFER DATA (SECTION 1.2) and in more detail
in TABLE 1 7 – WATER & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS (APPENDIX B). The stream
plot numbers and the consecutive stream flags numbers are referenced to the FIELD
DATA FORMS – APPENDIX C.
15.1 FIELD VERIFIED ON-SITE WATERS
• None
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 53
15.2 FIELD VERIFIED OFF-SITE WATERS
• Green River
15.3 WATER TYPE, FISH PRESENCE, & BUFFER
15.3.1 WATER TYPE
The determined water type / class for the off-site stream is listed below.
Green River: Type S (State)
Green River: Class 1: (City)
Type S waters (Former Type 1) means all waters, within their bank full 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.
Class 1 streams are those natural streams identified as “shorelines of the state” under
the City of Auburn’s Shoreline Master Program.
15.3.2 FISH PRESENCE
Information from the WDFW, City of Auburn, and other local sources indicates the
presence of threatened, candidate, and priority fish species in close proximity to the
project site parcel as listed below. The documented fish presence in the Green River is
listed below.
Species Federal Status State Status
• Fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened PHS Listed
• Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Candidate PHS Listed
• Fall Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) Not Warranted PHS Listed
• Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Threatened PHS Listed
• Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) N/A PHS Listed
• Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) N/A PHS Listed
• Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) N/A PHS Listed
• Bull Trout (Salvetinus malma) Threatened PHS Listed
• Coastal Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki) N/A PHS Listed
15.3.3 WATER BUFFER
Water buffers were determined in accordance with criteria established by the local
Critical Area Ordinance and/or according to an approved WDFW HPA permit. Water
buffers have been established to protect instream fish habitat thereby controlling or
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 54
minimizing temperature variances, preventing sediments from entering into streams,
preserving wildlife habitat, and allowing open connection to riparian zones and upland
habitat.
Water buffers are measured perpendicular to either the OHWM or outward from the
outer edge of the floodway unless special conditions exist such as shoreline status,
steep slopes, ravines, and/or riparian habitat zones. When water, wetland, or other
critical area buffers differ in width and overlap each other the more restrictive buffer
width will apply.
The determined width of the water buffer for the identified off-site parcel water is
presented on TABLE 1 4 – WATER BUFFERS. The estimated reach of the off-site
water buffer does encroach onto the project site parcel as shown on FIGURE 5 –
WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION.
TABLE 14 – WATER BUFFERS
Water ID Type Proposed
Land Use
Water Buffer
(From OHWM)
Averaging
Green River WDNR: S
City: Class 1
Residential 100’
None
15.4 RATIONALE FOR WATER DETERMINATION
A summary of the rationale for making the water determination is listed below. Test
plots locations for waters are depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM
DELINEATION and collected data pertaining to the water determination is presented on
the attached FIELD DATA FORMS and on TABLE 17 – WATER & BUFFER
CHARACTERISTICS.
Stream Criteria – Green River Stream Characteristics
1. Scour Channel Yes
2. Bank Height 3’ to 4’
3. Defined Bed Yes (fine to medium sand with cobbles)
4. Average Bank Full Width 70’ to 90’
5. Defined OHWM Yes
6. Contiguous to Water of the State Yes (Shoreline of the State)
15.5 AGENCY MAPPED WATERS
15.5.1 STREAM INVENTORY MAP – STATE
Mapped WDFW Salmon-Scape waters are depicted on FIGURE 9 – STREAM
INVENTORY – STATE . Mapped WDFW waters on the project site and within about
330 feet of the project site are presented below.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 55
Salmon-Scape Map – On-Site
Mapped WDFW Salmon-Scape waters are not depicted on the project site.
Salmon-Scape Map – Off-Site
Mapped WDFW Salmon-Scape waters are depicted about 35 feet west of the project
site (Green River).
15.5.2 STREAM INVENTORY MAP – COUNTY
Mapped county streams are depicted on FIGURE 10 – STREAM INVENTORY –
COUNTY. Mapped streams on the project site and within about 330 feet of the project
site are presented below.
County Stream Map – On-Site
Mapped county streams are not depicted on the project site.
1. A mapped Moderate Channel Migration Hazard Area is located on the project site.
2. A mapped Chinook Distribution Zone Area is located on the project site.
County Stream Map – Off-Site
Mapped county streams are depicted within 330 feet of the project site as listed below.
1. A mapped Class 1 stream (OHWM of Green River) is located at it closest
dimension at about 35 feet west of the southwest corner of the project site parcel.
16.0 FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY
16.1 FIELD VERIFIED FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY
16.1.1 BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
The base flood elevation (a.k.a. 100-year flood) was determined, surveyed, and plotted
as depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION. The area subject
to flooding by the base flood is known as the SFHA. The SFHA is designated on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps as Zone
A, which includes AE, AO, AH, and A1-99. The determined Base Flood Elevation
located contiguous to the project site, as depicted on FIGURE 11 – FLOODPLAIN
INVENTORY – FEDERAL, is presented below.
• 67.017 feet above mean sea level
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 56
16.1.2 FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE
The federal FEMA floodplain riparian habitat zone is presented below.
• 250- feet from the OHWM of the Green River
16.2 AGENCY MAPPED FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY
16.2.1 FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY MAP – FEDERAL
Designated floodplains are depicted on the FEMA map (FIGURE 11 – FLOODPLAIN
INVENTORY – FEDERAL ).
Federal Floodplain / Floodway Map – On-Site
Mapped federal FEMA floodplains / floodways are not depicted on the project site.
Federal Floodplain / Floodway Map – Off-Site
Mapped federal FEMA floodplains / floodways are depicted within about 330 feet of the
project site as described below.
1. A mapped FEMA ZONE AE is depicted about 45 feet west of the project site
on community panel number 53033C1254K, latest revision dated April 19,
2005. A FEMA ZONE AE designation is classified as an area of with “Base
Flood Elevations” determined. The Base Flood Elevation is given on the
map at 67 feet above mean sea level.
16.2.2 FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY MAP – COUNTY
Designated floodplains are depicted on the County Floodway Inventory map as FIGURE
12 – FLOODPLAIN INVENTORY – COUNTY).
County Floodplain / Floodway Map – On-Site
Mapped County floodplains / floodways are not depicted on the project site.
County Floodplain / Floodway Map – Off-Site
Mapped County floodplains / floodways are depicted within about 330 feet of the project
site as described below.
1. Green River 100-year floodway is located about 45 feet west of the project
site
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 57
17.0 SHORELINES
17.1 FIELD VERIFIED SHORELINES
A summary of the data collected for field verified shorelines is presented in TABLE 1 –
WETLAND & BUFFER DATA (SECTION 1.1) and in more detail in TABLE 17 –
WATER & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS (APPENDIX B). Field verified shorelines are
listed below.
• Green River
17.1.1 SHORELINE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
The shoreline OHWM was determined, delineated, surveyed, and plotted as depicted
on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION.
17.1.2 SHORELINE BUFFER / SETBACK
The City of Auburn shoreline jurisdiction includes areas landward of the OHWM as
listed below.
• 200-foot setback landward from the OHWM of the Green River for shoreline
jurisdiction.
• 100-foot setback landward from the OHWM of the Green River for residential
uses.
17.1.3 WETLANDS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO SHORELINE
• Refer to SECTION 14.0 – WETLANDS.
17.2 AGENCY MAPPED SHORELINES
Shoreline Map – On-Site
Mapped shorelines were not readily available.
Shoreline Map – Off-Site
Mapped shorelines were not readily available.
18.0 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
The presence or absence of project site federal and state listed habitat and species was
undertaken by performing a cursory habitat and species assessment in the field after
reviewing readily available priority habitat and species maps on the WDFW web site
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 58
and by reviewing the Threatened and Endangered Species by County Report published
by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Environmental Conservation Online System (SUPPORT
DOCUMENTS – APPENDIX E).
The assessment included documenting observed sightings and indicators, such as but
not limited to vocalizations, scat, animal remains and tracks, dens, nests, and traveled
pathways. The assessment also included interpreting readily available maps and, in
some cases, performing interviews with persons who have knowledge of the project
site. The determination for presence or absence of federal and state listed habitats and
species is based on the time and date in the field and does not reflect diurnal or
seasonal variances.
18.1 FIELD VERIFIED FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
Field verified federal and state listed habitat and species observed on the project site
parcel are listed in TABLE 3 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
DATA (SECTION 1.3) and the characteristics of federal and state listed habitat and
species are presented on TABLE 18 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT &
SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS. The elements listed in the table include those listed by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, WDFW, WDNR, and by the local jurisdictional government
agency (City of Auburn).
18.1.1 WETLAND
Refer to SECTION 14.0 - WETLANDS
18.1.2 AMPHIBIAN
The distribution and habitat use for amphibians is not as well-known as compared to
those of other vertebrate species in the Pacific Northwest. Many amphibians rely on
wetlands and waters for breeding habitat. Several species are known to breed in fallen
logs, shallow roots, shallow surface water, grass-lined wetland edges, and duff in
forested areas and are active feeders in forest communities during wet weather periods.
Most species of this group are very secretive and can be seen only during short periods
of their life cycles. Surveys for such species require special techniques to adequately
inventory these creatures. Species commonly found in the project site habitat are
Pacific tree frogs and bull frogs. Observed amphibians and evidence or indicators of
such animals on the project site are listed below.
Observed
• None
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 59
Evidence or Indicator
• None
Reported
• None
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Permanent flowing stream
Secondary channels
Branched streams
Seasonal standing water in wetlands
Good shading in areas with overhanging shrubs over water and ground
Shallow and still surface water at edge of seasonal or permanent water
Herbaceous-lined wetland edge
Large woody debris with bark
Dry burrows or hollows
Good distribution of vegetation patches (Patchiness)
Adequate vegetation structure
Adequate richness of plant species
Adequate interspersion of habitats in wetland and / or upland
Adequate forest duff layer in uplands with good moisture at the ground surface
Constructed stormwater detention pond for food and water source
18.1.3 REPTILE
The distribution and habitat use for reptiles is not as well-known as compared to those
of other vertebrate species in the Pacific Northwest. Species commonly found in the
project site habitat are Gardner snake. Observed reptiles and evidence or indicators of
such animals on the project site are listed below.
Observed
• Gardner snake
Evidence or Indicator
• None
Reported
• None
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 60
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Permanent flowing stream
Seasonal standing water
Good shading in areas with overhanging shrubs over water and ground
Shallow and still surface water at edge of seasonal or permanent water
Adequate interspersion of habitats in the wetland and / or upland
Adequate forest duff layer in uplands with good moisture at the ground surface
Large woody debris with adequate sun for sunning and predation of insects
Persistent herbs and shrubs with adequate sun for sunning
Exposed rocks or talus for sunning and shelter
Constructed stormwater detention pond for food and water source
18.1.4 BIRD
Most birds generally exhibit secretive habits and are difficult to observe without
performing detailed field surveys which may include intrusive work such as constructing
blinds for visual identification. Observed birds or evidence or indicators of such animals
on the project site parcel are listed below.
Observed
Birds were observed on the project site in terrestrial areas where abundant flying
invertebrates reside, at fruit and berry producing plants, and in topographically low,
damp areas populated with worms, snails, and slugs.
Several different species of song birds (Passerine) were observed on the project site
perched on the branches of trees and shrubs, feeding in shrubs, feeding in herbs /
graminoids / emergents, and/or at the ground surface.
Birds were observed in berry or fruit producing plants on or near the project site such
as:
• Wild cherry
• Himalayan blackberry
• Salmonberry
• Snowberry
• American holly
Birds were observed in seed or nut-producing plants on the project site parcel such as:
• Black cottonwood
• Red alder
• Red oak
• Big leafed maple
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 61
• Giant sequoia
• Sweet gum
• Ponderosa pine
• Western red cedar
Birds to be expected in the region on or within about a mile of the site could include
great blue heron, red-tailed hawk, eagle, osprey, great horned owl, pileated
woodpecker, flicker, varied thrush, blue jay, nuthatch, wren, finch, towhee, bushtit,
sparrow, crow, junco, warbler, chickadee, robin, swallow, swift, red-winged blackbird,
and hummingbird.
Observed birds and evidence or indicators of such animals on the project site parcel
(off-site siting) are listed below.
• American robin
• American crow
• Song sparrow
• Red tailed hawk (fly by)
• Pileated woodpecker
• Varied thrush
• Blue jay
• Junco
• Black-capped chickadee
Evidence or Indicator
• Unidentified songs from passerine bird in shrubs and trees (off-site)
• Feathers observed on the ground surface (off-site)
Reported
• Bald eagle (fly by)
• Great blue heron (fly by)
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Snags (1 dead tree – # 2035)
Cavities in trees
Large down woody debris (limited on project site parcel)
Runner logs
Berry or fruit producing shrubs or trees
Seed, nut, or cone producing shrubs and trees
Nesting sites in shrubs and trees
Permanent flowing stream (Green River)
Undisturbed corridors of at least 3 acres
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 62
Adequate vegetation structure
Adequate richness of plant species
Adequate interspersion of habitat
Open understory for escape and predation of insects
18.1.5 FISH
Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers stocked with game fish as defined by RCW
77.08.020 by WDFW are not located on the project site parcel. Observed fish and
evidence or indicators of such animals on the project site parcel are listed below.
Observed
• None
Evidence or Indicator
• Perennial water
Reported (Green River)
Species Federal Status State Status
• Fall Chinook Threatened PHS Listed
• Coho Salmon Candidate PHS Listed
• Fall Chum Not Warranted PHS Listed
• Steelhead Threatened PHS Listed
• Rainbow Trout N/A PHS Listed
• Sockeye Salmon N/A PHS Listed
• Pink Salmon N/A PHS Listed
• Dolly Varden / Bull Trout Threatened PHS Listed
• Coastal Cutthroat N/A PHS Listed
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Permanent flowing stream (Green River)
Seasonal flowing stream with pockets of water for resident fish
Cool water with good aeration
Areas of slackened water flow in stream
Adequate stream bed
Riffles and pools
Low turbidly in water column
Adequate stream bed substrate
Good shading in areas with overhanging shrubs
Large woody debris in stream bed near shrubs for shading
Good connection to waters of the state and/or shorelines
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 63
18.1.6 MAMM AL
Most mammals generally exhibit secretive habits and are difficult to observe without
performing detailed field surveys which may include intrusive work such as setting traps
for visual identification. In addition, many mammals are nocturnal and are not very
active during daylight hours.
Dangerous mammals, such as black bear, mountain lion, and cougar, could be
expected to feed, move, and roam near the project site due to the extent of undisturbed
corridors and moderate human interference in areas located east of the project site.
The project site provides limited habitat for squirrel, chip monk, raccoon, porcupine,
rabbit, skunk, opossum, shrews, gophers, moles, voles, rat, and bat. Large mammals
such as deer, elk, and coyote would be unlikely found on the project site. Pocket
gophers and pocket gopher mounds were not observed on the project site.
Dangerous mammals, such as black bear, cougar, and mountain lion would not be likely
on the project site because of the extent of human disturbance, nearby residential, farm,
public, and commercial developments, and moderate traffic on nearby streets.
Observed mammals and evidence or indicators of such animals on the project site are
listed below.
Observed
• None
Evidence or Indicator
• None
Reported
• River Otter
• Mice
• Skunk
• Raccoon
• Possum
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Good perennial water source
Berry or fruit producing shrubs or trees
Seed, nut, or cone producing shrubs and trees
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 64
Cavities in trees at base or in trunk
Trees with good climbing or roving branches
Down wood used as runners
Adequate cover in emergent vegetation class
Adequate thatch layer in emergent vegetation class
Open understory for escape and predation
18.1.7 MOLLUSK
Observed mollusks and evidence or indicators of such animals on the project site are
listed below.
Observed
• None
Evidence or Indicator
• None
Reported
• None
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Good water source
Areas of significant shading with moist ground surface in upland
Adequate source of food such as soft herb leaves
Adequate source of down wood
Adequate thatch layer in emergent vegetation class
18.1.8 INVERTEBRATES AND ANNELIDS
Observed invertebrates and annelids and evidence or indicators of such animals on the
project site are listed below.
Observed
• Spider
• Fly
• Earth Worm
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 65
Evidence or Indicator
• Worm holes and piles
• Spider webs
• Feeding birds
• Buzzing sounds
Suitable Habitat = Yes
Stagnant water
Adequate water supply
Areas of significant shading at ground surface with adequately moist ground surface
Snag with bark (Tree 2035)
Adequate flowers for pollinators
Trees and shrubs with good branch and leaf structure
Good vegetation structure in the herb class
Adequate thatch layer in emergent vegetation class
Areas of undisturbed vegetation for reproduction and shelter
18.2 STATE MAPPED PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES
18.2.1 PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES INVENTORY – STATE
The results of the WDFW PHS program database search for the project site parcel and
within a distance of about 800 feet from the project site parcel are listed in TABLE 18 –
FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS and are
depicted on FIGURE 13 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
INVENTORY.
Mapped WDFW Priority Habitat & Species – On-Site
• None
Mapped WDFW Priority Habitat & Species – Off-Site
Mapped off-site priority habitat and species, including federal and state listed threatened
and endangered species, is listed below. The estimated reach of off-site priority habitat
buffer for wetlands encroaches onto the project site parcel.
1. Wetland
• Freshwater Scrub / Shrub NWI Wetland (west)
• Freshwater Riverine / Lower Perennial (west)
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 66
2. Biodiversity Area
• Terrestrial Habitat Zone (south and east)
3. Green River – Threatened, Not Warranted, or Candidate Fish (west)
Species Federal Status State Status
• Fall Chinook Threatened PHS Listed
• Coho Salmon Candidate PHS Listed
• Fall Chum Not Warranted PHS Listed
• Steelhead Threatened PHS Listed
• Rainbow Trout N/A PHS Listed
• Sockeye Salmon N/A PHS Listed
• Pink Salmon N/A PHS Listed
• Dolly Varden / Bull Trout Threatened PHS Listed
• Coastal Cutthroat N/A PHS Listed
18.3 PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES INVENTORY – CITY
Discussion
The City of Auburn uses the WDFW PHS inventory maps for their state PHS and
federal and state listed threatened and endangered habitat and species determinations
including management of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
18.4 WILDLIFE HABITAT – CITY
Wildlife habitat areas are classified in the City of Auburn as critical, secondary, or
tertiary.
Critical Habitat – On-Site
Federal defined critical habitat is not located on the project site parcel. The Green River
(a critical habitat for fish) is located west of the project site parcel. Critical habitat areas
are defined as features which meet any of the criteria habitat listed below. ( = Yes)
The documented presence of species or habitat listed by federal or state agencies
as “endangered,” “threatened,” or “sensitive”
The presence of unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries
Category I wetlands
Class I streams
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 67
Secondary Habitat – On-Site
Secondary habitat areas are defined as features which meet any of the criteria listed
below. ( = Yes)
Valuable to fish and wildlife and support a wide variety of species due to its
undisturbed nature
Note: According to Mr. Steve Cushing, Certified Arborist, the inventoried project
site parcel trees do not provide shade to the OHWM of the Green River. It is the
professional opinion of this writer that the baseline habitat on the project site parcel
does not support a wide variety of terrestrial species due to excessive and thick
growth of Himalayan blackberry brambles, American holly, and English ivy. In
addition, the highly disturbed baseline condition of the adjoining property residential
development (north and south) and the access roadway (east) do not provide
valuable habitat for terrestrial wildlife. The habitat on the project site parcel does
provide suitable habitat for birds and small mammals.
Diversity of plant species and structure
Presence of water
Size of the project site, location, or seasonal importance for wildlife
Tertiary Habitat – On-Site
Tertiary habitat areas are defined as features which meet any of the criteria listed
below. ( = Yes)
Habitat supports some wildlife and performs other valuable functions; however, it
does not currently possess essential characteristics necessary to support diverse
wildlife communities to fish and wildlife and support a wide variety of species due to
its disturbed nature
Habitat which has been created purposefully by human actions to serve other or
multiple purposes, such as open space areas, landscape amenities, and detention
facilities
Wildlife Habitat Buffer – City
Wildlife habitat buffer widths are determined by the City Director based on consideration
of the factors listed below.
1. Species recommendations by the WDFW
2. Recommendations contained in the wildlife report and the nature and intensity of
land uses and activities occurring on the site and on adjacent sites
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 68
3. Buffers shall not be required for secondary for tertiary habitat
19.0 ANALYIS OF EFFECTS
19.1 DIRECT EFFECTS
Direct effects are those effects that occur at the same time and place as the action
producing them and are directly attributable to that action. Direct effects from
constructing the single-family dwelling are temporary and will include preparing the land
and constructing the dwelling and appurtenant features. Direct effects will be caused
by, and occur during, the construction process.
The diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators that could have a degrading effect to
federal defined critical habitat and federally listed threatened and endangered species
from the proposed action are summarized in TABLE 19 & TABLE 20 (APPENDIX B).
Diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators used to arrive at a determination of the
potential direct effects that land management activities may have on the identified and
listed threatened and endangered species and federal defined critical habitat is
presented below.
Water Quality: Sediment & Turbidity
The project action will result in a temporary increase in dust and particulates in
the floodplain riparian zone from land clearing, grading, excavation, and home
construction. Dust and particulates may be blown across the project site parcel if
the implemented BMPs were to fail.
An example of this type of failure could occur due to over topping or breaching a silt
fence. Even if the BMPs temporarily failed there will be some inherent protection from
surface water flowing over the existing 100-foot vegetated buffer prior to entering into
the Green River.
Construction associated with the proposed project will result in disturbance of soils and
vegetation clearing landward of the 100-foot Green River buffer as depicted on the
sketched SITE PLAN – FIGURE 18.
Water Quality: Chemical Contamination & Nutrients
The construction work will result in a temporary increase in fuel exhaust
emissions from heavy construction trucks, vehicles, and equipment. There exists
a possibility of accidental spills of construction-related chemicals and petroleum
products into the floodplain riparian habitat.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 69
Habitat Access: Physical Barriers
The single-family dwelling will act as a permanent physical barrier in the floodplain
riparian habitat zone that could limit use by terrestrial wildlife.
Habitat Element: Large Woody Debris
A very limited quantity of baseline large woody debris and down wood will be removed
landward of the 100-foot river buffer for the proposed dwelling.
Habitat Elements: Physical Attributes
The proposed project will add physical attributes that will degrade habitat and
movement patterns for terrestrial wildlife. These attributes include the physical
structures that will be constructed.
Habitat Element: Shadiness
A total of 14 trees will be removed from the project site parcel as explained and
presented in SECTION 9.4 – BASELINE TREE INVENTORY &
CLASSIFICATION and as presented in FIGURE 19 – EXISTING TREE
INVENTORY. According to Mr. Steve Cushing, Certified Arborist, there is no
environmental baseline shade benefit to the OHWM and to the Green River open
channel provided by the existing inventoried trees on the project site parcel. The
removal of these 14 trees on the project site parcel will not affect (not decrease)
the existing baseline shadiness to the OHWM and to the open channel of the
Green River.
The sun’s trajectory over the east horizon is from the southeast to the southwest.
The most intense periods of energy loading from the sun occurs when the sun is
south and west of the project site parcel. The shadows cast by all 23 of the
inventoried project site trees, including all trees that are planned for removal, do
not reach the OHWM of the Green River because of the steep upward sloping hill
located to the east and due to the sun casting its energy when it is south and
west of the project site parcel trees. The top of elevation of the upward sloping
hill to the east approaches 240 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is
about 170 feet higher in elevation than the east elevation on the project site
parcel at about 70 feet.
This hill casts a shadow over the project site parcel and over the OHWM of the
Green River in the morning hours. As the sun proceeds west over the steep hill,
the trees located south and southwest of the project site parcel cast shadows
over the OHWM of the Green River, not the project site trees. As the sun
proceeds further west, in the later afternoon hours, all of the existing trees on the
project site parcel cast shadows landward of the OHWM of the Green River.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 70
Habitat Access: Invasiveness
The proposed project could increase aggressive opportunistic and weedy
species common to Washington State (2018 Washington State Noxious Weed
List), such as but not limited to reed canary grass, cut leaf blackberry, Himalayan
blackberry, butterfly bush, herb Robert, scot’s brome, knot weed, English ivy, and
tansy ragwort. These weedy and aggressive opportunistic species can be
brought onto the project site by construction equipment, workers, and other
contractors. In addition, these weedy and aggressive opportunistic species can
become overwhelming after mitigation plantings if long term maintenance is not
managed properly.
Habitat Element: Refugia
The project action will have no effect to fish refugia in the Green River because
there are no activities or development proposed within wetlands or within
streams / rivers (no in-water construction) and there are no activities planned to
occur with the baseline vegetation at and near the OHWM that would negatively
affect the existing shade level to the river.
A total of 14 trees will be removed from the project site parcel as explained and
presented in SECTION 9.4.1 –TREE INVENTORY. Seven trees will be removed
from within the 100-foot river buffer and seven trees will be removed in the
floodplain riparian habitat zone. This will temporarily decrease terrestrial habitat
for wildlife within the floodplain riparian habitat zone.
Channel Condition: Floodway Connectivity
The single-family dwelling will not degrade floodway connectivity to the Green
River.
Flow & Hydrology: Drainage Network & Increase Runoff
Stormwater runoff could result in increased flows to Green River from the project if the
engineered and installed BMPs were to fail.
Watershed Condition: Road Development & Density & Location
Traffic flow on 104th Place Southeast will be increased slightly by an additional 2
vehicles per day.
Watershed Condition: Impervious Surfaces
Impervious surfaces to be built on the upper, landward bench will consist of a single-
family dwelling, detached garage, driveway, patio, and walkways that will be used by
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 71
two vehicles and inhabited by one couple. Surface water runoff could be pollution
generating if not managed and treated appropriately.
The single-family dwelling will increase impervious surfaces in the floodplain riparian
habitat zone of the Green River by 3,026 SF. Impervious surfaces will include dwelling,
walkways, patios, gravel driveway, and parking area.
Watershed Condition: Riparian Reserves
The proposed single-family dwelling project will have net loss of 6,249 SF feet
(10,855 SF – 4,606 SF = 6,249 SF) of the 250-foot Green River floodplain
riparian habitat zone within the project site parcel.
A total of 14 trees will be removed for the proposed project as depicted on FIGURE 19 –
EXISTING TREE INVENTORY. Seven of these 14 trees (2059, 2065, 2066, 2067,
2067-B, 2068, & 2069) will be removed in the Green River 100-foot buffer. No baseline
inventoried trees will be removed within about 50 feet of the OHWM of the Green River.
Seven of these 14 trees (2028, 2029, 2029-B, 2034, 2036, 2054, & 2059) will be
removed in the floodplain riparian habitat zone. The one dead tree (2035) will be left in
place as a snag.
Many of these 14 trees were determined by Steve Cushing and Alan Haywood, Certified
Arborists, to be in fair to poor condition due to being previously topped, being forked,
leaning, evidence of decay, cracking, and fungus root disease, evidence of dying, and
being covered to the crown with extensive English ivy growth at the bases, trunks, and
canopies.
The trees proposed for saving, converting to stumps, perches or snags, or removing
from the project site parcel are listed below. Based on the recent inventory,
assessment, and analysis of environmental baseline trees performed by Steve Cushing,
Certified Arborist, none of the trees planned for removal provide shade to the OHWM of
the Green River (Cushing – 2018).
Number of Live Trees on Project Parcel: 23
Number of Dead Trees to Remain on Project Parcel as a Perch (2035): 1
Number of Trees to be Removed on Project Parcel: 14
Number of Trees to be Removed in 100-foot River Buffer: 7
Number of Trees to be Removed in 250-foot Floodplain Habitat Zone: 7
Number of Live Trees to Remain on Project Parcel: 9
Number of Non-Significant Trees to be Removed (Alder/Cottonwood): 7
Number of Significant Trees on Project Parcel: 16
Number of Significant Trees to be Removed on Parcel: 7
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 72
Land Use: Residential, Dust, Particulates, Noise, Light, & Domestic Animals
The proposed action will result in a short-term and temporary increase in noise,
dust, and particulate matter due to land clearing, grading, excavation, scarifying,
and construction of the dwelling.
The proposed action could result in long-term impacts caused by using domestic
lighting and noise (i.e. heat pumps) and possible impacts to the buffer from
domestic animals, such as dogs and cats.
19.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects are not directly linked to the original actions but are removed from it by
distance or time. Indirect effects after constructing the single-family dwelling will include
routine maintenance of the home and maintenance and operation of landscaping, yard,
and stormwater management facilities.
The diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators that could have a degrading effect to
federal defined critical habitat and federally listed threatened and endangered species
from the proposed action are summarized in TABLE 19 & TABLE 20 (APPENDIX B).
Diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators used to arrive at a determination of the
potential indirect effects that land management activities may have on the identified and
listed threatened and endangered species and critical habitat is presented below.
Land Use: Residential, Dust, Particulates, Noise, Light, & Domestic Animals
The proposed action will result in an increase in noise from the dwelling (i.e. heat
pump) and its’ inhabitants. The proposed action could result in long-term
impacts caused by using domestic lighting and possible impacts to the buffer
from domestic animals, such as dogs and cats.
19.3 COMMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are the result of the action that are minor when analyzed individually
but significant when viewed collectively. Cumulative effects are cumulative to the
primary action that are reasonably certain to occur within the project area.
Cumulative effects from constructing the single-family dwelling will not include
constructing future residential, commercial, or industrial developments in the area. The
proposed single-family dwelling will not promote future development next to the project
site parcel because critical areas, sensitive (steep slopes) areas, biodiversity areas, and
floodplain and terrestrial habitat zones surround the project site parcel to the east,
south, and west. In addition, the project site parcel is sandwiched in-between to
separate parcels that are currently occupied by single-family dwellings making habitat
connectively very limited to surrounding critical areas due these neighboring
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 73
disturbances. For these reasons, constructing the single-family dwelling will have no
cumulative effects on listed threatened and endangered species and their associated
federal defined critical habitat.
19.4 INTERRELATED EFFECTS
Interrelated effects are actions that are part of the primary action and dependent upon
that primary action for their justification.
Interrelated effects from constructing the single-family dwelling will include preparing,
constructing, inspecting, and the long-term monitoring (if any) of the buffer
enhancement mitigation area located within the 100-foot river buffer.
Interrelated effects will more than likely benefit terrestrial wildlife, invertebrates, and
other animals within the proposed buffer enhancement mitigation area. For this reason,
constructing the dwelling will have no interrelated effects on listed threatened and
endangered species and their associated federal defined critical habitat.
19.5 INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS
Interdependent effects are actions that have no independent utility apart from the
primary action.
The project will not require current or future interdependent actions because once the
single-family dwelling is built there will be no additional structures, buildings, or
roadways built. For this reason, constructing the dwelling will have no interdependent
effects on listed threatened and endangered species and their associated federal
defined critical habitat.
20.0 EFFECT DETERMINATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Based on the detailed analysis as presented in this HIA, it is the professional opinion of
this writer that the proposed action, as proposed (without mitigation), May Affect but is
Not Likely to Adversely Affect any identified federal or state listed threatened and
endangered species or their federal defined critical habitat to include: Fall Chum, Fall
Chinook, Coho Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Pink Salmon, Dolly Varden / Bull Trout,
Steelhead, Rainbow Trout, and Coastal Cutthroat.
By implementing BMPs to be described in the forthcoming Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, by implementing a forthcoming riparian habitat re-vegetation and
unique habitat features enhancement plan, and by implementing mitigation measures
as presented in SECTION 21.0 – MITIGATION APPROACH the project action would
Likely Not Adversely Affect any federal or state listed threatened or endangered
species or their federal defined critical habitat.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 74
21.0 MITIGATION APPROACH
21.1 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
City critical area Code and FEMA floodplain riparian habitat zone regulations mandate
that all impacts likely to adversely affect wetlands, streams/rivers, floodplain riparian
habitat, and associated buffers or setback, threatened and endangered species, and
critical habitat resulting from a project action must be compensated for in accordance
with an approved mitigation plan and/or a re-vegetation enhancement plan.
The effects of the project action will be mitigated to protect and enhance environmental
baseline functions and values from the effects of stormwater management, hydrologic
alteration including changes to natural drainage or infiltration patterns, clearing, grading,
and excavation impacts, effects of lost trees and shrubs (i.e. habitat, food, shade, and
insect drop), temporary construction impacts, and the effects of increased noise, light,
domestic animals, and human intrusion.
21.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
The diagnostic pathway and sub-scale indicators listed in TABLE 19 & TABLE 20 that
will be maintained or may have a degrading effect to federally listed threatened and
endangered species and federal defined critical habitat will be reduced to a negligible
degree (Likely Not Adversely Affect) by implementing the mitigation measures as
presented in this section of the report.
The planned mitigation measures presented in this section will provide many benefits to
habitat and species as listed below.
1. Protect water quality by filtering and absorbing pollutants, nutrients, and
contaminants from entering the river
2. Decrease flow velocity and decrease direct surface water runoff into the river
3. Control erosion and improve bank stability near the river, which will reduce
turbidity levels from entering into the river
4. Maintain shade landward of the OHWM in late spring, summer, and early fall for
resting and residing terrestrial wildlife
5. Improve groundwater recharge
6. Improve useable open space for birds and mammals provided by the
arrangement of plantings
7. Leave and provide sufficient trees for nesting birds and terrestrial wildlife
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 75
8. Improve dispersion of habitat in the buffer
9. Provide refuge and cover for birds and mammals near the bank of the river
10. Improve terrestrial wildlife habitat for reptiles and amphibians along the ground
surface
11. Contribute large woody debris over time for reptiles, amphibians, mammals,
mollusks, and insects from fallen branches and trees and exposed root balls
12. Provide a direct food source for fish and wildlife (seeds, nuts, berries, insect drop
out)
13. Provide an indirect food source for wildlife, other animals, and decomposing
bacteria (leaf litter fall out)
The following project-related mitigation measures will directly benefit federal and state
listed threatened and endangered species, other native animal and plant species and
federal defined critical habitat in the 100-foot river buffer and in sections of the 250-foot
floodplain riparian habitat zone within the project action area. Mitigation measures will
be incorporated and implemented in the project design and will be mandated by
conditions in the forthcoming City of Auburn development permit.
Water Quality: Sediment & Turbidity
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to water quality for
sediment and turbidity. There are no activities or development proposed within
wetlands or within streams (no in-water construction). The construction activities
associated with the proposed project will be limited to land-based work, with the
exception of three in-buffer activities (constructing the stormwater outfall infiltration
gallery or dispersion trench, placement of re-vegetation enhancement plantings, and
installing unique habitat features.
Although significant impacts due to construction activities are not expected, they are
possible. Construction activities could result in limited surface erosion by wind, rain,
and other forces. However, the BMPs implemented as part of the project design will
contain and control land-based erosion and sediment loadings and would not allow the
eroded soil and sediment to enter the Green River. Dust and particulate suppression
equipment (water truck, sprinkler, or hand-held water hose) will be readily available to
control dust and particulate emissions should it become a concern during construction.
Graded and excavated soil in this area will be placed into temporary stockpiles that will
be placed as far east as possible and controlled with well-designed and engineered
BMPs such as silt fences, hay bales, and poly-covers.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 76
Sediment and turbidity impacts resulting from the project action will be minimized by
implementing the requirements set forth in the BMPs presented in the ECOLOGY
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW), December 2014
edition, effective January 1, 2017. The proposed stormwater infiltration gallery /
dispersion trench for stormwater management will be in the outer 10 feet of the 100-foot
wide Green River buffer, as depicted on the SITE PLAN – FIGURE 18.
Water Quality: Chemical Contamination & Nutrients
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to water quality for
chemical contamination and nutrient loading. Toxic chemical and nutrient impacts
resulting from the project action will be minimized by implementing the requirements set
forth in the BMPs presented in the ECOLOGY Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (SMMWW), December 2014 edition, effective January 1, 2017.
The proposed stormwater infiltration gallery / dispersion trench for stormwater
management will be in the outer 10 feet of the 100-foot wide Green River buffer, as
depicted on FIGURE 18 – SITE PLAN. Spills of toxic chemicals or fuels used during
construction will be immediately cleaned up for proper disposal. Drip buckets and
absorbent socks will be readily available for any fuel or chemical spills.
All construction and equipment materials considered to be pollution-generating during
the construction phase would be managed and disposed of at licensed and permitted
facilities.
The project, as designed, is expected to improve the overall water quality at the project
site parcel by treating stormwater that currently enters untreated to the floodplain of the
Green River from parked cars and vehicles travelling on 104th Place Southeast.
The project will incorporate wetland, river, and buffer minimizing impact
measures as presented in TABLE 15 – WETLAND, RIVER & BUFFER
MINIMIZING IMPACTS MEASURES for the proposed development within the
footprint of the 100-foot Green River buffer.
Habitat Access: Physical Barriers
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to physical barriers to
terrestrial wildlife. Physical barriers (i.e. fences or hedges) will not be installed / planted
so as to allow public access to the Green River. Security fencing will not be installed on
the north, east, and south property boundary. This will allow free movement of
terrestrial wildlife and other native animals to meander throughout the Green River
buffer and floodplain riparian habitat zone.
Habitat Element: Large Woody Debris
The proposed project will maintain the baseline related to large woody debris. There is
no existing significant quantity of large woody debris on the project site parcel. Large
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 77
woody debris and down wood will be installed in the river buffer as part of the buffer
enhancement mitigation plan. These features will be positioned in a crisscross pattern
and as separate units in the river buffer. This will benefit the terrestrial wildlife and
invertebrates that will use this feature for a food source, breeding, living, shade, and as
protection from predators.
Habitat Elements: Physical Attributes
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to physical attributes.
Riprap will be installed on the down slope side of the stormwater infiltration gallery or
dispersion trench on the project site parcel. In addition, rip rap will be installed along a
proposed natural appearing path / walking trail that will meander downward, north to
south, through the 100-foot buffer to the west property boundary. Large, rounded,
boulder piles (in groups of 3 and 5), stacks of flattened stones, and down wood will be
placed in the river buffer. These features will provide good habitat that will benefit
reptiles and amphibians such as Gardner snake, pacific tree frog, and northwestern
salamander.
Habitat Access: Shadiness
The proposed project will maintain the baseline related to shadiness. According to the
results of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe’s shade analysis (Muckleshoot – 2013) for the
project site parcel and adjoining property is depicted as a “medium” priority for shade as
represented on FIGURE 17 – GREEN RIVER SHADE ANALYSIS. A “medium” priority
indicates fair to good shade waterward of the OHWM at the project site parcel. This
“medium” rating along the Green River will not be affected by the project.
According to Mr. Steve Cushing, Certified Arborist, there is no environmental baseline
shade benefit to the OHWM and to the Green River open channel provided by the
existing inventoried trees on the project site parcel. The removal of the 14 trees
depicted on FIGURE 19 – EXISTING TREE INVENTORY on the project site parcel will
not affect (not decrease) the existing baseline shadiness to the OHWM and to the
Green River open channel according to Mr. Cushing.
The sun’s trajectory over the east horizon is from the southeast to the southwest. The
most intense periods of energy loading from the sun occurs when the sun is south and
west of the project site parcel. The shadows cast by all 23 of the inventoried project site
trees, including all trees that are planned for removal, do not reach the OHWM of the
Green River because of the steep upward sloping hill located to the east and due to the
sun casting its energy when it is south and west of the project site parcel trees.
Three existing trees (2033, 2037, 2038) located along the east property boundary will
remain in place. Three existing trees (2060, 2061, 2192) located along the south
property boundary will remain in place. Three existing trees (2072, 2193, 2072-B)
located in the northwest corner will remain in place. These 9 trees will provide excellent
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 78
shade to terrestrial wildlife and good habitat for nesting birds that migrate and live along
the Green River corridor.
As part of the development permit a river buffer and floodplain riparian habitat zone re-
vegetation enhancement mitigation plan with planting plan and habitat features will
provide details to improve the function and values of the wetland, river, and floodplain
riparian buffers by planting native trees and shrubs and unique habitat features. These
features will improve the terrestrial habitat for native wildlife that need shady areas to
survive, such as small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
Vegetation that provides baseline shading over the Green River will not be disturbed or
cleared during construction as this area is not on the project site parcel. The existing
vegetation overhanging the OHWM of the Green River adjacent to the west of the
project site parcel reportedly contains average shade cover and contributes adequate
shading to the existing fish habitat near the OHWM.
Habitat Access: Invasiveness
The proposed project will improve the environmental baseline condition related to
aggressive opportunistic invaders. The environmental baseline riparian vegetation on
the project site parcel is highly degraded and almost completely covered with
aggressive opportunistic species that include Himalayan blackberry, American holly,
reed canary grass, and English ivy. To compensate for impacts to the floodplain
riparian habitat zone and the Green River buffer by the proposed action, compensatory
mitigation will be undertaken. This will initially involve removing aggressive
opportunistic species such as Himalayan blackberry, American holly, reed canary grass,
and English ivy on the entire project site parcel. These plants will be removed by
cutting, trimming, scarifying, and grubbing. Herbicide treatments will not be used to
control aggressive opportunistic plants unless approved by the City of Auburn.
Weedy and aggressive opportunistic species that exceed 5 percent aerial cover during
the long-term monitoring program (if any) in the re-vegetation area will be grubbed and
scarified out of the ground. These species will not be present within about 5 feet from
planted stems. Weeding out these species can be accomplished by hand or by using
mechanical tools and equipment. Weeding can include pulling, grubbing, trimming,
covering, and/or mowing. Removed weedy and aggressive opportunistic plants shall be
bagged up and removed from the premises to prevent re-seeding. Herbicide treatments
will not be used to control aggressive opportunistic plants unless approved by the City
of Auburn.
Weedy and aggressive opportunistic species will not be planted around the proposed
dwelling and in landscaped areas.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 79
Habitat Element: Refugia
The proposed project will improve the environmental baseline related to refugia. The
project site parcel is highly disturbed due to severe invasion and dense growth of
aggressive opportunistic plant species such as English ivy, American holly, reed canary
grass, and Himalayan blackberry. This baseline condition provides limited habitat to
terrestrial wildlife.
The area proposed for enhancement plantings waterward of the 100-foot Green River
buffer will provide beneficial refugia to the terrestrial wildlife that use the floodplain
riparian habitat of the Green River corridor. The area to be enhanced on the project site
parcel will provide a beneficial pathway to the off-channel segment (Wetland A) of the
Green River that is located contiguous to the south of the project site parcel. The
enhanced area will also provide open areas that wildlife can easily pass through while
moving from place to place along the river. A proposed natural appearing path / walking
trail will meander downward, north to south, through the 100-foot buffer to the west
property boundary. These pathways will offer a beneficial food source, movement
corridors, living and resting space, and a safe area to escape from predators.
Channel Condition: Floodway Connectivity
The proposed project will maintain the baseline related to floodway connectivity. The
area proposed for enhancement plantings and unique habitat features waterward of the
100-foot Green River buffer will provide improved baseline connectivity by terrestrial
wildlife. The area to be enhanced on the project site parcel will provide a beneficial
pathway to the off-channel segment (Wetland A) of the Green River that is located
contiguous to the south of the project site parcel. The enhanced area will also provide
open areas that wildlife can easily pass through while moving from place to place along
the river. These pathways will offer a beneficial food source, movement corridors, living
and resting space, and a safe area to escape from predators.
The proposed enhanced mitigation waterward of the 100-foot Green River buffer will
allow terrestrial wildlife to more safely use the floodplain riparian zone and off-channel
corridor of the river for their movement and escape from predators.
Flow & Hydrology: Drainage Network & Increase Runoff
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to drainage network and
increased runoff. Groundwater recharge from the project will be dispersed into
groundwater within the 100-foot Green River buffer to help maintain and support the
proposed river buffer and floodplain riparian zone re-vegetation enhancement plantings.
Runoff dispersal rates will be engineered to match existing pre-developed rates.
Stormwater generated from the proposed project to include all pervious and impervious
surfaces will be treated, flow-controlled, and released into the floodplain riparian habitat
zone via an infiltration gallery or dispersion trench. The stormwater system will be
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 80
designed to meet applicable City and State stormwater management regulations. This
design requirement will be part of the development permit and will be reviewed by the
City engineering department.
The project, as designed, is also expected to improve the baseline water quality at the
project site parcel by treating stormwater that currently enters untreated to the floodplain
habitat of the Green River from parked cars and vehicles travelling on 104th Place
Southeast.
The project will incorporate wetland, river, and buffer minimizing impact
measures as presented in TABLE 15 – WETLAND, RIVER & BUFFER
MINIMIZING IMPACTS MEASURES for the proposed development within the
footprint of the 100-foot Green River buffer.
Watershed Condition: Road / Development & Density & Location
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to road /
development density and location. The proposed dwelling will not require road
development because 104th Place SE is an existing, narrow, two lane secondary
road. Traffic flow on 104th Place Southeast will be increased slightly by an
additional 2 vehicles for the new residence. This street is a dead-end street and
therefore has minimal traffic flow.
The allowed development density (AMC) for the project site parcel is set at 5
dwelling units per acre. The proposed dwelling does not exceed this City of
Auburn density threshold.
Watershed Condition: Impervious Surfaces
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to impervious surfaces.
Impervious surfaces will not exceed 33.33 percent of the gross lot area within the
regulated 200-foot shoreline setback code. The percent impervious surfaces on the
project site parcel has been calculated at 27.9 percent (3026/10,855), which is less than
the 33.33 percent of the gross lot area threshold as allowed by the City of Auburn
Shoreline Master Program Code. All stormwater generated from the proposed project
to include all pervious and impervious surfaces will be treated, flow-controlled, and
released via an infiltration gallery or dispersion trench to the 100-foot Green River
buffer.
Watershed Condition: Riparian Reserves
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to riparian reserves.
Much of the baseline hydrology in the riparian zone of the Green River has been
changed due to the installation of the Howard Hanson Dam, which
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 81
correspondingly has controlled and decreased the floodplain riparian habitat
reserves along the river.
Given that this section of the Green River has almost continuous flood control facilities
along both banks, the levee maintenance standards that the ACOE adopts will need to
be investigated. If the ACOE standards require that trees be removed along the bank of
the river when they attain 2-inch to 4-inch diameter at breast height the riparian area will
not function in a way that meaningfully contributes to salmon recovery. It is not
anticipated that the ACOE would remove and trees on the project site parcel.
The land within the 250-foot floodplain riparian habitat zone located east of the project
site parcel, which includes 104th Place SE, the road prism, and the undeveloped
woodland located east and south of the dead-end street, will not be affected by the
proposed project.
The baseline riparian vegetation on the project site parcel is highly degraded and
covered with aggressive opportunistic species. To compensate for impacts to the
floodplain riparian zone and the Green River buffer by the proposed action,
compensatory mitigation will be undertaken. This will initially involve removing poor
quality / high risk (hazard) trees and aggressive opportunistic species such as
Himalayan blackberry, American holly, reed canary grass, and English ivy on the project
site parcel within the 100-foot river buffer. These aggressive opportunistic plants will be
removed by cutting, trimming, scarifying, and grubbing. Herbicide treatments will not be
used to control aggressive opportunistic plants unless approved by the City of Auburn.
A total of 14 trees will be removed for the proposed project as depicted on FIGURE 19 –
EXISTING TREE INVENTORY. Seven of these 14 trees (2059, 2065, 2066, 2067,
2067-B, 2068, & 2069) will be removed in the Green River 100-foot buffer. No baseline
inventoried trees will be removed within about 50 feet of the OHWM of the Green River.
Seven of these 14 trees (2028, 2029, 2029-B, 2034, 2036, 2054, & 2059) will be
removed in the floodplain riparian habitat zone. The one dead tree (2035) will be left in
place as a snag.
Many of these 14 trees were determined by Steve Cushing and Alan Haywood, Certified
Arborists, to be in fair to poor condition due to being previously topped, being forked,
leaning, evidence of decay, cracking, and fungus root disease, evidence of dying, and
being covered to the crown with extensive English ivy growth at the bases, trunks, and
canopies.
To compensate for the loss of these 14 trees mitigation will include installing unique
habitat features such as down wood, runner logs, stumps, perches, snags, boulder
piles, and stacks of flattened stones as listed below. In addition, a total of 14 native
trees will be re-planted in the 100-foot Green River buffer with emphasis of the plantings
near the west property boundary.
• Trees completely removed: 7 (2028, 2029, 2029-B, 2034, 2054, 2059, 2059-B)
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 82
• Trees converted to snags: 2 (2036, 2067-B)
• Trees converted to perches: 1 (2069)
• Trees converted to stumps: 4 (2065, 2066, 2067, 2068)
TOTAL TREES: 14
The 100-foot river buffer area will then be replanted with native trees and shrubs and by
installing several unique habitat features such as down wood, runner logs, stumps,
snags, perches, boulder piles, and stacks of flattened stones. Native trees will be
planted primarily along the west property boundary and native shrubs will be planted
throughout the river buffer.
The native tree species will include trees that will reach a minimum height of 75 feet at
maturity and will have high canopy volume to maximize shade creation. Trees that
meet the native, deciduous tree standard include big leaf maple, Oregon ash, black
cottonwood, river birch, bitter cherry, and red alder. Trees that would meet the native,
conifer tree standard include Douglas fir, giant sequoia, western red cedar, ponderosa
pine, and Sitka spruce. Other less tall trees to consider for plantings are Pacific crab
apple, black Hawthorne, pacific willow, Scoular willow, and hooker willow.
Conifers are fairly uncommon in a riparian forest, especially in along the riverward slope
and riverward bench. The focus of tree planting along the riverward slope and riverward
bench would be to plant the riparian zone with deciduous trees rather than trying to
create a climax community of conifers. Conifers may be planted in areas of the
landward bench of the riparian zone.
Shrubs that meet the deciduous shrub standard include red twig dogwood, ocean spray,
black twinberry, Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, wild clustered rose, thimbleberry,
salmonberry, evergreen huckleberry, and common snowberry.
Activities associated with the construction of the single-family dwelling, detached
garage, driveway, patio, and walkways will occur only on the east segment of the
parcel (FIGURE 18 – SITE PLAN). The construction activity for the proposed
single-family dwelling will not occur within the 100-foot wide shoreline buffer
setback from the OHWM of the Green River. The proposed stormwater
infiltration gallery / dispersion trench for stormwater management will be in the
outer 10 feet of the 100-foot wide Green River buffer, as depicted on FIGURE 18
– SITE PLAN.
The total developable land footprint for the single-family dwelling landward of the
100-foot Green River buffer on the project site parcel will be 4,606 SF (10,855 SF
– 6,249 SF = 4,606 SF).
The proposed permanent impact to the 4,606 SF of the riparian floodplain zone
landward of the 100-foot Green River buffer will be mitigated by enhancing the
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 83
waterward portion of the 100-foot river buffer on the project site parcel with native
tree, shrub, and herb plantings and by installing several unique habitat features
such as down wood, runner logs, stumps, snags, perches, boulder piles, and
stacks of flattened stones. This activity will be performed under the guidance of
a certified wetland scientist.
These enhancements will greatly improve the terrestrial habitat for wildlife on the
project site parcel and to the Green River reach. The enhancements will also
add to the enhancements that have already taken place by other parties over the
years in the Green River reach. The plantings and features will also provide
aesthetic visual screening to the Green River.
The project will incorporate wetland, river, and buffer minimizing impact
measures as presented in TABLE 15 – WETLAND, RIVER & BUFFER
MINIMIZING IMPACTS MEASURES for the proposed development within the
footprint of the 100-foot Green River buffer.
Land Use: Residential, Dust, Particulates, Noise, Light, & Domestic Animals
The proposed project may have a negligible degrading effect to land uses
activities such as residential, dust, particulates, noise, light, and domestic
animals. The project will incorporate wetland, river, and buffer minimizing impact
measures as presented in TABLE 15 – WETLAND, RIVER & BUFFER
MINIMIZING IMPACTS MEASURES for the proposed development within the
footprint of the 100-foot Green River buffer.
21.3 BUFFER MINIMIZING IMPACT MEASURES
Typical measures to be implemented that will minimize impacts caused by the proposed
single-family dwelling are presented below as TABLE 15 – WETLAND, RIVER &
BUFFER MINIMIZING IMPACT MEASURES.
This part of the page left blank
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 84
TABLE 15
WETLAND, RIVER & BUFFER MINIMIZING IMPACT MEASURES
Disturbance Measures to Minimize Impacts Activities That May Cause
Disturbance
Lights Direct lights away from the
wetland, river, and associated
buffers
Parking lot, security, driveway,
dwelling, patio, and landscaping
lighting
Noise Place activity that generates
noise away from the wetland,
river, and associated buffers
Constructing the home, air
conditioning units, vehicles, motors,
vent fans, music, voices, pets
Toxic Runoff Use toxic chemicals according to
manufacturer only after agency
approval, do not over apply
Route all new untreated runoff
away from wetland and river or
into infiltration gallery or
dispersion trench
Parking lots, driveways, roads,
residential home, garage, walkways,
patios, application of agricultural
pesticides and herbicides, and
fertilizers on lawns and gardens
Change in Water Regime Infiltrate, detain, bio-filtrate, or
disperse into buffer stormwater
runoff from impervious surfaces
using approved low impact
treatment measures
Runoff from impermeable surfaces,
gravels, lawns, gardens, and tilling
areas
Artificial irrigation of landscaping and
yards
Pets & Human Disturbance Install 4-foot tall wood post and
rail fencing around buffer
Plant buffer with native
vegetation appropriate for region
Keep pets on a lease when
outside and do not let pets roam
into buffer areas
Animal waste, predation, voices,
barking, and movement
Dust & Particulates Implement BMPs to control dust
and particulates such as by using
a hand-held water hose,
sprinkler, or water truck during
construction
Exposed soil covered areas and
graveled driveway during clearing,
grading, and excavation
Degraded Buffer Condition Non-native and/or aggressive
opportunistic plants will be
removed and replaced with native
vegetation per an approved
planting plan
Import of weedy vegetation around
home
Inadequate maintenance of enhanced
buffer to wetland and river
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 85
22.0 LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS (APPENDIX F) for the work effort are an integral part of this report and
must be read and understood.
23.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information gathered, at the indicated locations, critical areas and their
associated buffers and setbacks were identified on the project site parcel as listed
below. Field verified critical areas and / or their associated buffers or setbacks are
depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION.
The characteristics of wetlands are presented on TABLE 16 – WETLAND & BUFFER
CHARACTERISTICS. The characteristics for streams are presented on TABLE 17 –
WATER & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS. The characteristics of federal and state
listed habitat and species are presented on TABLE 18 – FEDERAL & STATE LISTED
HABITAT & SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS. A summary of the findings is presented
below.
23.1 WETLANDS
One wetland was identified about 35 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the
project site parcel as listed below.
Wetland ID Category Habitat Points Buffer
Wetland A III 15 50’
23.2 WATERS
One water (Green River) was identified about 35 feet southwest of the southwest corner
of the project site parcel and about 22 feet northwest of the northwest corner site as
listed below.
Stream ID Type Average Width Buffer
Green River Type S (State) 70’ to 90’ 100’ (Residential Designation)
Class 1 (City) 200’ (Shoreline Jurisdiction)
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 86
23.3 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
Federal and state listed habitat and species were not identified on the project site parcel
as listed below.
Listed Habitats / Species Description Recommended Buffer
No State Listed
No Federal Listed
Federal and state listed habitat and species were identified west and east of the project
site parcel. A Biodiversity Area known as a Terrestrial Habitat Zone is located about
120 feet south and about 150 feet east of the project site parcel. The Green River,
located about 22 feet northwest of the northwest corner, has reported Threatened, Not
Warranted, or Candidate fish species within its floodway as listed below.
Species Federal Status State Status
• Fall Chinook Threatened PHS Listed
• Coho Salmon Candidate PHS Listed
• Fall Chum Not Warranted PHS Listed
• Steelhead Threatened PHS Listed
• Rainbow Trout N/A PHS Listed
• Sockeye Salmon N/A PHS Listed
• Pink Salmon N/A PHS Listed
• Dolly Varden / Bull Trout Threatened PHS Listed
• Coastal Cutthroat N/A PHS Listed
23.4 FLOODPLAIN
The determined Base Flood Elevation located contiguous to the project site parcel, as
depicted on FIGURE 11 – FLOODPLAIN INVENTORY – FEDERAL, is presented
below.
• 67.017 feet above mean sea level
The federal FEMA floodplain riparian habitat zone and other zones on or contiguous to
the project site parcel are presented below.
• Floodplain Riparian Habitat Zone: 250 feet from OHWM of the Green River
• Severe Channel Migration Zone: Variable
• Moderate Channel Migration Zone: Variable
• Floodway: Variable
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 87
23.5 HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Based on the detailed analysis as presented in this HIA, it is the professional opinion of
this writer that the proposed action, as proposed, May Affect but is Not Likely to
Adversely Affect any federal or state listed threatened and endangered species or
their federal defined critical habitat to include: Fall Chum, Fall Chinook, Coho
Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Pink Salmon, Dolly Varden / Bull Trout, Steelhead,
Rainbow Trout, and Coastal Cutthroat.
The diagnostic pathways and sub-scale indicators that were determined to possibly
degrade baseline federal defined critical habitat and threatened and endangered
species due to the proposed project are summarized in TABLE 19 & TABLE 20
(APPENDIX B). Mitigation measures that will be incorporated and implemented into the
project design and development permit will Likely Not Adversely Affect any federal or
state listed threatened or endangered species or their federal defined critical habitat.
Mitigation measures are presented in SECTION 21.0 – MITIGATION APPROACH.
24.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Obtain government agency approval for the mapped and flagged locations of the
critical areas and buffers depicted on FIGURE 5 – WETLAND & STREAM
DELINEATION prior to any man-induced disturbance, clearing, scarifying,
cutting, excavating, grading, developing, mitigating, or impacting the identified
critical areas and their associative buffers described herein.
2. Obtain government agency approval for the HIA to meet the requirement for a
Floodplain Development Permit.
3. Obtain government agency approval for the attached Site Plan.
4. If this Critical Areas and HIA report is approved by the jurisdictional government
agency(ies), prepare a floodplain riparian habitat zone re-vegetation mitigation
plan with planting and habitat features plan within the 100-foot Green River
buffer.
5. Since the project is located within the Moderate Channel Migration Hazard Zone
it may be beneficial to obtain Flood Protection Insurance prior to construction of
the single-family dwelling.
25.0 REFERENCES
REGULATIONS AND REGULATORY MANUALS
Auburn WA, Auburn City Code, Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas;
Ordinance 5894, May 2005.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 88
Auburn WA, Auburn City Code, Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas;
Ordinance 6657, July 17, 2017.
Auburn WA, Auburn City Code, Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.68,
Flood Hazard Areas, Ordinance 6657, July, 17, 2017.
Auburn WA, Auburn City Code, Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.08, Shoreline
Management Administration and Permitting Procedures, Ordinance 6657, July
17, 2017.
Auburn WA, Auburn Shoreline Master Program (SMP), Ordinance 6235, In Accordance
with RCW 90.58, April 20, 2009.
FEMA, Region 10, Bothell WA, Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment
and Mitigation, Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound, August, 2013.
FEMA, Region 10, Bothell WA, Floodplain Management and the Endangered Species
Act, Checklist for Programmatic Compliance, November 2013.
FEMA, Flood Publications, Indianapolis IN, National Flood Insurance Program,
Community Rating System, CRS Habitat Credit for Habitat Protection, 2010.
FEMA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Region X, Bothell WA, Memorandum
Related to Channel Migration Zones, January 11, 2012.
FEMA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Region X, Bothell WA, Memorandum
Related to Percentage of Surface Area of Lots, February 12, 2013.
FEMA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Region X, Bothell WA, Memorandum
Related to Riparian Buffers, January 11, 2012.
King County, Seattle WA, Conservation Futures for 2016 Annual Collections;
Application for Funds, Re-Greening the Green, Lower Green River, Application
for $250,000, March 2015.
King County Flood Control District, System-Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) –
Interim Report, Green River, King County, WA, February 2016.
King County & Washington State Conservation Commission, Habitat Limiting Factors
and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green / Duwamish and Central Puget
Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island),
December 2000.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 89
Knutson, K.L. Knutson, and V.L. Naef, Management Recommendations for
Washington’s Priority Habitats, Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia.181pp, December 1997.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental and Technical Services Division,
Portland, Oregon. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for
Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale, 1996.
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. Appendix A: Description and
Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended
Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon
Plan, 1999.
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority
Habitats and Species. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife
Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions, Olympia.
May 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plants
Database, Wetland Indicator Status Search, National Plant List for Wetland
Indicator Status, Internet access at https://plants.usda.gov/core/wetlandSearch.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg MS, Interim Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys,
and Coast Region – Technical Report 08-13, Environmental Laboratory,
Department of the Army, April 2008, Version 2.0, May 2010.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Wetlands
Regulatory Assistance Program, A Guide to Ordinary High-Water Mark
Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and
Coast Region of the United States, Mathew K. Mersel and Robert W. Lichvar,
August 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg MS, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual – Technical Report Y-87-1, Environmental Laboratory, Department of the
Army, January 1987.
Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia WA, Carol J. Smith, Ph.D.,
Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors in Washington State, 2005.
Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey WA, Thomas Hruby, PhD, Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Publication # 04-06-025,
Revised August 2004.
Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey WA, Water Quality Program, Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume 1 – Minimum Technical
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 90
Requirements and Site Planning, Publication No. 14-10-055; Revision of
Publication No. 12-10-030, December 2014 edition, effective January 1, 2017.
Washington Department of Ecology, Determining the Ordinary High-Water Mark on
Streams in Washington State, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance
Program, Dr. Patricia Olson and Erik Stackdale, Ecology Publication Number 08-
06-001, March 2010, Second Review Draft.
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Forest Practices Manual,
Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia WA, Rules WAC 222, Board
Manual, Forest Practices Act RCW 76.09, December 2002, Updated December
2010.
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia WA, Washington Priority
Habitat & Species Program, Priority Habitat & Species list.
Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, WA, Carol, J. Smith, Ph.D,
Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors in Washington State, 2003.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, Salmon Facts, 1997-1999.
Water Resources Inventory Area 9 Implementation Technical Committee, WRIA 9 Status
and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005 – 2010, February 2012.
REFERENCE BOOKS
Cooke, Sarah Spear, A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western
Washington & Northwestern Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Copyright May
1997, pages 417.
Cowardin, Lewis M., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-
79/31, December 1979.
Farrar, Laird, John, Trees of the Northern United States and Canada, Iowa State Press
– Blackwell Publishing Company, 1995.
Guard, Jennifer B., Wetland Plants of Oregon & Washington, Lone Pine Publishing
Company, Redmond WA, 238 pages, 1995.
Hafenrichter, A.L., Grasses and Legumes for Soil Conservation in the Pacific Northwest
and Great Basin States, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Publication Number 1491, January 1979.
Hitchcock & Cronquist, Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press,
730 pages, Twelfth Printing, 2001.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 91
Kozloff, Eugene N., Plants of Western Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia,
Timber Press, Portland OR, 2005.
Lyons, C. P. & Bill Merilees, Trees, Shrubs & Flowers to Know in Washington & British
Columbia, Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond WA, 375 pages, 1995.
Mitsch, William and Gossalink, James, Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold NY, 1986,
539 pages.
Munsell Soil Color Charts, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation,
Baltimore MD, 1990 Edition, Revised in 2000.
Pennsylvania State University, Information and Communication Technologies in the
College of Agricultural Sciences, Diagnosing Soil Compaction Using a
Penetrometer, Agronomy Facts #63, 2002.
Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Theodore F. Niehaus,
A Field Guide to Pacific States Wildflowers, 1976.
Pojar, Jim & Andy MacKinnon, Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Lone Pine
Publishing Company, Redmond WA, 528 pages, Second Edition, 2005.
Tiner, Ralph W., Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation,
Classification, and Mapping, Lewis Publishers, Washington D.C., 392 pages,
1999.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Taxonomy, Agricultural Handbook #436, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C., Second Edition, 1999.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Keys to Soil
Taxonomy, Pocahontas Press, Inc., Blacksburg VA, 8th Edition, 1999.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Plant Database, NWI Wetland
Indicator Status, National Wetlands Plant List, Wetland Indicator Status Search
Database, 2012.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Hydric Soils List, King County Area, Washington, Detailed Soil Map Legend,
October,30, 2001.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils, Hydric Soils of the United States, Revised June
1991.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 92
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Wetland Science
Institute, Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 5.01, 2003.
University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta Canada, France Royer & Richard
Dickinson, Weeds of the Northern U.S. and Canada, Lone Pine Publishing,
Renton WA, 1999.
University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Sponsored by the California
Weed Science Society, Joseph M. DiTomaso, Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of
the West, Publication 3421, 2003.
Western Society of Weed Science, Western United States Land Grant Universities,
University of Wyoming, Tom D. Whitson, Editor, Weeds of the West, 9th Edition,
2002.
Wetland Training Institute, Inc., Field Guide for Wetland Delineation for 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual, reprinted 1999.
Whitney, Stephen, Rob Sandelin, Field Guide to the Cascades & Olympics, The
Mountaineers Books, Second Edition, 2003.
MAPS
Auburn, City of, Auburn WA, aerial photograph, street, sensitive area, wetland,
shoreline, zoning, available on line.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Special Flood
Hazard Area, available on-line.
Google Earth, color aerial photograph, street view, elevation, latitude and longitude
coordinates, available on line.
King County GIS Center, Seattle WA, aerial photograph, wetland inventory, shoreline,
sensitive areas, flood hazard and floodway, parcel summaries, and parcel plot
maps, available on line.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey and The National Map – U.S.
Topo, Topography map of Auburn, 7.5’ Quadrangle, available on line.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation District, Soil Survey
Map, Aerial photograph with mapped soil associations, descriptions,
classifications, and series, WEB Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil Survey,
available on line.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
Page 93
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper,
available on line.
Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Division, Water Quality Assessment
Map Viewer, 303(d) data and TMDL status, Water Resource Inventory Area, and
sub-drainage basin, available on-line.
Washington Department of Ecology, NOAA Coastal Services Center, and EPA;
Modeled Wetlands Inventory, Coastal Change Analysis Program, Wetlands
Inventory Mapper, available on-line.
Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey WA, Water Quality Program, Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume 1 – Minimum Technical
Requirements and Site Planning, Publication No. 14-10-055; Revision of
Publication No. 12-10-030, December 2014, Effective January 1, 2017.
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia WA, Washington Priority
Habitat & Species Program, Priority Habitat & Species on the Web (PHS on the
Web), PHS map, available on line.
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Application and Review
System (FPARS), Forest Practice Activity Map (FRAM), with Plotted Water
Types, available on line.
Weather Underground, Weather Maps, www.wunderground.com, historical climatic
weather tables with recorded precipitation, available on line.
REPORTS OR SURVEYS
Beyler Consulting, LLC, Lakewood WA, Professional Land Survey for Property
Boundary, Wetland, Stream, Shoreline, and Special Flood Hazard Area, Dan
Guyll & Jan Jeffrey, Parcel Number 3341000140, Auburn WA, 98092, October 4,
2016.
Cushing, Steve, Certified Arborist, Site Inventory of Trees with Shade Analysis, Dan
Guyll & Jan Jeffrey Property, 32267 104th Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092,
January 22, 2018.
Haywood, Alan, Arborist & Horticulturist, Enumclaw WA, Site Inventory of Trees Letter,
Dan Guyll & Jan Jeffrey Property, 32267 104th Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092,
July 5, 2018.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
APPENDIX B
TABLES
APPENDIX C
FIELD DATA FORMS
ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS – 2004
APPENDIX D
STANDARD OFFICE & FIELD PROCEDURES
APPENDIX E
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS & RESUMES
APPENDIX F
LIMITATIONS
APPENDIX G
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
*Project Site
*Green River
* Project Site - (Parcel Number 3341000140) Green River 104th Place SE*Forested Upland Community
Vl ( �Lu
�
�"c::( :c ! �
�
STNE
RN LLJ.
t--u1 ,,,,.. Lu V') Lu V')
\ V') -.J z a:: Lu 0.. �4TH ST NE �
�
Vl "c::( -:r:: �z
�� 0 �Lu L..--��z
� Vl< E MAIN ST � ST
·SE
V')
�ST SE V')
�/, •
,. - -� -----_ I
*Project Site
300'
200'
100'
*Green River
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington
(Jeffrey Property - Auburn WA)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/19/2016
Page 1 of 3524022052402305240240524025052402605240270524028052402905240300524023052402405240250524026052402705240280524029052403005240310560140560150560160560170560180560190560200560210560220560230560240560250560260560270
560140 560150 560160 560170 560180 560190 560200 560210 560220 560230 560240 560250 560260 560270
47° 18' 48'' N 122° 12' 15'' W47° 18' 48'' N122° 12' 9'' W47° 18' 45'' N
122° 12' 15'' W47° 18' 45'' N
122° 12' 9'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 30 60 120 180
Feet
0 5 10 20 30
Meters
Map Scale: 1:636 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
*Project Site
=Mixed Alluvial Land
= Water
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
20282029
2059
ALDER 20
ALDER 7ALDER 16
ALDER 20
ALDER 20
ALDER 20
N 58
°
5
7'
0
0
"
E
127.
5
3'N 36
°45
'00
"
W90.45
'
N 58
°
5
7'
0
0
"
E
113.
6
7'104TH P
LACE
SEGREEN RIVEROH-10
ELEV=62.44
OH-9
OH-8
OH-7A
OH-6A OH-5A
OH-4A
OH-3A
OH-2A
OH-1A
ELEV=61.34
OH-1B
ELEV=61.77
OH-2B
OH-3B
OH-4B
OH-5B
OH-7B
OH-7C
OH-7D
OH-7E
OH-7F
OH-7G
OH-7H
ELEV=62.23
TEST PIT 3
ELEV=68.90
TEST PIT 1
ELEV=62.25
TEST PIT 5
ELEV=59.02
TEST PIT 6
ELEV=63.62
TEST PIT 4
ELEV=59.10
TEST PIT 2
ELEV=63.13 50'SEE NOTE #2100'SEE NOTES #3
N
4
5
°
1
7
'
2
9
"
W
9
2
.
8
6
'
EXISTING HOME
32267 104TH PL SE
PARCEL #3341000147
~UPLAND SAND
BAR ISLAND~
OHWM
OHWM
OHWM
~W
E
T
L
A
N
D
A
~
250'
FLOO
D
P
L
AI
N
RIPA
RI
A
N
HABI
T
A
T
SETB
A
C
K
25'SEE NOTE
#1
BASE FLOOD
ELEV=67.017'
6
4
6
3
6
2
6
0
6
0
636465666464636465
6664
6
3
6
2
6
0
5
9
5
9
6
0
6
1
6
2
6
4
64
63 68696969
7070707064
PARCEL
#3341000140
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OVERHEAD
CABLE
OH-6B
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2054
2060
2061
2065
206620672068
20692072
DECID 9
DECID 10
COTTON 38
DECID 8
DECID 10
DECID 8
DECID 8
DECID 9
2192
DECID 12
DECID 7
DECID 9
DECID 7
DECID 7
DECID 10
DECID 9
DECID 13 DECID 16
MAPLE 10
2081
STONE WALL
RIGHT OF WAY
LOWEST
SURVEYED
ELEV=67.27
HIGHEST
SURVEYED
ELEV=70.40
200'
S
H
O
R
E
LI
N
E
J
U
RI
S
D
I
C
TI
O
N
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
RIGHT OF WAY
CENTERLINE
34.26'FIGURE 5: WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION - ENCO
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DRWN. BY:
CHKD. BY:
DATE:
SCALE:
CONTACT
phone: 253-301-4157
fax: 253-336-3950
beylerconsulting.com
BEYLER
CONSULTING
OFFICE
7602 Bridgeport Way W; 3D
Lakewood, WA 98499
SURVEY FOR :
JOB #:
SHEET:
DAN & JAN JEFFERY
PARCEL NORTH OF: 32267 104TH PL SE
AUBURN, WA 98092
PJJ 10/4/2016 16-125
SHEET 1 OF 11" = 30'PJJ
SURVEYOR:WETLAND SCIENTIST:
PROFESSIONAL WETLAND SCIENTIST
NO. 2010 JONATHAN KEMP
LEGEND
OHWM FLAG AND WETLAND FLAG
PLOT LOG
CONIFIR TREE (DBH IN INCHES)
DECIDUOUS TREE (DBH IN INCHES)
RIGHT OF WAY CENTERLINE
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND BUFFER
CLASS I GREEN RIVER STANDARD
BUFFER FROM OHWM
CONTOUR LINE
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
OVERHEAD CABLE
ON-SITE DRAINAGE FLOW ARROWS
FLAGGED WETLAND AREA
EQUIPMENT USED
TOPCON PS 103A TOTAL
STATION. STANDARD FIELD
TRAVERSE METHODS FOR
CONTROL AND STAKING.
FIELD WORK NOTE
WETLAND FLAGS LOCATED
BY BEYLER CONSULTING
APRIL 4, 2016. FLAG SET BY
ENCO MARCH 22, 2016.
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE: 1" = 30'
SITE DATA
SITE ADDRESS:NORTH OF 32267 104TH PL SE, AUBURN, KING COUNTY,WA
PROJECT SITE NAME:DAN & JAN JEFFERY
PARCEL SIZE:10,854.73 SF/0.25 ACRES
(PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 20131224900001)
CURRENT LAND USE:URBAN CONSERVANCY - ZONE DESIGNATION (R-5 - RESIDENTIAL)
WETLAND ID:WETLAND A
CATEGORY:III
WETLAND SYSTEM:RIVERINE
BUFFERS:25' MINIMUM, 50' MAXIMUM
HABITAT FUNCTION POINTS:15
ON-SITE WETLAND SF:0 SF
ON-SITE WETLAND BUFFER SF:19.4 SF (25' MINIMUM BUFFER)
1,512.76 SF (50' MAXIMUM BUFFER)
ON-SITE GREEN RIVER (CLASS I) BUFFER SF:6,249 FOR THE 100' BUFFER
ON-SITE FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT SETBACK SF:10,854.73 SF FOR THE 250' SETBACK
ON-SITE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA): 693.24 SF
20 SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE PARCEL
VERTICAL DATUM
NAVD 88
BENCHMARK: KING COUNTY #7155
CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
INTERSECTION OF "R" STREET & MAIN ST E.
ELEV=79.4191325
CONVERSION TO NGVD 1929 PER NGS NOAA
VERTCON = 75.902
FOR CONVERSION TO NGVD 1929, SUBTRACT
3.517' FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON
THIS SURVEY.
HORIZONTAL DATUM
ASSUMED PER RECORD OF SURVEY
#20131224900001 BY DR STRONG.
BUFFER/SETBACK NOTES
1.25' MINIMUM RIPARIAN WETLAND (CATEGORY III)
BUFFER.
2.50' MAXIMUM RIPARIAN WETLAND (CATEGORY III)
BUFFER.
3.100' CLASS 1 GREEN RIVER STANDARD BUFFER FROM
OHWM.
4.200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION SETBACK FROM
OHWM.
5.250' FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT SETBACK FROM
OHWM.
GENERAL NOTES
THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS PER RECORD OF
SURVEY NO. 20131224900001 BY DR STRONG.
THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION SHOWN IS PER ELEVATION
CERTIFICATE BY THOMAS J. COLETTI ON JANUARY 8,
2001 (NGVD 29) AND CONVERTED TO NAVD 88 USING
THE METHOD LISTED ABOVE FOR VERTICAL DATUM.
SCALED FOR AN 18"x24" SHEET OF PAPER
CONIF
DECID
OU
TREE TABLE
TREE #SPECIES DBH "
2028 ALDER 20
2029 ALDER 10
2033 MAPLE 14
2034 MAPLE 18
2035 CEDAR 7
2036 MAPLE 15
2037 MAPLE 8
2038 CEDAR 32
2054 MAPLE 19
2059 ALDER 12
2060 PINE 48
2061 MAPLE 24
2065 COTTON 11
2066 COTTON 18
2067 COTTON 24
2068 COTTON 12
2069 MAPLE 9
2072 PINE 11
2081 ALDER 6
2192 ALDER 12
70
Jeffrey Property -
Auburn WA
Apr 19, 2016
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
*Project Site*Green River
*Project Site*GreenRiver (No Wetlands Mapped)
PRE15-0045
Printed Date:
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
10/21/2015
* Project Site
Floodplain Riparian Habitat Zone *
Urban Conservancy Zone *
*Moderate Channel Migration Hazard Zone
*Severe Channel Migration Hazard Zone
*Floodway
* Wetland
* Green River
* Elevation Contour
*Green River*Fish Bearing Stream - Type F*Fall Chinook, Coho Salmon, Fall Chum, Summer/Winter Steel Head, Sockeye Salamon, Pink Salmon, Dolly Varden/Bull Trout, Rainbow Trout*Project Site
*Project Site* Class 1 Stream (Green River)* Sensitive Area - Steep Slope* Chinook Distribution Zone Area* Severe Channel Migration Hazard Area* Moderate Channel Migration Hazard Area
NOTES TO USERS 1N1mapl;;fQr11Nll'l�lllt�flalAXlcl,-Pn,,;111mll ct;,sani:il_...,.,c,yd-$.aipclil:I llciodi:rO. �t,grnbc:a) ,nnrp -or -.ii,,. Tl'II 1CG11111111ra:t fll'P r.polfto!J .,_ � �fQrpgaSIDlltuc,dll9dOl'-lbdl'INl:r'Cli'dcmldon.
1bom.t1ll'Qllld.illa-ll'lna ... &n.Pll:loCIBenllalls ����"=...7c:=:::.:;:== � m:me,cnlUlldwil?mt.. Rooo:l lllann=e lliw,(FIS) Nl»l'tllllll kl:Offlpanin tuflRlol. v.r.alv.1Clbe-!'IMBl'&-oi,hARM� �wt-.tde�. Ti-Dl'&n� t,rnoocl �� rll:il'U papmaonr,ani:1m»e1 ni:tllll t.-d a,,."*'-=- c:lftclood �trf01111111otl�.bd...-dOnlllll�i'lllwflS =:.�r:..:�-ll'lt Fl/HI 11.WPll'IIQIHd
C-1:l a.- Rolld ElfflllZIDI �ont!'lil�•!torlfltlldql;l dO.O'NOIIIAmeilclflVllllct!D@lfldlll89(NAV088). U-oftu Rltlil9halJdbeO_lb:ll_lft)O(ltlllmiOr41!'11iba�ll'lll'lt Elummil,ycd8Ufl,aW�tat.-lnN FIIIOCll-8:ll(!y lllpOI\ l>lll'lilpildt:IICn.�.,_ll'lbSWnll'!alYIJt�Elrnllom Di:-ll'IOIMbtu.ObcollllNCl!crlllldbrnooar,tlln�rt� """",..,111ti;ll*l!llntllldoll!Oftl-ont!DFIRM
llculll,.udll»�•<ec,:r,,plltdflCftlSl.,._.lftllmmp:,lffl,d �crcalKlllill'O.ti.�-blNdonllfd=allc� ..a,..,al)�dv.NIIOllllfbo:llns-Progralll. Fb:lday 'llllll'N ---�bdWaY-ar.pmr,ICIICI 11'1 llllll'bocllrwrlfa m.dynpcrtlllrthlll),dlddion
c.\all\81'RlrlCllll'lllpi,ml fbD(I IW:l.1'11 lnlll"'*Y tll prCllmd tir fbod oon11111 � R* D s.ctbll Z4 'RaCld Protacaon MIHSIIID" d NFIClodl-8:llldyropoltllrttllrmlllal\onDDollCCINllllo,,.._ Tr.praflCUClnllNdll'IIN�dll'l:lrnap-- ffiw.r-(U1111)ZOM 10. Tlllllllllmfflllldllllfll-NADII, GRS'ltaO �-�hmtlln.-prqlCll(lndUTll-usedh e.�orflll:1Dfllrai-rt)l,llld11:DC11111maymuttn� pccbnll � 11'1 !NIP laua .min Jllldclal � T1-dlfnl'ml IDroldlctll'ltn::cu:a:ydthbl'IA:M
-•-oni:mm11p•..,--mtra ___ , DiU!ld 11U.T1-li;locltllvdcnlmuitt11C11mp11mtolll!lldln1nd IJlllll'lll ...... tlclnl rt!amad 10 h tall'II ¥Int.I dlllllm, Pot lrtomlll!tln :":: =i:���Ql�l ��-=-IHI= :.01::
� wlt,lllt athll,lt�.n;a.ncaa.pl orcartld.,,. Nlllollal Otodli'llc QIW'( flthl ldlilwlnli 10ftff
NGSlnlorml.!tln� tlOM,,NINOS1� tGlloi-.lGlocltGc:&lwy BS,10,3,G2112 \Jlee.»WtsiH!gb,ny SMr�.MOm!C-m2
1bOlll:ll'IQJ!mllli.v.tlOll.dt�.ln<lol'IOCltlelnlnfo!lnatlCflfD1blllr.hfflffll lhclwncnllll:lmap, �ccnbclthtlr1onnJtlcn8IMl»tBlllncholllle �1111 � lluW1 11 tae11 111-na. or v111 111 -...11m 11 tclp:-"-.n;s.mu.pl.
Bln111Spl!ml1111110na-cn1111aRRMwndlt"9dftan�-. SIio ---""""°""ilcllgllll-llfle."VCOldJ'Ol9,MDNR,WSOOT. n:IPllrwCClull;l'Gl8. Ttnlllixml1bllwn�11ecaar:11:120010 t2'1.0004111Vt111Clll91Sb:11-.ZUI
t111ui1a,11111mmo11 dlClll9d and •ID-dltlt ltinm Clllnlel aonf91nilkln• lllnltlil*I._Clll'lhllf(l'IDUIRRMIDl'lltl�.Tl'lt ll:lcldp;tm n:1 �thl!-bn:lftllallllDm lhl prwlaull'IRM mar hl'II blsll �to------..... � .... l.i.Q. 1111 Rcicd ffoSP and� Dm Dbln 110.Fll#I ilml'lnCI stq,,tp0tt(Wl*tt__,��dlbJ1111Y1811KtdUm chlnr'IOlotlnculhllCll!Wflmi¥1ft1111-on NI map.
ca,porlll llPlll:9a-oncu 1111pa11 ti1:.oonn --nd:lblo IIV'11Cllioolput,Ueltbl\.8Kluadll:rigt9dutD�Ol'Cllo-l,.__ ..., ..... ----p-..-.---ml'llld fWoprall�omctallDWll'1Clll'lnl�mitlac:I-.
Plulll'llll'�l'll�pWlll(lllap lnda1D1111 -Mfw � ol' tht O)l.l'llJ�n�dll>1CIP'Nll;eolffllUl!ymap� � l:lld1�otOOmin11CbmlllCOlll�Naeona!FIOOCllnli,nn,:,11Pl'cp111 ddN b mdl� ..... 1a1 tD"Gdh Pl!Wb m Wl'llelllldl -·-
0:iri:act tlll R11A Map lllr'llcl C-ll1,etlG,:S�N1t Ill!' fltl!l!ls!lcn on .... latltptoducD�WllhllmFIRt,I.A1.-a=,bllprcdlmmay�
=-'���ei: n::P,_a: :.:�� =-•� IIICtN 17tFu, It 1•80'J.*'-lm!) 111d II Wltab 11 �m,c.llml.pl.
11,au'- CjllNllom.ix..,lhbmpCI" c,.11$U01'4 ccnceml'\; 1h11 N•IIOl'lll RooellnlW&nelf'rl:llpm"1gl,Wlll._.Cd1•ffl•l'BIAMAP(f.'17•33a.21127) er \lla:l lhll FBIA W1b1:1 11 hl!p",,-tlma.pl.
l?lt prdllll bulllnlelllpt:IIClon 1111 map.panh�� l:limrll'9tlhltllld:hNolcloCl�lnN Fl811pon.AI I mulol'mprOi'ld llpllglalfllCCllll,,ll'lli:,l&IIDIIM.ln-CIIU,ffllYdtvtatt�IIDmV. d'llmllllN'llllhcrl,fllSlrCll,llllll,IIW�
18
5
CITY OF AUBURN
530073
4r1,_t::::: _____ _J _ _l.. _ _L_L__ll_ ___ .:_, Ll....Jl--:-"�!bc......l...----;;;;;;;;
1JTlnT ...
LEGEND
[3 =�nfl:Alf'f'Jt�I.IBJECT 11> =:.: �= e.:=-.,_,"""!==-:. .. ...,-: � 11,ts!i. ,- llal!lfll-110.----totmlbgbt'O.I,. _____ • of$ja:al -..... - --A.M.M.AO.M.-.,...iVl.tw. -,-eo--.... -........_..,o. ,,._.. __ _ --�......-. _.,...oftw-,JN(-,-dr;mdb;I�-.._,-,._,_ ,.....,,.ofllOJk�--......... -); ::.=.--· fl;r - !;169111 lloo � ......
� Rood __ .._.,pmm,:1 -°"" 1111--- bt' I l',:,c,d ��--a,��.bl ... n,amOilltMt... __ .,_ II bollg� .. ��-11:ie1111...-�o, _ .... -t>IHl......, .... l ... _..ct-k:dbt'•,.., ==----· ... -- -c.:.lkal--�bmrdt--); ... ---. =-== -_., -.I c- �
--
� R.DODWW MD.$ tN lDNt At -rw._...,, .. _.,, _ _. .... ��-----" .. .,_ .. e.ae. 1111 ______ .._ �-tlbdllllgl:II.
CJ 01l1EA ROODARW
-dG.2111--llllod:;-of1111-dimaolb,d __ _...<4 .... -lf;xta -�---�-:-dai;l!ld-(lnStlllbt'--1""--
�· __ ,,, __ .. IU.11,_.._......,,,... ZCIIJG -ln1ffl�bd� .. �.'-'-pao.a,..
� �Al. B.IJlRJfA P.!SOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
� OllifRWlSl!PROTECl'EDMW(Of>As) CMS-• 111d o"" WIIO'llllil!r"'*"lo,l:llln or .__tto5podll flood Kun --·----RDcdM,icuodar, -----� Zaltl)� -crun101111oou,,,a,, c===:::Jt-� 4� Spe,:111 Axd � - of ,:ll&,n m.l'b:(IPINltn.looddlpd>ilo,kal...i..tia. -613-... Aood1..- ... 1116,u»1....oorih-"'""
·--m1'1o ____ o1ua(ll&'l'DAJ
@------@
@-·······@
""'''I. S!lO>tcltlflf'llb:� --.... ""6-(Rl'llllll4CCl���O:,oll;
11:,r.........., __ _., .... ��- ... - eom:,,,..q ll(ljlHlllwflltllloml:m!IIIMRood"*-ltdroi;,or!:b"W.�. 'R>-fflocdM-11-'atlllnlllll�---_. ............ Axd....,_.lltl•IO>O,.CGO.
PANEL 1Z54K
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
KING COUNTY,
WAStnNGTON
ANO lNCORPORATEDAREAS
PANEL 1254 OF 1700 ISEI! IMP IHa!X FOR PIRM MNEL IAYCIJT) -� w,jB£B !&EL .lilJfEll -·---
IAPNUIIBER SS0SSC1254K
IIAP REVJSED
*Special Flood Hazard Area
*Base Flood Elevation = 67 Feet
* Green River
* Project Site
4/20/2016 _ags _ 69402c805693449e94f36d4d89c390b69.png ( 1056x 816)
Flooding info
w z LU z
in z
lndi, I
l<m J' k
w z
i'ii
0
(I li
f11 I
P,rk
UJ z in w .,
:,nrl 1 Ni
•Ith S E
"r J SI NI
I< Pl E
UJ z in
I-
lst St NE
UJ "Z
l},
-.tf'1lMi:.O., i,;LC:fC!CitUffli� ·,iiJii:'lOl"tl:JIHl)J �,]CO.."t.JO:.''�i'li!'ii:J•:t'�.'?cii..•O ii.r,��':co.·J�i! w ·0 ... 1-a:.::l! ·--:;Co.r..:, -na.:e: :'Xl :!;:ue-:£a·&or'l".J.:ra-::e£ v:,2uor J.!'e nu �:i.:; • .i-. ::a::i�i--:eu 1mtt:;�u or:t;u l1 :"! Jl! Cf',.,-:.., r-u,� -. • ..tCO"'..J""t:T., -ia: r.:,ae, W .. u i-i"' c.;1r/ o·,x;:_:; -�o:r--:1 r1 c. ot Ii)! •or,.,, ;rit11L1.n::i nc:r•t:t .. <':-'l:!-Olo1xi-:-?o.e,:.i1oi--ni;!l ,,;;..c'-; , .. � � ntteln. �i.':r?tf"t.t10ro,1:i1;1�• 1H -;� u....eot Li!�t·.e ·:;:)m:.o,oo.•c.,:o�-t·<A-n&:,;,;_J;i.?O't".i .::,0·1b.-n£kl10,:·Ji uli ,:o.,b ,ot_i::t:x:,,w !11:ni�.o-crt .,·1c:o .. �
Ds.1� �':0·'2Dtfi ii.lap l\b.>t-=r
P NE
't
SE: :S)Olh St
A
SE 32 th Ln
w v.
SE 326th �
U1 KlngCo&mtyGISCENTER
http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisoutput/Pri nting/PrintingService_GPServer/_ags_69402c805693449e94f36d4d89c390b69.png 1/1
* Green River
*100 Year Floodway
*Project Site
WDFW Test Map
WDFW
PHS Report Clip Area
PT
LN
AS MAPPED
SECTION
QTR-TWP
TOWNSHIP
April 20, 2016 0 0.3 0.60.15 mi
0 0.55 1.10.275 km
1:19,842
*Green River (Chinook, Coho, Chum, Steelhead,
Sockeye, Pink, Bull Trout, Rainbow Trout, Cutthroat)
*Project Site
*Biodiversity Area - Terrestrial Habitat Zone
*Green River
*Project Site
* Impaired Water: 303d Listing - Category 4A:
Temp. & Dissolved Oxygen
*TMDL for Temp. & Dissolved Oxygen
*Project Site*150 Foot Radius* 1/2 Kilometer Radius* 1Kilometer Radius*Green River
Water Quality Program May 2011
Newaukum Creek issues
Newaukum Creek is one of the major tributaries of the Green River and suppo rt s several salmon
and trout (salmonid) species including Puget Sound Chinook. The creek is too warm during
summer and may be harming these fish that need cold water to survive.
Maximum summer temperatures exceed the 16 °Celsius (60.8 °F) standard for salmon summer
habitat. Ecology expects that plantings of streamside trees and shrubs for shade will improve
stream temperatures. The middle plateau reach ofNewaukum Creek or the Enumclaw Plateau
needs the most shade.
Lower -Middle Green River Watershed
MIion I
Ed� Sumner UGA
l� , keTapps
J'lly
Puyallup , ·� Bonney Lake
Ecology, GI.§ echnical Services, 418/11\ mlgr!!11&, l�c UGA
Understanding and correcting problems
:·
/
Area Location ...
�hBend
North�
When a stream appears to be too warm, Ecology collects water quality data to confirm the
problem and collaborates with others to understand and improve water quality. Ecology and its
community partners used detailed monitoring data and analysis to develop computer models for
the Green River and its tributaries. These models help us all understand how factors such as
streamside vegetation, sunlight, wind speed, and stream flow relate to stream temperature.
Publication Number: 11-10-043 3 0 Please reuse and recycle
*Project Site
Map 12= Lower Green RiverVegetation Buffer OpportunitiesDRAFT (8t11t20141Vegetation buffer-50ft- 75ft100 ft- 150ftLower Green River RiparianAspect Priorities (MlT 20f 3)2013 lmage. Griticalo Higho Mediumo LowAo 250 500 1,000Feet
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX B
TABLES
Dan & Jan Jeffery Property, North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092, Parcel Number: 3341000140
Auburn WA, Auburn City Municipal Code, Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas; Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.08, Shoreline
Management Administration and Permitting Procedures, & Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.68, Flood Hazard Areas,
Ordinance 6657, July 17, 2017.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
TABLE 16 – WETLAND & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS
Date
Test Plots
Flags
Project
Size
Wetland
Size
Cowardin System
HGM Class
Function Points
Special Character
Category
Other Characteristics
NWI Wetland
City/County Wetland
Shoreline
Planned Land Use
Base Wetland Buffer
Land Use Wetland Buffer
Wetland Buffer Modification
Buffer Area
Shoreline Setback
Critical Area Building Setback
WETLAND A (Off-Site) Note: No On-Site Wetlands
DATE
(Field)
03.2216
TEST PLOTS
4, 5
FLAGS
OH-1 – OH-10
PROJECT
0.25Acre
WETLAND
(On-Site)
0 SF
0 Acre
(Off-Site)
~ 20,010 SF
~ 0.45 Acre
TOTAL
~ 20,010 SF
~ 0.45 Acres
COWARDIN SYSTEM
System
Riverine
Subsystem
Lower Perennial
Class
Unconsolidated
Bottom
Subclass
Sand
Water Regime
Seasonally (Side
Channel) to
Permanently Flooded
(Main River)
Soil Modifier
Mineral
HGM Class
Riverine
FUNCTION POINTS
Water Quality: 10
Hydrologic: 10
Habitat: 15
TOTAL: 35
SPECIAL CHARACTER
Ecology
None
City
Threatened Fish Usage
Shoreline of State
Section 303d List
TMDL – D. O. & Temp.
CATEGORY
(Ecology / City)
Category III
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Small-Size: No
Accessible Habitat (Abut): 13%
Undisturbed Habitat (1KM): 11%
Wetland Invasives >10%: Yes
Buffer Invasives >10%: Yes
Downslope: Northwest
Mosaic: No
Isolated: No
Artificial: No
Wetland All On-Site: No
Wetland-Stream Connected: Yes
Floodplain / Floodway: Yes
Drainage Basin: Green/Duwamish
NWI WETLAND STATUS
PSSC (Side Channel of Green R.)
R2UBH (Floodway of Green R,)
COUNTY WETLAND STATUS
Same as NWI Status
SHORELINE
Yes
PLANNED LAND USE:
Residential
Growth Area: Urban Conservancy
STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER
50’
WETLAND BUFFER BY LAND USE
N/A
WETLAND BUFFER MODIFICATION
Averaging w Enhancement: 35%
Reduction w Enhancement: 35%
Reduction w Variance: Variable
BUFFER AREA (On-Site)
50’ Buffer = 1,513
SHORELINE SETBACK
200’
CRITICAL AREA SETBACK
Building & Structures (Rear): 100’
Dan Guyll & Jan Jeffery Property, North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092, Parcel Number: 3341000140
Auburn WA, Auburn City Municipal Code, Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas; Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.08, Shoreline Management
Administration and Permitting Procedures, & Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.68, Flood Hazard Areas, Ordinance 6657, July 17, 2017.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
TABLE 17
WATER & BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS
Date
Test Plots
Flags
Official Name
Water Type
Fish Presence
Water Characteristics
Standard Water Buffer
Water Buffer Modification
Floodplain Riparian Habitat Setback
Shoreline Setback
Critical Area Building Setback
STREAM : Green River (Off-Site to the West)
DATE
(Field)
03.22.2016
TEST PLOTS
4, 5
FLAGS
OH-1 – OH-10
OFFICIAL NAME
Green River
WATER TYPE
(W DNR) – Type S
(City) – Class 1
FISH PRESENCE
• Fall Chinook
• Coho Salmon
• Fall Chum
• Winter Steelhead
• Summer
Steelhead
• Sockeye Salmon
• Pink Salmon
• Dolly Varden /
Bull Trout
• Rainbow Trout
WATER CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resource Inventory Area: #09
Duwamish / Green Rivers
Watershed: Green River
Sub-Basin: Lower Green River
Impaired Waters (Category V-303d List): Yes
TMDL Parameters: Yes (D. O. & Temperature)
Shoreline of the State: Yes
Contiguous to Wates of the State: Yes
Defined OHWM: Yes
Average OHWM Width: 70’ to 90’
Defined Bed: Yes
Scour Channel: Yes
Water Marks: At edge of floodway
Average Height of Bank: 3’ to 4’
Average Water Depth: 3’ in center of floodway
Flow Rate: Not determined
Flow Direction: North
Level of Water & Buffer Disturbance: High
Culvert: No
Ditched: No
Channelized: Yes
Undercut Steep Banks: Yes along floodway
Floodplain / Floodway: Yes
Continuous Wetland: Wetland A
Riparian Zone: Yes
WATER BUFFER
Standard River Buffer
100’ landward from the OHWM
On-Site River 100’ Buffer Area
6,249 SF
WATER BUFFER MODIFICATION
Averaging: None
Reducing: Up to 35% w Enhancement
FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT ZONE
250’ (From OHWM)
CHANNEL MIGRATION HAZARD ZONE
Severe: Variable (FIGURE 8)
Moderate: Variable (FIGURE 8)
SHORELINE JURISDICTION
Urban Conservancy Environment
Shoreline Jurisdiction: 200’ (From OHWM)
Shoreline Buffer Setback: 100’ (From OHWM)
Shoreline Residential Designation: 100’ to 200’
CRITICAL AREA BUILDING SETBACK
Building & Structures: 100’ from OHWM
Dan Guyll & Jan Jeffery Property, North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092, Parcel Number: 3341000140
Auburn WA, Auburn City Municipal Code, Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas; Title 16, Environment, Chapter 16.08, Shoreline
Management Administration and Permitting Procedures, & Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.68, Flood Hazard Areas,
Ordinance 6657, July 17, 2017.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
TABLE 18
FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS
Date
Test Plots
Flags
Federal & State & Local Listed Habitat & Species
Federal & State & Local Habitat & Species Buffers
DATE
(Field)
03.22.2016
TEST PLOTS
4, 5
FLAGS
OH-1 to OH-10
FIELD VERIFIED
1. Aquatic Habitat (Wetlands) – Wetland A – West
2. Biodiversity Area & Corridors – East & South
3. Stream – Green River – West
4. Instream Habitat – Green River – West
5. Riparian Zone – Green River
6. Down Wood – Plots 1 & 5
7. Snag – Tree 2038
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
1. Threatened & Endangered County Report (Green River)
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
1. Species & Habitat Polygon (Wetland, Biodiversity Area)
2. Species & Habitat Line (Green River Critical Habitat-Fish)
3. Species & Habitat Line (Green River –Federal Listed Fish)
4. Species & Habitat Point (None)
5. Waterfowl Concentrations (None)
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (None)
2. Rare or Endangered Plants (None)
CITY OF AUBURN
1. Floodplain, Floodway, CMZ, & Riparian Habitat Zone
2. Fish Bearing Stream – Class 1 – Green River
3. Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation
4. Special Flood Hazard Area
5. Wildlife Habitat – Secondary Habitat
1. Wetland Buffer:
50’
2. Shoreline Jurisdiction
Urban Conservancy Environment
Shoreline Jurisdiction: 200’ (From OHWM)
Shoreline Buffer Setback: 100’ (From OHWM)
Shoreline Residential Designation: 100’ to 200’
3. Floodplain Riparian Habitat Zone
250’ from the OHWM of the Green River
PHS BUFFER MODIFICATION
See TABLE 15 for Wetland
Case by Case Recommendations by WDFW
TABLE 19
Environmental Baseline & Effect of Proposed Action on Critical Habitat for Listed T&E Species1
Pathways to Green River
Lower Green River Sub-Watershed
Population & Environmental Baseline Condition Effect of Proposed Action on Fish Critical Habitat3
Diagnostic Pathways & Indicators2
Properly Functioning Functioning at Risk Functioning at Unacceptable Risk
Restore or Improve Maintain Degrade
Water Quality: Water temperature & dissolved oxygen X
TMDL – 2011 X
Sediment & turbidity X X
Chemical contamination & nutrients X X
Habitat Access: Physical barriers X X
Revetments X
Habitat Elements: Substrate embeddedness X X
Large woody debris X X
Physical attributes (i.e. rip rap) X X
Pool frequency X X
Pool quality – shallowness & gravels X X
Shadiness X X
Insect input X X
Off-channel habitat X X
Invasiveness X X
Refugia X X
Channel Conditions/Dynamics: Wetted width / maximum depth ratio X X
Stream bank condition X X
Floodway connectivity X
(Low Flows) X
Flow/Hydrology: Change in peak / base flows X
(Howard Dam) X
Unnatural flows X X
Drainage network / increase runoff X X
Watershed Conditions: Road / development density & location X X
Impervious surfaces X X
Disturbance regime X X
Riparian reserves X X
Land Use: Residential / commercial / industrial X X
Noise & light X X
Dust & particulates X X
Domestic animals X X
Note 1: Federally defined critical habitat and threatened and endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act were not identified
on the project site parcel.
Note 2: The pathway and indicators listed in the table that may be degraded will be reduced to a negligible degree by using mitigation measures
that will be incorporated into the project design.
Note 3: Effect of proposed action on fish critical habitat column does not include effect after installation and maintenance of mitigation measures.
TABLE 20
Environmental Baseline & Effect of Proposed Action on Federal and State-Listed T&E Species1
Pathways to Green River
Lower Green River Sub-Watershed
Population & Environmental Baseline Condition Effect of Proposed Action on Fish3
Diagnostic Pathways & Indicators2
Properly Functioning Functioning at Risk Functioning at Unacceptable Risk
Restore or Improve Maintain Degrade
Subpopulation Species Characteristics: Subpopulation size – abundance X X
Growth and survival – productivity X X
Spatial structure, patches & habitat dispersal X X
Genetic diversity & behavior X X
Water Quality: Water temperature & dissolved oxygen X
(TMDL – 2011) X
Sediment & turbidity X X
Chemical contamination & nutrients X X
Habitat Access: Physical barriers X X
Habitat Elements: Substrate embeddedness X X
Large woody debris X X
Physical attributes (i.e. rip rap) X X
Pool frequency X X
Pool quality – shallowness & gravels X X
Shadiness X X
Insect input X X
Off-channel habitat X X
Invasiveness X X
Refugia X X
Channel Conditions/Dynamics: Wetted width / maximum depth ratio X X
Stream bank condition X X
Floodway connectivity X X
Flow/Hydrology: Change in peak / base flows X
(Howard Dam) X
Unnatural flows X X
Drainage network / increase runoff X X
Watershed Conditions: Road / development density & location X X
Impervious surfaces X X
Disturbance regime X X
Riparian reserves X X
Land Use: Residential / commercial / industrial X X
Noise & light X X
Dust & particulates X X
Domestic animals X X
Note 1: Federally defined critical habitat and threatened and endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act were not identified on the
project site parcel.
Note 2: The pathway and indicators listed in the table that may be degraded will be reduced to a negligible degree by using mitigation measures that will
be incorporated into the project design.
Note 3: Effect of proposed action on T&E fish column does not include effect after installation and maintenance of mitigation measures.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX C
FIELD DATA FORMS
ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS – 2004
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 1 of 2 5/9/2016
GENERAL PLOT #: 1 Wetland Artificial Stream Ditch Upland Field Crew JK MK On-Site Plot Off-Site Plot
Plot Time: 12:00 – 12:45 Location (NESW / Flag #): Upland depression
Field Work Date: 03.22.16 QQSTR: NWQ of NWQ of S17, T21N, R05E, WM
Weather: Mostly cloudy, 45o , No Rain Lat/Long - Center: 47o,18’, 47.21” N; 122o, 12’, 13.00” W
Plot Size: Diameter 20’ Radius NESW Rectangle NESW to NESW Transect
CLIMATIC/HYDROLOGIC conditions typical for this time of year? Yes No Very wet season
NORMAL environmental conditions exist at the plant community Yes No
SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED No Vegetation Soil Hydrology Cut down black cottonwoods, brush cleared
NATURALLY PROBLEMATIC No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
TYPE: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains Redox: F = Few (<2%); C = Common (2 to 20%); P = Prominent (>20%) Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hole depth bgs 1.7’ 50% root bgs 0.5’ Max root bgs 1.3’ Soil temp. 1’bgs: Restrictive layer (<1.5’): Y N Spade Probe Auger
Topographic Alteration: No Fill Till Compacted Cut Excavate Scarify Grade Deforest Mowed Flood
Compaction (lbs/in2): Soil: Very Dry Dry Slight Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Very Wet Saturated
3” 40 6” 60 9” 70 12” 80 15” 80 18” 80 21” 70 24” 40
Mapped Series Mixed alluvial land (Ma) Taxonomy Drainage Class Well drained
Included Series None identified Mapped as Hydric Not Hydric in Survey Hydric Inclusions: ________
Hydric Soil Indicators Yes No Transitional Relic
(A1) Histosol (>1.33’/16” in top 2.67’/32”)
(A2) Histic epipedon (organic soil >0.67’/8” in top 2’ w/ aquic conditions)
(A3) Black histic (peat/muck>.67’ thick in top .5’ surface,, v≤3, c≤2)
(A4) Hydrogen sulfide odor (low medium high)
(A11)Depleted below dark sfc (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ is
depleted or gley OR .16’ of fragmented layer has C<2. Loam/clay
above depl matrix: V≤3 & C≤2). Sand V≤3 & C≤1 w > 70% organics
(A12)Thick dark surface (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ has C<2 and
layer above depl matrix has V≤2.5 & C≤1 to >1’. Upper: V≤3 & C≤1
(S1) Sandy mucky mineral (2” in top 0.5’)
(S4) Sandy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤0.5’)
(S5) Sandy redox (≥.33’ thick, >60% C<2, start <.5’bgs & >2% redox)
Indicator for Problematic Hydric Soils
(A10) 2 cm muck (0.06’ thick, VC ≤3/1, starting in top 0.5’)
(TF2) Red material (7.5YR or redder, 0.33’ in top 1’, VC≤4/4 & >2% redox)
Notes:
(S6) Stripped matrix (starts ≤0.5’, missing Fe/Mn/Organic, diffuse & >10% )
(F1) Loamy mucky mineral (>.33’ thick, starting in top 0.5’)
(F2) Loamy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤1.0’)
(F3) Depleted matrix (>60% matrix >.17’ thick in top .5’ or 0.5’ in top .83’ w C<2)
(F6) Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤1 w ≥2% distinct / prominent redox)
Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤2 w ≥5% distinct / prominent redox)
(F7) Depleted dark surface (Depletions: V>5 & C<2, 0.33’ all in top 1’ AND:
Matrix: ≤3/1 & >10% redox depletion OR Matrix: ≤3/2 & >20% redox depletion)
(F8) Redox depression (≥ 0.17’ layer top 0.5’ AND >5% redox conc distinct/prominent)
(F12) Very shallow dark sfc (fine black soil, no redox, shallow to bedrock)
Negative Hydric Soil Indicator
Relic features (import, tilled, or historical feature):
Redox feature (redox concentration – not distinct / close to matrix color)
Dark topsoil, decayed litter, aerobic, no depletions under topsoil layer @ <1 ‘
Concretions and nodules without halos
Other:
VEGETATION Flora in Plot
Tree, Sapling, Shrub, Herb, Forb, Emergent, Woody Vine
Indicator
Status
Class
% Cover
G.S. New Crown Growth Cotyledon Bud Burst
Woody Leaf Emergence Herb Emergence
Indicator
Status
Strata
% Cover
Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) Cut down FAC T-55
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus discolor) FACU S-95
English ivy (Hedera helix) FACU S-30
Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) FACU S-14
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) FACW H-6
Bare at Ground Surface Under Shrubs: 10% - -
BOLD species are DOMINANT by 50/20 Rule Species Dominance by 50/20 Rule for OBL, FACW, FAC: 50%
Out of Plot Plants NESW: Pacific willow – west
-
Occlusion at Eye Level V Dense Dense Medium Sparse Clear SOIL Soil
Layers
(fbg)
Sample
Depth
(fbg)
Matrix Color
% in Pedon
Munsell (Moist)
Hue Value Chroma
Soil: Texture, Plant Material, Moisture, Structure, Fill, Till
Moisture: Dry, Slight Moist, Moist, Very Moist, Very Wet, Saturated
Cohesionless: Loose, Dense Cohesive: Soft, Stiff, Hard
Other: Heavy or Light Clay Peat: % Distinct Plant Parts
Redox Type
(C / D / RM)
Redox
Location
(PL / M)
Redox Color
(Moist)
(HVC)
F / C / P (%)
Litter: 0.06’ Leaf, grass, needle, rush, sedge, seed, cone, catkin, twig, branch, log, root, frond, cane, mushroom, lichen, fibrous, thatch, mulch Moss: 0%
0 – 1.7’+ 0.20 10YR,3,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, moist, loose, (alluvial) 0
0.80 10YR,3,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, slight moist, loose, (alluvial) 0
1.5 10YR,3,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, moist, loose, (alluvial) 0
Note: Mixed alluvial land transported by river deposits
Redox Depth: 0 to 0
N
E
S
W
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 2 of 2 5/9/2016
PLOT #: 1 COWARDIN CLASS (In the Plot) Tree ≥30% Shrub/Sapling/Vine ≥30% Herb/Forb ≥30% Aquatic Bed (rooted) ≥30%
Top Canopy: Black cottonwood Undisturbed Corridor >10 acres Y N (NESW) Diversity Low (<5) Medium (5-19) High (>19)
Plants fail dominance test w/ positive indicators for hydric soil & wetland hydrology? Y N N/A If yes perform Prevalence Index test.
Upland / Wetland Invasive >10% n/a Y (NESW) N Himalayan blackberry
Down Wood Runners Stump (Cut, Rotten) Perch Snag (>20”/6.5’) Brush Pile Shrub Over Water Grove Hummock
Restoration Potential (NESW) Ground Light: Full Sun Most Sun Some Sun Most Shade Full Shade
Terrain: Flat Terrace Depression Distinct Depression Diffuse Slope Slight Slope Distinct Rolling Ravine (>15%) Cliff
Relief: Concave Convex Wavy Smooth Slope Up: NESW 1% Slope Down: NESW 1%
HYDROLOGY Primary Indicator No Indicators Need 1 Primary or 2 Secondary
(A1) Surface water (GS) pooling (B5) Iron deposits (C3) Oxidized rhizospheres (C9) Saturation (imagery)
(A2) High water table ≤12” (B6) Surface soil cracks (C4) Reduced iron @ surface (D2) Geomorphic position
(A3) Saturated (GS) ≤12” (B7) Inundation (imagery) (C6) Fe reduction (tilled soils) (D3) Shallow aquitard
(B1) Water marks: “ (B8) Sparsely veg. concave surf. (D1) Stunted/stressed plants (D5) FAC-neutral test
(B2) Sediment (Alluvial) ½” (B11) Salt crust / Encrust Sfc. (B9) Water stained leaves (D6) Raised ant mounds
(B3) Drift deposits (B13) Aquatic invertebrates (B10) Drainage patterns (D7) Frost-heaved hummocks
(B4) Algae mat or crust (C1) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C2) Dry-season water table Scouring or well / gauge data
Water cascading Y N Water rising Y N Saturation depth (bgs): na Water depth (bgs): >1.5” na
FAC deciduous tree roots >1’ bgs Anaerobic soil / water Aerobic soil / water Wetland all on-site: na Y N
Open water: Shallow pools: Deepest inundation: Wetland outlet? Y NESW N
Recent weather affected the observed hydrology? Y N ____________ Drainage Tile? Y N
Normal hydrology source: Artificial water source: Dam Release Seasonal water in dry months 0% Perennial water 0%
Rate of water percolation: N/A Very Slow Slow Medium Fast Very Fast
Period of inundation or saturation <1’ in loam and <.5’ in sand in G. S. <5% 5%<12.5% >12.5% (>26 days)
Water appearance: Tannin sheen Hydrocarbon sheen <1bgs, >1 bgs Clearly hydric soil
Near surface hydro Precip Surface Flow Urban Groundwater (Seasonal/Perm) Hyporheic Seep Spring Lake/Pond River
Stream Y N Ditch Y N Riparian Zone Y N Floodplain Y N Floodway Y N
Stream / Ditch bank height: OHWM width: Water depth: None _____ Flow rate: None _____ ft/sec
Stream / Ditch type: Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Temporary Fish bearing Non-fish Culvert
Stream bed: Bedrock Rubble Cobble-gravel Sand Mud Organic
Riffles & pools Plunge pools: Armoring / Stabilization Undercut or steep banks (>20”/6.5’) WILDLIFE / FISH / OTHER Annelid Worm Other______________ Reported by Others Area: Bald eagles, otters, great blue herron, hawks
Fish Salmon Trout Mudminnow Other ____________
Amphibian Frog __________ Toad Salamander _________ Newt ________ Egg Masses _________
Reptile Snake Lizard Other
Mammal Squirrel Gophers Skunk/Possum Deer Elk Dangerous: Bear, Cougar, Mt. Lion Rodent Other:
Bird Turkey Warbler Woodpecker _________ Crow Raptor RT Hawk Raven Dove Waterfowl Shore
Passerine Hummingbird Robin Sparrow Blue Jay Chickadee Blue Bird Varied Thrush Red W Blackbird
Junco/Flicker/Other Birds: Bird Presence in Area: None Few Moderate High
Insect Gall wasp Bee Butterfly Moth Ant Spider Beetle Caterpillar Dragon fly Fly Mosquito ___
Mollusk Snail Slug Other Other Invertebrates
Wildlife Indicators
Nest Den ______ Burrow ______ Flyover ______ Feather _______ Fur _______ Wildlife trail Ant hill
Seed/cone pile Scat ______ Rest areas _____ Cavity ____ Bone / Carcass _________ Gnawed stump Dam / hut
Shed skin Hive / honeycomb Egg castings Rock outcrops or piles Rip rap
Bog Heritage Wetland Estuary Coastal Lagoon Interdunal NOTE:
Priority Species: Threatened: ____________ Sensitive: ___________ Domestic:______________________
Flora Food Source: fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, root, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb, corm, other __________
Animal Food Source: worm, insect, rodent, other: Trash/Junk: Y N Noise Level: H M L ________ HYDRIC SOIL CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No Assumed
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
WETLAND HYDROLOGY CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
IS THE TEST PLOT WITHIN A WETLAND? Flags ____ to ______ Yes No Jurisdictional
Not Mapped NWI mapped County/City mapped Small-Size Created Isolated Suspect Isolated
Artificial Yes No Suspect (test pit, road ruts, fill, cut, till, irrigate, dam, dike, ditch, utility, swale, canal, lagoon, false pond, mine, landscape)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 1 of 2 5/9/2016
GENERAL PLOT #: 2 Wetland Artificial Stream Ditch Upland Field Crew JK MK On-Site Plot Off-Site Plot
Plot Time: 12:45 – 1:30 Location (NESW / Flag #):
Field Work Date: 03.22.16 QQSTR: NWQ of NWQ of S17, T21N, R05E, WM
Weather: Mostly cloudy, 50o , No rain Lat/Long Center: 47o,18’, 47.21” N; 122o, 12’, 13.00” W
Plot Size: Diameter 10’ Radius NESW Rectangle NESW to NESW Transect
CLIMATIC/HYDROLOGIC conditions typical for this time of year? Yes No Very wet season
NORMAL environmental conditions exist at the plant community Yes No
SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
NATURALLY PROBLEMATIC No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
TYPE: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains Redox: F = Few (<2%); C = Common (2 to 20%); P = Prominent (>20%) Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hole depth bgs 1.7 50% root bgs 0.65 Max root bgs 1.2 Soil temp. 1’bgs: Restrictive layer (<1.5’): Y N Spade Probe Auger
Topographic Alteration: No Fill Till Compacted Cut Excavate Scarify Grade Deforest Mowed Flood
Compaction (lbs/in2): Soil: Very Dry Dry Slight Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Very Wet Saturated
3” 70 6” 80 9” 70 12” 45 15” 45 18” 45 21” 40 24” 75
Mapped Series Mixed alluvial land (Ma) Taxonomy Drainage Class Well drained
Included Series None identified Mapped as Hydric Not Hydric in Survey Hydric Inclusions: ________
Hydric Soil Indicators Yes No Transitional Relic
(A1) Histosol (>1.33’/16” in top 2.67’/32”)
(A2) Histic epipedon (organic soil >0.67’/8” in top 2’ w/ aquic conditions)
(A3) Black histic (peat/muck>.67’ thick in top .5’ surface,, v≤3, c≤2)
(A4) Hydrogen sulfide odor (low medium high)
(A11)Depleted below dark sfc (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ is
depleted or gley OR .16’ of fragmented layer has C<2. Loam/clay
above depl matrix: V≤3 & C≤2). Sand V≤3 & C≤1 w > 70% organics
(A12)Thick dark surface (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ has C<2 and
layer above depl matrix has V≤2.5 & C≤1 to >1’. Upper: V≤3 & C≤1
(S1) Sandy mucky mineral (2” in top 0.5’)
(S4) Sandy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤0.5’)
(S5) Sandy redox (≥.33’ thick, >60% C<2, start <.5’bgs & >2% redox)
Indicator for Problematic Hydric Soils
(A10) 2 cm muck (0.06’ thick, VC ≤3/1, starting in top 0.5’)
(TF2) Red material (7.5YR or redder, 0.33’ in top 1’, VC≤4/4 & >2% redox)
Notes:
(S6) Stripped matrix (starts ≤0.5’, missing Fe/Mn/Organic, diffuse & >10% )
(F1) Loamy mucky mineral (>.33’ thick, starting in top 0.5’)
(F2) Loamy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤1.0’)
(F3) Depleted matrix (>60% matrix >.17’ thick in top .5’ or 0.5’ in top .83’ w C<2)
(F6) Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤1 w ≥2% distinct / prominent redox)
Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤2 w ≥5% distinct / prominent redox)
(F7) Depleted dark surface (Depletions: V>5 & C<2, 0.33’ all in top 1’ AND:
Matrix: ≤3/1 & >10% redox depletion OR Matrix: ≤3/2 & >20% redox depletion)
(F8) Redox depression (≥ 0.17’ layer top 0.5’ AND >5% redox conc distinct/prominent)
(F12) Very shallow dark sfc (fine black soil, no redox, shallow to bedrock)
Negative Hydric Soil Indicator
Relic features (import, tilled, or historical feature):
Redox feature (redox concentration – not distinct / close to matrix color)
Dark topsoil, decayed litter, aerobic, no depletions under topsoil layer @ <1 ‘
Concretions and nodules without halos
Other:
VEGETATION Flora in Plot
Tree, Sapling, Shrub, Herb, Forb, Emergent, Woody Vine
Indicator
Status
Class
% Cover
G.S. New Crown Growth Cotyledon Bud Burst
Woody Leaf Emergence Herb Emergence
Indicator
Status
Strata
% Cover
Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) FACW T-25
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus discolor) FACU S-43
Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) FACU S-11
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) FACW H-65
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera (alba) FAC H-30
Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) FAC H-2
Bare at Ground Surface Under Shrubs: 15% - -
BOLD species are DOMINANT by 50/20 Rule Species Dominance by 50/20 Rule for OBL, FACW, FAC: 60%
Out of Plot Plants NESW: Black cottonwood, American holly. P Willow - South
-
Occlusion at Eye Level V Dense Dense Medium Sparse Clear SOIL Soil
Layers
(fbg)
Sample
Depth
(fbg)
Matrix Color
% in Pedon
Munsell (Moist)
Hue Value Chroma
Soil: Texture, Plant Material, Moisture, Structure, Fill, Till
Moisture: Dry, Slight Moist, Moist, Very Moist, Very Wet, Saturated
Cohesionless: Loose, Dense Cohesive: Soft, Stiff, Hard
Other: Heavy or Light Clay Peat: % Distinct Plant Parts
Redox Type
(C / D / RM)
Redox
Location
(PL / M)
Redox Color
(Moist)
(HVC)
F / C / P (%)
Litter:<0.02 Leaf, grass, needle, rush, sedge, seed, cone, catkin, twig, branch, log, root, frond, cane, mushroom, lichen, fibrous, thatch, mulch Moss: 0%
0 – 1.1 0.20 10YR,3,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, slight moist, loose, (alluvial) 0
1.1 – 1.7+ 0.80 10YR,3,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, moist, loose, (alluvial) 0
1.5 10YR,3,3 m Fine sand, slight moist, loose, (alluvial) 0
Mixed alluvial land transported by river deposits in the side channel
No organic material in soil pit Redox Depth: 0 to
N
E
S
W
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 2 of 2 5/9/2016
PLOT #: 2 COWARDIN CLASS (In the Plot) Tree ≥30% Shrub/Sapling/Vine ≥30% Herb/Forb ≥30% Aquatic Bed (rooted) ≥30%
Top Canopy: Sitka willow Undisturbed Corridor >10 acres Y N (NESW) Diversity Low (<5) Medium (5-19) High (>19)
Plants fail dominance test w/ positive indicators for hydric soil & wetland hydrology? Y N N/A If yes perform Prevalence Index test.
Upland / Wetland Invasive >10% n/a Y (NESW) N Reed canary grass / Himalayan blackberry
Down Wood Runners Stump (Cut, Rotten) Perch Snag (>20”/6.5’) Brush Pile Shrub Over Water Grove Hummock
Restoration Potential (NESW) Ground Light: Full Sun Most Sun Some Sun Most Shade Full Shade
Terrain: Flat Terrace Depression Distinct Depression Diffuse Slope Slight Slope Distinct Rolling Ravine (>15%) Cliff
Relief: Concave Convex Wavy Smooth Slope Up: NESW 5-7% Slope Down: NESW 30% (bar)
HYDROLOGY Primary Indicator No Indicators Need 1 Primary or 2 Secondary
(A1) Surface water (GS) pooling (B5) Iron deposits (C3) Oxidized rhizospheres (C9) Saturation (imagery)
(A2) High water table ≤12” (B6) Surface soil cracks (C4) Reduced iron @ surface (D2) Geomorphic position
(A3) Saturated (GS) ≤12” (B7) Inundation (imagery) (C6) Fe reduction (tilled soils) (D3) Shallow aquitard
(B1) Water marks: “ (B8) Sparsely veg. concave surf. (D1) Stunted/stressed plants (D5) FAC-neutral test
(B2) Sediment (alluvial bar) (B11) Salt crust / Encrust Sfc. (B9) Water stained leaves (D6) Raised ant mounds
(B3) Drift deposits (B13) Aquatic invertebrates (B10) Drainage patterns (D7) Frost-heaved hummocks
(B4) Algae mat or crust (C1) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C2) Dry-season water table Scouring or well / gauge data
Water cascading Y N Water rising Y N Saturation depth (bgs): na Water depth (bgs): >1.5” na
FAC deciduous tree roots >1’ bgs Anaerobic soil / water Aerobic soil / water Wetland all on-site: na Y N
Open water: Shallow pools: Deepest inundation: Wetland outlet? Y NESW N
Recent weather affected the observed hydrology? Y N ____________ Drainage Tile? Y N
Normal hydrology source: Artificial water source: Dam Release Seasonal water in dry months <5% Perennial water 0%
Rate of water percolation: N/A Very Slow Slow Medium Fast Very Fast
Period of inundation or saturation <1’ in loam and <.5’ in sand in G. S. <5% 5%<12.5% >12.5% (>26 days)
Water appearance: Tannin sheen Hydrocarbon sheen <1bgs, >1 bgs Clearly hydric soil
Near surface hydro Precip Surface Flow Urban Groundwater (Seasonal/Perm) Hyporheic Seep Spring Lake/Pond River
Stream Y N Ditch Y N Riparian Zone Y N Floodplain Y N Floodway Y N
Stream / Ditch bank height: OHWM width: Water depth: None _____ Flow rate: None _____ ft/sec
Stream / Ditch type: Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Temporary Fish bearing Non-fish Culvert
Stream bed: Bedrock Rubble Cobble-gravel Sand Mud Organic
Riffles & pools Plunge pools: Armoring / Stabilization Undercut or steep banks (>20”/6.5’) WILDLIFE / FISH / OTHER Annelid Worm Other______________ Reported by Others Area: Bald eagles, otters, great blue herron, hawks
Fish Salmon Trout Mudminnow Other ____________
Amphibian Frog __________ Toad Salamander _________ Newt ________ Egg Masses _________
Reptile Snake Gardner Lizard Other
Mammal Squirrel Gophers Skunk/Possum Deer Elk Dangerous: Bear, Cougar, Mt. Lion Rodent Other:
Bird Turkey Warbler Woodpecker Pileated Crow Raptor RT Hawk Raven Dove Waterfowl Shore
Passerine Hummingbird Robin Sparrow Blue Jay Chickadee Blue Bird Varied Thrush Red W Blackbird
Junco Other Birds: Bird Presence in Area: None Few Moderate High
Insect Gall wasp Bee Butterfly Moth Ant Spider Beetle Caterpillar Dragon fly Fly Mosquito ___
Mollusk Snail Slug Other Other Invertebrates
Wildlife Indicators: Raccoon, skunk, otter (reported)
Nest Den ______ Burrow ______ Flyover ______ Feather _______ Fur _______ Wildlife trail Ant hill
Seed/cone pile Scat ______ Rest areas _____ Cavity ____ Bone / Carcass _________ Gnawed stump Dam / hut
Shed skin Hive / honeycomb Egg castings Rock outcrops or piles Rip rap
Bog Heritage Wetland Estuary Coastal Lagoon Interdunal NOTE:
Priority Species: Threatened: ____________ Sensitive: ___________ Domestic:______________________
Flora Food Source: fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, root, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb, corm, other __________
Animal Food Source: worm, insect, rodent, other: Trash/Junk: Y N Noise Level: H M L ________ HYDRIC SOIL CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No Assumed
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
WETLAND HYDROLOGY CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No (Alluvial Bar)
IS THE TEST PLOT WITHIN A WETLAND? Flags ____ to ______ Yes No Jurisdictional
Not Mapped NWI mapped County/City mapped Small-Size Created Isolated Suspect Isolated
Artificial Yes No Suspect (test pit, road ruts, fill, cut, till, irrigate, dam, dike, ditch, utility, swale, canal, lagoon, false pond, mine, landscape)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 1 of 2 5/9/2016
GENERAL PLOT #: 3 Wetland Artificial Stream Ditch Upland Field Crew JK MK On-Site Plot Off-Site Plot
Plot Time: 1:30 – 2:00 Location (NESW / Flag #):
Field Work Date: 03.22.16 QQSTR: NWQ of NWQ of S17, T21N, R05E, WM
Weather: Mostly cloudy, 52o , No rain Lat/Long Center: 47o,18’, 47.21” N; 122o, 12’, 13.00” W
Plot Size: Diameter 30’ Radius NESW Rectangle NESW to NESW Transect
CLIMATIC/HYDROLOGIC conditions typical for this time of year? Yes No Very wet season
NORMAL environmental conditions exist at the plant community Yes No
SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED No Vegetation Soil Hydrology Invasives
NATURALLY PROBLEMATIC No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
TYPE: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains Redox: F = Few (<2%); C = Common (2 to 20%); P = Prominent (>20%) Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hole depth bgs 1.6 50% root bgs 0.55 Max root bgs 0.90 Soil temp. 1’bgs: Restrictive layer (<1.5’): Y N Spade Probe Auger
Topographic Alteration: No Fill Till Compacted Cut Excavate Scarify Grade Deforest Mowed Flood
Compaction (lbs/in2): Soil: Very Dry Dry Slight Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Very Wet Saturated
3” 60 6” 50 9” 40 12” 190 15” 295 18” 205 21” 140 24” 115
Mapped Series Mixed alluvial land (Ma) Taxonomy Drainage Class Well drained
Included Series None identified Mapped as Hydric Not Hydric in Survey Hydric Inclusions: ________
Hydric Soil Indicators Yes No Transitional Relic
(A1) Histosol (>1.33’/16” in top 2.67’/32”)
(A2) Histic epipedon (organic soil >0.67’/8” in top 2’ w/ aquic conditions)
(A3) Black histic (peat/muck>.67’ thick in top .5’ surface,, v≤3, c≤2)
(A4) Hydrogen sulfide odor (low medium high)
(A11)Depleted below dark sfc (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ is
depleted or gley OR .16’ of fragmented layer has C<2. Loam/clay
above depl matrix: V≤3 & C≤2). Sand V≤3 & C≤1 w > 70% organics
(A12)Thick dark surface (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ has C<2 and
layer above depl matrix has V≤2.5 & C≤1 to >1’. Upper: V≤3 & C≤1
(S1) Sandy mucky mineral (2” in top 0.5’)
(S4) Sandy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤0.5’)
(S5) Sandy redox (≥.33’ thick, >60% C<2, start <.5’bgs & >2% redox)
Indicator for Problematic Hydric Soils
(A10) 2 cm muck (0.06’ thick, VC ≤3/1, starting in top 0.5’)
(TF2) Red material (7.5YR or redder, 0.33’ in top 1’, VC≤4/4 & >2% redox)
Notes:
(S6) Stripped matrix (starts ≤0.5’, missing Fe/Mn/Organic, diffuse & >10% )
(F1) Loamy mucky mineral (>.33’ thick, starting in top 0.5’)
(F2) Loamy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤1.0’)
(F3) Depleted matrix (>60% matrix >.17’ thick in top .5’ or 0.5’ in top .83’ w C<2)
(F6) Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤1 w ≥2% distinct / prominent redox)
Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤2 w ≥5% distinct / prominent redox)
(F7) Depleted dark surface (Depletions: V>5 & C<2, 0.33’ all in top 1’ AND:
Matrix: ≤3/1 & >10% redox depletion OR Matrix: ≤3/2 & >20% redox depletion)
(F8) Redox depression (≥ 0.17’ layer top 0.5’ AND >5% redox conc distinct/prominent)
(F12) Very shallow dark sfc (fine black soil, no redox, shallow to bedrock)
Negative Hydric Soil Indicator
Relic features (import, tilled, or historical feature):
Redox feature (redox concentration – not distinct / close to matrix color)
Dark topsoil, decayed litter, aerobic, no depletions under topsoil layer @ <1 ‘
Concretions and nodules without halos
Other:
VEGETATION Flora in Plot
Tree, Sapling, Shrub, Herb, Forb, Emergent, Woody Vine
Indicator
Status
Class
% Cover
G.S. New Crown Growth Cotyledon Bud Burst
Woody Leaf Emergence Herb Emergence
Indicator
Status
Strata
% Cover
Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) FAC T-70 Hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata) FACU H-2
Red alder (Alnus rubra) FAC T-20
Bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata-mollis) FACU T-15
Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) FACU T-10
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus discolor) FACU S-75
English ivy (Hedera helix) FACU S-40
American holly (Ilex aquifolium) FACU S-3
Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) FAC H-19 Bare at Ground Surface Under Shrubs: 10% - -
BOLD species are DOMINANT by 50/20 Rule Species Dominance by 50/20 Rule for OBL, FACW, FAC: 50%
Out of Plot Plants NESW: Sequoia, S; D fir, E; BL Maple, E;
-
Occlusion at Eye Level V Dense Dense Medium Sparse Clear SOIL Soil
Layers
(fbg)
Sample
Depth
(fbg)
Matrix Color
% in Pedon
Munsell (Moist)
Hue Value Chroma
Soil: Texture, Plant Material, Moisture, Structure, Fill, Till
Moisture: Dry, Slight Moist, Moist, Very Moist, Very Wet, Saturated
Cohesionless: Loose, Dense Cohesive: Soft, Stiff, Hard
Other: Heavy or Light Clay Peat: % Distinct Plant Parts
Redox Type
(C / D / RM)
Redox
Location
(PL / M)
Redox Color
(Moist)
(HVC)
F / C / P (%)
Litter: 0.12’ Leaf, grass, needle, rush, sedge, seed, cone, catkin, twig, branch, log, root, frond, cane, mushroom, lichen, fibrous, thatch, mulch Moss: 2%
0 – 0.30 0.15 10YR, 2,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, moist, loose 0
0.30 – 0.75 0.70 10YR,3,2 m Silty fine sand, few roots, slight moist, loose 0
0.75 – 1.6+ 1.3 10YR,3,3 m Fine sand, slight moist, loose 0
Note: Mixed alluvial land transported by historical river deposits
Redox Depth: 0 to
N
E
S
W
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 2 of 2 5/9/2016
PLOT #: 3 COWARDIN CLASS (In the Plot) Tree ≥30% Shrub/Sapling/Vine ≥30% Herb/Forb ≥30% Aquatic Bed (rooted) ≥30%
Top Canopy: Black cottonwood Undisturbed Corridor >10 acres Y N (NESW) Diversity Low (<5) Medium (5-19) High (>19)
Plants fail dominance test w/ positive indicators for hydric soil & wetland hydrology? Y N N/A If yes perform Prevalence Index test.
Upland / Wetland Invasive >10% n/a Y (NESW) N Himalayan blackberry, English ivy
Down Wood Runners Stump (Cut, Rotten) Perch Snag (>20”/6.5’) Brush Pile Shrub Over Water Grove Hummock
Restoration Potential (NESW) Ground Light: Full Sun Most Sun Some Sun Most Shade Full Shade
Terrain: Flat Terrace Depression Distinct Depression Diffuse Slope Slight Slope Distinct Rolling Ravine (>15%) Cliff
Relief: Concave Convex Wavy Smooth Slope Up: NESW 1% Slope Down: NESW 1%
HYDROLOGY Primary Indicator No Indicators Need 1 Primary or 2 Secondary
(A1) Surface water (GS) pooling (B5) Iron deposits (C3) Oxidized rhizospheres (C9) Saturation (imagery)
(A2) High water table ≤12” (B6) Surface soil cracks (C4) Reduced iron @ surface (D2) Geomorphic position
(A3) Saturated (GS) ≤12” (B7) Inundation (imagery) (C6) Fe reduction (tilled soils) (D3) Shallow aquitard
(B1) Water marks: “ (B8) Sparsely veg. concave surf. (D1) Stunted/stressed plants (D5) FAC-neutral test
(B2) Sediment (Alluvial) (B11) Salt crust / Encrust Sfc. (B9) Water stained leaves (D6) Raised ant mounds
(B3) Drift deposits (B13) Aquatic invertebrates (B10) Drainage patterns (D7) Frost-heaved hummocks
(B4) Algae mat or crust (C1) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C2) Dry-season water table Scouring or well / gauge data
Water cascading Y N Water rising Y N Saturation depth (bgs): na Water depth (bgs): >1.5” na
FAC deciduous tree roots >1’ bgs Anaerobic soil / water Aerobic soil / water Wetland all on-site: na Y N
Open water: Shallow pools: Deepest inundation: Wetland outlet? Y NESW N
Recent weather affected the observed hydrology? Y N ____________ Drainage Tile? Y N
Normal hydrology source: Artificial water source: Seasonal water in dry months 0% Perennial water 0%
Rate of water percolation: N/A Very Slow Slow Medium Fast Very Fast
Period of inundation or saturation <1’ in loam and <.5’ in sand in G. S. <5% 5%<12.5% >12.5% (>26 days)
Water appearance: Tannin sheen Hydrocarbon sheen <1bgs, >1 bgs Clearly hydric soil
Near surface hydro Precip Surface Flow Urban Groundwater (Seasonal/Perm) Hyporheic Seep Spring Lake/Pond River
Stream Y N Ditch Y N Riparian Zone Y N Floodplain Y N Floodway Y N
Stream / Ditch bank height: OHWM width: Water depth: None _____ Flow rate: None _____ ft/sec
Stream / Ditch type: Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Temporary Fish bearing Non-fish Culvert
Stream bed: Bedrock Rubble Cobble-gravel Sand Mud Organic
Riffles & pools Plunge pools: Armoring / Stabilization Undercut or steep banks (>20”/6.5’) WILDLIFE / FISH / OTHER Annelid Worm Other______________ Reported by Others Area: Bald eagles, otters, great blue herron, hawks
Fish Salmon Trout Mudminnow Other ____________
Amphibian Frog __________ Toad Salamander _________ Newt ________ Egg Masses _________
Reptile Snake Gardner Lizard Other
Mammal Squirrel Gophers Skunk/Possum Deer Elk Dangerous: Bear, Cougar, Mt. Lion Rodent Other:
Bird Turkey Warbler Woodpecker _________ Crow Raptor Raven Dove Waterfowl Shore
Passerine Hummingbird Robin Sparrow Blue Jay Chickadee Blue Bird Varied Thrush Red W Blackbird
Junco/Flicker/Other Birds: Bird Presence in Area: None Few Moderate High
Insect Gall wasp Bee Butterfly Moth Ant Spider Beetle Caterpillar Dragon fly Fly Mosquito ___
Mollusk Snail Slug Other Other Invertebrates
Wildlife Indicators
Nest Den ______ Burrow ______ Flyover ______ Feather _______ Fur _______ Wildlife trail Ant hill
Seed/cone pile Scat ______ Rest areas _____ Cavity ____ Bone / Carcass _________ Gnawed stump Dam / hut
Shed skin Hive / honeycomb Egg castings Rock outcrops or piles Rip rap
Bog Heritage Wetland Estuary Coastal Lagoon Interdunal NOTE:
Priority Species: Threatened: ____________ Sensitive: ___________ Domestic:______________________
Flora Food Source: fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, root, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb, corm, other __________
Animal Food Source: worm, insect, rodent, other: Trash/Junk: Y N Noise Level: H M L ________ HYDRIC SOIL CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No Assumed
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
WETLAND HYDROLOGY CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
IS THE TEST PLOT WITHIN A WETLAND? Flags ____ to ______ Yes No Jurisdictional
Not Mapped NWI mapped County/City mapped Small-Size Created Isolated Suspect Isolated
Artificial Yes No Suspect (test pit, road ruts, fill, cut, till, irrigate, dam, dike, ditch, utility, swale, canal, lagoon, false pond, mine, landscape)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 1 of 2 10/8/2017
GENERAL PLOT #: 4 Wetland A Artificial Shoreline Upland Field Crew JK MK On-Site Plot Off-Site Plot
Plot Time: 2:15 – 2:45 Location (NESW / Flag #):
Field Work Date: 03.22.16 QQSTR: NWQ of NWQ of S17, T21N, R05E, WM
Weather: Partly cloudy, 52o , No rain Lat/Long Center: 47o,18’, 47.21” N; 122o, 12’, 13.00” W
Plot Size: Diameter Radius NESW Rectangle 20’ long NESW to 6’ wide NESW Transect
CLIMATIC/HYDROLOGIC conditions typical for this time of year? Yes No Very wet season
NORMAL environmental conditions exist at the plant community Yes No
SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
NATURALLY PROBLEMATIC No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
TYPE: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains Redox: F = Few (<2%); C = Common (2 to 20%); P = Prominent (>20%) Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hole depth bgs 1.5 50% root bgs 0.40 Max root bgs 1.1 Soil temp. 1’bgs: Restrictive layer (<1.5’): Y N Spade Probe Auger
Topographic Alteration: No Fill Till Compacted Cut Excavate Scarify Grade Deforest Mowed River
Compaction (lbs/in2): Soil: Very Dry Dry Slight Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Very Wet Saturated
3” 40 6” 40 9” 90 12” 115 15” 130 18” 80 21” 40 24” 120
Mapped Series Open Water (W) Taxonomy Drainage Class Well drained
Included Series None identified Mapped as Hydric (Water) Hydric Inclusions: _________________________
Hydric Soil Indicators Yes No Transitional Relic
(A1) Histosol (>1.33’/16” in top 2.67’/32”)
(A2) Histic epipedon (organic soil >0.67’/8” in top 2’ w/ aquic conditions)
(A3) Black histic (peat/muck>.67’ thick in top .5’ surface,, v≤3, c≤2)
(A4) Hydrogen sulfide odor (low medium high)
(A11)Depleted below dark sfc (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ is
depleted or gley OR .16’ of fragmented layer has C<2. Loam/clay
above depl matrix: V≤3 & C≤2). Sand V≤3 & C≤1 w > 70% organics
(A12)Thick dark surface (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ has C<2 and
layer above depl matrix has V≤2.5 & C≤1 to >1’. Upper: V≤3 & C≤1
(S1) Sandy mucky mineral (2” in top 0.5’)
(S4) Sandy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤0.5’)
(S5) Sandy redox (≥.33’ thick, >60% C<2, start <.5’bgs & >2% redox)
Indicator for Problematic Hydric Soils
(A10) 2 cm muck (0.06’ thick, VC ≤3/1, starting in top 0.5’)
(TF2) Red material (7.5YR or redder, 0.33’ in top 1’, VC≤4/4 & >2% redox)
Notes:
(S6) Stripped matrix (starts ≤0.5’, missing Fe/Mn/Organic, diffuse & >10% )
(F1) Loamy mucky mineral (>.33’ thick, starting in top 0.5’)
(F2) Loamy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤1.0’)
(F3) Depleted matrix (>60% matrix >.17’ thick in top .5’ or 0.5’ in top .83’ w C<2)
(F6) Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤1 w ≥2% distinct / prominent redox)
Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤2 w ≥5% distinct / prominent redox)
(F7) Depleted dark surface (Depletions: V>5 & C<2, 0.33’ all in top 1’ AND:
Matrix: ≤3/1 & >10% redox depletion OR Matrix: ≤3/2 & >20% redox depletion)
(F8) Redox depression (≥ 0.17’ layer top 0.5’ AND >5% redox conc distinct/prominent)
(F12) Very shallow dark sfc (fine black soil, no redox, shallow to bedrock)
Negative Hydric Soil Indicator
Relic features (import, tilled, or historical feature):
Redox feature (redox concentration – not distinct / close to matrix color)
Dark topsoil, decayed litter, aerobic, no depletions under topsoil layer @ <1 ‘
Concretions and nodules without halos
Other:
VEGETATION Flora in Plot
Tree, Sapling, Shrub, Herb, Forb, Emergent, Woody Vine
Indicator
Status
Class
% Cover
G.S. New Crown Growth Cotyledon Bud Burst
Woody Leaf Emergence Herb Emergence
Indicator
Status
Strata
% Cover
Pacific willow (Salix lucida var. lasiandra) FACW T-67
Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) FACW T-15
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus discolor) FACU S-20
Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) FACU S-6
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera (alba) FAC H-35
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) FACW H-75 Aerial cover increased from 25% in March to 75% in May
Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) FAC H-2
Bare at Surface Under Shrubs: 75% (March), 25% (May) - -
BOLD species are DOMINANT by 50/20 Rule Species Dominance by 50/20 Rule for OBL, FACW, FAC: 60%
Out of Plot Plants NESW: Black cottonwood; East
-
Occlusion at Eye Level V Dense Dense Medium Sparse Clear SOIL Soil
Layers
(fbg)
Sample
Depth
(fbg)
Matrix Color
% in Pedon
Munsell (Moist)
Hue Value Chroma
Soil: Texture, Plant Material, Moisture, Structure, Fill, Till
Moisture: Dry, Slight Moist, Moist, Very Moist, Very Wet, Saturated
Cohesionless: Loose, Dense Cohesive: Soft, Stiff, Hard
Other: Heavy or Light Clay Peat: % Distinct Plant Parts
Redox Type
(C / D / RM)
Redox
Location
(PL / M)
Redox Color
(Moist)
(HVC)
F / C / P (%)
Litter: <0.02 Leaf, grass, needle, rush, sedge, seed, cone, catkin, twig, branch, log, root, frond, cane, mushroom, lichen, fibrous, thatch, mulch Moss: <2%
0 – 0.40 0.15 2.5Y,3,2 Fine sand, few roots, saturated, loose (alluvial) 7.5YR,4,6 7%
0.40 – 1.0 0.60 2.5Y,3,2 Fine sand, few roots, saturated, loose (alluvial) 10YR,3,4 15%
1.0 – 1.5+ 1.3 2.5Y,3,1 Fine sand, saturated, loose (alluvial) 5YR,3,4 20%
Mixed alluvial land transported by river deposits in side channel
Redox Depth: 0.2 to 1.5+
N
E
S
W
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 2 of 2 10/8/2017
PLOT #: 4 COWARDIN CLASS (In the Plot) Tree ≥30% Shrub/Sapling/Vine ≥30% Herb/Forb ≥30% Aquatic Bed (rooted) ≥30%
Top Canopy: Pacific willow Undisturbed Corridor >10 acres Y River N (NESW) Diversity Low (<5) Medium (5-19) High (>19)
Plants fail dominance test w/ positive indicators for hydric soil & wetland hydrology? Y N N/A If yes perform Prevalence Index test.
Upland / River Invasive >10% n/a Y (NESW) N Himalayan blackberry
Down Wood Runners Stump (Cut, Rotten) Perch Snag (>20”/6.5’) Brush Pile Shrub Over Water Grove Hummock
Restoration Potential (NESW) No Ground Light: Full Sun Most Sun Some Sun Most Shade Full Shade
Terrain: Flat Terrace Depression Distinct Depression Diffuse Slope Slight Slope Distinct Rolling Ravine (>15%) Cliff
Relief: Concave Convex Wavy Smooth Slope Up: NESW 2% Slope Down: NESW 2-3%
HYDROLOGY Primary Indicator No Indicators Need 1 Primary or 2 Secondary
(A1) Surface water (GS) pooling (B5) Iron deposits (C3) Oxidized rhizospheres (C9) Saturation (imagery)
(A2) High water table ≤12” (B6) Surface soil cracks (C4) Reduced iron @ surface (D2) Geomorphic position
(A3) Saturated (GS) ≤12” (B7) Inundation (imagery) (C6) Fe reduction (tilled soils) (D3) Shallow aquitard
(B1) Water marks: “ (B8) Sparsely veg. concave surf. (D1) Stunted/stressed plants (D5) FAC-neutral test
(B2) Sediment (alluvial) (B11) Salt crust / Encrust Sfc. (B9) Water stained leaves (D6) Raised ant mounds
(B3) Drift deposits (B13) Aquatic invertebrates (B10) Drainage patterns (D7) Frost-heaved hummocks
(B4) Algae mat or crust (C1) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C2) Dry-season water table Scouring or well / gauge data
Water cascading Y N Water rising Y N Saturation depth (bgs): 0.40 na Water depth (bgs): 0.50 >1.5” na
FAC deciduous tree roots >1’ bgs Anaerobic soil / water Aerobic soil / water Wetland all on-site: na Y N River
Open water: Shallow pools: Deepest inundation: 0.15 River outlet? Y NESW N
Recent weather affected the observed hydrology? Y N ____________ Drainage Tile? Y N
Normal hydrology source: Artificial water source: Dam Release Seasonal water in dry months 10% Perennial water 0%
Rate of water percolation: N/A Very Slow Slow Medium Fast Very Fast
Period of inundation or saturation <1’ in loam and <.5’ in sand in G. S. <5% 5%<12.5% >12.5% (>26 days)
Water appearance: Clear Tannin sheen Hydrocarbon sheen <1bgs, >1 bgs Clearly hydric soil
Near surface hydro Precip Surface Flow Urban Groundwater (Seasonal/Perm) Hyporheic Seep Spring Lake/Pond River
River Y N Ditch Y N Riparian Zone Y N Floodplain Y N Floodway Y N
River / Ditch bank height: 4’ OHWM width: 6’ Water depth: 0.15 None _____ Flow rate: None _____ ft/sec
River / Ditch type: Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent (Dam Release) Temporary Fish bearing Non-fish Culvert
River bed: Bedrock Rubble Cobble-gravel Sand Mud Organic
Riffles & pools Plunge pools: Armoring / Stabilization Undercut or steep banks (>20”/6.5’) WILDLIFE / FISH / OTHER Annelid Worm Other______________ Reported by Others Bald eagle, red tail hawk, otter, great blue heron
Fish Salmon Trout Mudminnow Other ____________
Amphibian Frog __________ Toad Salamander _________ Newt ________ Egg Masses _________
Reptile Snake Lizard Other
Mammal Squirrel Gophers Skunk/Possum Deer Elk Dangerous: Bear, Cougar, Mt. Lion Rodent Other:
Bird Turkey Warbler Woodpecker _________ Crow Raptor Raven Dove Waterfowl Shore
Passerine Hummingbird Robin Sparrow Blue Jay Chickadee Blue Bird Varied Thrush Red W Blackbird
Junco/Flicker/Other Birds: Bird Presence in Area: None Few Moderate High
Insect Gall wasp Bee Butterfly Moth Ant Spider Beetle Caterpillar Dragon fly Fly Mosquito ___
Mollusk Snail Slug Other Other Invertebrates
Wildlife Indicators: Raccoon, skunk
Nest Den ______ Burrow ______ Flyover ______ Feather _______ Fur _______ Wildlife trail Ant hill
Seed/cone pile Scat ______ Rest areas _____ Cavity ____ Bone / Carcass _________ Gnawed stump Dam / hut
Shed skin Hive / honeycomb Egg castings Rock outcrops or piles Rip rap
Bog Heritage Wetland Estuary Coastal Lagoon Interdunal NOTE:
Priority Species: State-Listed Fish Threatened: Federal-Listed Fish Sensitive: ___________ Domestic:___________________
Flora Food Source: fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, root, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb, corm, other __________
Animal Food Source: worm, insect, rodent, other: Trash/Junk: Y N Noise Level: H M L ________ HYDRIC SOIL CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No Assumed
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
WETLAND HYDROLOGY CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
IS THE TEST PLOT WITHIN A WETLAND? Flags OH1 – OH-10 Green River Shoreline Yes No Jurisdictional
Not Mapped NWI mapped County/City mapped Small-Size Created Isolated Suspect Isolated
Artificial Yes No Suspect (test pit, road ruts, fill, cut, till, irrigate, dam, dike, ditch, utility, swale, canal, lagoon, false pond, mine, landscape)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 1 of 2 10/8/2017
GENERAL PLOT #: 5 Wetland A Artificial Shoreline Upland Field Crew JK MK On-Site Plot Off-Site Plot
Plot Time: 2:45 – 3:20 Location (NESW / Flag #):
Field Work Date: 03.22.16 QQSTR: NWQ of NWQ of S17, T21N, R05E, WM
Weather: Partly cloudy, 52o , No rain Lat/Long Center: 47o,18’, 47.21” N; 122o, 12’, 13.00” W
Plot Size: Diameter: 10’ Radius NESW Rectangle NESW to NESW Transect
CLIMATIC/HYDROLOGIC conditions typical for this time of year? Yes No Very wet season
NORMAL environmental conditions exist at the plant community Yes No
SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
NATURALLY PROBLEMATIC No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
TYPE: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains Redox: F = Few (<2%); C = Common (2 to 20%); P = Prominent (>20%) Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hole depth bgs 1.0 50% root bgs 0.4 Max root bgs 0.7 Soil temp. 1’bgs: Restrictive layer (<1.5’): Y N Spade Probe Auger
Topographic Alteration: No Fill Till Compacted Cut Excavate Scarify Grade Deforest Mowed Flood
Compaction (lbs/in2): Soil: Very Dry Dry Slight Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Very Wet Saturated
3” 30 6” 70 9” 100 12” 85 15” 70 18” 95 21” 40 24” 55
Mapped Series Open Water (W) Taxonomy Drainage Class Well drained
Included Series None identified Mapped as Hydric (Water) Hydric Inclusions: _________________________
Hydric Soil Indicators Yes No Transitional Relic
(A1) Histosol (>1.33’/16” in top 2.67’/32”)
(A2) Histic epipedon (organic soil >0.67’/8” in top 2’ w/ aquic conditions)
(A3) Black histic (peat/muck>.67’ thick in top .5’ surface,, v≤3, c≤2)
(A4) Hydrogen sulfide odor (low medium high)
(A11)Depleted below dark sfc (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ is
depleted or gley OR .16’ of fragmented layer has C<2. Loam/clay
above depl matrix: V≤3 & C≤2). Sand V≤3 & C≤1 w > 70% organics
(A12)Thick dark surface (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ has C<2 and
layer above depl matrix has V≤2.5 & C≤1 to >1’. Upper: V≤3 & C≤1
(S1) Sandy mucky mineral (2” in top 0.5’)
(S4) Sandy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤0.5’)
(S5) Sandy redox (≥.33’ thick, >60% C<2, start <.5’bgs & >2% redox)
Indicator for Problematic Hydric Soils
(A10) 2 cm muck (0.06’ thick, VC ≤3/1, starting in top 0.5’)
(TF2) Red material (7.5YR or redder, 0.33’ in top 1’, VC≤4/4 & >2% redox)
Notes:
(S6) Stripped matrix (starts ≤0.5’, missing Fe/Mn/Organic, diffuse & >10% )
(F1) Loamy mucky mineral (>.33’ thick, starting in top 0.5’)
(F2) Loamy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤1.0’)
(F3) Depleted matrix (>60% matrix >.17’ thick in top .5’ or 0.5’ in top .83’ w C<2)
(F6) Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤1 w ≥2% distinct / prominent redox)
Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤2 w ≥5% distinct / prominent redox)
(F7) Depleted dark surface (Depletions: V>5 & C<2, 0.33’ all in top 1’ AND:
Matrix: ≤3/1 & >10% redox depletion OR Matrix: ≤3/2 & >20% redox depletion)
(F8) Redox depression (≥ 0.17’ layer top 0.5’ AND >5% redox conc distinct/prominent)
(F12) Very shallow dark sfc (fine black soil, no redox, shallow to bedrock)
Negative Hydric Soil Indicator
Relic features (import, tilled, or historical feature):
Redox feature (redox concentration – not distinct / close to matrix color)
Dark topsoil, decayed litter, aerobic, no depletions under topsoil layer @ <1 ‘
Concretions and nodules without halos
Other:
VEGETATION Flora in Plot
Tree, Sapling, Shrub, Herb, Forb, Emergent, Woody Vine
Indicator
Status
Class
% Cover
G.S. New Crown Growth Cotyledon Bud Burst
Woody Leaf Emergence Herb Emergence
Indicator
Status
Strata
% Cover
No Trees 0 0
Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) FACW S-25
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus discolor) FACU S-21
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) FACW H-6
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera (alba) FAC H-5
Bare at Ground Surface Under Shrubs: 80% - -
BOLD species are DOMINANT by 50/20 Rule Species Dominance by 50/20 Rule for OBL, FACW, FAC: 75%
Out of Plot Plants NESW: Black cottonwood, East
-
Occlusion at Eye Level V Dense Dense Medium Sparse Clear SOIL Soil
Layers
(fbg)
Sample
Depth
(fbg)
Matrix Color
% in Pedon
Munsell (Moist)
Hue Value Chroma
Soil: Texture, Plant Material, Moisture, Structure, Fill, Till
Moisture: Dry, Slight Moist, Moist, Very Moist, Very Wet, Saturated
Cohesionless: Loose, Dense Cohesive: Soft, Stiff, Hard
Other: Heavy or Light Clay Peat: % Distinct Plant Parts
Redox Type
(C / D / RM)
Redox
Location
(PL / M)
Redox Color
(Moist)
(HVC)
F / C / P (%)
Litter: <0.02 Leaf, grass, needle, rush, sedge, seed, cone, catkin, twig, branch, log, root, frond, cane, mushroom, lichen, fibrous, thatch, mulch Moss: <2%
0 – 0.15 0.10 2.5Y,3,1 Fine sand, rooty, very moist, loose (alluvial) 0
0.15 – 0.55 0.50 2.5Y, 3+,1 Fine to medium sand, few roots, wet, loose, (alluvial) 0
0.55 – 1.0+ 0.80 2.5Y,3,2 Fine to medium sand, saturated, loose, (alluvial) 7.5YR,4,4 12%
Mixed alluvial land transported by river deposits in main channel
No organic matter in soil pit Redox Depth:0.15 to 1.0+
N
E
S
W
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 2 of 2 10/8/2017
PLOT #: 5 COWARDIN CLASS (In the Plot) Tree ≥30% Shrub/Sapling/Vine ≥30% Herb/Forb ≥30% Aquatic Bed (rooted) ≥30%
Top Canopy: Sitka willow Undisturbed Corridor >10 acres Y N (NESW) Diversity Low (<5) Medium (5-19) High (>19)
Plants fail dominance test w/ positive indicators for hydric soil & wetland hydrology? Y N N/A If yes perform Prevalence Index test.
Upland / River Invasive >10% n/a Y (NESW) N Himalayan blackberry
Down Wood Runners Stump (Cut, Rotten) Perch Snag (>20”/6.5’) Brush Pile Shrub Over Water Grove Hummock
Restoration Potential (NESW) Ground Light: Full Sun Most Sun Some Sun Most Shade Full Shade
Terrain: Flat Terrace Depression Distinct Depression Diffuse Slope Slight Slope Distinct Rolling Ravine (>15%) Cliff
Relief: Concave Convex Wavy Smooth Slope Up: NESW 1% Slope Down: NESW 1.5%
HYDROLOGY Primary Indicator No Indicators Need 1 Primary or 2 Secondary
(A1) Surface water (GS) pooling (B5) Iron deposits (C3) Oxidized rhizospheres (C9) Saturation (imagery)
(A2) High water table ≤12” (B6) Surface soil cracks (C4) Reduced iron @ surface (D2) Geomorphic position
(A3) Saturated (GS) ≤12” (B7) Inundation (imagery) (C6) Fe reduction (tilled soils) (D3) Shallow aquitard
(B1) Water marks: 3’ (B8) Sparsely veg. concave surf. (D1) Stunted/stressed plants (D5) FAC-neutral test
(B2) Sediment (alluvial) (B11) Salt crust / Encrust Sfc. (B9) Water stained leaves (D6) Raised ant mounds
(B3) Drift deposits (B13) Aquatic invertebrates (B10) Drainage patterns (D7) Frost-heaved hummocks
(B4) Algae mat or crust (C1) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C2) Dry-season water table Scouring or well / gauge data
Water cascading Y N Water rising Y N Saturation depth (bgs): 0.25 na Water depth (bgs): 0.4 >1.5” na
FAC deciduous tree roots >1’ bgs Anaerobic soil / water Aerobic soil / water Wetland all on-site: na Y N
Open water: River Shallow pools: Deepest inundation: >4’ – West River outlet? Y NESW N
Recent weather affected the observed hydrology? Y N ____________ Drainage Tile? Y N
Normal hydrology source: Artificial water source: Dam Release Seasonal water in dry months 0% Perennial water 100% - West
Rate of water percolation: N/A Very Slow Slow Medium Fast Very Fast
Period of inundation or saturation <1’ in loam and <.5’ in sand in G. S. <5% 5%<12.5% >12.5% (>26 days)
Water appearance: Clear Tannin sheen Hydrocarbon sheen <1bgs, >1 bgs Clearly hydric soil
Near surface hydro Precip Surface Flow Urban Groundwater (Seasonal/Perm) Hyporheic Seep Spring Lake/Pond River
River Y N Ditch Y N Riparian Zone Y N Floodplain Y N Floodway Y N
River / Ditch bank height: 3’ OHWM width: ~30’ Water depth: ~4’ None _____ Flow rate: None ~3 ft/sec to the north
River / Ditch type: Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Temporary Fish bearing Non-fish Culvert
River bed: Bedrock Rubble Cobble-gravel Sand Mud Organic
Riffles & pools Plunge pools: Armoring / Stabilization Undercut or steep banks (>20”/6.5’) WILDLIFE / FISH / OTHER Annelid Worm Other______________ Reported by Others Bald eagle, red tail hawk, otter, great blue heron
Fish Salmon Trout Mudminnow Other ____________
Amphibian Frog __________ Toad Salamander _________ Newt ________ Egg Masses _________
Reptile Snake Lizard Other
Mammal Squirrel Gophers Skunk/Possum Deer Elk Dangerous: Bear, Cougar, Mt. Lion Rodent Other:
Bird Turkey Warbler Woodpecker _________ Crow Raptor Raven Dove Waterfowl Shore
Passerine Hummingbird Robin Sparrow Blue Jay Chickadee Blue Bird Varied Thrush Red W Blackbird
Junco/Flicker/Other Birds: Bird Presence in Area: None Few Moderate High
Insect Gall wasp Bee Butterfly Moth Ant Spider Beetle Caterpillar Dragon fly Fly Mosquito ___
Mollusk Snail Slug Other Other Invertebrates
Wildlife Indicators
Nest Den ______ Burrow ______ Flyover ______ Feather _______ Fur _______ Wildlife trail Ant hill
Seed/cone pile Scat ______ Rest areas _____ Cavity ____ Bone / Carcass _________ Gnawed stump Dam / hut
Shed skin Hive / honeycomb Egg castings Rock outcrops or piles Rip rap
Bog Heritage Wetland Estuary Coastal Lagoon Interdunal NOTE: Shoreline for Green River
Priority Species: State-Listed Species Threatened: Federal-Listed Species Sensitive: ___________ Domestic:______________
Flora Food Source: fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, root, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb, corm, other __________
Animal Food Source: worm, insect, rodent, other: Trash/Junk: Y N Noise Level: H M L Traffic-West HYDRIC SOIL CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No Assumed
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
WETLAND HYDROLOGY CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
IS THE TEST PLOT WITHIN A WETLAND? Flags OH-1 to OH-10 Green River Shoreline Yes No Jurisdictional
Not Mapped NWI mapped County/City mapped Small-Size Created Isolated Suspect Isolated
Artificial Yes No Suspect (test pit, road ruts, fill, cut, till, irrigate, dam, dike, ditch, utility, swale, canal, lagoon, false pond, mine, landscape)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 1 of 2 5/9/2016
GENERAL PLOT #: 6 Wetland Artificial Stream Upland Bar – Island Field Crew JK MK On-Site Plot Off-Site Plot
Plot Time: 3:30 – 4:00 Location (NESW / Flag #):
Field Work Date: 03.22.16 QQSTR: (NESW / Flag #): Upland depression
Weather: Mostly cloudy, 52o , Breezy, No rain Lat/Long Center: 47o,18’, 47.21” N; 122o, 12’, 13.00” W
Plot Size: Diameter Radius NESW Rectangle 15’ NESW to 20’ NESW Transect
CLIMATIC/HYDROLOGIC conditions typical for this time of year? Yes No Very wet season
NORMAL environmental conditions exist at the plant community Yes No
SIGNIFICANTLY DISTURBED No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
NATURALLY PROBLEMATIC No Vegetation Soil Hydrology
TYPE: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains Redox: F = Few (<2%); C = Common (2 to 20%); P = Prominent (>20%) Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hole depth bgs 1.6 50% root bgs 0.6 Max root bgs 1.25 Soil temp. 1’bgs: Restrictive layer (<1.5’): Y N Spade Probe Auger
Topographic Alteration: No Fill Till Compacted Cut Excavate Scarify Grade Deforest Mowed Flood
Compaction (lbs/in2): Soil: Very Dry Dry Slight Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Very Wet Saturated
3” 45 6” 50 9” 50 12” 70 15” 85 18” 80 21” 80 24” 40
Mapped Series Mixed alluvial land (Ma) Taxonomy Drainage Class Well drained
Included Series None identified Mapped as Hydric Not Hydric in Survey Hydric Inclusions: ________
Hydric Soil Indicators Yes No Transitional Relic
(A1) Histosol (>1.33’/16” in top 2.67’/32”)
(A2) Histic epipedon (organic soil >0.67’/8” in top 2’ w/ aquic conditions)
(A3) Black histic (peat/muck>.67’ thick in top .5’ surface,, v≤3, c≤2)
(A4) Hydrogen sulfide odor (low medium high)
(A11)Depleted below dark sfc (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ is
depleted or gley OR .16’ of fragmented layer has C<2. Loam/clay
above depl matrix: V≤3 & C≤2). Sand V≤3 & C≤1 w > 70% organics
(A12)Thick dark surface (>60% matrix in at least .5’ in top 1’ has C<2 and
layer above depl matrix has V≤2.5 & C≤1 to >1’. Upper: V≤3 & C≤1
(S1) Sandy mucky mineral (2” in top 0.5’)
(S4) Sandy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤0.5’)
(S5) Sandy redox (≥.33’ thick, >60% C<2, start <.5’bgs & >2% redox)
Indicator for Problematic Hydric Soils
(A10) 2 cm muck (0.06’ thick, VC ≤3/1, starting in top 0.5’)
(TF2) Red material (7.5YR or redder, 0.33’ in top 1’, VC≤4/4 & >2% redox)
Notes:
(S6) Stripped matrix (starts ≤0.5’, missing Fe/Mn/Organic, diffuse & >10% )
(F1) Loamy mucky mineral (>.33’ thick, starting in top 0.5’)
(F2) Loamy gleyed matrix (60% or more of layer, starts ≤1.0’)
(F3) Depleted matrix (>60% matrix >.17’ thick in top .5’ or 0.5’ in top .83’ w C<2)
(F6) Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤1 w ≥2% distinct / prominent redox)
Redox dark sfc ( >.33’ in top 1’ w V≤3, C≤2 w ≥5% distinct / prominent redox)
(F7) Depleted dark surface (Depletions: V>5 & C<2, 0.33’ all in top 1’ AND:
Matrix: ≤3/1 & >10% redox depletion OR Matrix: ≤3/2 & >20% redox depletion)
(F8) Redox depression (≥ 0.17’ layer top 0.5’ AND >5% redox conc distinct/prominent)
(F12) Very shallow dark sfc (fine black soil, no redox, shallow to bedrock)
Negative Hydric Soil Indicator
Relic features (import, tilled, or historical feature):
Redox feature (redox concentration – not distinct / close to matrix color)
Dark topsoil, decayed litter, aerobic, no depletions under topsoil layer @ <1 ‘
Concretions and nodules without halos
Other:
VEGETATION Flora in Plot
Tree, Sapling, Shrub, Herb, Forb, Emergent, Woody Vine
Indicator
Status
Class
% Cover
G.S. New Crown Growth Cotyledon Bud Burst
Woody Leaf Emergence Herb Emergence
Indicator
Status
Strata
% Cover
Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) FACW T-80 Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera (alba) FAC H-5
Pacific willow (Salix lucida var. lasiandra) FACW T-18 Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) FAC H-4
Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) FACW S-15 Mexican hedge nettle (Stachys mexicana) FACW H-2
Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) FACU S-8
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) FAC S-8
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus discolor) FACU S-5
Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) FAC H-18
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) FACW H-10 Bare at Ground Surface Under Shrubs: 25% - -
BOLD species are DOMINANT by 50/20 Rule Species Dominance by 50/20 Rule for OBL, FACW, FAC: 83%
Out of Plot Plants NESW: Large red alders, south on island.
-
Occlusion at Eye Level V Dense Dense Medium Sparse Clear SOIL Soil
Layers
(fbg)
Sample
Depth
(fbg)
Matrix Color
% in Pedon
Munsell (Moist)
Hue Value Chroma
Soil: Texture, Plant Material, Moisture, Structure, Fill, Till
Moisture: Dry, Slight Moist, Moist, Very Moist, Very Wet, Saturated
Cohesionless: Loose, Dense Cohesive: Soft, Stiff, Hard
Other: Heavy or Light Clay Peat: % Distinct Plant Parts
Redox Type
(C / D / RM)
Redox
Location
(PL / M)
Redox Color
(Moist)
(HVC)
F / C / P (%)
Litter: <0.02 Leaf, grass, needle, rush, sedge, seed, cone, catkin, twig, branch, log, root, frond, cane, mushroom, lichen, fibrous, thatch, mulch Moss: <2%
0 – 1.6+ 0.15 2.5Y,3,3 m Fine to medium sand, few roots, slight moist, loose (alluvial) 0
0.80 2.5Y,3,3 m Fine to medium sand, few roots, slight moist, loose (alluvial) 0
1.5 2.5Y,3,3 m Fine to medium sand, slight moist, loose (alluvial) 0
Mixed alluvial land transported by river deposits in main channel
No organic matter in soil pit Redox Depth: None
N
E
S
W
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FIELD DATA FORM
Project Site Name: Jeffery Residential Property City / County / Zip: Auburn / King / 98092
Applicant / Owner: Dan & Jan Jeffery Project Site Address: North of 32267 104th Place Southeast
Professional Wetland Scientist: Jonathan M. Kemp Job Number: WTJK - Jeffery-Auburn-1 Mileage: 28
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Current Land Use: Woodland PN: 3341000140
EnCo Environmental Corporation Page 2 of 2 5/9/2016
PLOT #: 6 COWARDIN CLASS (In the Plot) Tree ≥30% Shrub/Sapling/Vine ≥30% Herb/Forb ≥30% Aquatic Bed (rooted) ≥30%
Top Canopy: Sitka willow Undisturbed Corridor >10 acres Y N (NESW) Diversity Low (<5) Medium (5-19) High (>19)
Plants fail dominance test w/ positive indicators for hydric soil & wetland hydrology? Y N N/A If yes perform Prevalence Index test.
Upland / Wetland Invasive >10% n/a Y (NESW) N Reed canary grass
Down Wood Runners Stump (Cut, Rotten) Perch Snag (>20”/6.5’) Brush Pile Shrub Over Water Grove Hummock
Restoration Potential (NESW) Ground Light: Full Sun Most Sun Some Sun Most Shade Full Shade
Terrain: Flat Terrace Depression Distinct Depression Diffuse Slope Slight Slope Distinct Rolling Ravine (>15%) Cliff
Relief: Concave Convex Wavy Smooth Slope Up: NESW 1% Slope Down: NESW 1-2%
HYDROLOGY Primary Indicator No Indicators Need 1 Primary or 2 Secondary
(A1) Surface water (GS) pooling (B5) Iron deposits (C3) Oxidized rhizospheres (C9) Saturation (imagery)
(A2) High water table ≤12” (B6) Surface soil cracks (C4) Reduced iron @ surface (D2) Geomorphic position
(A3) Saturated (GS) ≤12” (B7) Inundation (imagery) (C6) Fe reduction (tilled soils) (D3) Shallow aquitard
(B1) Water marks: “ (B8) Sparsely veg. concave surf. (D1) Stunted/stressed plants (D5) FAC-neutral test
(B2) Sediment (alluvial) (B11) Salt crust / Encrust Sfc. (B9) Water stained leaves (D6) Raised ant mounds
(B3) Drift deposits (B13) Aquatic invertebrates (B10) Drainage patterns (D7) Frost-heaved hummocks
(B4) Algae mat or crust (C1) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C2) Dry-season water table Scouring or well / gauge data
Water cascading Y N Water rising Y N Saturation depth (bgs): na Water depth (bgs): >1.5” na
FAC deciduous tree roots >1’ bgs Anaerobic soil / water Aerobic soil / water Wetland all on-site: na Y N
Open water: Shallow pools: Deepest inundation: Wetland outlet? Y NESW N
Recent weather affected the observed hydrology? Y N ____________ Drainage Tile? Y N
Normal hydrology source: Artificial water source: Dam Release Seasonal water in dry months <5% Perennial water 0%
Rate of water percolation: N/A Very Slow Slow Medium Fast Very Fast
Period of inundation or saturation <1’ in loam and <.5’ in sand in G. S. <5% 5%<12.5% >12.5% (>26 days)
Water appearance: Tannin sheen Hydrocarbon sheen <1bgs, >1 bgs Clearly hydric soil
Near surface hydro Precip Surface Flow Urban Groundwater (Seasonal/Perm) Hyporheic Seep Spring Lake/Pond River
Stream Y N Ditch Y N Riparian Zone Y N Floodplain Y N Floodway Y N
Stream / Ditch bank height: OHWM width: Water depth: None _____ Flow rate: None _____ ft/sec
Stream / Ditch type: Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Temporary Fish bearing Non-fish Culvert
Stream bed: Bedrock Rubble Cobble-gravel Sand Mud Organic
Riffles & pools Plunge pools: Armoring / Stabilization Undercut or steep banks (>20”/6.5’) WILDLIFE / FISH / OTHER Annelid Worm Other______________ Reported by Others Bald eagle, red tail hawk, otter, great blue heron
Fish Salmon Trout Mudminnow Other ____________
Amphibian Frog __________ Toad Salamander _________ Newt ________ Egg Masses _________
Reptile Snake Lizard Other
Mammal Squirrel Gophers Skunk/Raccoon Deer Elk Dangerous: Bear, Cougar, Mt. Lion Rodent Other:
Bird Turkey Warbler Woodpecker _________ Crow Raptor Raven Dove Waterfowl Shore
Passerine Hummingbird Robin Sparrow Blue Jay Chickadee Blue Bird Varied Thrush Red W Blackbird
Junco/Flicker/Other Birds: Bird Presence in Area: None Few Moderate High
Insect Gall wasp Bee Butterfly Moth Ant Spider Beetle Caterpillar Dragon fly Fly Mosquito ___
Mollusk Snail Slug Other Other Invertebrates
Wildlife Indicators
Nest Den ______ Burrow ______ Flyover ______ Feather _______ Fur _______ Wildlife trail Ant hill
Seed/cone pile Scat ______ Rest areas _____ Cavity ____ Bone / Carcass _________ Gnawed stump Dam / hut
Shed skin Hive / honeycomb Egg castings Rock outcrops or piles Rip rap
Bog Heritage Wetland Estuary Coastal Lagoon Interdunal NOTE:
Priority Species: Threatened: ____________ Sensitive: ___________ Domestic:______________________
Flora Food Source: fruit, berry, pollen, nectar, bud, leaf, twig, root, bark, sap, cone, seed, grain, nut, acorn, bulb, corm, other __________
Animal Food Source: worm, insect, rodent, other: Trash/Junk: Y N Noise Level: H M L ________ HYDRIC SOIL CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No Assumed
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
WETLAND HYDROLOGY CRITERION PRESENT? Yes No
IS THE TEST PLOT WITHIN A WETLAND? Flags ____ to ______ Green River Sand Bar Yes No Jurisdictional
Not Mapped NWI mapped County/City mapped Small-Size Created Isolated Suspect Isolated
Artificial Yes No Suspect (test pit, road ruts, fill, cut, till, irrigate, dam, dike, ditch, utility, swale, canal, lagoon, false pond, mine, landscape)
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX D
STANDARD OFFICE & FIELD PROCEDURES
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
1
STANDARD OFFICE & FIELD PROCEDURES
WETLAND, WATER, AND PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES DETERMINATIONS
Dan & Jan Jeffery Property
North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092
Parcel Number: 3341000140
Field Work Date: March 22, 2016
1.0 PERSONNEL
The field work was performed by Mr. Jonathan M. Kemp, Professional Wetland
Scientist, Number 2110, of EnCo Environmental Corporation (EnCo).
2.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITY
To conserve the benefits of wetlands and buffers, jurisdiction authority over activities in
wetlands is exercised by federal, state, and local governments. The Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403) were
enacted by the U.S. Congress to restore and maintain water quality, biologi cal integrity
and chemical balance of all Waters of the United States. The Act empowered the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) with jurisdiction over filling of wetlands and
authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to oversee the ACOE f ill
permitting process. The permitting process established the “no net loss of wetlands”
policy in the United States.
State and local agencies regulate critical areas as part of the Growth Management Act
(GMA). The GMA sets deadlines for compliance and offers direction on how to prepare
local comprehensive plans and development regulations and requirements for early and
continuous public participation.
The GMA requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s growth by
identifying and protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban
growth areas, preparing comprehensive plans and implementing them through capital
investments and development regulations.
3.0 OFFICE ASSESSMENT
Before initiating the field work readily available maps depicting parcels, color aerial
photographs, soil types, topography contours, wetlands, streams, shoreline, floodway,
floodplain, priority habitat and species, watershed, sub-basin, surrounding land use,
impaired waters, and other readily available physiographic, geologic, LiDAR, or natural
resource maps were reviewed for indicators or known presence of critical areas on the
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
2
project site and within about 800 feet from the project site. Researched sour ces are
presented in SECTION 24.0 – REFERENCES.
3.1 Wetlands
National Wetlands Inventory
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
project have produced maps that show the location, size, and type of wetlands withi n
defined geographical areas. The maps are produced to aid resource managers and
planners in making wise decisions regarding the fate of wetlands. The NWI maps are
prepared through conventional photo interpretation techniques using mid to high altitude
aerial photographs.
The NWI maps depict:
1. The location and shape of the identified wetlands and deep water habitats
2. The type of wetland based on vegetation (or substrate, where vegetation is
absent), water regime, salinity (for tidal areas), and other char acteristics
3. The type of deep water habitat based on ecological system, hydrology (tidal / non -
tidal), and other features (i.e., impounded)
While the NWI maps depict the location of a large number of wetlands and probably the
ones most important to wetland dependent fish and wildlife resource and flood storage,
however, not all wetlands are shown on the maps. In addition, many of the depicted
wetlands have not been field verified for accuracy.
Ecology Wetlands Inventory
Ecology, the NOAA Coastal Services Center, and the EPA have teamed together to
create a modeled wetlands inventory under the Coastal Change Analysis Program. The
wetlands inventory mapper is available on line and is based on available land use data.
The wetland inventory tool provides an indication where wetlands could be located, but
it cannot substitute for an on-site wetland delineation. The maps have not been field
verified, so the department does not have an estimate of this map’s accuracy. Because
of the resolution of the map program it very possible that it will not identify wetlands
smaller than ¼ acre.
Forest Practice Activity Maps
The WDNR in cooperation with the WDFW, ECOLOGY, and affected Indian Tribes have
classified wetlands on state lands. The Forest Practice Activity Map (FPAM) is a
WDNR web-based, interactive map developed for citizens, landowners, cities and
counties, tribal governments, other agencies, developers, conservation groups, and
interested parties to find basic information about t he known location of streams and their
types. The map program is a source of best available science that is used to inform
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
3
local planning activities, development projects, conservation strategies, incentive
programs, and numerous other land use applications.
The WDNR in cooperation with the WDFW, ECOLOGY, and affected Indian Tribes have
classified wetlands on state lands. The wetlands have been classified in order to
distinguish those which require wetland management zones and those which do not.
3.2 Streams and Rivers
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintain several databases that contain
information on streams and rivers that are used in many land use decisions and
activities. The information distributed by WDNR includes data that is maintained in a
centralized data base and mapping system. Agency maps document the location of
streams, rivers, and in some cases wetlands based on field studies and reported
sightings.
Forest Practice Activity Maps
The WDNR in cooperation with the WDFW, ECOLOGY, and affected Indian Tribes have
classified wetlands on state lands. The Forest Practice Activity Map (FPAM) is a
WDNR web-based, interactive map developed for citizens, landowners, cities and
counties, tribal governments, other agencies, developers, conservation groups, and
interested parties to find basic information about the known location of streams and their
types. The map program is a source of best available science that is used to inform
local planning activities, development projects, conservation strategies, incentive
programs, and numerous other land use applications.
The FRAM map displays known locations of streams and rivers and in some cases
wetlands associated with streams that have been provided to the department by agency
biologists, reported by the public, aerial photographs, agency maps, and other sources
of scientific data. The wetlands have been classified in order to distinguish those which
require wetland management zones and those which do not. Data is updated as new
information is gathered and verified in the field. This map is not an exhaustive survey of
all streams. The data displayed on the map is for informational purposes only. The
specific location of streams may not be depicted accurately on the FPAM map.
SalmonScape Maps
SalmonScape is a WDFW interactive, computer mapping system that is an important
tool created to deliver scientific information to those involved in on -the-ground salmon
recovery projects or critical area studies and assessments. SalmonScape delivers the
science that helps recovery planners identify and prioritize the restoration and protection
activities that offer the greatest benefit to fish. The mapping and data delivery program
merges fish and habitat information that has been collected by state, federal, tribal, and
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
4
local biologists. The program presents the information in an integrated system that can
be readily accessed by government agencies and citizens.
SalmonScape is an interactive mapping application designed to display and report a
wide range of data related to salmon distribution, status, and habitats. The data
sources used by SalmonScape include stream specific fish and habitat data, and
information about stock status and recovery evaluations.
3.3 Priority Habitats and Species
The WDFW maintains several databases that contain information on important fish and
wildlife habitat and species that must be considered in many land use decisions and
activities. The distributed information includes data that is maintained in a centralized
data base and mapping system. Agency maps document the location of important
wildlife resources based on field studies and reported sightings.
PHS on the Web is a WDFW web-based, interactive map developed for citizens,
landowners, cities and counties, tribal governments, other agencies, developers,
conservation groups, and interested parties to find basic information about the known
location of PHS. PHS on the Web is a best available science tool that informs local
planning activities, guides development projects, determines conservation strategies
and incentive programs, and can be used for numerous other land use applications.
The “PHS on the Web” map displays known and reported locations of priority habitats
and species that have been provided to the department by agency biologists and other
sources of scientific data. Data is updated on the maps as new information is gathered
and verified in the field. These maps are not an exhaustive survey of all fish and wildlife
presence. Priority habitat and species buffers other than wetland and stream buffers
are those recommended by WDFW.
The data displayed on PHS on the Web is for informational purposes only. The specific
location of some fish and wildlife information is not available on PHS on the Web.
These locations deemed “sensitive” by WDFW and are not displayed on the map
beyond a certain resolution (e.g. Township or Section) due to an increased risk of
human interference.
The presence or absence of project site PHS was made by performing a cursory habitat
and species assessment after reviewing the readily available priority habitat and
species maps on the WDFW web site. The assessment included documenting
observed sightings, vocalizations, scat, field indicators or other evidence, performing
research, interpreting readily available maps, and reviewing other documented
resources. The determinati on for presence or absence of PHS is based on the time and
date in the field and does not reflect diurnal or seasonal variances .
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
5
The WDFW defines priority habitat as:
1. Habitat that is relatively important to various speci es of native fish and wildlife
2. The terrestrial landscape that is influenced by or that directly has influence to an
aquatic ecosystem
3. Transitional landscape between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water
table is usually at or near the ground surface or the land is covered by shallow
water
4. The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions
that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and
wildlife resources
5. Dead or dying trees that exhibit sufficient decay characteristic s to enable cavity
excavation and/or use by wildlife
6. High quality native wetlands and wetlands that support threatened and
endangered fish and wildlife
Specific habitats listed by WDFW as being priority include:
1. Aspen Stands
2. Aquatic Habitat (Wetlands)
3. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors
4. Herbaceous Balds
5. Old-Growth / Mature Growth Forests
6. Oregon White Oak
7. Riparian
8. Westside Prairie
9. Instream
10. Nearshore
11. Caves
12. Cliffs
13. Talus
14. Snags and Down Wood
15. Cavities and Dens
Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for reasons listed below.
Erosion control – Wetland vegetation reduces erosion along lakes and stream
banks by reducing forces associated with wave action and scour.
Flood control – Wetlands can slow runoff water, minimizing the frequency
streams and rivers reach catastrophic flood levels.
Ground water recharge and discharge – Some wetlands serve as a source of
ground water recharge. By detaining surface waters that would otherwise quickly
flow to distant lakes or rivers, the water can percolate into the ground and help
ensure long-term supplies of quality ground water. Some wetlands are ground-
water discharge areas; they receive ground water even during dry periods. This
helps reduce the impact of short-term droughts on rivers and streams.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
6
Natural filter – By trapping and holding water, wetlands store nutrients and
pollutants in the soil, allowing cleaner water to flow in to the body of water
beyond or below the wetland. Vegetation can absorb some of the pollutants that
remain in the soil. Wetlands also moderate water flows, providing time for
sediments to settle out before the water is released to other wetlands, lakes, or
streams. Less sediment means clearer waters and a better environment for
aquatic life.
Fisheries habitat – Many species of fish utilize wetland habitats with adequate
water for spawning, food sources, or protection.
Wildlife habitat – Many animals depend on wetlands for homes and resting
spots. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic insects and certain mammals need
wetlands as a place for their young to be b orn and grow.
Rare species habitat – It has been reported that about 43 per cent of threatened
or endangered species in the United States live in or depend on wetlands. This
includes plants and animals.
Recreation – Wetlands with adequate water are great places to canoe, hunt,
fish, or explore and enjoy nature.
Education – Wetlands provide ideal locations for classroom ecologi cal studies
and a focus for art.
Source of income – Some wetlands provide economic commodities such as
cranberries and fish and provide spatial amenities to developments.
3.4 Shorelines
The jurisdictional government agency maintains several databases that contain
information shorelines that must be considered in many land use decisions and
activities. The distributed information includes data that is maintained in a centralized
data base and mapping system. Agency maps document the location of shorelines
based on field studies and imagery analysis.
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) establishes the concept of preferred uses of
shoreline areas. The Act requires that "uses shall be preferred which are consistent
with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are
unique to or dependent upon use of the states' shorelines...”. "Preferred" uses include
single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial
and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access
opportunities. To the maximum extent possible, the shorelines should be reserve d for
"water-oriented" uses, including "water -dependent", "water-related" and "water-
enjoyment" uses.
The SMA Act affords special consideration to Shorelines of Statewide Significance that
have greater than regional importance. Preferred uses for Shorelines of Statewide
Significance, in order of priority, are to "recognize and protect the state wide interest
over local interest; preserve the natural character of the shoreline; result in long term
over short term benefit; protect the resources and ecology o f the shoreline; increase
public access to publicly owned shoreline areas; and increase recreational opportunities
for the public in the shoreline area."
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
7
The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its
vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against
adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and
aesthetics of the shoreline.
Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public
access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and
enlargement of recreational opportunities.
Shorelines and Shorelines of the State determinations followed the methods under t he
Washington Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.030 & WAC 222-16-030) and the
referenced jurisdictional government agency shoreline regulations referenced in
SECTION 24.0 (REFERENCES).
4.0 FIELD ASSESSMENT
4.1 Test Plots
The site visit included traversing and transecting the property to compare field
conditions to readily available natural resource maps. The test plots were randomly
selected to represent variabilities in plant communities, topography, soil type, near
surface hydrology, land use, and habitat. Sample plots were selected where the
boundary of upland plants start changing to facultative or facultative wet plants, where
there was evidence of extended standing or pooled surface water, suspect o r observed
saturated soils at or near the surface, topographic depressions, flats, at the edge and/or
bottoms of streams, rivers, watercourses, ditches, and drainage ways, and at the toe of
steep slopes, valleys, or ravines.
Data was obtained and compiled at each plot for land use, disturbance, cut and fill,
slope, vegetation, soil, near surface hydrology, drainage patterns, and priority habitat
and species. Test plots were evaluated to determine if shade level or near surface
hydrologic conditions were contributing to the predominance of facultative or wetter
plant species. Laterally oriented test plots were established in upland (non-wetland),
wetland transition, and wetland communities. If streams were present the watercourse
and ordinary high water mark communities were assessed in order to identify the
transition between upland, wetland transition, and wetland communities.
Sample plots ranged from a radius of 5 feet to 30 feet for circular plots and 10 feet wide
to 20 feet long for rectangular plots. Sample plot size depended on the vegetation
classes, vegetation communities, stratums, aerial cover, structure, diversity, soil type,
hydrology, and slope.
The test plots were dug with a trenching shovel with a 1.3 foot long blade. The
dimensions of the test plot holes were at least 1.5 feet deep by at least 9 inches wide.
A wooden stake or flag marked with colored tape was placed at each sample test plot.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
8
Each wooden stake or flag was marked using indelible ink with a discrete test plot
number (i.e. Plot -1) and date (i.e. 03.22.16).
4.2 Soil
At least two near-surface soils were collected from each dug hole at each test plot using
a long-bladed trenching shovel and a 1-inch diameter, open sided, soil probe or garden
spade. Soil samples were evaluated at approximately 2 inches, 6 inches to 9 inches,
and from 10 inches to 18 inches below ground surface . Sample location depths
depended on the depth of moss cover, degree of litter, soil characteristics, hydric soil
conditions, soil layers, hydric soil indicators, moisture level, root mass (50% of mass)
depth, and/or penetration resistance. Soil samples were visually compared to the 2009
edition of the Munsell soil color charts. Munsell pages are cleaned of soil after each use
and pages are changed out after one year of use to prevent color shifting reactions
caused by exposure to sun, soils, atmosphere, and water. The observed Munsell colors
were recorded onto a field data form.
Soil color can be used to infer parent material, percent organic content, or soil drainage
characteristics. For example, soils with both low chroma and value (10YR, 2, 2) are
very dark-colored and tend to have high organic matter contents; soils with a Munsell
chroma code of 2 or less (10YR, 7, 2) may be poorly drained. Distinct redox
concentrations are an indication that the soil goes through alternating periods of
extended soil saturation and drying.
The depth to saturated soils in the test pit will almost always be nearer the ground
surface as compared to standing water due to the capillary fringe effect. For soil
saturation to impact vegetation it must occur within a major portion of the root zone of
the prevalent vegetation. The major portion of the root zone is that portion of the soil
profile in which more than one half of the plant roots occur.
Generally soils within one foot (12 inches) of the ground surface were classified as
being hydric if they have an observed matrix chroma of 2 or less than 2 with greater
than a few (>2 percent) redox features and with a matrix chroma of 1 or less than 1 in
soils with no redox features in the upper part. Other hydric soil indicators were
assessed including depleted matrix, gle y color, hydrogen sulfide odor, histic epipedon,
black histic, depleted below dark surface, thick dark surface, redox dark surface,
depleted dark surface, redox depression, organic soil (i.e. Histosols), loamy mucky
mineral, loamy gleyed matrix, sandy muck y mineral, sandy gleyed matrix, sandy redox,
and sandy stripped matrix. County Natural Resource District Service hydric soil maps
and soil inclusions were also documented.
Mottling (redox) indicates the evidence of slow vertical movement of surface water
through upper low permeable soils and indicates a long duration of saturation. In tilled
soils the very dense and cemented nature of till zones can impede percolated water and
can cause a laterally flow across the top of the till zone. Mottling usually occurs near
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
9
the transition zone between the upper loosened soil layers and the underlain compacted
till.
Soil texture describes the relative dominance in size of soil particle smaller than 2
millimeters in diameter. Sand, silt, and clay are the three siz e classes with sand being
the largest size and clay being the smallest. The textural names are applied based on
the weight percentage of sand (S), silt (Si), and clay (C). The estimated percent of
sand, silt, and clay are noted with the textural name. T he presence or absence of
gravels was also also noted on the data form.
4.3 Vegetation
Boundaries between depressional lows, wetlands, and non -wetlands were established
by assessing the transitional gradient between hydrophytic vegetation to upland
vegetation. In cases where the vegetation was significantly disturbed, scarified, cut, or
filled a visual inspection was performed on undisturbed property located contiguous to
the site. In these cases the undisturbed (or less disturbed) off -site vegetation was used
to assist in the natural vegetation determination on the project site. Observed dominant
and non-dominant vegetation species in each test plot were recorded on a data sheet.
Nomenclature of the observed plant species generally followed guideli nes in Hitchcock
and Cronquist – 2001. A professional botanist was contracted to key out plants which
could not be accurately identified.
On June 1, 2012, the 2013 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) replaced the 1988 U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (24)) for all wetland determinations and
delineations performed for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Swampbuster
provisions of the Food Security Act, and the National Wetland Inventory. This list was
developed by the ACOE, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
using taxonomi c and distribution data from the Biota of North America program
(BONAP) and legacy information from the FWS. The program is directed by the
ACOE. The 2012 list includes changes in the names of species, the recognition of new
species, changes in wetland regions, and changes in the wetland indicator statuses of
species. This list was updated agai n on July 11, 2013, and on April 3, 2014. These
updates included more changes in the names of species, the addition of new species,
and the removal of species that were listed as upland in all regions.
The NWPL for the Western Valleys Mountains and Coast was used to determine the
indicator status of each plant. The indicator status for each plant was obtained from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Plants Database that was accessed
using the Internet. The NWPL (and the information implied by its wetland plant species
status ratings) is used extensively in wetland delineation, wetland restoration , wetland
research, and the development of compensatory mitigation goals, as well as in
providing general botanical information about wetland plant s.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
10
The percentage of aerial cover for each species in each plot was estimated within each
stratum (emergent-forb-herbaceous/scrub-shrub-sapling/tree). Species observed in
each plot were ranked for dominance based on estimated aerial cover and indicator
status within each stratum. Dominant species in each stratum were ranked in
decreasing order of abundance and were then cumulatively totaled in each stratum.
Dominance in a test plot was established by those plants that exceed 50 percent of the
total domi nance measured for that stratum, plus any additional plant species comprising
20 percent or more of the total dominance measured for the stratum (no ties).
Dominant species were compared to their respective indicator status using the USDA
Plant Database list. When more than 50% of the dominant species in the plot had an
indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, the hydrophytic criteria for vegetation was
met.
The FAC-Neutral Test was used to determine plant dominance in areas where
hydrophytic plants are becoming stressed due to climate change (i.e. abnormal dry
conditions) or where an abundance of UPL, FACU or OBL species were identified in the
test plot.
Indicator categories for vegetation status are presented below:
Obligate Wetland (OBL): Occur almost always (estimated probability greater than
99%) under natural conditions in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland (FACW): Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67% -
99%) but occasionally found in non-wetlands.
Facultative (FAC): Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated
probability 34% - 66%).
Facultative Upland (FACU): Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67%
- 99%) but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1% - 33%).
Obligate Upland (UPL): Occur in wetlands in another region but occur almost always
(estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in non -wetlands in the region
indicated. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the National
List.
A hydrophyte is defined as a plant that grows in water or on a substrate that is at least
periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Trees are
defined as woody plants that are 3 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH)
regardless of the total height of the plant. Shrubs are defined as woody plants that are
less than 3 inches DBH and are taller than 3.28 (1 meter). Woody vines are shrubs if
they are greater than 3.28 feet in height. Herbaceous plants are all non -woody plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody plants that are less than 3.28
feet (1 meter) in height.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
11
4.4 Hydrology
Generally, wetlands receive water support from one or more of the seven sources as
listed below.
1. Surface water runoff from precipitation over natural areas in the wetland and
surrounding upland
2. Surface water runoff from impervious or semi-imperious man-constructed
developments, stormwater facilities, ditches, and/or roadways
3. Over bank flow from rivers, streams, rivulets, ponds, lakes, estuaries, and
oceans
4. Hyporheic (interstitial) flows from streams and other watercourses caused by
water movement through sands, gravels, sediments, and other permeable soils
under and contiguous to open stream or other waterway beds.
5. Groundwater recharge from seeps, springs, or near surface water table confined
on top of a hardpan, clay, or compacted glacial till layer. Seepage from
groundwater into wetlands in alluvial plains can be caused by a near surface
water-bearing layer that is semi-confined such as an underlying aquitard or
aquiclude. Aquitards are layers whose permeability is much less than that of the
aquifer itself and an aquiclude is a layer that is essentially impermeable.
6. From intentionally installed artificial features such as roads, irrigation systems,
dams, swales, irrigation canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, drainage ditches, and landscape amenities
7. From unintentionally created features such as gravel mining or borrowing,
mineral mining, and oil and gas exploration
Wetland hydrology is supported by one of five types of water movement:
1. Flow through
2. In flow
3. Hyporheic flow
4. Flat (no flow)
5. Lentic (shorelines and lakes)
Examples of wetland hydrology indicators include presence of surface water, high water
table in the upper part, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift lines/deposits,
algae mat/crust, iron deposits, organic encrustations, salt crust, surface soil cracks,
sparsely vegetated concave surface, aquatic invertebrates, hydrogen sulfide odor,
oxidized rhizospheres, reduced iron, iron reduction in tilled soils, stunted/stressed
plants, water stained leaves, drainage patterns, dry -season water table, geomorphic
position, shallow aquitard, raised ant mounds, aquatic invertebrates, inundation
(imagery), and frost-heaved hummocks. The observed wetland hydrology indicators, if
any, were recorded onto a field data form.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
12
Wetland hydrology is determined based on an “average year” of wetness that prevai ls in
most years. Extended wetness occurring in most years is defined as every other year.
This definition for “average year wetness” has been the standard for wetland delineation
methods.
Saturation within at least 50 percent of the root zone is fundamental for defining wetland
hydrology. Generally, the majority of the roots in wetland emergents/herbs/forbs occur
within the upper 6 inches and for woody plants within the upper 6 inches to 18 inches.
The percentage of slope in each wetland was measured in the field using one of four
methods:
1. Interpreting elevation contours from local USGS topographic maps and/or other
elevation contour maps (i.e. Google Maps)
2. Using an electronic inclinometer, Model/Type 86
3. Using a professional land survey plotted with elevation contours
4. Visual estimation
5.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION
The Clean Water Act and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) defines wetlands as
“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface 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 ”. The
wetland delineation involved assessing all three wetland characteristics:
1. Hydric soil
2. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation
3. Wetland hydrology
Equal emphasis was placed on all three criteria: vegetation, soil, and hydrology
because all three of these criteria were easily identified. If equal emphasis was not
employed for the determination an explanation is presented in the report.
If all three wetland parameters in a test plot were present or reasonably inferred under
normal circumstances, a positive wetland determination was made. If any one or more
of the three parameters was not wetland in character then the area was considered
upland (non-wetland) unless the area was determined to meet the wetland
characteristics due to being abnormal, significantly disturbed, atypical, assumed,
problematic, or artificial .
Abnormal, atypical, problematic, or significantly disturbed areas can include situations
where field indicators of one or more of the three wetlands identification criteria are
obliterated or not present due to recent change in land use or from other difficult
situations. A decision as to whether or not the assessed area is abnormal, significantly
disturbed, atypical, or problematic was made and recorded after review of recent and
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
13
historical aerial photographs, surface and subsurface soil characteristics, hydrologic
conditions, NRCS soil maps, wetland atlases, wetland inventory maps, stream maps,
topographic maps, local historians, and/or by observing local site conditions in the near
vicinity of the site.
Artificially created wetlands may or may not be jurisdictional according to state or lo cal
regulations. A determination was made in the field by observing suspect artificial
features such as test pits, roads, road ruts, irrigation canals, drainage ditches, dikes,
dams, swales, lagoons, false ponds, mined areas , and other man-made landscape
features.
The feature was assessed to see if it is jurisdictional based on codified exemptions such
as being “isolated”, “artificial”, “small -size”, “functionally exempt”, “farmland exempt”, or
“exempt for other reasons”. Based on this process, a final determination was made to
determine if the feature is a jurisdictional wetland.
Wetlands directly connected, adjacent, or neighboring to shorelines, in some cases, are
not category rated using the ECOLOGY Wetlands Ratings Manual unless specifically
cited in the Shoreline Management regulations. In this case and according to the City of
Auburn wetlands must be rated using the 2004 Ecology Wetlands Ratings Manual for
Western Washington.
6.0 STREAM DETERMINATION
The presence or absence of off-site waters within about 330 feet from the project site
was assessed by a cursory assessment made from public access corridors, from
interpretation of readily available maps, and from other documented resources.
For purposes of the ACOE under the Nationwide Permit Program, a waterbody is a
jurisdictional water of the United States that, during a year with normal patterns of
precipitation, has water flowing or standing above ground to the extent that an ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) or other indicators of jurisdiction can be determined, as well
as any wetland area (33 CFR 328.3(b)). If a jurisdictional wetland is adjacent —meaning
bordering, contiguous, or neighboring —to a jurisdictional waterbody displaying an
OHWM or other indicators of jurisdiction, that waterbod y and its adjacent wetlands are
considered together as a single aquatic unit (33 CFR 328.4(c)(2)). Examples of
“waterbodies” include streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and certain wetlands that are
inundated for part of the growing season .
Waters (i.e. stream, river, pond, or lake) had to meet the technical requirements for
being a stream according to criteria established by WDFW and WDNR. Stream and
river determinations were made using WDNR water type guidelines, 2002, amended in
2010. Based on their guidelines a stream must have a definable scour channel with a
bed, have bank full widths greater than 2 feet wide on average, and must be landscape
positioned to be contiguous to a Water of the State.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
14
The water type for field verified waters is based on state shoreline status, substrate,
bed, scour channel, period of surface water flow, flow rate, depth and width of surface
water, pools, riffles, ordinary high water mark, bank characteristics, gradient (slope),
anadromous and resident fish use, priority or locally important species use, priority
habitat characteristics, riparian zones, and other special characteristics.
Ordinary High Water Mark
WDNR: The ordinary high mark (OHWM) as defined by the Washington Forest
Practices Manual (WAC 222, December 2002) and the local shoreline authority means
the mark on the shores of all waters such as lakes, streams, and tidal waters, which will
be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and
action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years,
as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect
to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change
thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local
government or the department. Provided that in any area where the ordinary high -water
mark cannot be found, the ordinary high-water mark adjoining saltwater shall be the line
of mean high tide and the ordinary high-water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the
line of mean high-water.
ACOE: That line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by
physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving,
changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of
liter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding areas.
An OHWM is a line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated
by physical characteristics, or by other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas (see 33 CFR 328.3(e). A good estimate for
determining the OHWM is using the high water mark observed in a 2.5 year flood.
Note: Wetland hydrology indicators must be established during the growing season.
For OHWM, indicators for hydrology are typically established during the winter and
spring high water flows. Duration of hydrology is also different: wetland hydrology
needs to be established for a minimum of two continuous weeks, while the duration for
the OHWM can be as little as three d ays. Also soil indicators also differ for wetlands
and OHWM in low energy systems (driven primarily by biochemical anoxia) than OHWM
in high energy systems (driven primarily by physical gain -loss of mineral and organic
material).
Channel Migration Zone / Area
The area within the lateral extent of likely stream channel movement due to stream
bank destabilization and erosion, rapid stream incision, and shifts in location of stream
channels. The channel migration zone is approximated by evidence of channel
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Stormwater ● Site Assessment ● Wetland ● Remediation ● Priority Habitat & Species
15
locations in the last 100 years, but shall not be strictly bounded by these criteria alone.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency does not regulate these zones at this
time. Property inside a channel migration zone is regulated as a floodway, which is
considered the most dangerous flood hazard. Water in this zone can be deep and fast
moving.
7.0 PRIORITY HABITAT & SPECIES DETERMINATION
The presence or absence of priority habitat and species (PHS) was made by performing
a cursory habitat and species assessment. The field assessment included documenting
observed sightings, vocalizations, field indicators, or other evidence. Field indicators
include assessing sounds such as calls and songs, and other features such as nest,
den, burrow, flyover, feather , fur, wildlife trail, ant hill, seed / cone pile, hive /
honeycomb scat, rest area, cavity, bone / carcass, gnawed stump or tree, dam, hut,
shed skin, egg casting, egg mass, rock outcrop or pile, rip rap, among others. The
assessment included identifying bogs, heritage trees, heritage wetlands, estuaries,
coastal lagoons, inter dunes, and other unique features. The determination for
presence or absence of PHS is based on the time and date of the assessment and did
not reflect diurnal or seasonal variance s.
8.0 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY
Sample test plots, wetland edge flags, ordinary high water mark stream or river edge
flags, observed presence or indicators of priority and sensitive habitats and species,
and associative buffers were mapped “to-scale” on a figure that was prepared by a
professional land surveyor . The method employed for the figure is accurate only to the
degree permitted by the implied plotting, measuring, or surveying methods.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX E
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS & RESUMES
Planning, Building, and Community Department
MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
Is My Property Located in the “Shoreline?”
The Auburn Shoreline Master Program applies only to
properties that are located along the White River or the
Green River. The program regulates activities located in
the following areas:
Work within the White and Green River channels•
Lands extending 200 feet in all directions (measured on a •
horizontal plane) from the rivers’ ordinary high water mark
and/or the floodway
Wetlands that are functionally related to the rivers through •
surface water connection or other factors. Typically, a
wetland biologist would determine whether a wetland is
considered “associated” with the river
Do I Need a Permit?
All activities within the shoreline master program jurisdiction must meet the goals, poli-
cies, and regulations in the program regardless of whether or not a shoreline permit is
required. “All activities” include any actions regulated by the program, such as in-water
activity (dredging); new buildings and structures; and land development activities such
as clearing, grading, or filling. If the activity does not require a shoreline permit, the
planning department will review the activity for consistency with the shoreline master
program as part of other required city permits, such as a grading permit, building permit,
SEPA, or preliminary plat application.
There are three tiers of shoreline permitting:
1st Tier:• Shoreline activities which are considered exempt from obtaining a Shoreline
Substantial Development permit. If the shoreline activity requires a federal or state permit
a letter of exemption must be obtained from the Director of Planning, Building, and
Community Department.
2nd Tier:• Shoreline activities that are required to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Develop-
ment permit. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit requires SEPA review, a public
hearing, and approval from the Auburn Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner’s permit
decision can be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board.
3rd Tier:• Shoreline activities that require shoreline conditional use permits or shoreline
variance permits. These permits require SEPA review, a public hearing, approval from the
Auburn Hearing Examiner, and approval from the Department of Ecology. Conditional use
and variance permits can be appealed to the state Shoreline Hearings Board.
Do I Need a Permit?Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Page 1 of 2
August 2009
*The burden of proving proposed development is consistent with the Shoreline Master Plan is the applicant’s (see ACC 16.08.070).
FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have any questions please contact Planning, Building, and Community at 253-931-3090.
Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM)
Wetland in 100-year
floodplain
200'
100-year floodplain
200'
Floodway
SHORELINE
JURISDICTION
200' from OHWM or floodway and all marshes,
bogs, and swamps in 100-year floodplain
Planning, Building, and Community Department
MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
What is a shoreline environment designation?
Shoreline environment designations work like a zoning overlay. Each designation has
standards for development and allowed uses that apply in addition to zoning regula-
tions. The purpose of shoreline environment designations is to provide a uniform basis
for applying policies and regulations within similar environmental conditions.
There are three environment designations for the White River and Green River shore-
lines in Auburn: Natural, Urban Conservancy and Shoreline Residential.
What is the purpose of the Urban Conservancy designation?
To protect and restore shoreline ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other
critical lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety
of compatible uses consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and the SMP.
What is the required buffer in the Urban Conservancy designation?
A one-hundred foot buffer from the “ordinary high water mark” to provide riparian habitat
and protect water quality.
Buffers should consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation. No buildings or struc-
tures are allowed in the buffer unless specifically permitted by the SMP. Development
activities allowed in the buffer are limited to uses such as unpaved trails and habitat
enhancement projects. If development exists, revegetation or enhancement may be
required when the property redevelops or changes use.
Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environment Designation
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Page 1 of 2
August 2009
FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have any questions please contact Planning, Building, and Community at 253-931-3090.
URBAN CONSERVANCY
ENVIRONMENT
200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION
100'
BUFFER
(WITH LIMITED USES)
ALLOWED USES
AND ACTIVITIES
RIVER
100'
ORDINARY HIGH
WATER MARK
Planning, Building, and Community Department
MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
Shoreline Environment Designation
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Agriculture if established and ongoing
► SEE SECTION 4.7.2
Boating facilities if boat launching ramps are
open to the public
► SEE SECTION 4.7.4
Clearing and grading if associated with allowed
shoreline development
► SEE SECTION 4.6.5
Dredging to maintain navigability only
SEE SECTION 4.6.2
Fill
For habitat restoration•
At or above the ordinary high water mark or the •
natural bank, whichever is less, and when
associated with allowed shoreline development
► SEE SECTION 4.6.6
Habitat enhancement and restoration projects
► SEE SECTION 4.6.7
Existing Residential, uses commonly accessory to single
family residences
► SEE SECTION 4.7.8
Recreation, bridle, bicycling and walking trails; overwater
pedestrian bridges; viewpoints; pedestrian boardwalks and
piers; water-enjoyment uses; golf courses; and retail activity
in conjunction with a public access pier
► SEE SECTION 4.7.7
Shoreline stabilization if accessory to an existing
single-family residence
► SEE SECTION 4.6.4
Signs
► SEE SECTION 4.7.9
Structural flood hazard reduction if replacing or rehabili-
tating existing levees
► SEE SECTION 4.4.7
Transportation facilities, roads, bridges, and pedestrian
overpasses and underpasses of railroad facilities
► SEE SECTION 4.7.10
Utilities, storm drain outfalls; primary conveyance and
distribution facilities; and accessory utility facilities to serve
allowed development
► SEE SECTION 4.7.11
Allowed Uses and Activities
Dredging and dredge material disposal, for habitat
and flood protection projects
► SEE SECTION 4.6.2
Fill extending waterward of the ordinary high water
mark for water dependent uses (e.g., fishing piers)
► SEE SECTION 4.6.6
Fish hatcheries
► SEE SECTION 4.7.3
In-stream water diversion structures
► SEE SECTION 4.7.5
Mining if established and ongoing
► SEE SECTION 4.7.6
Recreation that has non-water related uses
► SEE SECTION 4.7.7
Residential, new single family residences, multi-family
residences, and residential subdivisions
► SEE SECTION 4.7.8
Shoreline stabilization not associated with a
single-family residence
► SEE SECTION 4.6.4
Transportation facilities, relocation or expansion of
existing railroad tracks
► SEE SECTION 4.7.10
Utilities, primary utilities; reclaimed water facilities; potable
water production; wastewater treatment plant; and storm
water storage or treatment ponds.
► SEE SECTION 4.7.11
Uses Allowed Only with a Conditional Use Permit
Page 2 of 2
August 2009
*These tables are intended for reference purposes only. Refer to the text sections of the SMP for all applicable provisions related to
specific uses and activities.
Urban Conservancy
Planning, Building, and Community Department
MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
The ordinary high water mark is a mark on the bank of the White River or Green River
which has been created by the long term presence and movement of water that looks
distinctly different than the rest of the bank, in terms of vegetation and/or slope (see
Chapter 1, definitions).
Since most of the banks of the White and Green Rivers have been altered with man-
made structures, the ordinary high water mark is likely to be located at the top of the
river bank or on existing levees. Prior to application, the ordinary high water mark needs
to be determined in the field by a qualified professional, and shown on plans when new
structures, land development, or a change of use is proposed for a shoreline property.
Photo Examples of the Approximate Ordinary High Water Mark*
Page 2 of 2
August 2009
FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have any questions please contact Planning, Building, and Community at 253-931-3090.
Where is the Ordinary High Water Mark?
Green River
Ordinary High Water
Mark at top of alluvial
deposit
White River
Ordinary High Water
Mark at break in slope
*Photos are for illustrative purposes only.
RESUME
Shoreline ▪ GIS Mapping ▪ Site Assessment ▪ Wetland ▪ Remediation ▪ Habitat ▪ Stormwater
Jonathan M. Kemp – P.W.S. No. 2110
WORK EXPERIENCE
EnCo, Puyallup WA, Professional Wetland Scientist & Wildlife/Fisheries Biologist February 1996 to Present
Mr. Kemp has delineated, classified, categorized, and authored reports on over 250 wetlands, streams, lakes,
and shorelines. He has designed, restored, enhanced, created, and monitored post-construction mitigated
wetlands and buffers. The outcome of his mitigation projects consistently meet or exceed agency performance
standards. The mitigation design process includes using best available scientific methods for the compensation
of development impacts to critical areas. Compensatory plans have consistently been approved by ECOLOGY,
Municipalities, ACOE, & WSDOT.
He has assessed and determined baseline and after construction functions and values for critical areas on small
and large commercial and residential developments of up to 800 acres, several state highway expansion
projects, and municipal public works projects. He has the ability to recognize and solve critical area compliance
issues in a creative and cost-effective manner and prepares detailed supporting documents for environmental
permit acquisition and public hearings.
Prepared several SEPA, EIS, and Biological Assessments for property connected to shorelines, streams,
wetlands, endangered species, and priority habitats.
Performed a Wildlife, Habitat, and Tree Inventory with Management Plan for 279 acres of native woodland and
grassland covered with extensive stands of Garry Oak mixed with Douglas fir, Madrone, Maple, Western Red
Cedar and Hemlock. Inventoried DBH, height, health, crown shape, understory vegetation, heritage, cavity, den,
perch, runner log, nest, encroachment, soil type, and amphibian/reptile water source in 88 test plots for over
6,000 individual trees.
Provided technical guidance for selecting alternative methods in order to mitigate damaged or impacted
wetlands on several commercial and residentially zoned lots. These mitigated wetlands have been monitored
for over three years and have met governmental performance standards.
Timson & Peters, Farmingdale ME, Associate September 1992 to October 1995
Obtained stormwater permits, recommended best management practices, prepared stormwater pollution
prevention plans, collected stormwater samples, and completed discharge monitoring reports at industrial
facilities.
Terracon Environmental, Omaha NE, Project Manager December 1988 to July 1992
Delineated over 20 wetlands for a variety of small to large commercial and residential developments up to 250
acres in size and several County proposed highway expansion projects.
EDUCATION
South Dakota State University, Bachelor of Science Degree – Three Majors: Wildlife/Fisheries Science, Biology,
and Environmental Management, December 1976
CONTINUING EDUCATION, TRAINING, LICENSES, & AFFILIATIONS
Professional Wetland Scientist, Society of Wetland Scientists, Certification #2110, Expires 2016 The Wildlife Society, Board Member #1 – 2011 to 2014 Amphibian Identification & Design Workshops (WDFW) – February 2008 & April 2009 Wetland Delineation and Practicum – 48 hours of training in Washington Wetland Specialist for King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, Mason, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties Society of Wetland Scientists, Hydric Soil Indicators – 2009 Certified pocket gopher surveyor (WDFW) – 2010 Washington Wetland Rating System Training, Coastal Training Program – 2005 & 2008 & 2014
Phone: 253-241-9241
E-mail:
arbor.steve@gmail.com
37463 18th Ave So.
Federal Way, WA 98003
Steve Cushing
I.S.A. Certified
Arborist
PN-7629A
Tree Risk
Assessment Qualified
253-241-9241
01-22-2018
Prepared For:
Dan Guyll
32267 104th Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092
Site Inventory of trees including species identification, height, Drip line and limited report as to
whether or not the trees contribute shade to Green River.
1.) Thuja plicata, western redcedar: 85’ Feet tall, 35’ Drip line diameter. (2038 Map)
2.) Liquidambar styruciflua, sweet gum : 40’ tall, 15’ Drip line diameter. (2037)
3.) Liquidambar styruciflua, sweet gum : 60’ tall, 18’ Drip line diameter. (2036)
4.) Thuja plicata, western redcedar: 40’ Feet tall, 20’ Drip line diameter. (2035)
5.) Acer macrophyllum, big leaf maple: 65’ Feet tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2034)
6.) Acer macrophyllum, big leaf maple: 40’ Feet tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2033)
7.) Alnus rubra, red alder: 45’ Feet tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2028)
8.) Alnus rubra, red alder: 44’ Feet tall, 25’ Drip line diameter. (2029)
9.) Acer macrophyllum, big leaf maple: 50’ Feet tall, 50’ Drip line diameter. (2033)
10.) Alnus rubra, red alder: 35’ Feet tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2059)
11.) Quercus rubra, red oak: 80’ tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2061)
12.) Populus trichocarpa, black cottonwood: 40’ tall, 15’ Drip line diameter. (2068)
13.) Populus trichocarpa, black cottonwood: 45’ tall, 20’ Drip line diameter. (2066)
14.) Populus trichocarpa, black cottonwood: 50’ tall, 20’ Drip line diameter. (2065)
15.) Populus trichocarpa, black cottonwood: 50’ tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2067)
16.) Acer macrophyllum, big leaf maple: 30’ Feet tall, 30’ Drip line diameter. (2069)
17.) Sequoiadendron giganteum, giant sequoia: 115’ tall, 45’ Drip lin diameter. (2060)
18.) Pinus ponderosa, ponderosa pine: 42’ tall, 20’ Drip line diameter. (2072)
19.) Prunus avium, wild cherry : 24’ Tall, 20’ Drip line diameter. (2192)
20.) Tree (2081) Not present.
To whom it may concern,
I have done a limited inventory of the native trees on this parcel The overall condition of the trees above is poor due to pr evious
toppings and extensive ivy and berry growth at the bases and trunks.
Tree number 1 / (2038) is dead. 7 of the 20 are Cottonwood or Alder which are not considered significant at any size by the city's
definition. Of the remaining 13 trees, only 3 are Evergreen / Conifer. This leaves 4 Maples and 1 Oak, 1 Cherry all of whic h are in
poor condition.
Tree 20 / (2081) Not present.
There is no shade benefit to Green River from these 20 trees on this parcel due to being shaded out by the hillside East of t he trees.
The Sun’s trajectory over the horizon is from the South East to South West. Removal of the trees would not affect shade to Green
River.
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Steve Cushing
ISA Certified Arborist PN-7629A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Arborsteve.com
1.) Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property a re as-
sumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character.
2.) All existing liens encumbrances, and assessments, if any, have been disregarded (unless otherwise noted,) and the trees are
evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that no viola-
tions of applicable government regulations have occurred.
3.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible Ho wever,
Steve Cushing / arborsteve.com can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information
4.) Steve Cushing / arborsteve.com shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by any reason of this report unl ess
subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additional fee for such services as described in our fee
schedule and contract of engagement.
7.) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidated the entire report.
8.) This report shall be used for its intended purpose only and by the parties to whom which it is addressed. Possession of this
report does not include the right of publication.
9.) Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone. Including, the client, to
the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other media without the prior expressed written or verb al
consent of Steve Cushing / arborsteve.com.
10. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinions of Steve Cushing / arborsteve.com. Our fee is in no way
contingent upon any specified value, a result or occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
11.) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and
should not be construed as engineering, architectural reports or surveys.
12.) Unless expressed otherwise: A.) information contained on this report covers only those items that were requested for exami-
nation and reflects the condition of those items at the time of requested inspection. B.) The inspection is limited to the
ground level visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring.
13.) There is no warranty or guarantee expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the tree or other plant or prop erty in
question may not arise in the future.
14.) The right is reserved to adjust valuations if additional information is made available.
15. ) I do not guarantee the acquisition / approval of any request or application for any permitting or permissions to be granted by
any person, city, municipality or entity of any kind with the information provided
9/19/2017 Species By County Report
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=53033 1/2
CSV
ECOS / Species Reports / Species By County Report
Species By County Report
The following report contains Species that are known to or are believed to occur in this county. Species with range unrefined past the state level
are now excluded from this report. If you are looking for the Section 7 range (for Section 7 Consultations), please visit the IPaC application.
County: King, Washington
Need to contact a FWS field office about a species? Follow this link to find your local FWS Office.
Group Name Population Status
Lead
Office Recovery Plan
Recovery
Plan Action
Status
Recovery
Plan
Stage
Amphibians Oregon spotted
frog (Rana
pretiosa)
Wherever found Threatened Washington
Fish and
Wildlife
Office
Birds Yellow-billed
Cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus)
Western U.S. DPS Threatened Sacramento
Fish and
Wildlife
Office
Birds Northern
spotted owl
(Strix
occidentalis
caurina)
Wherever found Threatened Oregon
Fish and
Wildlife
Office
Revised
Recovery Plan
for the Northern
Spotted Owl
Implementation
Progress
Final
Revision
1
Birds Marbled
murrelet
(Brachyramphus
marmoratus)
U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)Threatened Washington
Fish and
Wildlife
Office
Recovery Plan
for the
Threatened
Marbled
Murrelet
(Brachyramphus
marmoratus) in
Washington,
Oregon, and
California
Implementation
Progress
Final
Birds Streaked
Horned lark
(Eremophila
alpestris
strigata)
Wherever found Threatened Oregon
Fish and
Wildlife
Office
Conifers
and
Cycads
Whitebark pine
(Pinus
albicaulis)
Wherever found Candidate Wyoming
Ecological
Services
Field Office
Fishes Bull Trout
(Salvelinus
confluentus)
U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48
states
Threatened Idaho Fish
and Wildlife
Office
Recovery Plan
for the
Coterminous
United States
Population of
Bull Trout
(Salvelinus
confluentus)
Implementation
Progress
Final
ECOS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
9/19/2017 Species By County Report
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=53033 2/2
Group Name Population Status
Lead
Office Recovery Plan
Recovery
Plan Action
Status
Recovery
Plan
Stage
Flowering
Plants
Showy
stickseed
(Hackelia
venusta)
Wherever found Endangered Washington
Fish and
Wildlife
Office
Recovery Plan
for Hackelia
venusta (Showy
Stickseed)
Implementation
Progress
Final
Mammals Grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos
horribilis)
U.S.A., conterminous (lower
48) States, except where listed
as an experimental population
or delisted
Threatened Montana
Ecological
Services
Field Office
Revised Grizzly
Bear Recovery
Plan
Implementation
Progress
Final
Revision
1
Mammals Grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos
horribilis)
North Cascades Ecosystem
Recovery Zone Population
Under
Review
Montana
Ecological
Services
Field Office
Mammals Gray wolf
(Canis lupus)
U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO,
CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS,
KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO,
MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV,
NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD,
TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV;
and portions of AZ, NM, OR,
UT, and WA. Mexico.
Endangered Assistant
Regional
Director-
Ecological
Services
Mammals Canada Lynx
(Lynx
canadensis)
Contiguous U.S. DPS Threatened Montana
Ecological
Services
Field Office
Recovery
Outline for the
Contiguous
United States
Distinct
Population
Segment of
Canada Lynx
(Lynx
canadensis)
Recovery
efforts in
progress, but
no
implementation
information yet
to display.
Outline
Mammals North American
wolverine (Gulo
gulo luscus)
Wherever found Proposed
Threatened
Montana
Ecological
Services
Field Office
Snails Puget oregonian
(Cryptomastix
devia)
Wherever found Under
Review
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX F
LIMITATIONS
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Stream • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
LIMITATIONS
WETLAND, STREAM, WATER &
FEDERAL & STATE LISTED HABITAT & SPECIES
with
HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This study was limited to the project site parcel and other nearby lands as defined in this
report. The work did not include detailed assessment of any off-site properties, except
for the parcel located contiguous to the south and west of the project site parcel. A field
reconnaissance was performed on land located beyond the project site parcel as
observed from accessible public access ways such as roads, open green space, waters
of the state, conservancy, easements, or alley ways.
Areas that were not accessible due to vicious or dangerous animals, very steep ravines,
cliffs, very dense thickets and brambles (i.e. Himalayan blackberry, scotch broom, or
other scrub-shrubbery), poisonous plants, and/or secured fences or gates were not
assessed. The study was performed on land that was accessible by foot and did not
include assessing vegetated areas that were deeply inundated (i.e. greater than 1 foot
deep) or steeply sloped greater than 65 percent.
Items provided by the client included the right of entry (verbally or by a contract) onto
the project site parcel and in some cases on adjoining properties prior to conducting the
work. The project site boundaries were clearly marked or were determined by the client
or landowner representative prior the fieldwork.
The work did not include performing long-term field study of threatened, endangered,
sensitive, and priority habitat and species. The determination for presence or absence
of federally listed and/or state listed species is based on the time and date in the field
and does not reflect diurnal or seasonal variances.
Performing critical area and habitat studies is an inexact science, and different
individuals and government agencies may reach different conclusions. Wetlands
and streams are subject to seasonal and annual variation and climate change. The
flagged edges of wetlands and streams mark the edges as of the date of the field
study and may significantly change over time. The final determination of this report
for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the government agencies that have
permit authority and regulate development activities and impacts to critical areas.
This report is not final until approved by the jurisdictional regulatory agency with
permit authority. EnCo does not guarantee acceptance or approval by regulatory
agencies or that the planned use of the property will be achieved.
POB 1212
Puyallup WA 98371
Telephone: 253.841.9710
www.encoec.com
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Stream • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
On the basis of the intended use of this report, EnCo may require that additional work
be performed based on comments and clarifications received from regulatory agencies.
If additional work is required by these agencies it will be presented in an updated report.
The information presented in this report is based on EnCo’s best professional opinion
based on generally accepted principals and results of the analysis of information
gathered in the course of its preparation. The wetland delineation, wetland category
rating, stream determination, water type classification, standard buffer width
determination, and priority habitat and species assessment is based on the described
methods defined in the attached report and field procedures document. EnCo utilized
professional and technical judgment in accordance with a degree of care and skill and
this work product has been executed in accordance with professional standards
acceptable in this profession. No warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made
or offered.
This report is intended for the exclusive use of our client, client assigns, and
jurisdictional regulatory authorities with permit authority. Any other parties that wish to
use this report shall notify EnCo who will execute and deliver a Reliance Letter. This
document is intended for use in its entirety. If an excerpt is quoted or paraphrased from
this report it shall be properly referenced. Non-compliance with any of these
requirements will release EnCo from any liability resulting from the use of this report by
any unauthorized party.
This report was prepared under the assumption that there are no on-going or
unresolved land use critical area violations or Cease and Desist orders reported or
filed on the project site parcel.
The scope of this project did not include completing permit applications, preparing State
of Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) related documents, preparing a
wetland or floodplain riparian buffer modification or enhancement plan, a wetland,
wetland buffer, or floodplain riparian habitat mitigation plan, a planting or re-vegetation
plan, preparing an erosion and sedimentation control plan, performing a land slide
and/or geologic hazard assessment, performing a historical cultural investigation, or
using the services requiring the use of a professional licensed engineer, hydrologist,
hydrogeologist, or a state certified forester, or geologist.
The work did not provide any study beneath any man-influenced fill material or of any
topsoil removed and disturbed due to previous scarifying, grading, excavating, cutting,
dumping, filling, and/or ditching except as discussed elsewhere in the report.
The work did not determine if a WDNR Forest Practices Application permit is needed for
any future tree management, logging, grubbing, and/or tree clearing activities.
Generally, a WDNR Forest Practices Application permit is required when greater than
5,000 board feet of merchantable timber is planned for removal.
EnCo
Wetland • Wildlife • Stream • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
The geospatial accuracy of readily available government agency GIS maps is not an
accurate depiction of the property boundary and critical areas and buffer edges.
Readily available public data and maps were reviewed "as-is" and "with all faults". The
Geospatial accuracy of maps shall be used for informational purposes as a general
guide only for the assistance of property owners and other interested parties; the
boundaries and locations shown are generalized. Site maps carry no warranties and
are simply a graphic representation. The best available data depicting the project
parcel boundary and critical areas and buffers is the surveyed diagram that the
professional land surveyor created.
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Wetland • Wildlife • Watercourse • Shoreline • Priority Habitat & Species
APPENDIX G
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 1
Photo 1
Facing North
On Site
Test Plot 1
Upland Plot
Photo 5
Top View
On Site
Test Plot 1
Upland Plot
Water at >1.5’ BGS
1 Primary Indicator
Photo 3
Facing South
On Site
Test Plot 1
Upland Plot
Photo 2
Facing East
On Site
Test Plot 1
Upland Plot
Photo 4
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 1
Upland Plot
1
1W 1S
1E 1N
Plot 1
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 2
Photo 6
Facing North
On Site
Test Plot 2
Upland Plot
Photo 10
Top View
On Site
Test Plot 2
Upland Plot
Water at >1.5’ BGS
1 Primary Indicator
Photo 7
Facing East
On Site
Test Plot 2
Upland Plot
Photo 8
Facing South
On Site
Test Plot 2
Upland Plot
Photo 9
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 2
Upland Plot
2N
2S
2
2E
2W Plot 2
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 3
Photo 11
Facing North
On Site
Test Plot 3
Upland Plot
Photo 15
Top View
On Site
Test Plot 3
Upland Plot
Water >1.5’ BGS
No Indicators
Photo 12
Facing East
On Site
Test Plot 3
Upland Plot
Photo 13
Facing South
On Site
Test Plot 3
Upland Plot
Photo 14
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 3
Upland Plot
3E
3
3S 3W
3N
Plot 3
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 4
Photo 16
Facing North
On Site
Test Plot 4
Wetland A
Green River Side
Channel
Part of Shoreline
Photo 20
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 4
Wetland A
Green River Side
Channel
Part of Shoreline
Water 0.5’ BGS
8 Primary Indicators
Photo 17
Facing East
On Site
Test Plot 4
Wetland A
Green River Side
Channel
Part of Shoreline
Photo 18
Facing South
On Site
Test Plot 4
Wetland A
Green River Side
Channel
Part of Shoreline
Photo 19
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 4
Wetland A
Green River Side
Channel
Part of Shoreline
4
4W 4S
4E 4N
Plot 4
Green River Side Channel
Plot 4
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 5
Photo 21
Facing North
On Site
Test Plot 5
Wetland A
Green River
Main Channel
Photo 25
Top View
On Site
Test Plot 5
Green River
Wetland A
Main Channel
Water at 0.4’ BGS
7 Primary
Indicators
Photo 23
Facing South
On Site
Test Plot 5
Wetland A
Green River
Main Channel
Photo 22
Facing East
On Site
Test Plot 5
Wetland A
Green River
Main Channel
Photo 24
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 5
Wetland A
Green River
Main Channel
5N 5E
5S 5W
5
Green River
Plot 5
OHWM OHWM
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 6
Photo 26
Facing North
On Site
Test Plot 6
Upland Plot
Top of Sand Bar
Green River
Photo 30
Top View
On Site
Test Plot 6
Upland Plot
Top of Sand Bar
Green River
Water at >1.50’ BGS
No Indicators
Photo 27
Facing East
On Site
Test Plot 6
Upland Plot
Top of Sand Bar
Green River
Photo 28
Facing South
On Site
Test Plot 6
Upland Plot
Top of Sand Bar
Green River
Photo 29
Facing West
On Site
Test Plot 6
Upland Plot
Top of Sand Bar
Green River
6N 6E
6S 6W
6
Plot 6
Plot 6
APPENDIX G
03.22.16—WTJK-Jeffrey-Auburn-1 Page 7
Photo 31
Facing North
On Site
Green River Side
Channel
Wetland A
Part of Shoreline
Photo 35
Facing West
On Site
Undeveloped Lot
View from 104th
Place Southeast
Upland Area
Forested
Photo 32
Facing Southeast
On Site
Green River Side
Channel
Wetland A
Part of Shoreline
Photo 33
Facing East
On Site
Sand Bar Island
Upland Area
West of Green River
Shoreline
Home in Background
Photo 34
Facing North
On Site
Sand Bar Island
Upland Area
Upland
Green River Side Channel
Upland
Upland
Green River Side Channel
Upland Island Upland Island
OHWM
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Site Assessment ▪ Shoreline ▪ Wetland ▪ Watercourse ▪ Remediation ▪ Habitat ▪ Stormwater
Page 1
Mr. Dustin Lawrence, AICP & Senior Planner April 8, 2019
City of Auburn, Department of Community Development
25 West Main Street
Auburn, King County, WA 98001- 4998
RE: REPORT ADDENDUM 1
WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION with HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date of Above-Referenced Report: August 24, 2018
Jeffery & Guyll Residence, North of 32267 104th Place SE
Auburn, King County WA 98092
Parcel Number: 334100-0140
City of Auburn File Number: SHL-18-0004, FDP18-0007, & SEP18-0024
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
This report addendum (ADDENDUM 1) has been prepared in response to your Notice
of Complete Application & First Review Comments letter dated November 21, 2018 for
the above-referenced project. Specifically, this letter is my professional response and
determination to request Number 2 on Page 2 under the “Additional Information
Requested” for the forthcoming Floodplain Development Permit.
City of Auburn Language Clarification Request
Item Number 2: “The EnCo Wetland & Stream Delineation Report states that without
mitigation, the project "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect.". With mitigation,
the report states that it would "likely not adversely affect". It appears that this statement
should have read "not likely to adversely affect." The determination should either be
"may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect; or may affect, and is likely to adversely
affect. Please clarify”.
EnCo Response
By implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be described in the
forthcoming Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by implementing a forthcoming
riparian habitat re-vegetation and unique habitat features enhancement plan, and by
implementing mitigation measures as presented in SECTION 21.0 – MITIGATION
APPROACH of the EnCo report, the project action would not likely to adversely affect
any federal or state listed threatened or endangered species or their federal defined
critical habitat.
PO Box 1236
Gig Harbor WA 98335
Telephone: 253.841.9710
jkemp@encoec.com
www.encoec.com
EnCo Environmental Corporation
Site Assessment ▪ Shoreline ▪ Wetland ▪ Watercourse ▪ Remediation ▪ Habitat ▪ Stormwater
Page 2
Determination: Based on the detailed analysis as presented in the EnCo HIA, it is the
professional opinion of this writer and it has been determined that the proposed action,
as proposed with BMPS, enhancements, and mitigation, May Affect but is Not Likely
to Adversely Affect any federal or state listed threatened and endangered species or
their federal defined critical habitat to include: Fall Chum, Fall Chinook, Coho
Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Pink Salmon, Dolly Varden / Bull Trout, Steelhead,
Rainbow Trout, and Coastal Cutthroat.
Please let me know if this response meets your request for clarification for the above-
referenced EnCo report.
Sincerely,
Jonathan M. Kemp, P.W.S No.2110
Principal, EnCo Environmental Corporation
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
2028
2029
2059
ALDER 20
ALDER 7
ALDER 16
ALDER 20
ALDER 20
ALDER 20
N 60
°
1
2'
4
2
"
E
127.
5
3'N 35
°29
'18
"
W90.45
'
N 60
°
1
2'
4
2
"
E
113.
6
7'104TH PLACE
SEGREEN RIVEROH-10
ELEV=62.44
OH-9
OH-8
OH-7A
OH-6A
OH-5A
OH-4A
OH-3A
OH-2A
OH-1A
ELEV=61.34
OH-1B
ELEV=61.77
OH-2B
OH-3B
OH-4B
OH-5BOH-7B
OH-7C
OH-7D
OH-7E
OH-7F
OH-7G
OH-7H
ELEV=62.23
TEST PIT 3
ELEV=68.90
TEST PIT 1
ELEV=62.25
TEST PIT 5
ELEV=59.02
TEST PIT 6
ELEV=63.62
TEST PIT 4
ELEV=59.10
TEST PIT 2
ELEV=63.13 50'SEE NOTE
#2100'SEE NOTES
#3
N
4
4
°
0
1
'
4
7
"
W
9
2
.
8
6
'
EXISTING HOME
32267 104TH PL SE
PARCEL #3341000147
~UPLAND SAND
BAR ISLAND~
OHWM
OHWM
OHWM
~W
E
T
L
A
N
D
A
~
250'
FLOO
D
P
L
A
I
N
RIPA
R
I
A
N
HABI
T
A
T
SETB
A
C
K
25'SEE NOTE
#1
BASE FLOOD
ELEV=67.017'
6
3
6
4
6
2
6
3
6
1
6
7
656
2
6
0
6
1 5
9
5960
6
1
6
2
6
1
6
2
6
3
64
63 68696969 7070PARCEL
#3341000140
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
OVERHEAD
CABLE
OH-6B
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2054
2060
2061
2065
206620672068
20692072
DECID 9
DECID 10
COTTON 38
DECID 8
DECID 10
DECID 8
DECID 8
DECID 9
2192
DECID 12
DECID 7
DECID 9
DECID 7
DECID 7
DECID 10
DECID 9
DECID 13 DECID 16
MAPLE 10
2081
STONE WALL
RIGHT OF WAY
LOWEST
SURVEYED
ELEV=67.27
200'
S
H
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
34.26'RIGHT OF WAY
CENTERLINE
TOE OF SLOPE
50' STEEP
SLOPE SETBACK
HIGHEST
SURVEYED
ELEV=70.40
EAST
E
R
N
LI
M
I
T
S
O
F
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
MIGR
A
TI
O
N
A
R
E
A
PER
CI
T
Y
O
F
A
U
B
U
R
N
GI
S
D
A
T
A
EAST
E
R
N
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
MIGR
A
T
I
O
N
A
R
E
A
PER
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
U
B
U
R
N
G
I
S
D
A
T
A
FIGURE 5: WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION - ENCO
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DRWN. BY:
CHKD. BY:
DATE:
SCALE:
CONTACT
phone: 253-301-4157
fax: 253-336-3950
beylerconsulting.com
BEYLER
CONSULTING
OFFICE
7602 Bridgeport Way W; 3D
Lakewood, WA 98499
SURVEY FOR :
JOB #:
SHEET:
DAN & JAN GUYLL
PARCEL: 3341000140
AUBURN, WA 98092
PJJ/JSG 4/13/20 16-125
SHEET 1 OF 11" = 30'PJJ
SURVEYOR:WETLAND SCIENTIST:
PROFESSIONAL WETLAND SCIENTIST
NO. 2010 JONATHAN KEMP
LEGEND
OHWM FLAG AND WETLAND FLAG
PLOT LOG
CONIFIR TREE (DBH IN INCHES)
DECIDUOUS TREE (DBH IN INCHES)
RIGHT OF WAY CENTERLINE
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND BUFFER
CLASS I GREEN RIVER STANDARD
BUFFER FROM OHWM
CONTOUR LINE
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
OVERHEAD CABLE
ON-SITE DRAINAGE FLOW ARROWS
FLAGGED WETLAND AREA
EQUIPMENT USED
TOPCON PS 103A TOTAL
STATION. STANDARD FIELD
TRAVERSE METHODS FOR
CONTROL AND STAKING.
FIELD WORK NOTE
WETLAND FLAGS LOCATED
BY BEYLER CONSULTING
APRIL 4, 2016. FLAG SET BY
ENCO MARCH 22, 2016.
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE: 1" = 30'
SITE DATA
SITE ADDRESS:NORTH OF 32267 104TH PL SE, AUBURN, KING COUNTY,WA
PROJECT SITE NAME:DAN & JAN JEFFERY
PARCEL SIZE:10,854.73 SF/0.25 ACRES
(PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 20131224900001)
CURRENT LAND USE:URBAN CONSERVANCY - ZONE DESIGNATION (R-5 - RESIDENTIAL)
WETLAND ID:WETLAND A
CATEGORY:III
WETLAND SYSTEM:RIVERINE
BUFFERS:25' MINIMUM, 50' MAXIMUM
HABITAT FUNCTION POINTS:15
ON-SITE WETLAND SF:0 SF
ON-SITE WETLAND BUFFER SF:19.4 SF (25' MINIMUM BUFFER)
1,512.76 SF (50' MAXIMUM BUFFER)
ON-SITE GREEN RIVER (CLASS I) BUFFER SF:6,249 FOR THE 100' BUFFER
ON-SITE FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT SETBACK SF:10,854.73 SF FOR THE 250' SETBACK
ON-SITE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA): 693.24 SF
20 SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE PARCEL
VERTICAL DATUM
NAVD 88
BENCHMARK: KING COUNTY #7155
CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
INTERSECTION OF "R" STREET & MAIN ST E.
ELEV=79.4191325
CONVERSION TO NGVD 1929 PER NGS NOAA
VERTCON = 75.902
FOR CONVERSION TO NGVD 1929, SUBTRACT
3.517' FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON
THIS SURVEY.
HORIZONTAL DATUM
ASSUMED PER RECORD OF SURVEY
#20131224900001 BY DR STRONG.
BUFFER/SETBACK NOTES
1.25' MINIMUM RIPARIAN WETLAND (CATEGORY III)
BUFFER.
2.50' MAXIMUM RIPARIAN WETLAND (CATEGORY III)
BUFFER.
3.100' CLASS 1 GREEN RIVER STANDARD BUFFER FROM
OHWM.
4.200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION SETBACK FROM
OHWM.
5.250' FLOODPLAIN RIPARIAN HABITAT SETBACK FROM
OHWM.
GENERAL NOTES
THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS PER RECORD OF
SURVEY NO. 20131224900001 BY DR STRONG.
THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION SHOWN IS PER ELEVATION
CERTIFICATE BY THOMAS J. COLETTI ON JANUARY 8,
2001 (NGVD 29) AND CONVERTED TO NAVD 88 USING
THE METHOD LISTED ABOVE FOR VERTICAL DATUM.
SCALED FOR AN 18"x24" SHEET OF PAPER
CONIF
DECID
OU
TREE TABLE
TREE #SPECIES DBH "
2028 ALDER 20
2029 ALDER 10
2033 MAPLE 14
2034 MAPLE 18
2035 CEDAR 7
2036 MAPLE 15
2037 MAPLE 8
2038 CEDAR 32
2054 MAPLE 19
2059 ALDER 12
2060 PINE 48
2061 MAPLE 24
2065 COTTON 11
2066 COTTON 18
2067 COTTON 24
2068 COTTON 12
2069 MAPLE 9
2072 PINE 11
2081 ALDER 6
2192 ALDER 12
70
May 18, 2020
JN 19068
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Janilee Jeffery and Dan Guyll
32267 104th Place Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98092
via email: janjeffery@comcast.net & danguyll@comcast.net
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Update
Proposed Single Family Residence
322xx – 104th Place Southeast
Auburn, Washington
Dear Ms. Jeffery and Mr. Guyll:
We prepared a geotechnical engineering study for the project dated March 6, 2019. However, since
that time, the City of Auburn has requested some information regarding slope setback
recommendations and discussions regarding setback distances for site improvements. This letter
addresses these issues.
The site itself and the adjacent street to the east is relatively flat or slopes gently downward to the
west. However, there is about a 100-foot-tall steep slope on the eastern side of the street. Based on
a site survey map (Beyler Consulting, August 16, 2019), the slope is located approximately 36 to 39
feet east of the eastern edge of the subject property. The plans for the project at this time indicate
that much the proposed residence will be located 10 to 12 feet from the eastern edge of the
property, but a portion will be up to approximately 22 feet from the eastern edge. A driveway,
walkway, yard, and landscape areas are proposed between the proposed residence and the
eastern edge of the site. We understand that the street will be widened in front of the subject
property.
Based on our observation of the steep slope that is east of the subject site, it appears that its core
soil is quite dense; we believe this because the slope is inclined at approximately 40 degrees.
However, as with essentially all steep slopes in the Puget Sound area, the soil at the outer edge of
the slope, likely in the range of about 3 feet, is probably weathered and loose (this is completely
natural and typical). As is possible for any steep slope in the Puget Sound area, this outer
weathered/loose soil can become unstable during periods of extreme precipitation. This instability
can result in the loose soil becoming saturated and moving downslope; this is termed a “mudslide”.
The dense core soil does not become destabilized during a mudslide event. Thus, we do not
believe that there is a potential of a deep landslide to the east of subject site.
The most important feature on the site is the proposed residence, and providing for the health,
safety, and welfare of its inhabitants is vital. The area between the slope and residence is
essentially flat and would provide “catchment” of potential mudslide soil/debris if needed. Based on
the site and slope geometry, as well as the potential soil contained in a mudslide, we believe that a
45-foot building setback from the steep slope that is east of the site should be used for this project
and would be adequate to provide enough catchment during a mudslide; this setback will thus
provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the residence inhabitants.
Jeffery Guyll JN19068
May 18, 2020 Page 2
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
We understand that City of Auburn has asked that we address the geotechnical engineering
aspects of street and site improvements outside of the residence structure. We understand that
street improvements will include widening the street adjacent to the subject property, while
improvements will include proposed driveway, walkway, yard, and landscape areas that will be
located between the residence and the street. We believe it is possible that, during a mudslide,
some soil and debris could reach these improvements. However, any damage to these
improvements would just be surficial, involving only soil flowing over the improvements from the
potential mudslide. Most importantly, there is no health, safety, and welfare of the residence
inhabitants if these improvements are damaged in our opinion. Thus, the only issue with the
mudslides with regards to these improvements is that some surficial repairs may be needed once
the mudslide soil and debris are removed. It is also possible that any vehicles on the site would not
be able to drive out to a main street until potential soil/debris on 104th Place Southeast is removed.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
05/18/20
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
cc: Mehl Homes – Steve Mehl
via email: mehlhomes@aol.com
DRW:kg
-Ad Confirmation-
Total NET Cost: $178.40
Class Name: Public Notices
Account #: 107302
Advertiser Name: City of Auburn, Finance Dept
Agency Name:
Contact: Shawn Campbell
Address: 25 W Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Telephone: (253) 876-1980
These are the details of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF AUBURN NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCEThe City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Planning and Development De-partment at 1 E Main ST, 2nd Floor, Cus-tomer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal: Shoreline Conditional Use Per-mit to allow for the future construction of a single-family residence within the R-5 Residential Zone and Urban Conservan-cy Shoreline Designation. The proposed dwelling will be located 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River. Location: Directly to the north of 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn, WA. Notice of Application: June 25, 2020. Notice of Completeness: October 26, 2018. Permit Application: October 26, 2018. File Nos. SEP18-0024 & SHL18-0004 Applicant: Janilee Jeffery & Daniel Guyll, 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092. Property Own-er: Janilee Jeffery & Daniel Guyll, 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092. Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: SEPA Checklist, Stormwater Site Plan, Geotech-nical Engineering Study, Critical Area Study, Channel Migration Report. Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: Grading & Storm Permit(s), Building Permit(s), Shoreline Conditional Use Per-mit. Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environ-mental impact statement (EIS) is not re-quired under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a com-pleted environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of the pro-posal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date is-sued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00pm on July 10, 2020 to the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001-4998 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing to be-come a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Any person aggrieved of the City’s determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment pe-riod, or by 5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2020. For questions regarding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3092. Public Hearing: To Be Determined Date of Notice: June 25, 2020
*The ad preview below may not be to actual scale
Account Information
Contact Information
Contact Name: Holly Botts
Phone #
Email: hbotts@seattletimes.com
Ad Placement Information
Prepayment Information
Seattle Times 06/25/20
NWclassifieds 06/25/20
NWclassifieds 06/26/20
NWclassifieds 06/27/20
NWclassifieds 06/28/20
NWclassifieds 06/29/20
NWclassifieds 06/30/20
NWclassifieds 07/01/20
Run Date(s)
Ad ID: 948992
Purchase Order #: SEP18-0024
# of lines: 80
Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check # Amount
-Ad Confirmation-
Total NET Cost: $207.39
Class Name: Public Notices
Account #: 107302
Advertiser Name: City of Auburn, Finance Dept
Agency Name:
Contact: Shawn Campbell
Address: 25 W Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Telephone: (253) 876-1980
These are the details of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF AUBURN NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARINGThe City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the following described project. The permit applica-tions and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Planning and Develop-ment Department at 1 E Main ST, 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal: Shoreline Condi-tional Use Permit to allow for the future construction of a single-family residence within the R-5 Residential Zone and Ur-ban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The proposed dwelling will be located 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River. Location: Directly to the north of 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn, WA. Notice of Application: June 25, 2020. Notice of Completeness: Octo-ber 26, 2018. Permit Application: October 26, 2018. File Nos. SEP18-0024 & SHL18-0004 Applicant/Owner: Janilee Jeffery & Daniel Guyll, 32267 104th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092. Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: SEPA Checklist, Stormwa-ter Site Plan, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Critical Area Study, Channel Mi-gration Report. Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: Grading & Storm Permit(s), Building Permit(s), Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable De-velopment Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn. The lead agency for this proposal has de-termined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the envi-ronment. An environmental impact state-ment (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen-tal checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period:. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00pm on Sep-tember 16, 2020 to the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001-4998 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. For questions re-garding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3092.
Public Hearing: The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for September 16, 2020 will be held virtu-ally and telephonically at 5:30 PM. To at-tend the meeting virtually please click the link or enter the meeting ID into the Zoom app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. If you would like to provide written materials ahead of time, please email planning@auburnwa.gov two days prior to the meeting.
Per the Governors Emergency Proclama-tion 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding an in-person meeting at this time. All meetings will be held virtually and telephonically.
City of Auburn is inviting you to a sched-uled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/96768499088 Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088One tap mobile +16465588656,,96768499088# US (New York) +16699009128,,96768499088# US (San Jose)
Date of Notice: August 6, 2020
*The ad preview below may not be to actual scale
Account Information
Contact Information
Contact Name: Holly Botts
Phone #
Email: hbotts@seattletimes.com
Ad Placement Information
Prepayment Information
Seattle Times 08/06/20
NWclassifieds 08/06/20
NWclassifieds 08/07/20
NWclassifieds 08/08/20
NWclassifieds 08/09/20
NWclassifieds 08/10/20
NWclassifieds 08/11/20
NWclassifieds 08/12/20
Run Date(s)
Ad ID: 954594
Purchase Order #: SEP18-0024
# of lines: 93
Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check # Amount
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
HEARING EXAMINER
Agenda Subject/Title:
SHL20-0006, PSE Underground Feeder Tie
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Date:
September 16, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
DESCRIPTION:
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to allow for the installation of an
underground electric feeder tie within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit request.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) proposes to install an underground feeder tie between two locations
along the left bank of the Green River, landward of the Reddington Levee near the baseball
fields at Brannon Park. A portion of the underground feeder tie will be located within the Urban
Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The feeder tie will improve electrical reliability and provide
increase system flexibility in the area. All work will be located at least 100 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River.
LOCATION:
The site is located along the left bank of the Green River at Brannan Park, directly to the east of
the baseball fields. The King County parcel number is 0001000081.
APPLICANT:
Jeff Misuik, Puget Sound Energy, P.O. Box 97034, M/S EST04W, Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Auburn, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 2 of 15
The Comprehensive Plan designation, Shoreline environment designation, zoning classification
and current land uses of the site and surrounding properties are:
Location Comprehensive Plan
Designation Zoning Classification Shoreline
Environment
Designation
Current
Land Use
Subject
Site “Institutional” I Institutional
Urban
Conservancy Public Park
North “Single Family” & “Institutional” R-7 Residential, 7 du per
acre & Public Use District
Urban
Conservancy
Single family
residential &
Public Trail
South “Multiple Family”, “Moderate
Density Residential”, &
“Institutional”
R-10 Residential, 10 du per
acre; R-20 Residential, 20
du per acre; P1 Public Use
Shoreline
Residential
Single-family,
multi-family, and
public school
East “Open Space OS Open Space Urban
Conservancy
Green River
West “Multiple Family” & “Moderate
Density Residential”
R-10 Residential, 10 du per
acre; R-20 Residential, 20
du per acre
N/A Multi-Family
Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Designation Map:
Subject Site
Moderate Density
Residential
Single-Family
Institutional
Multiple Family
Open Space
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 3 of 15
Excerpted Zoning Designation Map:
2019 Aerial Vicinity Map:
Subject Site
R-10
R-20
R-7
Subject Site
P-1
OS
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 4 of 15
Shoreline Environment Designation in Relation to Proposed Work
Location of proposed
underground feeder tie
Urban Conservancy
Shoreline Designation
Green River
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 5 of 15
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Proposal Description
1. Jeff Misuik, Municipal Land Planner for Puget Sound Energy (PSE), applied on July 1,
2020 for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to allow for the installation
of an underground electric feeder tie within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline
Designation, directly to the east of the baseball fields at Brannan Park, King County
parcel number 0001000081. The underground feeder tie will be installed via
underground boring. A copy of the Site Plan and Project Plans, prepared by PSE, is
included as Exhibit 6.
2. A portion of the proposal would encroach into the Urban Conservancy Shoreline
Designation, but will be setback more than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) of the Green River.
3. The purpose of the underground feeder tie is to improve electrical reliability for existing
development and provide increase system flexibility in the area. No vegetation
disturbance is proposed within 100 feet of the OHWM of the Green River.
Site Characteristics
4. The project site is located along the east half of Brannan Park, a 22.78 acre public park
owned and operated by the City of Auburn. The Reddington Levee runs along the east
boundary of Brannan Park, providing flood protection from the Green River directly to the
east. Because the Green River abuts the site, the east 200 feet of the site is located
within the ‘Urban Conservancy’ shoreline designation.
5. The Green River, which abuts the site directly to the east, is a mapped floodway with a
small portion of the special flood hazard area (SFHA) extending onto the site.
Additionally, this portion of the Green River has a mapped Channel Migration Zone,
meaning that the river could change its course long term and diverge into the mapped
area. Because of the proximity of the Green River, a small portion of the site is also
located within a Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ), a type of regulatory floodplain area per
Chapter 15.68 ACC, “Floodplain Development Management”. The limits of the RBZ ends
at the edge of the SFHA. See Exhibit 3 for a Copy of the City’s Critical Area map.
6. In addition to being a Shoreline of the State, the Green River is also classified by the
City as regulated “Critical Area” and more specifically as a Type S Stream per ACC
16.10.080, “Classification and rating of critical areas”. As outlined in SMP 4.5, Table
1, Type S Streams within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation have a 100
foot setback from the OHWM.
7. The area within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) along the Green
River is within the “Urban Conservancy” designation and thus, is within the jurisdiction of
the Auburn Shoreline Master Program (Auburn SMP, Section 4.2.A). Unless otherwise
exempt, the installation of primary distribution utilities in the ‘Shoreline Conservancy’
designation will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). The
language of this Section provides:
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 6 of 15
“4.2 Applicability.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all shorelines, shorelands
and associated wetland areas covered by the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971 as follows:
1. All rivers and streams and their associated wetlands downstream
from a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second
or greater.
2. All lakes and their associated wetlands which are 20 surface acres
in size or larger.
3. Shorelands and associated uplands extending 200 feet in all directions
as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark;
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet
from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with
their streams, lakes, and tidal waters subject to the provisions of Chapter
90.58 RCW.”
Characteristics of the Surrounding Area
8. The project and adjacent properties are located within the jurisdiction of the City of
Auburn. The work subject to the SSDP will occur on a public park. No in-water work is
proposed.
9. The surrounding areas have Comprehensive Plan designations of: “Institutional”,
“Moderate Density Residential”, “Multiple Family”, “Single Family”, and “Open Space”.
The surrounding zoning designations include the “R-7”, “R-10” and “R-20” Residential
Zones, “P-1” Public Use, and “OS” Open Space.
10. The existing land use surrounding the site includes a mix of single family residences,
multi-family, public school, public trail, and open space.
Shoreline Management Program
11. The City of Auburn currently uses its 2019 City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) to regulate development and management of the City’s shoreline.
Under the Shoreline Management Act, all development occurring within the shoreline
jurisdiction area must be consistent with policies and regulations of the local Shoreline
Management Program (SMP), as well as with the policies of the State Shoreline
Management Act.
12. Because the project requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, the Project
must be found consistent with the criteria established in WAC 173-27-150 and City of
Auburn SMP 6.1.7.
13. The City’s rules and procedures for shoreline permits are contained in the SMP; more
specifically Section 6.0. The section provides the following general purpose and intent:
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 7 of 15
“6.1.1 Chapter purpose and intent.
It is the intention of the city council that the provisions of this chapter will
promulgate and adopt a program for the administration and enforcement of a
permit system that shall implement by reference the State Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW; the State Department of Ecology
regulations and guidelines adopted as Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC; the
Auburn shoreline master program attached to the ordinance codified in this
chapter, together with amendments and/or additions thereto, and to provide for
the implementation of the policy and standards as set forth in the aforesaid laws
and regulations which are by reference made a part of this chapter with the force
and effect as though set out in full in this chapter.”
14. Pursuant ACC 6.1.12, the Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on the
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in accordance with the following:
“6.1.12 Application – Hearing – Required.
A. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on each
application for a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline
conditional use permit, or shoreline variance on shorelines within the city. The
public hearing shall be held not less than 30 days following the final
publication of the notice required by ACC 16.08.050.
B. The notice and conduct of the public hearing shall be in accordance with
Chapter 2.46 ACC.”
15. The City’s rules provide the following requirements for public notice:
“6.1.6 Application – Notices.
The director shall give notice of the application in accordance with the applicable
provisions of ACC 14.07.040, no less than 30 days prior to permit issuance.
The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to present his view
to the director with regard to the application may do so in writing to the director,
and any person interested in the hearing examiner's action on an application for
a permit may submit his views or notify the director of his interest within 30 days
of the last date of publication of the notice. Such notification or submission of
views to the director shall entitle said persons to a copy of the action taken on the
application.”
Public Notice, Comments and Procedures
16. The City issued the Notice of Hearing (NOH) on August 13, 2020. The notice was
provided 30 days prior to the hearing date as required by SMP 6.1.6, “Application –
Notices”. The notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site,
published in the newspaper, and posted on site (See Exhibit 8). At the time of the
preparation of this report, no comments have been received in response to the NOH.
17. The contents of the case file for this project (SHL20–0006) are hereby incorporated by
reference and made part of the record of this hearing.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 8 of 15
18. The decision on the SSDP shall be final with the Hearing Examiner and subject to the
Washington State Dept. of Ecology review period as required by the following code
section:
“SMP 6.1.18 Grant or denial decision – Notifications.
The director shall notify the following persons in writing of the hearing examiner’s final
approval, disapproval or conditional approval of a substantial development permit,
shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance application within eight days of
its final decision:
A. The applicant;
B. The State Department of Ecology;
C. The State Attorney General;
D. Any person who has submitted to the director written comments on the application;
E. Any person who has written the director requesting notification.”
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff concludes that a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit should be approved in that the
project and use are consistent with the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation, as well
as with the approval criteria for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
What follows is the criteria for decision-making provided in italics, followed by an analysis by
staff of the project’s consistency with the criteria (in bold).
1. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) provides the following review criteria for Shoreline
Substantial Development Permits:
“6.1.7 Application – Shoreline substantial development permit – Review criteria.
A. A substantial development permit shall be granted by the director only when the
development proposed is consistent with the following:”
“1. Goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the Auburn SMP;
The proposed underground feeder tie is an electric utility use that will serve existing
development, a use allowed within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation.
Native vegetation within 100 feet of the Green River OHWM will not be disturbed.
Public access to the shoreline will be maintained, as all work will be competed
underground via boring.
2. Auburn Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code; and
The use will be developed on public property with an Institutional Comprehensive
Plan map designation, a designation that supports uses that serve the needs of the
larger community. City staff have reviewed the proposal to ensure it complies with
the Auburn City Code (ACC), Public Works Design Manual, and any other applicable
requirements associated with this type of project.
3. The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW; Chapters 173-
26 and 173-27 WAC).
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 9 of 15
The proposal be consistent with the local Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which
was reviewed and approved in 2019 to be in compliance with RCW 90.58 and WAC
173-26, and WAC 173-27.
B. The director may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure
consistency of the proposal with the above criteria
2. The Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173-27-140) set forth the following two criteria for
all developments within the shoreline jurisdiction.
“(A) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be
granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined
to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the
master program.”
“(B) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than
thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the
view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where
a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations
of the public interest will be served.”
The proposed project is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the City’s
Shoreline Management Program (SMP). The City's program identifies the project area
to be the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designations. Section 3.3.1, of
the SMP describes the purpose of the shoreline environment designations as:
“Urban Conservancy
The purpose of the “Urban Conservancy” environment is to protect and restore
ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist
in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.”
The project will be consistent with the designation by allowing an underground
utility installed that will have minimal impact on the surrounding properties. Public
access to the shorelines will not be impacted. As the use is considered public, it will
be compatible with the sites Institutional Comprehensive Plan map designation.
3. Section 3.3.3 of the SMP provides the following related Management Policies applicable to
the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation:
“1. Primary allowed uses and their associated development standards should preserve
the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or
sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, either directly or over
the long term. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if
the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting.”
“2. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation
conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy"
designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values.”
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 10 of 15
“3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever
feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.”
“4. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For
shoreline areas with commercial development or adjacent to commercially navigable
waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.”
“5. Existing mining and related activities may be an appropriate use within the urban
conservancy environment when conducted in a manner consistent with the environment
policies and the provisions of WAC 173-26-241 (3)(h) and when located consistent with
mineral resource lands designation criteria pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-
190-070. No new mining uses or expansion of existing mines should be permitted within
the shoreline jurisdiction.”
The proposed project is consistent with the Management Policies of the “Urban
Conservancy” Environment. The project will have minimal impact on vegetation in
the area. Ecological functions will be preserved. The project will not change the
nature of uses present in the immediate area.
4. Section 4.4.2 of the City’s SMP contains various policies and regulations pertaining to
shoreline vegetation conservation.
Policies
1. Developments and activities in the City’s shoreline should be planned and designed to
retain native vegetation or replace shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net
loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation.
2. Woody debris should be left in the river corridors to enhance wildlife habitat and
shoreline ecological functions, except where it threatens personal safety or critical
infrastructure, such as bridge pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should
be dislodged, but should not be removed from the river.
The proposal will not result in the loss of any native vegetation within 100 feet of the
OHWM of the Green River. With the exception the areas where boring will occur, most
of which is comprised of non-native lawn grasses, vegetation disturbance will be
minor.
5. The Permitted Use Table of the SMP, as a summary of the use regulations, allows uses
including “Utilities” in the “Urban Conservancy” environments.
6. Section 4.7.11 of the City’s SMP specifically allows utility uses to be located within the
“Urban Conservancy” environments. Additionally, the program provides the following policy
guidance applicable to utility uses:
1. Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, preserve the natural landscape and vistas, preserve and protect
fish and wildlife habitat, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land and
shoreline uses.
2. Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants, sewage
treatment plants, water reclamation plants, or parts of those facilities that are nonwater-
oriented should not be allowed in shoreline areas.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 11 of 15
3. Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utilities sites, rights-of-way and
corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of rights-of-way and corridors should be
encouraged.
4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables,
and pipelines, shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Where no
other option exists, utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges.
5. New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline
protection structures.
6. Where storm water management, conveyance, and discharge facilities are permitted
in the shoreline, they should be limited to the minimum size needed to accomplish their
purpose and should be sited and designed in a manner that avoids, or mitigates adverse
effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological functions.
7. Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing transportation and utility sites,
rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of right-of-way and corridors
should be encouraged.
The proposed project is consistent with the SMP policies applicable to utility uses.
No ecological impacts are anticipated, as the project will involve the installation of an
underground utility more than 100 feet away from the OHWM of the Green River.
Further, the minimal ground disturbance needed for the project will occur on existing
lawn grass areas of a public park. The necessary easements and/or right-of-way
needed for the project either exist or will be present prior to the installation of the
underground electrical feeder tie. No extensive shoreline protection measures will be
needed for the project.
7. Section 4.7.11 of the City’s SMP specifically allows for utility uses to be located within the
“Urban Conservancy” environments. Additionally, the program provides the following
development regulations applicable to utility uses:
1. Shoreline permit applications for installation of primary utility facilities shall include the
following:
a. Reason why utility facility requires a shoreline location;
b. Alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination; including
alternate methods of crossing such as directional boring;
c. Location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project including
facilities of other types of utilities;
d. Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed during construction;
e. Plans for control of erosion and turbidity during construction;
f. Possibility for consideration of the proposed facility within existing utility right-of-
way.
2. Utilities shall be located to be consistent with the policies of comprehensive plan utilities
element.
3. The State of Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology shall be notified
of any utility proposal which would require withdrawals or diversions of water from any
body of water under shoreline management jurisdiction.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 12 of 15
4. Construction of underwater utilities or those within the wetland perimeter shall be timed
to avoid major fish migratory runs.
5. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or
potentially detrimental to water quality shall provide automatic shut off valves.
6. Upon completion of utility installation/maintenance projects on shorelines, banks shall,
at a minimum, be restored to pre-project configuration, replanted and provided with
maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is fully established. Plantings shall
be native species and/or be similar to vegetation in the surrounding area.
7. Above ground site specific primary utility facilities such as generating facilities,
switching complexes, wastewater treatment plants, water reclamation facilities, storage
tanks, and substations shall be located at least 200 feet from the OHWM unless the
permittee can show the need for a shoreline location.
8. Water reclamation discharge facilities such as injection wells or activities such as land
application are prohibited in the shoreline jurisdiction.
9. Where major generating facilities must be placed in a shoreline area, scenic views shall
not be obstructed
10. Transmission, distribution, and conveyance facilities shall cross shoreline jurisdictional
areas by the shortest, most direct route feasible, unless such route would cause
significant environmental damage.
11. Where overhead transmission lines must parallel the shoreline, they shall be outside of
the 200-foot shoreline environment unless topography or safety factors would make it
unfeasible.
12. Over water crossings of utilities shall be prohibited unless attached to a bridge
structure.
13. Where practical, utilities should consolidate permit applications in situations where
multiple permits from individual utilities are required.
14. Accessory utility facilities, such as those typical and normal to support and serve a
permitted shoreline use, shall be a permitted use in all environments. This will typically
consist of distribution lines and individual service lines. Such utility facilities may be new
or may be relocated facilities associated with, by way of example, a road improvement
project.
15. Storm water management facilities, limited to detention / retention / treatment ponds,
media filtration facilities, and lagoons or infiltration basins, within the shoreline
jurisdiction shall only be permitted when the following provisions are met:
a. Construction of the storm water facility does not displace or impact a critical area;
b. There is no other feasible location for the storm water facility and the facility is
located, constructed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse effects
to shoreline ecological functions;
c. The storm water facility is designed to mimic and resemble natural wetlands and
meets applicable City or State storm water management standards and the
discharge water meets state water quality standards;
d. Low impact development approaches have been considered and implemented to
the maximum extent feasible.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 13 of 15
16. Primary conveyance facilities, including storm water, wastewater, or water supply pump
stations; and storm water discharge facilities such as dispersion trenches, level
spreaders, and outfalls, may be located in the shoreline jurisdiction on a case by case
basis with a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit when the Director determines
that all of the following are met:
a. Due to topographic or other physical constraints there are no feasible locations
for these facilities outside the shoreline;
b. The discharge is sited in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and
vegetation.
c. The discharge outlet is designed to prevent erosion and promote infiltration.
17. Construction of stormwater facilities in the shorelines jurisdiction shall be timed to avoid
fish and wildlife migratory and spawning periods.
18. Proposal for all new storm water facilities shall include landscaping plans that enhance
the aesthetic quality of the shoreline, utilize native vegetation, and provide for
maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established.
19. Development of stormwater facilities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall include public
access to the shoreline, trails systems, or other forms of recreation, providing such uses
will not unduly interfere with stormwater facility operations, endanger public health,
safety, and welfare, or create a significant and disproportionate liability for the owner.
Given the relatively small scale of the proposal, which involves the installation of an
underground electric utility to serve existing development, many of the above
regulations are not applicable. The location of the proposed underground utility line
encroaches into the shoreline designation the minimum amount necessary to achieve
the proposal.
8. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies – Volume 4, The Utilities Element:
“Policies:
PU-4 The City shall require that new private utility distribution, service, and
telecommunication lines be located underground within all new developments. The
City will also work with utility companies to relocate existing distribution, service, and
telecommunication lines underground as a part of new development whenever it is
technologically feasible, and as part of City capital roadway projects whenever it is
economically and technologically feasible. Expansions and upgrades completed by
private utilities will be required to be underground unless they meet appropriate
exemptions.
PU-7 The City shall consider the environmental impacts of proposed utility facilities
as a part of its environmental review process. When requested by the City, the utility
provider shall furnish documentation of current research results and/or provide
additional information related to determination of the potential environmental
impacts, if any, from the proposed facilities.”
The project involves the installation of an underground electric utility. Due to the
location of the proposed underground electric service, within 200 feet of the OHWM of
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 14 of 15
the Green River, all potential environmental impacts were considered. The proposal
is consistent with the above, relevant policies of the Utilities Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
9. The proposed project is consistent with or is capable of being consistent with the Municipal
Code.
As noted previously, the site will be developed to meet the requirements of the SMP
and the ACC, including ACC 15.68 Floodplain Development Management, ACC 16.10
Critical Areas, and ACC 18 Zoning.
10. The Shoreline Management rules in WAC 173-27-150 set forth the following criteria that
must be met for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The project must
be consistent with:
• The policies and procedures of the act;
• The provisions of this regulation; and
• The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where
no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed
for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible,
any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as
representing the policy of the local government.
As noted above, the proposed project and use complies with the stated policies and
procedures of the Act and Rules and, complies with the local Shoreline Master
Program.
The proposed project is consistent with the criteria outlined in WAC 173-27-150.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the application, findings and conclusions of the Staff report, Staff recommends that
the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHL20-0006)
subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall be developed consistently with the plans provided with the application,
prepared by Puget Sound Energy, dated September 17, 2019 (Exhibit 6).
2. The applicant shall secure the necessary floodplain development permit approval(s)
from the City of Auburn, if applicable.
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.
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 City of Auburn Critical Area Map
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: September 16, 2020
Page 15 of 15
Exhibit 4 Completed Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Form,
Received June 19, 2020
Exhibit 5 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form, Puget Sound Energy,
June 16, 2020
Exhibit 6 Site Plan, Puget Sound Energy, September 17, 2019
Exhibit 7 Written Statement, Puget Sound Energy, June 23, 2020
Exhibit 8 Notice of Public Hearing, August 13, 2020
Exhibit 9 Public Notice Affidavits and Confirmation of Postings
666.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet666.7333.30
Vicinity Map 8/31/2020Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
666.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet666.7
Notes
Type any additional notes- delete text to
leave blank
Legend
333.30
1:4,000
City Critical Area Map
1 in =333.3 ft
8/28/2020Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general
reference purposes only and does not
necessarily represent exact geographic
or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to
its accuracy.
Scale
City of Auburn Channel Migration Zone
Delineation
Channel Migration Area (CMA)
Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZ)
2020 FIRM Floodway
2020 FIRM Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
Wetlands
Parcel Boundaries
11
CITY OF AUBURN
Planning & Development Department
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Tel: 253.931.3090
Fax: 253.804.3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov
www.auburnwa.gov
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AP PLICATION
APPLICANT: Use mailing address for meeting notification. Check box if Primary Contact
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
PHONE: _____________ FAX:__ _ E-MAIL: ______________________________
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME:
(Signature Required)
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Check box if Primary Contact
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
PHONE: _____________ FAX:__ _ E-MAIL: ______________________________
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME:
(Signature Required)
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Attach separate sheet if needed. Check box if Primary Contact
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
PHONE: _____________ FAX:__ _ E-MAIL: ______________________________
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME:
(Signature Required)
Note: Applicant or representative must have property owner’s consent to file this application form in order for it
to be accepted
PROPERTY INFORMATION (REQUIRED)
SITE ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL ID# LOT SIZE ZONING DISTRICT
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
_______ ____________
AREA TO DEVELOPED (s.f.):
EXISTING USE OF SITE:
PROPOSED USE OF SITE:
O F F I C E U S E O N L Y
FILE #:_______________________________
FILE NAME: _____________________________________
_________________________________________________
TYPE:____________________ RECEIVED BY: ________
FEES PAID:_______________ CHECK/CASH: ________
SUBMITTAL DATE:_________________________________
LAND USE DESIGNATION: __________________________
12
CITY OF AUBURN SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Planning & Development Department APPLICATION
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Tel: 253.931.3090
Fax: 253.804.3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov
www.auburnwa.gov
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT –
AUTHORIZATION
LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO ACT
(A copy of this letter must be submitted for each property owner involved)
I, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the State of Washington as follows;
1. I am the owner of the property that is the subject of the application.
2. I [ ] have not appointed anyone, or [ ] have appointed ,
to act as my agent regarding this application.
3. All statements, answers, and information submitted with this application are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
4. I agree to hold the City of Auburn harmless as to any claim (including costs, expenses and
attorney’s fees incurred in the investigation of such claim) which may be made by any person,
including the undersigned, and filed against the City of Auburn, but only where such claim arises
out of the reliance of the City, including its officers and employees, upon the accuracy of the
information provided to the City as part of this application.
5. I hereby grant permission for representatives of the City of Auburn and any other Federal, State,
or local unit of government with regulatory authority over the project to enter onto my property to
inspect the property, take photographs, and post public notices as required in connection with
review of this application and for compliance with the terms and conditions of permits and approvals
issued for the project.
Signature
Printed Name Date City and State where signed
Address
6/19/20 Carnation, WA
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 1 of 15
WASHINGTON STATE
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form1,2 [help]
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
Part 1–Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith’s Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help]
Brannan Park Electrical Feeder Tie - PSE
Part 2–Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help]
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Misuik, Jeff
2b. Organization (If applicable)
Puget Sound Energy
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
PO Box 97034 EST 04W
2d. City, State, Zip
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
(425) 462-3252 (425) 429-0220 jeff.misuik@pse.com
1Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495.
Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias__resourcecenter/jarpa_jarpa_form/9984/jarpa_form.aspx.
For other help, contact the Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
AGENCY USE ONLY
Date received:
Agency reference #:
Tax Parcel #(s):
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 2 of 15
Part 3–Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this
application.) [help]
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Misuik, Jeff
3b. Organization (If applicable)
Puget Sound Energy
3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
PO Box 97034 EST 04W
3d. City, State, Zip
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
(425) 462-3252 (425) 429-0220 jeff.misuik@pse.com
Part 4–Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help]
☐ 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 upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
☐ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don’t know, contact
the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to
apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
4b. Organization (If applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
4d. City, State, Zip
4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 3 of 15
Part 5–Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help]
☒ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help]
☐ Private
☐ Federal
☒ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
☐ Tribal
☐ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help]
1019 28th St NE (Brannan Park)
5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help]
Auburn, WA 98002
5d. County [help]
King
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help]
¼ Section Section Township Range
SE 6 21 5
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help]
Example: 47.03922 N lat. / -122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83)
47.330973, -122.213152
5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help]
The local county assessor’s office can provide this information.
000100-0081 (Brannan Park), 733800-1230
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help]
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known)
CITY OF AUBURN 25 W MAIN ST 733800-1230 AUBURN WA 98001
JENKINSON DARLENE E 1218 30TH ST NE 733800-0220 AUBURN WA 98002
MCKINLAY BARBARA D 1212 30TH ST NE 733800-0210 AUBURN WA 98002
SUNDBAUM P DIRK & R
RIITTA
1210 30TH ST NE 733800-0200 AUBURN WA 98002
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 4 of 15
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
Off-site wetland is mapped east of project and is associated with the bank of the Green River.
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
Green River is located approximately 200’ east of project location.
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know Landward of Reddington Levee
5l. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help]
Maintained lawn, ball field, and levee landscaping
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [help]
Properties where boring and trenching activities will occur are currently used as a pump house on
parcel 733800-1230, Brannan Park on parcel 000100-0081, river levee and gravel trail, and M St NE
right-of-way and 22nd St NE right-of-way.
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help]
Adjacent properties are currently used as Brannan Park, Levee Trail; Riverpoint Park, single- and multi-
family residences, middle school, and child care center.
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. [help]
Levee access road/trail; adjacent (ball field) fence; Auburn Pump Station; storm drain line
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help]
WA-167 S, Exit right at S 277th St, At ramp’s end, take a left to S 277th St, road forks, keep right Auburn
Way N,Left on 28th St NE.
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 5 of 15
Part 6–Project Description
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help]
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) proposes to build an underground electric feeder tie between two locations along
the west bank of the Green River, landward of the Reddington Levee. The feeder will extend south from the
existing pump station on parcel 733800-1230 to just south of the intersection between 22nd St NE and M St
NE. Trenching and boring will be performed on paved right-of-way, gravel pathway in Brennan Park, or ball
field lawn in Brennan Park.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help]
The purpose of this feeder tie project is to improve electrical reliability and provide increase system flexibility
in the area.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help]
☐ Commercial ☐ Residential ☐ Institutional ☐ Transportation ☐ Recreational
☐ Maintenance ☐ Environmental Enhancement
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 6 of 15
☐ Aquaculture
☐ Bank Stabilization
☐ Boat House
☐ Boat Launch
☐ Boat Lift
☐ Bridge
☐ Bulkhead
☐ Buoy
☐ Channel Modification
☐ Culvert
☐ Dam / Weir
☐ Dike / Levee / Jetty
☐ Ditch
☐ Dock / Pier
☐ Dredging
☐ Fence
☐ Ferry Terminal
☐ Fishway
☐ Float
☐ Floating Home
☐ Geotechnical Survey
☐ Land Clearing
☐ Marina / Moorage
☐ Mining
☐ Outfall Structure
☐ Piling/Dolphin
☐ Raft
☐ Retaining Wall
(upland)
☐ Road
☐ Scientific
Measurement Device
☐ Stairs
☐ Stormwater facility
☐ Swimming Pool
☒ Utility Line
☐ Other:
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 7 of 15
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. [help]
Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
The feeder tie will begin at the existing pump station at Brannan Park on parcel 733800-1230, extending south
through Brannan Park ball fields on parcel 000100-0081, and will end just south of the intersection between
22nd St NE and M St NE. This utility extension project would install 5 underground vaults and approximately
1,450 linear feet of electric cables in conduit through a combination of bore pits and open trench method. The
project will result in approximately 264 SF of new impervious surface (vaults) and 397.14 CY of cut and fill
(vaults, bore, trench). All trenching and boring construction activities will be landward of the Reddington
Levee. No work will occur in 100-year floodplain.
Trenching or boring will be performed on paved right-of-way, gravel pathway in Brennan Park, or ball field
lawn in Brennan Park. Sediment from trenching and boring could wash into gutters and storm drainage catch
basins, so Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control measures will
be used to manage potential for sediment laden run-off.
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [help]
If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase
or stage.
Start Date: August 2020 End Date: December 2020 ☐ See JARPA Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help]
>$5,000
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help]
If yes, list each agency providing funds.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
Part 7–Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
☐ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help]
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands . [help]
☐ Not applicable
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help]
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don’t know
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help]
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 8 of 15
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don’t know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help]
If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☐ No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System? [help]
If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don’t know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [help]
If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don’t know
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [help]
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [help]
Activity (fill,
drain, excavate,
flood, etc.)
Wetland
Name1
Wetland
type and
rating
category2
Impact
area (sq.
ft. or
Acres)
Duration
of impact3
Proposed
mitigation
type4
Wetland
mitigation area
(sq. ft. or
acres)
1 If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as “Wetland 1”). The name should be consistent with other project documents,
such as a wetland delineation report.
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms
with the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
4 Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B)
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 9 of 15
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in
cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help]
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
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.) [help]
☒ Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
[help]
☒ Not applicable
All trenching and boring construction activities will be landward of the Reddington Levee. No work will occur
in 100-year floodplain.
Trenching or boring will be performed on paved right-of-way, gravel pathway in Brennan Park, or ball field
lawn in Brennan Park. Sediment from trenching and boring could wash into gutters and storm drainage catch
basins, so Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control measures will
be used to manage potential for sediment laden run-off.
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 10 of 15
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project’s adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? [help]
If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan.
If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help]
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help]
Activity (clear,
dredge, fill, pile
drive, etc.)
Waterbody
name1
Impact
location2
Duration
of impact3
Amount of material
(cubic yards) to be
placed in or removed
from waterbody
Area (sq. ft. or
linear ft.) of
waterbody
directly affected
1 If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as “Stream 1”) The name should be consistent with other documents
provided.
2 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.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help]
Not applicable
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 11 of 15
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
Not applicable
Part 9–Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help]
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
King County - RFMS Erik Peters (206) 263-0492 Feb 2020
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology’s 303(d) List? [help]
If Yes, list the parameter(s) below.
If you don’t know, use Washington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment tools at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-
Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d.
☒ Yes ☐ No
Green River is 303(d) listed for temperature and dissolved oxygen.
9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help]
Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110013 (The Green/Duwamish Watershed)
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [help]
Go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Water-availability/Watershed-look-up to find the WRIA #.
WRIA 9 or #09.0001 Green River within the Green/Duwamish watershed
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 12 of 15
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for
turbidity? [help]
Go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Freshwater/Surface-water-quality-standards/Criteria for the
standards.
☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline
environment designation? [help]
If you don’t know, contact the local planning department.
For more information, go to: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-
planning/Shoreline-laws-rules-and-cases.
☐ Urban ☐ Natural ☐ Aquatic ☒ Urban Conservancy ☐
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help]
Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-practices-water-typing for the Forest Practices Water Typing System.
☒ Shoreline ☐ Fish ☐ Non-Fish Perennial ☐ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology’s most current stormwater
manual? [help]
If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
☒ Yes ☐ No
Name of manual:
9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help]
If Yes, please describe below.
☐ Yes ☒ No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help]
Historic aerials indicate the project area was used for agriculture.
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help]
If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 13 of 15
9l. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the
project area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Coastal/Puget Sound steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Costal/Puget Sound bull trout (Salmo confluentus)
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Salmon: sockeye, chum, coho, pink, chinook
Trout: bull, steelhead, coast resident cutthroat
Part 10–SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.oria.wa.gov/opas/.
Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help]
For more information about SEPA, go to https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/SEPA-environmental-review.
☐ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
☐ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date
is .
☐ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help]
☒ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
☒ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
WAC 197-11-800 Categorical exemptions. (23) Utilities. (c) All electric facilities, lines, equipment or
appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55,000 volts or less; the
overbuilding of existing distribution lines (55,000 volts or less) with transmission lines (up to and
including 115,000 volts); within existing rights of way or developed utility corridors, all electric facilities,
lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 115,000
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 14 of 15
volts or less; and the undergrounding of all electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances.
Auburn City Code 16.06.055 A (adopts by reference WAC 197-11-800)
☐ Other:
☐ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
☒ Substantial Development ☐ Conditional Use ☐ Variance
☐ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other City/County permits:
☒ Floodplain Development Permit ☐ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
☐ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ☐ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption – Attach Exemption Form
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
☐ Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification ☐ Non-Federally Regulated Waters
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
☐ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ☐ Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard:
For projects or bridges over waters of the United States, contact the U.S. Coast Guard at: d13-pf-d13bridges@uscg.mil
☐ Bridge Permit ☐ Private Aids to Navigation (or other non-bridge permits)
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) on tribal lands where tribes do
not have treatment as a state (TAS)
Tribal Permits: (Check with the tribe to see if there are other tribal permits, e.g., Tribal Environmental Protection Act, Shoreline
Permits, Hydraulic Project Permits, or other in addition to CWA Section 401 WQC)
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) where the tribe has treatment
as a state (TAS).
ORIA-revised 02/2020 Page 15 of 15
Part 11–Authorizing Signatures
Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form,
project plans, photos, etc. [help]
11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help]
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 authority 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. _________ (initial)
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. _________ (initial)
Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date
11b. Authorized Agent Signature [help]
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 authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work
only after all necessary permits have been issued.
Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature Date
11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) [help]
Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements (provide copy of easement with JARPA).
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 Printed Name Property Owner Signature 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 for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) at (800)
917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-
6341. ORIA publication number: ORIA-16-011 rev. 09/2018
6/16/20
N
Vicinity Map
Owner / Developer Contact Info
officeATTN:
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
GAIL SHIPEK 425-462-3972
THIS SKETCH NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
CALL (800) 424-5555
2 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
For contacts below dial 1-888-CALL PSE (225-5773)
FOREMAN (CHECK BOX WHEN COMPLETED)
PSE Equipment LOCKED/SECURED & Work Area left in CLEAN/SAFE Condition.
Grid, Cable, and Switch numbers INSTALLED & VERIFIED.
Field Changes RED-LINED on As-built.
Indicate correct FUSE SIZE on As-built & VERIFY proper PHASE.
Foreman's Signature _______________________________________________
Print Name ___________________________________ Date ______________
Material VERIFIED and CHANGES noted on Paperwork.
Total PRIMARY Cable noted on As-built.
Company ID#'s RECORDED in correct location on As-built.
Deviations noted on the As-built and their reason.
I certify that the work performed meets PSE's standards and procedures
and that all quality requirements are met.
TESP
PHONE
CABLE TV
N/A N/A
N/A 108094161
N/A 594105770
N/A 593167973
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
PROJECT PHASE
PWR
NOTIF#ORDER#
Superior
Construction
UG wires
OH wires
Removal
UG Wires
HP Main
HP Svc/MSA
11084894 101085214
MAT CODE
Conductors & Equipment
-Transfer all overhead and underground primary, secondary and service conductors and
guys to new poles set, unless otherwise indicated on this sketch.
-Transfer existing transformers to new poles unless otherwise indicated on this sketch.
-Use stirrups to connect all overhead and underground primary taps, and transformers
above 25 kVA. Install at all sites being worked within the scope of the project where they
are currently missing.
-Use 397 AAC and Ampact connectors for all bare conductor feeder jumpers and 600 amp
switch jumpers. Install tree wire conductor for jumpers on all poles that are double dead end
with tree wire.
-Apply grit inhibitor on all Ampact, stirrup, and dead-end connections.
-Connect primary taps and transformers to same phase as existing unless otherwise shown
on the drawing.
-All neutral connections to be made with solid compression connectors. Connect all pole
grounds to common neutral.
-Use Load-interrupter cutouts (with arc shields) on all primary overheads and underground
taps with fused protection above 40T.
-Install Wildlife Protectors on all transformers.
Cable Tags and Pulling
-Primary Underground Cable Identification Tag installation shall conform to PSE standards
6825.6050.
-Cable Pulling shall conform to PSE standards 6825.6100 and 6825.6150
Safety
-Field changes shall be pre-approved by PSE or designated representative prior to
construction with proof of acceptance required prior to PSE acceptance of completed duct
and vault system.
Trench and Excavation
-Provide all trench excavation and backfill for the installation of new or modified PSE
underground distribution system within the construction area.
-All trench excavation shall conform to PSE standards 6790.0075, 6790.0130, 6790.0140,
6790.0250, and 6790.3050.
-Construct the shared utility trench where the various utilities can transition in and out of the
trench line in an orderly fashion without altering duct bank alignments of other utility.
Separation of crossing utilities sharing the common utility trench is 6”.
-After the new underground system is installed an energized, additional excavation may be
necessary to re-train existing underground cables into the new vaults. This excavation will
be provided by the city with 48 hours notice.
- Placement of other utility vaults within the trench line alignment encumbering access to
PSE facilities is not allowed.
Conductors & Equipment
-Transfer all overhead and underground primary, secondary and service conductors and
guys to new poles set, unless otherwise indicated on this sketch.
-Transfer existing transformers to new poles unless otherwise indicated on this sketch.
-Use stirrups to connect all overhead and underground primary taps, and transformers
above 25 kVA. Install at all sites being worked within the scope of the project where they
are currently missing.
-Use 397 AAC and Ampact connectors for all bare conductor feeder jumpers and 600 amp
switch jumpers. Install tree wire conductor for jumpers on all poles that are double dead end
with tree wire.
-Apply grit inhibitor on all Ampact, stirrup, and dead-end connections.
-Connect primary taps and transformers to same phase as existing unless otherwise shown
on the drawing.
-All neutral connections to be made with solid compression connectors. Connect all pole
grounds to common neutral.
-Use Load-interrupter cutouts (with arc shields) on all primary overheads and underground
taps with fused protection above 40T.
-Install Wildlife Protectors on all transformers.
Cable Tags and Pulling
-Primary Underground Cable Identification Tag installation shall conform to PSE standards
6825.6050.
-Cable Pulling shall conform to PSE standards 6825.6100 and 6825.6150
Safety
-Field changes shall be pre-approved by PSE or designated representative prior to
construction with proof of acceptance required prior to PSE acceptance of completed duct
and vault system.
Trench and Excavation
-Provide all trench excavation and backfill for the installation of new or modified PSE
underground distribution system within the construction area.
-All trench excavation shall conform to PSE standards 6790.0075, 6790.0130, 6790.0140,
6790.0250, and 6790.3050.
-Construct the shared utility trench where the various utilities can transition in and out of the
trench line in an orderly fashion without altering duct bank alignments of other utility.
Separation of crossing utilities sharing the common utility trench is 6”.
-After the new underground system is installed an energized, additional excavation may be
necessary to re-train existing underground cables into the new vaults. This excavation will
be provided by the city with 48 hours notice.
- Placement of other utility vaults within the trench line alignment encumbering access to
PSE facilities is not allowed.
Vault Installation
-Install PSE vaults in accordance with PSE standards 6775.0035 and 6775.0040.
-Vault hole excavation shall be prepared level and free of debris with a minimum 6” base of
crushed rock to prevent vault settling.
-PSE Vaults in planter areas shall be set 2” above final grade.
-PSE Vaults in hard surface locations such as sidewalks shall be adjusted to match finished
grade prior to the installation of PSE conductors and equipment. Maximum adjustment up is
5”- more than 5” require and additional riser.
-All PSE vaults shall be clean and clear of construction debris with all knockouts and cover
adjustments grouted to PSE satisfaction prior to PSE accepting delivery of bare conduit &
vault system.
Conduit Installation
-All PSE conduit installations shall conform to PSE standards 6800.6000, 6800.8050, and
6825.6505.
-All conduits shall be routed and installed per conduit tables, installation diagrams, and
details in this work sketch.
-Proof every PSE conduit run prior to final PSE acceptance. Proofing is defined as pulling a
mandrel of the same diameter through the conduit. Mule tape provided by PSE shall be
pulled in behind the mandrel in each conduit run as evidence of proofing. A plug shall be
installed in all spare conduits.
-All conduits entering PSE vaults shall be through the appropriate knockouts to ensure
proper cable lay. Vault entries causing cables to cross each other in the vault, or lay in the
vault unevenly, will be rejected and corrected at the expense of the city contractor.
- All conduit entries into PSE vault shall be straight and level with a minimum of 2' straight
section outside the vault wall and 2” on conduit extending into the vault with bell ends
installed.
- PSE conduits shall be placed in the trench maintaining a minimum of 1-1/2” of separation.
Use conduit spacers (provided by PSE) every 10'.
-PSE conduit runs shall be placed straight and level. Should it become necessary to alter
conduit alignments to avoid other utilities the maximum bend radius allowed is 22-1/2
degrees. Bend radius greater than 22-1/2 degrees require prior approval from PSE
engineering representatives.
-All PSE conduits shall be placed with the minimum separation between other utility facilities
as specified in PSE standard 6790.0130. Refer to the typical utility trench cross section
detail in this work sketch.
-All PSE conduits shall have a minimum of 36” of cover. Cover of less than 36” is
permissible on a case by case basis provided that such installations adhere to PSE
standard 6790.0130 figure 2. Pre-approval by PSE engineering representatives is required.
Materials
-Initial delivery of PSE materials to the job site requires 10 days minimum advanced notice
to PSE storeroom.
-After the initial delivery of materials subsequent bulk material deliveries to the job site by
PSE vendors require a minimum of 5 days- advanced notice to PSE storeroom.
-PSE representatives will provide delivery of all miscellaneous material necessary for duct &
vault installation, such as couplings, glue, bends, etc., with minimum 3 days advanced
notice to the PSE storeroom.
-All vaults will be delivered by the manufacture to the job site as follows:
-575 and smaller with a minimum 3 days advanced notice to PSE storeroom.
-5106 and larger with a minimum 5 days advanced notice to PSE storeroom.
-All unused material shall be returned to PSE stores and reconciled after PSE duct & vault
installations are complete.
ARE TO BE INSTALLED, CROSS SECTION DETAILS OF THE TYPICAL EROSION
STRUCTURES, & SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WORK IN SENSITIVE AREAS.)
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
NOTES DETAILING WHERE EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURES
(LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING
0150.3200 TECHNIQUES FOR TEMPORARY EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE PER PSE STANDARD PRACTICE
& ANY ADDITIONAL LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS.
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
101085214GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK
The work below was originally scoped as an oportunity job
to be constructed during the Reddington Levee rebuild
(11066939). However, it did not get done due to
permitting and time constraints. Now this is part of the
overall scope for the MTH16-LEA16 Feeder Tie project.
SCOPE / Construction Criteria:
Permit and install an underground distribution system
with 1-6", 1-4" conduits and vaults. Generally from
the start point noted above to the end of King county
levee work. (from 312465-165806 to end of KC levee
improvements,~1450'+-)
At the southend of Brennan park near 26th St NE & M St
NE, new feeder pull vault and J-vault should be placed
within the park area near current sidewalk location.
Two seperate conduit runs will exit south from the
feeder vault.
Install a single(1)6" conduit from the feeder vault,
and a single(1)4" conduit from the last j-vault. Both
conduits will terminate near the Brennan park foot
trail entrance at the intersection of 26th St NE. & M
St NE for a future extension south.
Install a second 1-6" duct (no 4") is to run along the
west side of the Green river and the river gravel foot
trail. If allowed by City of Auburn, this will
eventually run through Dykstra park to the existing LEA
Hill overhead crossing at switch X-8215. (Discuss this
section further with area planner and EOA for planning)
General
-All work is to be completed per PSE Standards & Practices. Copies of all PSE Standards
are available upon request.
-Work sites shall be kept clear of debris and all construction materials; equipment and
packing shall be removed daily.
-Return all unused and removed poles, transformers and hardware to PSE, storeroom. All
copper shall be coiled and returned the day it is removed from the poles. Remove all
unused pins and insulators.
-Return all streetlights, area lights and floodlights to Sumner yard.
Pre-Construction
-Notify appropriate city, County or DOT authorities 48 to 72 hours, or as required by
permitting agency, in advance of starting work in Right-of-way involving a Permit.
-All system switching shall be approved by System Operations (425-882-4652) a minimum
of 48 hours in advance.
-Notify customers of all outages 48 hours in advance.
-
Work Drawings & Documents
-PSE Project Manager or Engineer shall approve field design changes.
-Mark all field changes, equipment ID numbers and Underground cable information in red on
Foreman's copy of work sketch.
-Return one Foreman's copy of work sketch to Project Manger at completion of job.
-When permits are required, a copy of the permits shall be available on work site at all times.
Safety
-Refer to PSE standards 6275.3000 for requirements on System Grounding.
-Refer to PSE standards 6275.9000, 6275.9050 and 6275.9100 for personal protective
grounding requirements.
-Refer to PSE standards 6275.9150 for vehicle grounding and barricading requirements.
-Proper line clearances shall be taken at the beginning, and released at the end, of each
workday, or as otherwise instructed by the System Operator.
-Provide signs, barricades, and traffic control in conformance with permit regulations.
-Utilize flagging and other vehicle traffic control as necessary and in conformance with local
traffic regulations.
-Maintain traffic flow as required by permitting agency.
Joint Facilities
-Coordinate with Communication Companies for transfers.
OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION
Poles & Structures
-Poles are to be installed or relocated as staked. Unless otherwise noted, all pole location
measurements are from the center of the pole.
-All new poles set shall be the class indicated on the sketch, or better. Do not set a lower
class pole than specified.
-Install ground plate assembly on all new poles. Install Switch Ground Assembly per
standard specification 6014.1000 at new gang operated switch locations.
-Install grid numbers on all new and existing poles as shown on sketch.
-Straighten existing poles as indicated or as necessary.
-Treat all field-drilled poles with copper napthenate wood preservative.
-Remove old poles after communication companies have transferred off and return to PSE
storeroom. Fill and crown pole holes and restore the area similar to adjacent landscaping.
-
PSE
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
YesDeveloper
"Flagging Required"
"Outages Required"
"Locates Required"
E-Mail:
Cell Phone:
Project Manager Contact Information:
Manager:Devendra Kumar
425-516-5486
JEREMY.TUNTLAND@PSE.COM
ON SITE CONTACT:
PSE Project Manager - Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486
PSE Project Planner - Gail Shipek 425-462-3972
Potelco GF Civil -Jason Alexander 253-606-4845
DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 1/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING J-BOX
NEW TRENCH LINE CROSSING
EXISTING 3Ø WIRE
EXISTING CENTER LINE
CONDUCTOR TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING 1Ø WIRE
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING PULL VAULT
EXISTING SECONDARY SERVICE LINE
SPLICE CONDUIT
EXISTING PADMOUNT TRANSFORMER
EXISTING HANDHOLE
P
ELECTRIC SYMBOLS LEGEND
EXISTING PAD MOUNT SWITCH
NEW PULL VAULT (2 CIRCUITS)
NEW J-BOX OR PULL VAULT
NEW TRENCH/BORE PATH
BORE PIT
GENERAL NOTES
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 2/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OVERHEAD MAP (BEFORE & AFTER)
OVERHEAD CIRCUIT MAP (BEFORE)
NOT TO SCALE
OVERHEAD CIRCUIT MAP (AFTER)
NOT TO SCALE
3
2
1 1
2
3
AØ - 24185
BØ - 24186
CØ - 24187
AØ - 46763
BØ - 46764
CØ - 46765
PMH-9 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (BEFORE)
NOT TO SCALE
U1400
3
1 AØ - 46773
VACANT
CØ - 46774
3
2
1 AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
PMH-11 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (AFTER)
NOT TO SCALE
U1399
3
2
1
AØ-EHE664
BØ-EHE663
CØ-EHE662
3
2
1
VACANT
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
3
2
1 AØ - AGH618
BØ - AGH619
CØ - AGH620
PMH-11 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW2 (AFTER)
NOT TO SCALE
SW#____
3
2
1 AØ - AFT009
BØ - AFT010
CØ - AFT011
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
1
2
3
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
VACANT
3
2
1 1
2
3
AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
AØ - 49311
BØ - 49312
CØ - 49313
PMH-9 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (BEFORE)
NOT TO SCALE
U1399
3
2
1 AØ - 24176
BØ - 24177
CØ - 24178
VACANT
1
2
3
AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
24th ST NE24th ST NE22ND ST NESSMH
SDMH
SSMH
SSMH
SDMH
SDMH
CASC
A
D
E
MI
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
EM1
SSMH
SSMH
101085214CIVIL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 3/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/AA MATCH LINESEE PAGE 4/12AFOREMAN NOTE:
POTHOLING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO DRILLING AND THE
BORE PROFILE SHALL BE PREPARED ON SITE AND
PROVIDED TO THE INSPECTOR FOR APPROVAL.
New conduits shall be at 36" minimum depth typical to the top and
72" minimum under R/R tracks and Maintain a minimum 1-foot
vertical clearance between outer surface of existing structure and
minimum 5-foot horizontal separation of existing structure.
Call (800) 424-5555 Utility Notification Center 24/7 before beginning any
excavation prevents damage to underground facilities, service interruptions &
bodily injury.
KEYNOTES
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING J-BOX
NEW TRENCH LINE
EXISTING 3Ø WIRE
EXISTING CENTER LINE
EXISTING 1Ø WIRE
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING PULL VAULT
EXISTING SECONDARY SERVICE LINE
SPLICE CONDUIT
EXISTING PADMOUNT TRANSFORMER
EXISTING HANDHOLE
PV
ELECTRIC SYMBOLS LEGEND
EXISTING PAD MOUNT SWITCH
NEW PULL VAULT 5106
NEW J-BOX VAULT OR 575 PULL VAULT
BORE PIT LOCATION
P/L
R/W
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
CIVIL SITE PLAN
NUM DESCRIPTION SIZE (ft)
REM CU YD
REMARKS
VOLUME DISTURBANCE TABLES
(APPX)
GRAVEL FILL
CU YD (APPX)
TYPE OF
SURFACE
NEW VAULT 6x8x6.5 9 CRUSHED ROCK BASE0.07PV2 SIDEWALK
OPEN TRENCH 2x60x1.8 17 17SW1-EM1 CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACT
Total 44' yds Total 26.14' yds
BORE PIT 2x8 1 1BP 2 CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACTSIDEWALK
NEW VAULT 6x8x6.5 9 CRUSHED ROCK BASE0.07PV1 SIDEWALK
BORE PIT 2x8 1 1BP 1 CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACTSIDEWALK
ASPHALT
OPEN TRENCH 2x25x1.8 7 7SW1-J1A CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACTNATIVE
26th St NEM ST. NE
CBMH
Inv In = 48.44' - 30"
Inv Out = 48.44' - 30"SD 30" dia. PVC
CBMH
Inv In = 49.14' - 42"x30" RC reducer
Inv Out = 49.01' - 30" (N)SD 30" dia. PVC
F
70'
15'M PL. NESSMH SSMH
SDMH
SDMH
SDMH
CASC
A
D
E
MI
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
60
55
50
45
65
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
EX. GROUND
PROPOSED
TRENCH
(TOP) LEVEE
26 20 22 24 26
SD SD
Levee Prism 101085214CIVIL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 4/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/ABMATCH LINESEE PAGE 5/12BFOREMAN NOTE:
POTHOLING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO DRILLING AND THE
BORE PROFILE SHALL BE PREPARED ON SITE AND
PROVIDED TO THE INSPECTOR FOR APPROVAL.
New conduits shall be at 36" minimum depth typical to the top and
72" minimum under R/R tracks and Maintain a minimum 1-foot
vertical clearance between outer surface of existing structure and
minimum 5-foot horizontal separation of existing structure.
Call (800) 424-5555 Utility Notification Center 24/7 before beginning any
excavation prevents damage to underground facilities, service interruptions &
bodily injury.
CROSS SECTION F-F
SCALE: 1" = 5'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
KEYNOTES
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEAMATCH LINESEE PAGE 3/12ACIVIL SITE PLAN
48" MAX
DEPTH OF
TRENCH
12" MIN
36"
3" TYP
CRUSHED SURFACING
MATERIAL OR, AS REQUIRED
BY CITY. COMPACT TO 95%
MAX DENSITY.
EXISTING
GRADE
TRENCH EXCAVATION AND RESTORATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
6"4"
EXISTING
GRADE
4" & 6" DB-120 CONDUIT
PV4-PV5
Backfill for In Conduit - The backfill layer shall be soil that is free from construction debris,
glass, sharp rocks, frozen clods, and rocks larger than 8" in diameter.
3"
18"
36"
2" TYP
48" MAX
DEPTH OF
TRENCH
VERTICAL
SAW CUT
LINE
EXISTING
PAVEMENT / SIDEWALK
3" PLASTIC CONDUIT
SPACER, BASE
SECTION @ 10'
INTERVALS.
CEMENT CONCRETE, 6" MIN OR
EXISTING PAVEMENT PLUS 2",
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR
ASPHALT CONCRETE PATCH,
2" MIN
HARD SURFACE EXCAVATION AND RESTORATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
CRUSHED SURFACING
MATERIAL OR CDF, AS
REQUIRED BY CITY
COMPACT TO 95%
MAX DENSITY.
6"4"
NUM DESCRIPTION SIZE (ft)
REM CU YD
REMARKS
OPEN TRENCH 2x1000x1.8 266
VOLUME DISTURBANCE TABLES
NEW VAULT 6x12x6.5 17
UTILIZE NATIVE TO BACKFILL
BORE PIT 2x8 1
CRUSHED ROCK BASE
J01-J02
(APPX)
GRAVEL FILL
66
0.12
1
CU YD (APPX)
TYPE OF
SURFACE
NATIVE
PV4
NEW VAULT 6x8x6.5 9 CRUSHED ROCK BASE0.07J01
NEW VAULT 6x8x6.5 9 CRUSHED ROCK BASE0.07PV3
BP 5
NATIVE
NATIVE
SIDEWALK
ASPHALT CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACT
BORE PIT 2x8 1 1BP 4 ASPHALT CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACT
OPEN TRENCH 2x85x1.8 22 22J01-BP5 ASPHALT/NATIVECRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACT
BORE PIT 2x8 1 1BP 3 ASPHALT CRUSHED ROCK 95% COMPACT
Total 236' yds Total 91' yds
CBMH
Inv In = 47.90' - 30"
Inv Out = 47.90' - 30"
SDMH
Inv In = 48.24' - 30"
Inv Out = 48.24' - 30"
SDMH
Inv In = 51.6' - 12" (N)
Inv In = 47.39' - 30" (SW)
Inv Out = 47.39' - 30" (NE)
G H 30th Street NE22
60
55
50
45
65
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24
EX. GROUND
PROPOSED
TRENCH
(TOP) LEVEE
26 20 22 24 26
SD
Levee Prism
60
55
50
45
65
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
EX. GROUND
PROPOSED
TRENCH
(TOP) LEVEE
26 20 22 24 26
SD
Levee Prism 101085214CIVIL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 5/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/ABMATCH LINESEE PAGE 3 / 5BCUSTOMER/DEVELOPER NOTE:
Call (800) 424-5555 Utility Notification Center 24/7 before beginning any
excavation prevents damage to underground facilities, service interruptions &
bodily injury.
HIGH PRESSURE GAS MAIN:
Call PSE Inspector 24 hours prior crossing gas main. Augustas @206-396-4158
CROSS SECTION G-G
SCALE: 1" = 5'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
CROSS SECTION H-H
SCALE: 1" = 5'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
KEYNOTES
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
CIVIL SITE PLAN
48" MAX
DEPTH OF
TRENCH
12" MIN
36"
3" TYP
CRUSHED SURFACING
MATERIAL OR, AS REQUIRED
BY CITY. COMPACT TO 95%
MAX DENSITY.
EXISTING
GRADE
TRENCH EXCAVATION AND RESTORATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
6"4"
EXISTING
GRADE
4" & 6" DB-120 CONDUIT
PV4-PV5
Backfill for In Conduit - The backfill layer shall be soil that is free from construction debris,
glass, sharp rocks, frozen clods, and rocks larger than 8" in diameter.
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 6/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2"
Excavation - 19-1/2 cubic yards
SIDE VIEW
5'-4"Crushed
6"
Rock
TOP VIEW
9'
11'
7'-0"
4'-0"
1'
4'-8"
4,750 lbs
2,490 lbs
VAULT & EXCAVATION DETAIL
Not to scale 6051.1500
AT J01
FLOW DIRECTION
LAY 8" BOTTOM SKIRT ON TOP OF NATIVE SOIL,
SECURE WITH STRAW WATTLES
6'
3'
8"
SILT FENCE WITH STRAW WATTLE
MID 9995690
PSE STANDARD 0150.3200 TECHNIQUES FOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
NOT TO SCALE
SPACING DEPENDS ON SOIL TYPE
AND SLOPE STEEPNESS
10'-25'
Overflow
Filter fabric walls for
Catch Basin Grate
dewatering sedimentCollected Sediment
Catch Basin Insert
MID 9995728
Filter fabric skirt
Secured with grate.
NOT TO SCALE
CATCH BASINT INSERT EROSION CONTROL
6" Min
must be higher at sides
Gravel bags (MID 9995692)
than center.
12 KV FEEDER PULLING & STRAIGHT SPLICING VAULT PV4
6051.2010-1NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
GRAVEL CHECK DAM DETAIL
48" MAX
DEPTH OF
TRENCH
12" MIN
36"
3" TYP
CRUSHED SURFACING
MATERIAL OR, AS REQUIRED
BY CITY. COMPACT TO 95%
MAX DENSITY.
EXISTING
GRADE
TRENCH EXCAVATION AND RESTORATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
6"4"
EXISTING
GRADE
4" & 6" DB-120 CONDUIT
PV4-PV5
Backfill for In Conduit - The backfill layer shall be soil that is free from construction debris,
glass, sharp rocks, frozen clods, and rocks larger than 8" in diameter.
4'-0"
1'-0"
5'-8"
8"
7'-0"
Tubes for 1"
adjustable bolts ( 4)
Cover
2,490 lbs
Top Section
1,835 lbs
Base
4,760 lbs
4'-8"
(2) 3' Square
Plate Doors
NOTE: For Installations in pavement or sidewalks with adjustable cover
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
9'-0"
11'-0"
2"
6'-0"
6"
Crushed
Rock
3-piece handhole, increase excavation Depth to 6'-6" and 24 cubic yards.
4'-8" x 7' Handhole ( 575) w/adjustable Cover
MID#: 7663206
VAULT & EXCAVATION DETAIL
Not to scale 6051.1500
Excavation - 20 cubic yards
PV1-PV3
VAULT & EXCAVATION DETAILS
2" HDPE OR DB120
Electric Service Cable in Conduit
Final Grade
Excavated Dirt Pile
24" Min
12" Typical
(6" Min)
36" Min
Cover
Backfill for Conduit - Soil that is free from debris, sharp rocks, and rocks larger than 10" in
diameter. Backfill shall not damage the conduit.
Backfill for Conduit
(See Definition Above)
Will maintain 36" Min. depth while directional drilling
36" Min
Depth
Final Grade
BORE PIT DETAIL
24" Typical
(6" Min)10' LongNOT TO SCALE
PLAN VIEWTYPICAL BORE COVER
EM1
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 7/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/AA1MATCH LINESEE PAGE 8/12A1SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
VAULT & EQUIPMENT TABLE
Site Grid
Number
Vault Size
& Cover
Type & Size
Equipment
In Vault
Primary Bushings Transformer
ID Numbers
(Company ID)
ASBUILT INFORMATION
Foreman-Complete
LB DC
SW1
EXISTING
312192
165804 EXISTING VAULT
Existing
PMH09 PM SW
2-Solid & 2-Fused
Replace switch w/ new PMH-11.
Install 3 Sol Pos w/ Term 15kV 750kcMil Al CS Lug TER750C
Install 1 Fuse Pos w/ Term 15kV 1/0 Sol Jack CS Pin TER10JC
J1A
NEW
312201
165803
HH 4'8"x7'x4'
w/ 2-3'SQ. Doors
Mat ID: 7663200
J-Box below grade
w/ 3-4-Pos. J-Bus
Mat ID: 7625900
9 3
INSTALL NEW 3PH J-BOX (575) VAULT
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
PV1
NEW
312227
165786
HH 4'8"x7'x5'8"
w/ 2-3'SQ. Anti Skid Doors
Mat ID: 9996162
3-750kCMIL SPLICES
INSTALL NEW 575 PULL VAULT & SPLICES
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
(CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT)
PV2
NEW
312294
165796
HH 4'8"x7'x5'8"
w/ 2-3'SQ. Anti Skid Doors
Mat ID: 9996162
3-750kCMIL SPLICES
INSTALL NEW 575 PULL VAULT & SPLICES
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
(CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT)
SW3
EXISTING
312199
165869 EXISTING VAULT
Existing
PMH09 PM SW
2-Solid & 2-Fused
CABLES TO BE N.O. A-23185, B-23186, C-23187,
FOR TRENCH DETAIL AND CONDUIT SPECS SEE PAGE 10
FOR NEW VAULT DETAIL SPECS SEE PAGE 6
UNDERGROUND SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:
AT IP1
INTERCEPT CABLE 49311, 312, 313 IN 4" CONDUIT & ROUTE BOTH ENDS TO NEW J-BOX VAULT AT J1A
AT EM1
STU% 1 PVC INSTALL ELECTRONIC 0AR.ER SEE CONDUIT CA%LE DIAGRA0 ON PAGE 101
SITE PLAN
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 8/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/AA1MATCH LINESEE PAGE 7/12A1SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
VAULT & EQUIPMENT TABLE
Site Grid
Number
Vault Size
& Cover
Type & Size
Equipment
In Vault
Primary Bushings Transformer
ID Numbers
(Company ID)
ASBUILT INFORMATION
Foreman-Complete
LB DC
PV3
NEW
312347
165803
HH 4'8"x7'x5'8"
w/ 2-3'SQ. Anti Skid Doors
Mat ID: 9996162
3-750kCMIL SPLICES
INSTALL NEW 575 PULL VAULT & SPLICES
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
(CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT)
J03
EXISTING
312328
165812 EXISTING VAULT
Existing
3Ø J-Box w/ 3-4 Pos
J-buses below grade
PLUMB 4" CONDUIT AND CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT
J01
NEW
312367
165811
HH 4'8"x7'x4'
w/ 2-3'SQ. Doors
Mat ID: 7663200
J-Box below grade
w/ 3-4-Pos. J-Bus
Mat ID: 7625900
7 5
INSTALL NEW 3PH J-BOX (575) VAULT
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
PV4
NEW
312367
165811
6'4"x11'10"x4'4"
w/3-3' Sq Doors
Matid: 7906620
3- Primary Splices
INSTALL NEW 3PH PULL VAULT 5106 (SHORT)
INSTALL 3-750MCM SPLICES. CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
PV5
NEW
312455
165801 EXISTING VAULT 3- Primary Splices
PLUMB 6" CONDUIT AND CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT
INSTALL 3-750MCM SPLICES.
INSTALL NEW GRID NUMBER
J02
EXISTING
312456
165800 EXISTING VAULT
Existing
3Ø J-Box w/ 3-4 Pos
J-buses below grade
PLUMB 4" CONDUIT AND CAP ALL EMPTY CONDUIT
FOR TRENCH DETAIL AND CONDUIT SPECS SEE PAGE 10
FOR NEW VAULT DETAIL SPECS SEE PAGE 6 B1MATCH LINESEE PAGE 9/12B1SITE PLAN
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 9/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'B1MATCH LINESEE PAGE 8/12B1VAULT & EQUIPMENT TABLE
Site Grid
Number
Vault Size
& Cover
Type & Size
Equipment
In Vault
Primary Bushings Transformer
ID Numbers
(Company ID)
ASBUILT INFORMATION
Foreman-Complete
LB DC
SW2
EXISTING
312531
165847 EXISTING VAULT
PMH11 PM SW
3-Solid & 1-Fused
Mat Id: 7833800
Install new PM Switch PMH-11.
Install 3 Sol Pos w/ Term 15kV 750kcMil Al CS Lug TER750C
Terminate all feeder cables per cable diagram on page 10/12
Install Grid Num
FOR TRENCH DETAIL AND CONDUIT SPECS SEE PAGE 10
FOR NEW VAULT DETAIL SPECS SEE PAGE 6
OVERHEAD SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:
P01 GRID#312530-165845
FOR REFERENCES ONL<
SITE PLAN
3
2
1 AØ - AGH618
BØ - AGH619
CØ - AGH620
PMH-11 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW2 (AFTER)
NOT TO SCALE
SW#____
3
2
1 AØ - AFT009
BØ - AFT010
CØ - AFT011
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
1
2
3
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
VACANT
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
1-6"
L_____
1-6"
L_____
1-6"
L_____
1-6"
L_____
1-4"
EM1
1-6"
L_____
1-6"
L_____
1-6"
L_____
1-4"
1-4"
L_____
1-4"
L_____
1-4"
L_____
1-4"
L_____
1-6"
L_____
1-4"
AØ-EHE662
BØ-EHE663
CØ-EHE664
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
IN EXISTING 6"
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE665
BØ-EHE666
CØ-EHE667
X12609 101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 10/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PROPOSED CONDUIT DIAGRAM
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED ONE-LINE CABLE DIAGRAM
NOT TO SCALE
CONDUIT AND CABLE DIAGRAM
3
2
1 1
2
3
AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
AØ - 49311
BØ - 49312
CØ - 49313
PMH-9 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (BEFORE)
NOT TO SCALE
U1399
3
2
1 AØ - 24176
BØ - 24177
CØ - 24178
VACANT
PRIMARY CABLE & CONDUIT TABLE
LOCATION CONDUIT PRIMARY CABLE
ASBUILT INFORMATION
SIZE Qty LENGTH
Design
(ft)
BENDS PULL PULL Cable LENGTH
Design
(ft)
Cable Numbers Please Record Foreman - Complete
FROM TO (in)90°45°22°11°(lbs)
Rev
(lbs)Size A B C Manufacturer Compound Year Actual Amount Installed (Conduit & Cable)
SW1 J1A 4 1 40 2 1/O AL Jkt'd 60 EHE662 EHE663 EHE664
J1A V01 4 1 10 1/O AL Jkt'd 30 EHE665 EHE666 EHE667
J1A IP1 4 1 10 1/O AL Jkt'd 90 UTILIZE EXISTING CABLE TAGS
SW1 EM1 4 1 55 1-4" FUTURE
SW1 PV1 6 1 285 2 1170 1087 750kCMIL 320 EHE668 EHE669 EHE670
PV1 PV2 6 1 690 1 2 1201 1112 750kCMIL 720 EHE668 EHE669 EHE670
PV2 PV3 6 1 545 2 954 1007 750kCMIL 575 EHE668 EHE669 EHE670
PV3 PV4 6 1 245 1 3 1 1405 1748 750kCMIL 280 EHE668 EHE669 EHE670
PV4 PV5 6 1 985 2 3 2145 2493 750kCMIL 1020 EHE668 EHE669 EHE670 1-6" FUTURE
PV5 SW2 6 1 EXIST 1 3 1591 1814 750kCMIL 1025 EHE668 EHE669 EHE670
J01 J02 4 1 990 2 3 1-4" FUTURE
J01 J03 4 1 210 4 1-4" FUTURE
Total: 4" PVC =1,315' 2-36x1,315'
Total: 6" PVC =2,750' 2-35x1,160'
CIVIL CREW NOTE: ALL 2" - 90° BENDS MIN 48" RADIUS SCH-80 PVC
ALL 4" - 90° BENDS MIN 60" RADIUS SCH-80 PVC
ALL 4" - 45° BENDS SCH-80 PVC
ALL 2" - 45° BENDS SCH-80 PVC
- All "spare" conduits shall be capped at each end.
ALL 6" - 90° BENDS MIN 60" RADIUS SCH-80 PVC
ALL 6" - 45° BENDS SCH-80 PVC
Total: TRENCH = 1,160' 2-49x1,160'
Total: BORE = 1,670' 2-53x1,670'
Total: 1/O AL JKT =180' x3 2-55x180'
Total: 750kCMIL =3,940' x3 2-56x3,940'
3
2
1 AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
PMH-11 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (AFTER)
NOT TO SCALE
U1399
3
2
1
AØ-EHE664
BØ-EHE663
CØ-EHE662
3
2
1
VACANT
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
3
2
1 AØ - AGH618
BØ - AGH619
CØ - AGH620
PMH-11 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW2 (AFTER)
NOT TO SCALE
SW#____
3
2
1 AØ - AFT009
BØ - AFT010
CØ - AFT011
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
1
2
3
F.I.
F.I.
F.I.
VACANT
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
AØ-EHE668
BØ-EHE669
CØ-EHE670
SYSTEM OPERATION NOTE:
SYS OP & FIELD FOREMAN MUST
VERIFY ALL N.O.'s WITHIN THIS
PROJECT BEFORE SWITCHING
FROM OLD CABLES TO NEW CABLES.
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 11/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UNDERGROUND CIRCUIT MAP (EXISTING)
NOT TO SCALE
A2
MATCH LINE SEE THIS PAGE
A2
A2
MATCH LINE SEE THIS PAGE
A2
UG CIRCUIT MAP
3
2
1 1
2
3
AØ - 24185
BØ - 24186
CØ - 24187
AØ - 46763
BØ - 46764
CØ - 46765
PMH-9 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (BEFORE)
NOT TO SCALE
U1400
3
1 AØ - 46773
VACANT
CØ - 46774
3
2
1 1
2
3
AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
AØ - 49311
BØ - 49312
CØ - 49313
PMH-9 CONNECTION DIAGRAM
PMH PADMOUNT SWITCH SW1 (BEFORE)
NOT TO SCALE
U1399
3
2
1 AØ - 24176
BØ - 24177
CØ - 24178
VACANT
1
2
3
AØ - 24179
BØ - 24180
CØ - 24181
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
101085214DESIGNED BY
UTILITIES
CONTACT
PHONE#
COUNTY
1/4 SEC
U-MAP NO (POWER)
OP MAP
Emer Sect Gas Wk Ctr POWER WK CTR
PLAT MAP
JOINT FACILITIES ARRANGEMENTS
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
FOREMAN #1
FOREMAN #2
MAPPING
INCIDENT MAOP
Gas Order Elect Order
SCALE PAGE
ENGR - POWER
ENGR - GAS
FUNCTION
PROJECT MGR
PERMITREAL ESTATE/EASEMENT
2
1
REV#
3
DATE DESCRIPTIONBY
CONTACT PHONE NO DATE
OH CKT MAP CIRCUIT NOUG CKT MAP
Devendra Kumar 425-516-5486 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
BSIDOR 425-417-4984 9/17/2019
REQUIRED CITY OF AUBURN
MTH-16 & LEA-16 FEEDER TIE
INSTALL UNDERGROUND FEEDER TIE AND PMH SWITCH
M Street NE - Between 22nd Street NE & 32nd Street NE, Auburn, WA
PSE
N/A N/A
N/A 101085214
AS NOTED 12/12
KING N/A N/A QCSOKE
NW5-T21-R5E N/A N/A
2105E024,25 2105E032 2105E024,25 MTH-16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UNDERGROUND CIRCUIT MAP (EXISTING)
NOT TO SCALE
UG CIRCUIT MAP
Puget Sound Energy
P.O. Box 97034
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
PSE.com
June 23, 2020
Re: Compatibility Memo – PSE’s Electrical Feeder Tie, Brannan Park City of Auburn
Dear Sir/Madam:
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is proposing a project to install a new underground distribution system in the
City of Auburn, Washington. The proposed project is an extension of a utility relocation for the Reddington
Levee Setback Extension Project that replaced 2,200 linear feet of conduit to the west of King County’s
levee setback. The new alignment runs through Brannan Park, located west of the Green River, and
extends south for approximately 2,500 feet to the intersection of 22nd Street NE and M Street NE. This
utility extension project would install 6 underground vaults and conduit in an underground trench and
through a series of bore pits. The proposed alignment within Brannan Park is located either on the
maintained lawn or gravel foot trail in the park, and the remainder of the route is within city ROW.
Construction would likely occur during the dry summer season. The proposed project will not require any
in-water work activities or any tree removal.
In accordance with Section 4.7.11 of the Auburn SMP, utilities are an allowed use within the Urban
Conservancy shoreline designation. Approximately 1,200’ of the proposed underground electrical utility
falls within 100-200’ of the Green River OHWM buffer, beginning at the gravel path at the east end of 26th
St NE and continuing to the pump station located south of 30th St NE. The alignment runs through the
ball field lawn and the gravel maintenance vehicle path of Brannan Park. No native vegetation will be
removed, there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and the proposed use will not conflict
with present and planned use of Brannan Park. The alignment is landward of the Reddington levee and
will utilize the most direct path between PSE’s existing electrical utilities. Ball park lawn and gravel
maintenance vehicle path will be restored to pre-project conditions when construction is complete.
The next section will outline the Policies and Regulations in Section 4.7.11 of the SMP regarding Utilities.
Lease see in-line responses for this project’s compatibility with the policies and regulations of the SMP.
For brevity, sections that are not applicable to the project have been omitted.
4.7.11 Utilities
Policies
1. Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions,
preserve the natural landscape and vistas, preserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat, and minimize
conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses.
PSE Response:
Undergrounding the line minimizes conflicts with the park use, vistas and habitat. Shoreline
ecological functions of key landscape processes such as hydrological cycle, sediment and
chemistry will remain unchanged by the utility. The underground line will be covered by pervious
soil fill and restored to existing conditions.
2. Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants, sewage treatment plants,
water reclamation plants, or parts of those facilities that are non-water-oriented should not be allowed in
shoreline areas.
Not applicable
3. Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utilities sites, rights-of-way and corridors, whenever
possible. Joint use of rights-of-way and corridors should be encouraged.
PSE Response: The electric line is placed in a separate but nearby corridor from the storm water
system.
4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall
be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Where no other option exists, utilities should be
placed underground or alongside or under bridges.
PSE Response: The majority of the new underground line is located outside of the 200’ shoreline
zone and the remaining portion of the line within the zone is located 100’ or more from the river.
5. New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline protection structures.
PSE Response: The levee is located waterward of the new storm and electric utility.
6. & 7. Stormwater facilities
Not applicable
Utilities Regulations
1. Shoreline permit applications for installation of primary utility facilities shall include the following:
a. Reason why utility facility requires a shoreline location;
PSE Response: The alignment will utilize the most direct path between PSE’s existing electrical
utilities
b. Alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination;
PSE Response: The current alignment is the most direct and least impactful. Other alignments
were prohibited due to proximity of Channel Migration Area, and/or required greater impact to
adjacent ballfields.
c. Location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project including facilities of other types
of utilities;
PSE Response: A survey was conducted to identify existing utilities are included in the site
plans. Alignment has been designed so as to not conflict with existing utilities.
d. Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed during construction;
PSE Response: Construction area will be returned to pre-existing conditions.
e. Plans for control of erosion and turbidity during construction;
PSE Response: Turbidity is not applicable as there will be no in water work. Best management
plans and temporary erosion & sediment control plans will be implements as applicable to prevent
storm-water and runoff from reaching the river. PSE has submitted a SWPPP/TESC plan as part
of the stormwater/utility permit application.
f. Possibility for consideration of the proposed facility within existing utility right of-way.
PSE Response: The underground electric line will parallel but offset from the foot path to avoid
disturbance of the path.
2. Utilities shall be located to be consistent with the policies of comprehensive plan utilities element.
PSE Response: Project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal 15 Private Utilities.
4.7.11 Utilities Regulations (continued)
3. The State of Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology shall be notified of any utility
proposal which would require withdrawals of water from any body of water under shoreline management
jurisdiction.
4. Construction of underwater utilities or those within the wetland perimeter shall be timed to avoid major
fish migratory runs.
5. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or potentially detrimental
to water quality shall provide automatic shut off valves
PSE Response: Not applicable as there will be no in water work or transport of liquids.
6. Upon completion of utility installation/maintenance projects on shorelines, banks shall, at a minimum,
be restored to pre-project configuration, replanted and provided with maintenance care until the newly
planted vegetation is fully established. Plantings shall be native species and/or be similar to vegetation in
the surrounding area.
PSE Response: PSE will follow city regulations regarding restoring the lawn area temporarily
impacted by utility construction work.
7. thru 12. Not applicable
13. Where practical, utilities should consolidate permit applications in situations where multiple permits
from individual utilities are required.
PSE Response: The project will compile the following permit applications per city instruction:
shoreline substantial development permit application, flood permit, construction permit and
stormwater permit.
14. Accessory utility facilities, such as those typical and normal to support and serve a permitted
shoreline use, shall be a permitted use in all environments. This will typically consist of distribution lines
and individual service lines. Such utility facilities may be new or may be relocated facilities associated
with, by way of example, a road improvement project.
PSE Response: The underground distribution line project is a permitted use serving residential
uses.
15. thru 19. Storm water management facilities
Not applicable
Sincerely,
Jeff Misuik
Municipal Land Planner
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
t 425-462-3252
c 425-429-0220
jeff.misuik@pse.com
PO Box 97034 EST04W
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PSE UNDERGROUND FEEDER LINE AT BRANNAN PARK
SHL20-0006
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Hearing for the following described project. The permit
applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community
Development at 1 E Main ST, 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001.
Proposal: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow for PSE to install an underground
electrical line within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The proposed underground
line will be located more than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the
Green River.
Location: The area of the proposed work is located at Brannan Park, directly to the east of the
baseball fields, King Co. Parcel No. 0001000081.
Notice of Application: August 13, 2020
Permit Application: July 1, 2020
Complete Application: July 1, 2020
File No. SHL20-0006
Applicant: Puget Sound Energy
Attn: Jeff Misuik
PO Box 97034 M/S EST04W
Bellevue, WA 98009
Owner: City of Auburn
25 West Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Studies/Plans Submitted with Application:
Plans, prepared by PSE, dated September 17, 2019
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA), prepared by PSE, dated June 16, 2020
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Storm Permit(s), Grading Permit
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal
is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and
Design and Construction Standards.
Public Comment Period: All persons may comment on this application. Comments must be in
writing and received by the end of the comment period at 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2020 to
the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001 -4998. Any person wishing to become
a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and
participate in any hearings, if relevant, request a copy of decisions once made, and be made
aware of appeal rights. For questions regarding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence,
AICP, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or (253) 931-3092.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SHL20-0006 (Continued)
Page 2 of 2
Public Hearing: The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for September
16, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually
please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number
listed below.
Per the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation 20 -28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from
holding an in-person meeting at this time. All meetings will be held virtually and telephonically.
City of Auburn is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/96768499088
Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088
One tap mobile
1 646 558-8656,,96768499088# US
Dial by your location
1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
888 475 4499 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/amR9JCvBq
VICINITY MAP:
Subject Site
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF LEGAL APPLICATION NOTICE
Application Number: SHL20-0006
Applicant: Puget Sound Energy
Attn: Jeff Misuik
PO Box 97034 M/S EST04W
Bellevue, WA 98009
Property Owner: City of Auburn
25 West Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Location: The area of the proposed work is located at Brannan Park, directly
to the east of the baseball fields, King Co. Parcel No.
0001000081.
Closing Date for
Public Comments: September 16, 2020
I certify that on or before August 13, 2020, I did send a Notice of Public Hearing for the above
referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 16.06.090, to all property owners
located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through
the United States Postal Service at least 15 days prior to the closing date for public comments
noted above.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct.
___________________________________________
Jennifer Oliver – Planning Administrative Assistant
-Ad Confirmation-
Total NET Cost: $202.93
Class Name: Public Notices
Account #: 107302
Advertiser Name: City of Auburn, Finance Dept
Agency Name:
Contact: Shawn Campbell
Address: 25 W Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Telephone: (253) 876-1980
These are the details of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF AUBURN NOTICEOF PUBLIC HEARINGThe City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Planning and Development Department at 1 E Main ST, 2nd Floor, Customer Ser-vice Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal: Shoreline Substantial Development Per-mit to allow for PSE to install an under-ground electrical line within the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The proposed underground line will be located more than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Green River. Location: The area of the proposed work is located at Brannan Park, directly to the east of the baseball fields, King Co. Par-cel No. 0001000081, Auburn, WA. Notice of Application: August 13, 2020. Notice of Completeness: July 1, 2020. Permit Appli-cation: July 1, 2020 File Nos. SHL20-0005 Applicant: Puget Sound Energy, Attn: Jeff Misuik, PO Box 97034 M/S EST04W, Bellevue, WA 98009. Property Owner: City of Auburn, 25 West Main St, Auburn, WA 98001. Studies/Plans Submitted With Ap-plication: JARPA, Plans. Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: Grading & Storm Permit(s) Statement of Consis-tency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn. The lead agency for this proposal has de-termined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the envi-ronment. An environmental impact state-ment (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen-tal checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00pm on Sep-tember 16, 2020 to the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001-4998 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. For questions re-garding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3092.
Public Hearing: The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for September 16, 2020 will be held virtu-ally and telephonically at 5:30 PM. To at-tend the meeting virtually please click the link or enter the meeting ID into the Zoom app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. If you would like to provide written materials ahead of time, please email planning@auburnwa.gov two days prior to the meeting.
Per the Governors Emergency Proclama-tion 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding an in-person meeting at this time. All meetings will be held virtually and telephonically.
City of Auburn is inviting you to a sched-uled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/96768499088 Meeting ID: 967 6849 9088One tap mobile +16465588656,,96768499088# US (New York) +16699009128,,96768499088# US (San Jose)Date of Notice: August 13, 2020
*The ad preview below may not be to actual scale
Account Information
Contact Information
Contact Name: Holly Botts
Phone #
Email: hbotts@seattletimes.com
Ad Placement Information
Prepayment Information
Seattle Times 08/13/20
NWclassifieds 08/13/20
NWclassifieds 08/14/20
NWclassifieds 08/15/20
NWclassifieds 08/16/20
NWclassifieds 08/17/20
NWclassifieds 08/18/20
NWclassifieds 08/19/20
Run Date(s)
Ad ID: 955254
Purchase Order #: SHL20-0005
# of lines: 91
Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check # Amount