Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-16-2016 HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA
HEARING EXAMINER November 16, 2016 5:30 p.m. Location - City Hall Annex Conference Room 2, located on the 2nd floor of One Main Professional Plaza, One East Main Street I. Case No: SHL16-0003, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, SEP09-0033, related environmental checklist application (MDNS) Applicant: Albert Pura, SVF South 287th Auburn LLC, American Realty Advisors, 801 North Brand Blvd. Suite 800, Glendale, CA 91203. Agent: Jason G. Hubbell, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032. Request: Shoreline permit for approx. 340 feet of roadway widening on the west side of W. Valley Highway, north of S 287th ST as outlet from the eastern on-site stormwater pond associated with site preparation and construction of an approx. 259,213 sq. ft. industrial warehouse/distribution use and accessory office in a single tilt-up building, with loading docks & approx. 201 parking stalls. Project requires S. 287th Street (private) will be improved to approximate public standards to allow for truck traffic. Street frontage improvements to W . Valley Highway (Public), including a new culvert crossing are proposed (Tributary 0053 to Mill Creek). Outlet from the western stormwater pond will be via Tributary 0045 (Mullen Slough). On- site wetland mitigation will include buffer enhancement (for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, and the Western Off-site Wetland. Off-site wetland mitigation is proposed to include purchase of credits from the King Co. Mitigation Reserves Program. Location: 6600 & 6603 S. 287th ST & 28721 W. Valley Highway N, at the SW corner of S. 287th ST and W. Valley Highway N., Parcel Nos. 352204-9016, 352204-9024 & 352204-9026 within the SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. SHL16–0003 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, North Auburn Logistics Off-site improvement Date: October 23, 2016 Department: Community Development & Public Works Department Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit List, below Budget Impact: NA Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for SHL16-0003, for North Auburn Logistics off-site improvement based upon the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions. OWNER/APPLICANT: Albert Pura American Realty Advisors dba SVF South 287th Auburn LLC 801 North Brand Blvd., Suite 800 Glendale, CA 91203 AGENT: Jason Hubbell, Project Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. 18215 72nd AVE S Kent, WA 98032 REQUEST: Shoreline permit for approx. 340 lineal feet of roadway widening on the west side of W. Valley Highway, north of S 287th ST as outlet from the eastern on-site stormwater pond associated with site preparation and construction of an approx. 259,213 sq. ft. light industrial warehouse/distribution use and accessory office in a single tilt-up building, with loading docks & approx. 201 parking stalls. Project requires S. 287th ST (private) to be improved to approximate public standards to allow for truck traffic. Street frontage improvements to W. Valley Highway (Public) include a proposed new culvert crossing (Tributary 0053 to Mill Creek). Outlet from the western stormwater pond will be via Tributary 0045 (Mullen Slough). On-site wetland mitigation will include buffer enhancement (for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, and the Western Off-site Wetland). Off-site wetland mitigation is proposed to include purchase of credits from the King Co. Mitigation Reserves Program. LOCATION: The project site for which the off-site improvements are associated is 6600 & 6603 S. 287th ST & 28721 W. Valley Highway N, at the SW corner of S. 287th ST and W. Valley Highway N., Parcel Nos. 352204-9016, 352204- 9024 & 352204-9026 within the SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. EXISTING ZONING: The off-site construction that is the subject of the shoreline permit is located in the public right-of-way of West Valley Highway and is exempt from zoning (ACC 18.02.040 “Applicability”). The project site and adjacent properties to the west, are zoned M1, Light Industrial and subject to the West Hill Zoning Overlay. EXISTING “Light Industrial” Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 2 of 18 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: “Urban Conservancy” SEPA STATUS: A Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued on February 20, 2012 (File# SEP09-0033); a SEPA Addendum was subsequently issued on September 16, 2016. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____ Councilmember: Staff: Dixon Meeting Date: November 16, 2016 Item Number: Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 3 of 18 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the site and surrounding properties are: Location Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use Off-site 285XX W Valley Hwy West Valley Highway (off- site improvements, north of development site) “Light Industrial” (Not Applicable to ROW ) Developed public roadway Development Site 6600 & 6603 S. 287th ST & 28721 W. Valley Highway N SW corner of S. 287th ST and W. Valley Highway N., Parcel Nos. 352204-9016, 352204-9024 & 352204- 9026 “Light Industrial” M1, Light Industrial and West Hill Overlay Vacant (temporary stormwater pond) North “Light Industrial” (within City) and King County, beyond “M1. Light Industrial” and subject to the West Hill Zoning Overlay (within City) and King County, beyond single family residential. South “Light Industrial” “M1. Light Industrial” and West Hill zoning Overlay Construction contractor business with trucking terminal, beyond East “Light Industrial” (within City) M1, Light Industrial (within City) Single family (King Co.) Multi-tenant commercial building and truck terminal yard, wetland mitigation/open space (within City) West “Light Industrial” “M1. Light Industrial single family residential. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 4 of 18 Vicinity Map Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 5 of 18 2015 Aerial Photo of Vicinity Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 6 of 18 EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 2015 Aerial Photograph of Project Vicinity and RHZ Maps Exhibit 4 Completed Shoreline Permit Application Form, Received June 21, 2016, Rev. July 29, 2016 Exhibit 5 West Valley Highway Improvement, Sheet C20 of 35, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., April 4, 2016, was subsequently revised on July 28, 2016 and resubmitted. Exhibit 6 Project Narrative/Engineer’s Statement, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., June 21, 2016 Exhibit 7 Legal Descriptions of Development Site, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., June 21, 2016 Exhibit 8 North Auburn Logistics Overall Site Plan (Development Site), Synthesis PLLC, February 2, 2016 Exhibit 9 Vicinity Map, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., June 21, 2016 Exhibit 10 Listing of Properties within 300 Feet of Development Site, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., June 21, 2016 Exhibit 11 Shoreline Permit Data Sheet, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., June 21, 2016 Exhibit 12 Hydraulic Project Approval by WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, May 27, 2016 Exhibit 13 Stormwater Site Plan (Report), Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., April 4, 2016. Exhibit 14 Floodplain Habitat Assessment (Report), WRA Inc., April 13, 2016 Exhibit 15 Floodplain Permit Approval, City of Auburn, September 19, 2016 Exhibit 16 City of Auburn Critical Areas Mitigation Report for the North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development, WRA Inc., April 13, 2016. Exhibit 17 Original SEPA decision (File No SEP09-0033), February 20, 2012. Exhibit 18 SEPA addendum (File No. SEP09-0033) September 16, 2016. Exhibit 19 Completed Environmental Checklist Application, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., June 21, 2016 Exhibit 20 Combined Notice of Application and Public Hearing (File No. SHL16-003) Exhibit 21 Affidavit of Posting - Notice of Application Exhibit 22 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Application Exhibit 23 Request to Publish - Notice of Application (Affidavit to be provided) FINDINGS OF FACT: Site/Proposal Description 1. Jason Hubbell, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., on behalf of Albert Pura, of American Realty Advisors, dba SVF South 287th Auburn LLC, applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a project known as: “North Auburn Logistics (NAL)”. The development site is located at the SW corner of West Valley Highway and S 287th ST. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 7 of 18 More specifically, the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is sought for approx. 340 feet of roadway widening on the west side of W. Valley Highway, north of S 287th ST as an outlet from the eastern on-site stormwater pond associated with site preparation and construction of an approx. 259,213 sq. ft. light industrial warehouse/distribution use and accessory office in a single tilt-up building, with loading docks & approx. 201 parking stalls. Project requires S. 287th ST (private) to be improved to approximate public standards to allow for truck traffic. Street frontage improvements to W. Valley Highway (Public) include a proposed new culvert crossing (Tributary 0053 to Mill Creek). Outlet from the western stormwater pond will be via Tributary 0045 (Mullen Slough). On-site wetland mitigation will include buffer enhancement (for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, and the Western Off-site Wetland. Off-site wetland mitigation is proposed to include purchase of credits from the King Co. Mitigation Reserves (Fee-in lieu) Program. 2. To accommodate truck traffic anticipated to use the proposed development, a northbound, center left turn lane is required by the City to be constructed on West Valley Hwy, south of S 287th ST. In order to transition from this wider roadway section of West Valley Hwy located south of S 287th ST, to the existing narrower section of the road located to the north, a taper in the roadway must be constructed. 3. The approximately 340 feet of roadway widening on the west side of W. Valley Highway, extending north of S 287th ST provides this roadway taper and serves as an outlet from the eastern on-site stormwater pond which is located within the Protected Area of the mapped regulatory floodplain (Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and the Floodway) for Mill Creek. These floodplain-related areas are designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The approximately 14.9-acre site of the proposed approx. 259,213 sq. ft. industrial warehouse/distribution use (Development Site) is not located within Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and not within the Floodway. 4. This approximately 340 feet of road widening north of S. 287th ST is located within the Floodway, which occurs on the west side of road and within the RPZ of Tributary 0053, which occurs on the east side of the road. This Floodway is associated with backflow of the Mill Creek from their confluence with the Green River approximately 2 miles downstream. The Development Site is not within 200 feet of the Green River; the more commonly recognized area of jurisdiction under the city’s shoreline program. 5. Regulatory Floodway and associated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) within 200 feet of the floodway are "shorelands" that are within the jurisdiction of the Auburn Shoreline Master Program (Auburn SMP, Section 4.2.A.3). Unless otherwise exempt, disturbance or construction of project improvements within the floodway will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). The language of this section provides: Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 8 of 18 “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. 6. The City evaluated the available shoreline substantial development permit exemptions of WAC 173-27-040, “Developments exempt from substantial development permit requirement”, and did not find any exemptions that would apply. This section also provides: “Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process.” 7. The shoreline environment designation of this floodway of Mill Creek would be “Urban Conservancy” according to the City’s adopted Shoreline Management Program (SMP). 8. The area of the proposed North Auburn Logistics Project and its off-site improvements are located in the valley floor portion of the City and are relatively flat with slopes of less than 5 percent. Some local steeper slopes may be associated with side slopes of the roadside channel. 9. The scope of the work for the alteration within the floodplain areas is described in the Project Narrative provided by the Applicant with the Application, as follows: “Description of Proposed Project” “A portion of ditch along the west side of West Valley Highway, within the floodplain, will be filled and storm water pipe installed. An existing driveway will be reconstructed and the culvert underneath this driveway will be replaced. Another portion of this ditch will be partially regraded. Approximately 365 linear feet of floodplain located on the west side of West Valley Highway beginning at South 287th street will be altered by this project. Floodplain compensation will be provided and no negative impact to the floodplain is anticipated from this activity.” Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 9 of 18 10. While the nature of construction has not changed, the drawing showing the specific details of the proposed was subsequently revised by the Applicant. The drawing showing the construction, “West Valley Highway Improvement, Sheet C20 of 35”, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., April 4, 2016, was subsequently revised on July 28, 2016 and resubmitted. Characteristics of the Area 11. The Development Site and adjacent properties are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Auburn. The Development Site is approximately 840 feet south of the City limits with unincorporated King County off-site to the north. The roadway widening and ditch modifications will occur within the City’s public right-of-way of West Valley Highway. The road is currently a two-lane road, one lane in each direction and open ditches on both sides. The road is classified by the city’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, as a “Principal Arterial”. The city standard for Principal Arterial streets is a five-lane road; two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane within an 87-foot wide right-of-way. The Street is not currently constructed to city standards. 12. The surrounding areas have a comprehensive plan designation and zoning of “Light Industrial”. 13. The existing land uses bordering the west side of West Valley Highway and closest to the project, are mainly single family residences within the M1, Light Industrial zone. The existing land use on the east side of West Valley Highway is a single family residence surrounded by routinely mowed agricultural grass land on a large lot located in unincorporated King County. To the south of this residential property is a trucking terminal. 14. The pre-existing characteristics of the area of the work within the Floodway are described in the Project Narrative/Engineer’s Statement, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., as follows: “West Valley Highway in this area is a two-lane road with almost no shoulder. Existing ditches exist on either side of the road. The western ditch is approximately 3 feet deep and 8-10 feet wide at the top. The ditch is vegetated with grass and small plants. Per the floodplain habitat assessment by WRA, Inc. there is not critical habitat in the project area. The existing ditch is extremely flat but generally flows north. Properties surrounding the site consist of a various mix of uses. To the south and south-east are industrial/warehouse developments and office complexes that are nearly completely paved. The remaining properties around the project site consist of residential homes and farm land and are generally no more than 25% impervious. The topography of the surrounding area is generally flat.” Additional information on the characteristics of the project site are found in the document Floodplain Habitat Assessment (Report), WRA Inc., April 13, 2016. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 10 of 18 15. The SSDP is requested for approx. 340 feet of roadway widening on the west side of W. Valley Highway, north of S 287th ST. The widening will necessitate earthwork consisting of grading and re-channelization of the roadside ditch to the west. The revision of the ditch channel cross section is shown as “Ditch Section Y-Y and Ditch Section Z-Z” on the plan: “West Valley Highway Improvement, Sheet C20 of 35”, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., July 28, 2016. During road widening a storm pipe approximately 190 feet in length will be installed below the bottom of the southern portion of the ditch to convey stormwater from the project site’s eastern storm pond to the ditch at a location downstream. A culvert that conveys the roadside ditch below a residential driveway will also be replaced as part of the construction. 16. According to the Report: Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the North Auburn Logistics Development, by WRA Environmental Consultants, Inc., April 13, 2016, project biologist visited the site and determined: “No Critical Areas designated by the City under AMC Chapter 16.10 or any other sensitive natural resources protected by State or Federal laws occurs within the Study Area for this Floodplain Habitat Assessment.” While it may not include other critical areas, floodway and floodplain are one of the city’s regulated critical areas as specified in ACC 16.10. 17. According to the Report: Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the North Auburn Logistics Development, by WRA Environmental Consultants, Inc., April 13, 2016 the channel proposed for modification is not a regulated stream subject to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction, as follows: “In addition, a site visit by Larry Fisher, Area Habitat Biologist for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, confirmed that the ditch in question does not meet the requirements of a regulated stream (see email from Larry Fisher included in Appendix B).” 18. Due to the project being located within the Protected Area of the mapped regulatory floodplain (Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and the Floodway) for Mill Creek, a Floodplain permit is required to be issued for the Project. The floodplain permit was issued on September 19, 2016 (File No. FDP16-0005) (See Exhibits). The Report titled: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study - North Auburn Logistics, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. June 6, 2016 concludes the project will not adversely alter floodplain storage and the project will not result in a base flood elevation increase. 19. The portion of the project within the floodway will result in a minor increase in the amount of impervious surface. The increased stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces will be managed in the same manner as currently exists, and will continue to flow west into the roadside channel and then north. Cultural Resource Investigation 20. To assess the potential for historic or archaeological resources, the Applicant commissioned the following report: Draft Cultural Resources Survey Report of the North Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 11 of 18 Auburn Logistics Project, Cardno Consultants Inc., March 9, 2016. The report evaluated the environmental and cultural setting of the approximately 14.9-acre development site. The Report is based on conducting a field survey of the project site where accessible (including subsurface testing). The Report did not specifically evaluate the roadside area to be disturbed for the off-site road widening. The Report concludes that no cultural resources were identified and further archaeological investigations are not recommended. However, the report goes on to say that if any historically significant site, building, district, structure, or object is discovered during construction activity, work should be halted, the area secured, and the Tribes and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), be immediately consulted. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. Shoreline Management Program 21. The City of Auburn uses its 2008 City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to regulate development and management of the City’s shoreline. The document is available at: https://www.auburnwa.gov/Assets/PCD/AuburnWA/Docs/shoreline_plan.pdf 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. Regulatory floodway and associated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) within 200 feet of the floodway are "shorelands" that are also within the jurisdiction of the Auburn Shoreline Master Program (Auburn SMP, Section 4.2.A.3). 22. The City’s rules and procedures for shoreline permits are contained in ACC Chapter 16.08; more specifically sections 16.08.030 through 16.08.140. The Chapter provides the following general purpose and intent: “16.08.010 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.” 23. Pursuant ACC 16.08.080, the Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on the shoreline substantial development permit in accordance with the following: “16.08.080 Application – Hearing – Required. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 12 of 18 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.” 24. The City’s rules provide the following requirements for public notice: “16.08.050 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 25. A Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued on February 20, 2012 (File# SEP09-0033). Due to significant project changes, including that a shoreline substantial development permit is required for the project, a SEPA Addendum was subsequently issued on September 16, 2016 and was posted on-site and mailed to listed properties within 300 feet of the Project. 26. The City issued a combined Notice of Application (NOA) and Notice of Public Hearing on October 13, 2016 with an associated 15-day comment period (File # SHL16-0003). The notice was mailed to property owners with 300 feet of the project site, published in the newspaper and posted on site (See Exhibits). The notice was provided 30 days prior to the hearing date as required by ACC 16.08.050, “Application – Notices”. No public comments have been received in response to the notices. 27. The contents of the case file for this project (SHL16–0003) are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of the record of this hearing. 28. The decision on SSDP shall be final with the Hearing Examiner and subject to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology review period as follows as required by the following code section: “16.08.140 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; Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 13 of 18 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. 16.08.150 Development commencement time. Development pursuant to a substantial development permit shall not begin and shall not be authorized until 21 days from the date the director files the approved substantial development permit with the State Department of Ecology and Attorney General, or until all review proceedings initiated within 21 days of the date of such filing have been terminated.” CONCLUSIONS: Staff has concluded that a shoreline substantial development permit should be approved in that the project and use are consistent with the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation, as well as with the approval criteria for the shoreline substantial development permit. “ 1. The City code provides the following review criteria for shoreline substantial development permits: “16.08.052 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; 2. Auburn Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code; and 3. The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW; Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC). 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. 3. 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 Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 14 of 18 the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation. Section 3.3.1 at Page 3-2 of the SMP describes the purpose of the “Urban Conservancy” environment as: “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 proposed project is approximately 340 feet of roadway widening and channel re- alignment on the west side of W. Valley Highway as an off-site transportation safety improvement requirement associated with a light Industrial development. The project may temporarily disrupt ecological functions but will not permanently interfere with the functions after construction. After road widening the roadside channel will be re-aligned and restored to resemble pre-existing conditions. 4. Section 3.3.3 of the SMP (Page 3-2) 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. 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 not change the nature of existing uses in the project site. The function of the public and private roadways and landscape areas on public and private property will not change. The project itself includes limited improvements to meet the transportation safety functional need and will include appropriate low impact development construction techniques and landscape restoration. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 15 of 18 5. The Permitted Use Table of the SMP, Pages 4-19 through 4-24, as a summary of the use regulations, allows outright (permitted) uses including “transportation facilities (roads and bridges)” and “Utilities – such as storm drainage outfalls, primary conveyance and distribution facilities such as pipes and pump stations; (and) accessory utility facilities to serve allowed development in the ‘Urban Conservancy’ shoreline environment.” 6. Section 4.7.10 on Page 4-41 the City’s SMP allows transportation uses within the “Urban Conservancy” environment. Additionally, the program provides the following policy guidance applicable to transportation uses: “Policies 1. Plan, locate, design and where appropriate construct, proposed roads, non- motorized systems and parking facilities where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water- dependent uses. Where other options are available and feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within shoreline jurisdiction. 2. The number of river crossings should be minimized. 3. Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then as remote from the Shoreline as possible. 4. Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White and Green Rivers wherever possible. 5. Joint use of transportation corridors within the shoreline jurisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation should be encouraged. 6. New railroad corridors should be prohibited.” The proposed project is consistent with the SMP policies applicable to transportation uses. The proposed project will not result in loss of shoreline ecological functions; it will preserve the natural landscape and environment. The City’s review and issuance of a floodplain permit and the approval of the Habitat Impact Assessment (report) addresses the project’s consistency with the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. On a long term basis, the project will not interfere with the utility and transportation uses of the vicinity. Erosion control measures will be reviewed, approved, and implemented during construction. Restoration construction will fit the topography and minimize alteration of the natural environment. 7. Section 4.7.11 on Page 4-43 the City’s SMP allows utility uses within the “Urban Conservancy” environment. Additionally, the program provides the following policy guidance applicable to utility uses: “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. 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. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 16 of 18 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. The proposed project will not result in loss of shoreline ecological functions; it will preserve the natural landscape and environment. The City’s review and issuance of a floodplain permit and the approval of the Habitat Impact Assessment (report) addresses the project’s consistency with the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. On a long term basis, the project will not interfere with the utility and transportation uses of the vicinity. The project is not a primary utility production or processing facility (such as a waste water treatment plant). The project site will meet the functional need of the storm water utility and includes appropriate low impact development construction techniques, environmental mitigation and landscape restoration. 8. As required by the first criteria of the Shoreline Management Rules (WAC 173-27-140), the project is found to be consistent with policies and provisions of both the Shoreline Management Act and the local SMP. See Item 1, above. The application has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of the City’s Shoreline Master Program. The utility and transportation improvements are permitted uses within the “Urban Conservancy” environment designation shoreline jurisdiction. 9. As required by the second criteria of the Shoreline Management Rules (WAC 173-27-140), the project will not adversely affect the scenic quality of the shoreline environment since the project consists primarily of minor modifications to existing transportation and utility facilities. While construction of the channel will result in a temporary loss of vegetated area, the project as conditioned will provide restoration of channel vegetation. 10. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies – Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Utilities) Objective 1.6. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 17 of 18 Policies: • CF-36 The City of Auburn Comprehensive Drainage Plan is incorporated as an element of this Comprehensive Plan. • CF-37 The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements. • CF-38 The City shall require that off-site storm drainage improvements needed to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneously with such development, according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City should continue to use direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the financing of off-site improvements required to serve the development. • CF-45 The City shall promote policies which seek to maintain the existing conveyance capacity of natural drainage courses. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies – Transportation Plan Chapter 5. • Environ-01: Thoroughly evaluate the impacts of all transportation projects and apply appropriate mitigation measures in conformance with SEPA, the Critical Areas Ordinance, and other city, county, state, and federal regulations. • Environ-02: Identify and consider the environmental impacts of transportation projects at the earliest possible time to ensure planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to reduce or avoid potential problems that may adversely impact the environment and project outcome. • Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments. • Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments. The project has been coordinated with the City Public Works Traffic Division and Utilities Division and is compatible with the applicable plans and standards. 11. The proposed project is consistent with or is capable of being consistent with the Municipal Code. Agenda Subject Public Hearing SHL16–0003 Date: October 23, 2016 Page 18 of 18 12. The Shoreline Management rules in WAC 173-27-150 set forth the following three 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 Shoreline Management Act; • the shoreline regulations; and, • the applicable master program. 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the application, findings and conclusions of the Staff report, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHL16-0003) subject to the following conditions: 1. The Project construction shall generally be consistent with the “West Valley Highway Improvement, Sheet C20 of 35,” Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc., July 28, 2016, and as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Construction shall not begin until the public facility extension approval, File No. FAC14- 0007, is issued by the City. 3. The project shall observe and implement recommendations of the Draft Cultural Resources Survey Report of the North Auburn Logistics Project, Cardno Consultants Inc., March 9, 2016. Specifically, in the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate area and contact made with the Tribes and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. 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. 752.3 NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet Feet752.3 Notes Vicinity Map showing: development site, Off-site Improvements, and floodway location. SHL16-0003 Legend 376.20 1:4,514 eGIS Planning 1in =376 ft 11/7/2016Printed 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. Floodway Streams Address Numbers Auburn City Limits Parcels Street Centerlines 752.3 NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet Feet752.3 Notes 2015 Aerial Photo showing: development site, Off-site Improvements, and floodway location. SHL16-0003 Legend 376.20 1:4,514 eGIS Planning 1in =376 ft 11/7/2016Printed 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. Floodway Streams Auburn City Limits Parcels Street Centerlines 13 CITY OF AUBURN SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Planning & Development Department APPLICATION Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4996 Tel: 253.931.3090 Fax: 253.804.3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov www.auburnwa.gov SHORELINE STUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS Please indicate whether you are submitting one or more concurrent applications with this application by checking one or more of the boxes below: Type I Applications (administrative decisions made by the city which are not subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA]): Administrative Use Permit Boundary Line Adjustment Boundary Line Elimination Building Permit Excavation Permit Floodplain Development Permit Grading Permit Home Occupation Permit Land Clearing Permit Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit Public Facility Extension Agreement Right-of-way Use Permit Short Subdivision Special Permit Temporary Use Permit (administrative) Utility Permit Type II Applications (administrative decisions made by the city which include threshold determinations under SEPA: Administrative Use Permit Building Permit Floodplain Development Permit Grading Permit Land Clearing Permit Public Facility Extension Agreement Short Subdivision Type III Applications (quasi- judicial final decisions made by the hearing examiner following a recommendation by staff: Conditional Use Permit Preliminary Plat Special Exceptions Special Home Occupation Permit Substantial Shoreline Development Permit Surface Mining Permit Temporary Use Permit Variance Type IV Applications – quasi-judicial decisions made by the city council following a recommendation by the hearing examiner: Rezone (site-specific) OTHERS - as may apply: SEPA_____________ SHORELINE EXEMPT __________________ _________________ 14 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 – SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST DIGITAL COPIES OF WRITTEN MATERIALS & GRAPHICS Please provide a labeled readable compact disc(s) containing digital versions of all submitted written materials and plans and graphics for use by the City of Auburn during the shoreline review process. Staff will use this information in report preparation and public noticing so please be sure to provide current and accurate information. Written materials should be submitted to be compatible with Microsoft Office desktop software products. Plans and graphics should be submitted in pdf or tif format. APPLICATION FEES - Make checks payable to the City of Auburn All application fees, including, but not limited to: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Environmental Review, and Public Notice Board Posting Fees. Some fees will not be invoiced until actual costs are known. Link to current fee schedule can be found @ http://www.auburnwa.gov/community/about/forms.asp WRITTEN MATERIALS – Total of ten (10) copies unless otherwise noted A. APPLICATION FORM Provide a completed application form signed by the property owner(s) and/or applicant with the completed Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Submittal Checklist. (One original and nine copies). B. LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION Provide a letter of authorization to act contained with this application packet inclusive of all required signatures. C. CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS FORM Identify applications for projects, permits, or any other land use decisions that are being submitted concurrent with the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit application. D. SEPA CHECKLIST. Submit a completed Environmental Checklist together with any supporting documentation, such as a critical areas report, traffic impact analysis, and preliminary storm report, or information to address potential or known environmental impacts resulting from the proposal. If available, also submit a DNS or EIS. E. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT (6 copies, one unbound) addressing compliance ACC 16.10 (Critical Areas) prepared by a qualified consultant as defined by ACC 16.10.020 as a person who has attained a degree from an accredited college or university in the subject matter necessary to evaluate the critical area in question (e.g., biology, ecology, or horticulture/arboriculture for wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and geology and/or civil engineering for geologic hazards, and hydrogeologist for ground water protection areas), and/or who is professionally trained and/or certified or licensed by the State of Washington to practice in the scientific disciplines necessary to identify, evaluate, manage, and mitigate impacts to the critical area in question. 15 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Known or Suspected Critical Area Class Analysis Required Analysis Prepared Wetlands ______ Stream ______ Wildlife Habitat Area ______ Geologic Hazard Area Seismic, steep slope, landslide, & erosion ______ Groundwater Protection Area ______ Other: Flood Hazard - ACC 15.68 ______ Shorelines of the State - ACC 16.08 ______ F. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (6 copies, one unbound). If the SEPA submittal is for a new use or an expanded use that will generate traffic, safety or other issues, the City Engineer may require submittal of a traffic analysis prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The City Engineer may make this determination prior to application submittal as part of a pre-application conference meeting request or as part of coordination with the applicant prior to application submittal. Traffic Analysis required and attached. Traffic Analysis is not applicable as determined by the City Engineer Don’t know G. PRELIMINARY STORM REPORT (6 copies, one unbound). The storm report shall include a minimum of a quarter mile downstream analysis. (Additional information may be required if such analysis does not fully address stormwater impacts). H. LEGAL DESCRIPTION of project property. At a minimum, include property address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location. I. LEGAL DESCRIPTION of all parcels of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property. Include owner names and addresses for such properties. J. WRITTEN STATEMENT including: 1. The shoreline designation according to the Shoreline Master Program; 2. The name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with; 3. A specific description of the proposed project, including the proposed use(s) and the activities necessary to accomplish the project; 4. A general description of the property’s existing physical characteristics, improvements, and structures; 5. A general description of adjacent (within 1,000 feet in all directions) use, structures, improvements, intensity of development, and physical characteristics. 16 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION K. JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION (JARPA) FORM completed. L. INTAKE FORM – From WAC 173-27-990, Appendix A – Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter. PLANS & GRAPHICS - Total of ten (10) copies unless otherwise noted A. SCALE & LEGIBILITY All plans, except architectural elevations, should be to scale (engineering scale) and drawn on maximum 24” x 36” reproducible Mylar or similar paper at a scale no less than 1”=50’. An index sheet, in above-specified size, is required for multi-sheet submittals. All plans should be folded to fit a legal size file jack. B. VICINITY MAP showing the property’s/proposed development or use’s relationship to: 1. Roads; 2. Proposed disposal site, if development involves removal of soils by dredging or other means. If disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, then provide a separate map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to the nearest city or town. C. SITE PLAN: 1. North arrow, graphic scale, and date plan was prepared; 2. Boundaries and dimensions of the property; 3. Adjacent streets; 4. Ordinary high water mark of all water bodies adjacent to or within the project’s boundaries (approximate location acceptable unless applicable regulations require precise location, in which case biological and hydrological basis for the location should also be included); 5. Existing and proposed easements and such easements’ purposes; 6. Location and size of all existing and proposed utilities, sewer, storm drainage facilities, water lines, septic tanks and drainfields, and material stockpiles or surcharge, lying within or adjacent to property; 7. Typical cross section(s) showing existing/proposed ground elevations and existing/proposed building and structure heights; 8. Location of uses; 9. Location and dimensions buildings and structures, existing and proposed, with setbacks to property lines; 10. Location and layout of off-street parking, loading, and unloading areas; 11. Location and layout of all paved or graveled areas; 17 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 12. Location of walls and fences around the perimeter of the property and an indication of their height and materials; 13. Location of refuse storage locations, bicycle parking areas and pedestrian/bike paths; 14. Existing and proposed land contours using five-foot intervals in water area and ten-foot intervals on areas landward of ordinary high water mark where development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other alteration of land contours. Approximate contours acceptable for areas not to be altered by development and indicated as such. 15. Flood hazards, geological hazards (seismic, steep slope, landslide, erosion), groundwater protection areas, streams, significant trees, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. 16. Wetland areas to be altered or used as a part of the development. 17. Depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public areas; 18. Plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project, if applicable. 19. Quantity, source, and composition of any fill material placed on the site, temporarily or permanently; and 20. Quantity, composition, and destination of any excavated or dredged material. D. LANDSCAPING/PLANTING PLAN if required, prepared in accordance with ACC 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) inclusive of: 1. North arrow, graphic scale, and date plan was prepared; 2. Boundaries and dimensions of the property; 3. Adjacent public and private streets; 4. Location of on-site buildings; 5. Location of on-site parking areas; 6. Location of outdoor storage areas; 7. Location and size of landscape areas 8. Location of significant trees; 9. Location of water source(s); 10. Location and arrangement of proposed on-site and off-site plantings at maturity; location, description, and extent of proposed ground cover(s); and related natural and artificial features that are proposed or existing, such as retaining walls, curbing, fences, and fountains; 11. Plant schedule of common and scientific names of species, minimum tree calipers at time of planting, and quantity of each species; 12. Proposed building and site lighting, especially if proposed to be softened or screened by landscaping/planting; and, 13. Information on the plan as to how the landscaping will be maintained, such as type of irrigation system or native plants. ” 14423.044.docx NORTH AUBURN LOGISTICS Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Engineer's Statement Shoreline Designation (from Shoreline Master Program) The shoreline designation for this project is Urban Conservancy per the City of Auburn. 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. Name of shoreline (water body) associated with project The waterbody associated with this project is Mill Creek, located to the north of the project. Mill Creek eventually joins the Green River to the north. Description of Proposed Project A portion of ditch along the west side of West Valley Highway, within the floodplain, will be filled and storm water pipe installed. An existing driveway will be reconstructed and the culvert underneath this driveway will be replaced. Another portion of this ditch will be partially regraded. Approximately 365 linear feet of floodplain located on the west side of West Valley Highway beginning at South 287th street will be altered by this project. Floodplain compensation will be provided and no negative impact to the floodplain is anticipated from this activity. Description of Existing Conditions West Valley Highway in this area is a two lane road with almost no shoulder. Existing ditches exist on either side of the road. The western ditch is approximately 3 feet deep and 8-10 feet wide at the top. The ditch is vegetated with grass and small plants. Per the floodplain habitat assessment by WRA, Inc. there is not critical habitat in the project area. The existing ditch is extremely flat but generally flows north. Description of Adjacent Properties Properties surrounding the site consist of a various mix of uses. To the south and south-east are industrial/warehouse developments and office complexes that are nearly completely paved. The remaining properties around the project site consist of residential homes and farm land and are generally no more than 25% impervious. The topography of the surrounding area is generally flat. 14423.045.docx North Auburn Logistics Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Project Legal Description (Location) West Valley Highway Right-of-Way, adjacent to: The properties with addresses 28543, 28535, and 28511 West Valley Highway South in Auburn, Washington, 98001 situated in the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. Approximate Latitude 47° 20' 41.9748'' N and Longitude 122° 14' 59.406'' W. Page 1 of 3 14423.046.doc NORTH AUBURN LOGISTICS SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE Parcel Number: 352204-9021 Property Owner Name: Hunt, Floyd & Doreen Property Site Address: 28427 West Valley Hwy S, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description N 216.64 FT OF E 1321.70 FT OF S 1341.72 FT MEAS ALG E LN OF SE 1/4 LESS W 485.12 FT MEAS ALG N LN THOF LESS ST HWY & LESS POR IF ANY IN NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4. Parcel Number: 352204-9024 Property Owner Name: SVF South 287th Auburn LLC Property Site Address: 6603 S 287th Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description PORTION OF SE QTR SE QTR STR 35-22-04 DAF: BEGINNING AT POINT ON S LINE OF STR 25-22- 04 FROM WHICH SE CORNER THEREOF BEARS N88-29-26E 460.43 FT TH NORTH PARALLEL WITH E LINE OF SAID SECTION 516.18 FT TH S88-29-26W PARALLEL WITH S LINE OF SAID SECTION 430.43 FT TH SOUTH PARALLEL WITH E LINE OF SAID SECTION 516.18 FT TO S LINE THEREOF TH N88-29-26E ALONG SAID S LINE 430.43 FT TO BEGINNING. Parcel Number: 352204-9026 Property Owner Name: SVF South 287th Auburn LLC Property Site Address: 28721 West Valley Hwy S, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description PORTION OF SE QTR SE QTR STR 35-22-04 DAF: BEGINNING AT POINT ON S LINE OF STR 25-22- 04 FROM WHICH SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION BEARS N88-29-26E 30 FT TH NORTH PARALLEL TO E LINE OF SAID SECTION 516.18 FT TH S88-29-26W PARALLEL WITH S LINE OF SAID SECTION 430.43 FT TH SOUTH PARALLEL WITH E LINE OF SAID SECTION 516.18 FT TH N88-29-26E ALONG SAID S LINE 430.43 FT TO BEGINNING. Parcel Number: 352204-9028 Property Owner Name: Spencer, Lee Robert Property Site Address: 6710 S 287th St, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description N 135 FT OF S 651.18 FT OF W 150 FT OF E 330 FT OF SE 1/4. Page 2 of 3 14423.046.doc Parcel Number: 352204-9039 Property Owner Name: Evans, Raeleen Property Site Address: 28535 West Valley Hwy S, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description PORTION SE QTR SE QTR STR 35-22-04 DAF: BEGINNING AT SE CORNER OF STR 35-22-04 TH ALONG SECTION LINE S88-29-26W 30 FT TH PARALLEL TO E LINE OF SAID SECTION 651.18 FT TO TPOB TH NORTH PARALLEL TO E LINE OF SAID SECTION 202.90 FT TH S87-54-40W 324.50 FT TH S00-28-40E 199.82 FT TH N87-54-40E 324.50 FT MORE OR LESS TO TPOB. Parcel Number: 352204-9046 Property Owner Name: Donley, Roseanna Property Site Address: 6638 S 287th St, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description N 135 FT OF S 651.18 FT OF W 174 FT OF E 504 FT SUBJ TO R/W. Parcel Number: 352204-9047 Property Owner Name: Lalime, Ronald H & Barbara J Property Site Address: 6610 S 287th St, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description BEG 651.18 FT N & S 88-29-26 W 354.50 FT FR SE COR OF SEC TH CONTG W 239.50 FT TH S 135 FT TH W 235.49 FT TH N 329.65 FT TH N 87-54-22 E 478.02 FT TH S 199.59 FT TO BEG. Parcel Number: 352204-9049 Property Owner Name: Hunt, Floyd R & Doreen J Property Site Address: 28511 West Valley Hwy S, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description N 271.0 FT OF FOLLOWING DESC TRACT: BEGIN AT SE CORNER STR 35-22-04 TH ALONG SECTION LINE S88-29-26W 30 FT TH NORTH PARALLEL TO E LINE SAID SECTION 516.18 FT TO TPOB TH NORTH PARALLEL TO E LINE OF SAID SECTION 608.90 FT TH S87-54-40W 804.77 FT TH S00-28-40E 600.65 FT TH N88-29-26E 799.49 FT TO TPOB. Parcel Number: 352204-9067 Property Owner Name: Springer 53 LLC Property Site Address: 28543 West Valley Hwy S, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description N 135 FT OF S 651.18 FT OF E 180 FT OF SE 1/4 LESS CO RD. Page 3 of 3 14423.046.doc Parcel Number: 352204-9082 Property Owner Name: Locken, Norman H Property Site Address: 6610 S 287th St, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description BEG 651.18 FT N & S 88-29-26 W 504 FT FR SE COR OF SEC TH CONTG W 90 FT TH S 135 FT TH N 88-29-26 E 90 FT TH N TO BEG. Parcel Number: 352204-9007 Property Owner Name: Shear, Ronald & Sterley, Rhonda Property Site Address: 28418 West Valley Hwy S, Auburn, WA 98001 Legal Description W 238.81 FT OF S 208.81 FT N OF THOMAS CONNECT RD LESS ST RD. Parcel Number: 352204-9012 Property Owner Name: Halstead, Janice Property Site Address: No Address 3 Legal Description N 1/2 OF POR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 WEST OF WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRS & S OF CO RD # 951 LESS N 208.71 FT OF W 208.71 FT OF E 834.84 FT LESS ST HWY CLASSIFIED AS OPEN SPACE LAND UNDER CHAPTER 84.34 RCW. Parcel Number: 352204-9013 Property Owner Name: Vander Pol Investments LLC Property Site Address: No Address - Vacant Land Legal Description S 1/2 OF POR OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 W OF WHITE RIVER VALLEY HOME TRS & S OF CO RD # 951 LESS ST RD. Kin g coun ty Asses sor's Offic e, Ki ng Co u nty G IS Cen ter Kin g C ounty Date: 6/13/2016 ±The i nfor ma tion inclu ded on thi s map has been c om pil ed by King Cou nty s taff from a vari ety of so urc es a n d is subject to c ha n ge w ith out n otice. King C ountymakes n o r epr e sentations o r w ar ra ntie s, express o r i mp li ed , as to acc ur a cy, co m pl ete ness, tim e line ss, or ri g hts to the use of s uc h i nform a tion . T hi s doc um e n t i snot intended for us e as a su rvey pr odu ct. King C ounty shall not be l iabl e for an y gene r al , spec ia l, in dire ct, inci de n ta l, or conse que ntia l dam a ges i nclu d in g,but n ot li mi ted to, lost reve n ues o r l os t p r ofi ts resulting fro m the use or mi suse of the i nfor ma tion contained on this m ap. An y s al e of this m ap or in form atio n onthis map is prohibited ex cept by wr itten pe r mis sion of King Cou n ty. Appendix AAppendix A Shoreline Management ActShoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal LetterPermit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From:From:(local government)(local government)To:To:(appropriate Ecology (appropriate Ecology office)office) Date of Transmittal:Date of Transmittal:Date of Receipt:Date of Receipt:(provided by (provided by Ecology)Ecology) Type of Permit:Type of Permit:(Indicate all that apply)(Indicate all that apply) Substantial Development Substantial Development ; Conditional Use ; Conditional Use ; Variance ; Variance ; Revision ; Revision ; Other ; Other .. Local Government DecisionLocal Government Decision: Approval : Approval ; Conditional Approval ; Conditional Approval ; Denial ; Denial :: Applicant Information:Applicant Information:Applicant's Representative:Applicant's Representative:(if primary (if primary contact)contact) Name:Name:Name:Name: Address:Address:Address:Address: Phone(s):Phone(s):Phone(s):Phone(s): Is the applicant the property owner? Is the applicant the property owner? yes yes nono Location of the PropertyLocation of the Property: (Section Township and Range to the nearest 1/4, 1/4 Section or : (Section Township and Range to the nearest 1/4, 1/4 Section or latitude and longitude, and a street address where available)latitude and longitude, and a street address where available) Water Body Name:Water Body Name: Shoreline of Statewide Significance:Shoreline of Statewide Significance:Yes Yes No No .. Environment Designation:Environment Designation: Description of the Project:Description of the Project:(Summary of the intended use or project purpose)(Summary of the intended use or project purpose) WAC 173-27-990WAC 173-27-990 Appendix A.Appendix A. Page 1 of 2WAC 173-27-990: Appendix A. 6/6/2016http://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-27-990 SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC 801 North Brand Blvd., Suite 800 Glendale, CA 91203 Albert Pura Jason Hubbell, P.E. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (818) 545-1152 (253) 251-6222 A portion of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Mill Creek Urban Conservancy The final development will consist of an approximate 259,213-square-foot warehouse and associated dock high loading, parking, drive aisle, landscaping, stormwater conveyance, detention and water quality facilities for on-site and off-site stormwater runoff and frontage improvements. Construction activities typical to the construction of an industrial warehouse will be conducted on the site, including but not limited to, site grading and excavation, paving, and utilities installation. A portion of ditch along West Valley Highway, within the floodplain, will be filled and pipe installed. Another portion of this ditch will be partially regraded. Floodplain compensation will be provided and no negative impact to the floodplain is anticipated from this activity. Auburn, King County, Washington. Notice of Application Date:Notice of Application Date:Final Decision Final Decision Date:Date: By:By:(Local Government Primary Contact on this Application)(Local Government Primary Contact on this Application) Phone No:Phone No: [Statutory Authority: RCW [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.14090.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. WSR 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § (3) and [90.58].200. WSR 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-27-990, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]173-27-990, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.] Page 2 of 2WAC 173-27-990: Appendix A. 6/6/2016http://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-27-990 PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC WRA Inc ATTENTION: Albert Pura ATTENTION: Tanner Harris 4 Embarcadero Center Ste 1400 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Francisco, CA 94111 San Rafael, CA 94901 Project Name:North Auburn Logistics (previously known as NorthCreek Corporate Campus) Project Description:Construction of a light industrial development. Replacement of existing culvert under West Valley Hwy. A second culvert along 287th St will be replaced in-kind. PROVISIONS TIMING - PLANS - INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL 1. TIMING LIMITATION: You may begin the project immediately and you must complete the project by December 16, 2020, provided work within the wetted perimeter shall occur only between June 16 and September 30. 2. APPROVED PLANS: You must accomplish the work per plans and specifications submitted with the application and approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife entitled, "WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY CULVERT EXTENSION PLAN NORTH AUBURN LOGISTICS", dated last revised April 4, 2016, and as described in the JARPA form and is attachments, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). You must have a copy of these plans and this HPA available on site during all phases of the project proposal. 3. INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL: Thoroughly clean all equipment and gear before arriving and leaving the job site to prevent the transport and introduction of aquatic invasive species. Properly dispose of any water and chemicals used to clean gear and equipment. You can find additional information in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Invasive Species Management Protocols (November 2012), available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01490/wdfw01490.pdf. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 4. PRE-, DURING, AND POST-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION: You, your agent, or contractor must contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife by e-mail to larry.fisher@dfw.wa.gov and to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; mail to Post Office Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; or fax to (360) 902- 2946 at least three business days before starting work, one day before removing the temporary bypass and again within seven days after completing the work. The notification must include the permittee's name, project location, starting date for work or date the work was completed, and the permit number. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife may conduct inspections during and after construction; however, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will notify you or your agent before conducting the inspection. 5. PHOTOGRAPHS: You, your agent, or contractor must take photographs of the job site before the work begins and after the work is completed. You must upload the photographs to the post-permit requirement page in the Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS) or mail them to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at Post Office Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234 within 30-days after the work is completed. 6. FISH KILL/ WATER QUALITY PROBLEM NOTIFICATION: If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress at the job site, immediately stop all activities causing harm. Immediately notify the Washington Department of Fish and Page 1 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 Wildlife at 425-313-5683 or 425-449-6790 of the problem. If the likely cause of the fish kill or fish distress is related to water quality, also notify the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990. Activities related to the fish kill or fish distress must not resume until the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife gives approval. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife may require additional measures to mitigate impacts. STAGING, JOB SITE ACCESS, AND EQUIPMENT 7. Establish staging areas (used for equipment storage, vehicle storage, fueling, servicing, and hazardous material storage) in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. 8. Clearly mark boundaries to establish the limit of work associated with site access and construction. 9. Limit the removal of native bankline vegetation to the minimum amount needed to construct the project. 10. Confine the use of equipment to the specific access and work corridor shown in the approved plans. 11. Check equipment daily for leaks and complete any required repairs in an upland location before using the equipment in or near the water. 12. Use environmentally acceptable lubricants composed of biodegradable base oils such as vegetable oils, synthetic esters, and polyalkylene glycols in equipment operated in or near the water. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SEDIMENT, EROSION AND POLLUTION CONTAINMENT 13. Work in the dry watercourse (when no natural flow is occurring in the channel, or when flow is diverted around the job site). 14. Protect all disturbed areas from erosion. Maintain erosion and sediment control until all work and cleanup of the job site is complete. 15. All erosion control materials that will remain onsite must be composed of 100% biodegradable materials. 16. Straw used for erosion and sediment control, must be certified free of noxious weeds and their seeds. 17. Stop all hydraulic project activities except those needed to control erosion and siltation, if flow conditions arise that will result in erosion or siltation of waters of the state. 18. Prevent project contaminants, such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment- laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials, from entering or leaching into waters of the state. 19. Route construction water (wastewater) from the project to an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater. Remove fine sediment and other contaminants before discharging the construction water to waters of the state. 20. Deposit waste material from the project, such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt, or overburden, in an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater unless the material is approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for reuse in the project. 21. Deposit all trash from the project at an appropriate upland disposal location. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 22. Store all construction and deconstruction material in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. 23. Do not stockpile construction material waterward of the ordinary high water line. 24. Use only clean, suitable material as fill material (no trash, debris, car bodies, tires, asphalt, concrete, etc.). IN-WATER WORK AREA ISOLATION USING BLOCK NETS Page 2 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 25. Isolate fish from the work area by using block nets. 26. Install block nets at sites with reduced flow volume or velocity, uniform depth, and good accessibility. 27. Install block nets at an angle to the direction of flow (not perpendicular to the flow) to avoid entrapping fish in the nets. 28. After the first block net is secured at the upstream end, use a second block net to herd fish downstream and out of the project area. 29. Install a downstream block net if fish may reenter the work area from downstream. 30. To anchor block nets, place bags filled with clean round gravel along the bottom of the nets. 31. To keep fish out of the job site, leave block nets in place until the work is complete and conditions are suitable for fish. 32. Check block nets at least three times a day for entangled fish and accumulated debris. 33. Isolate fish from the work area by using either a total or partial bypass to reroute the stream through a temporary channel or pipe. IN-WATER WORK AREA ISOLATION USING A TEMPORARY BYPASS 34. Sequence the work to minimize the duration of dewatering. 35. Use the least-impacting feasible method to temporarily bypass water from the work area. Consider the physical characteristics of the site and the anticipated volume of water flowing through the work area. 36. The hydraulic capacity of the stream bypass must be equal to or greater than the 25-year peak flow event expected when the bypass will be operated. 37. Design the temporary bypass to minimize the length of the dewatered stream channel. 38. During all phases of bypass installation and decommissioning, maintain flows downstream of the project site to ensure survival of all downstream fish. 39. Install the temporary bypass before starting other construction work in the wetted perimeter. 40. Install a cofferdam or similar device at the upstream and downstream end of the bypass to prevent backwater from entering the work area. 41. Return diverted water to the channel immediately downstream of the work area. Dissipate flow energy from the diversion to prevent scour or erosion of the channel and bank. 42. If the bypass is a pumped diversion, once started it must run continuously until it is no longer necessary to bypass flows. This requires back-up pumps on-site and twenty-four-hour monitoring for overnight operation. 43. If the diversion inlet is a pump diversion in a fish-bearing stream, the pump intake structure must have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with RCW 77.57.010 and 77.57.070. Screen the pump intake with one of the following: a) Perforated plate: 0.094 inch (maximum opening diameter); b) Profile bar: 0.069 inch (maximum width opening); or c) Woven wire: 0.087 inch (maximum opening in the narrow direction). The minimum open area for all types of fish screens is twenty-seven percent. The screened intake facility must have enough surface area to ensure that the velocity through the screen is less than 0.4 feet per second. Maintain fish screens to prevent injury or entrapment of fish. 44. The fish screen must remain in place whenever water is withdrawn from the stream through the pump intake. 45. Remove fish screens on dewatering pumps in the isolated work area only after all fish are safe and excluded from the work area. Page 3 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 46. Isolate pump hose intakes with block nets so that fish cannot get near the intake. FISH LIFE REMOVAL 47. All persons participating in capture and removal must have training, knowledge, and skills in the safe handling of fish life. 48. If electrofishing is conducted, a person with electrofishing training must be on-site to conduct or direct all electrofishing activities. 49. Place block nets upstream and downstream of the in-water work area before capturing and removing fish life. 50. Capture and safely move fish life from the work area to the nearest suitable free-flowing water. CULVERT 51. Install and maintain the culvert to ensure unimpeded fish passage. 52. Establish the culvert invert elevation with reference point(s) or benchmark(s) created before to starting work on this project. Clearly mark and preserve the reference point(s) for post-project compliance. Before backfilling, confirm the invert elevation, as stated on the plans, relative to the reference points with at least a construction-grade leveling device (such as an optical auto-level or laser level). 53. The length of the culvert must not exceed 100 feet. 54. The width of the channel-bed inside the culvert at the elevation of the stream bed must be equal to or greater than 14.67 feet which is 1.2 times the average channel bed width plus two feet. 55. Countersink the stream simulation culvert as shown in the approved plans (Provision 2). 56. The streambed must include a sinuous low-flow channel expected under common conditions in the reach and a high-flow bench on both sides of the culvert. 57. Protect structural fill associated with the culvert installation from erosion to the 100-year peak flow. 58. Approach material must be structurally stable and composed of material that if eroded into the water will not harm fish life. 59. The owner(s) must maintain the culvert to ensure it provides continued, unimpeded fish passage. If the culvert becomes a hindrance to fish passage, the owner must obtain an HPA and provide prompt repair. DEMOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP 60. Upon completion of the project, restore the disturbed bed, banks, and riparian zone to preproject condition to the extent possible. 61. Completely remove any temporary fill before the end of the in-water timing window if the fill material could erode and deliver sediment-laden water into waters of the state. 62. To minimize sediment delivery to the stream or stream channel, do not return in-stream flows to the work area until all in-channel work is completed and the bed and banks are stabilized. 63. Seed areas disturbed by construction activities with a native seed mix suitable for the site that has at least one quick-establishing plant species. 64. Complete planting of riparian vegetation during the first dormant season (late fall through late winter) after project completion per the approved plan. Maintain plantings for at least three years to ensure at least eighty percent of the plantings survive. Failure to achieve the eighty percent survival in year three will require you to submit a plan with follow-up measures to achieve requirements or reasons to modify requirements. 65. Upon completion of the project, remove all materials or equipment from the site and dispose of all excess spoils and waste materials in an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater. 66. Return water flow slowly to the in-water work area to prevent the downstream release of sediment laden water. If Page 4 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW. Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person (s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work. This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. LOCATION #1:28721 West Valley Hwy N, Auburn, WA 98001 WORK START:December 17, 2015 WORK END:December 16, 2020 WRIA Waterbody:Tributary to: 09 - Duwamish - Green Unnamed (lb)Mill Creek 1/4 SEC:Section:Township:Range:Latitude:Longitude:County: SE 1/4 35 22 N 04 E 47.34418 -122.25432 King Location #1 Driving Directions The project area can be reached from State Highway 167 by exiting at South 277th Street, traveling east on South 277th Street to West Valley Highway North, then traveling south on West Valley Highway to South 287th Street. necessary, install silt fencing above the bypass outlet to capture sediment during re-watering of the channel. 67. Remove temporary erosion and sediment control methods after job site is stabilized or within three months of project completion, whichever is sooner. NOTE This HPA is a modification of and supersedes the original HPA issued December 17, 2015 for this project. Page 5 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for filing appeals are listed below. MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of minor modifications to the required work timing or to the plans and specifications approved in this HPA unless this is a General HPA. If this is a General HPA you must use the Major Modification process described below. Any approved minor modification will require issuance of a letter documenting the approval. A minor modification to the required work timing means any change to the work start or end dates of the current work season to enable project or work phase completion. Minor modifications will be approved only if spawning or incubating fish are not present within the vicinity of the project. You may request subsequent minor modifications to the required work timing. A minor modification of the plans and specifications means any changes in the materials, characteristics or construction of your project that does not alter the project's impact to fish life or habitat and does not require a change in the provisions of the HPA to mitigate the impacts of the modification. Minor modifications do not require you to pay additional application fees or be issued a new HPA. If you originally applied for your HPA through the online Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS), you may request a minor modification through APPS. A link to APPS is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. If you did not use APPS you must submit a written request that clearly indicates you are seeking a minor modification to an existing HPA. Written requests must include the name of the applicant, the name of the authorized agent if one is acting for the applicant, the APP ID number of the HPA, the date issued, the permitting biologist, the requested changes to the HPA, the reason for the requested change, the date of the request, and the requestor's signature. Send by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234, or by email to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov. Do not include payment with your request. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request. MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of major modifications to any aspect of your HPA. Any approved change other than a minor modification to your HPA will require issuance of a new HPA. If you paid an application fee for your original HPA you must pay an additional $150 for the major modification. If you did not pay an application fee for the original HPA, no fee is required for a change to it. If you originally applied for your HPA through the online Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS), you may request a major modification through APPS. A link to APPS is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. If you did not use APPS you must submit a written request that clearly indicates you are requesting a major modification to an existing HPA. Written requests must include the name of the applicant, the name of the authorized agent if one is acting for the applicant, the APP ID number of the HPA, the date issued, the permitting biologist, the requested changes to the HPA, the reason for the requested change, the date of the request, payment if the original application was subject to an application fee, and the requestor's signature. Send your written request and payment, if applicable, by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234. You may email your request for a major modification to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov, but must send a check or money order for payment by surface mail. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request. APPEALS INFORMATION Page 6 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includes a review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information. A. INFORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-660-460 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the HPA Appeals Coordinator, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand-delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. If you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the HPA Appeals Coordinator or designee will conduct an informal hearing and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal. B. FORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-660-470 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the HPA Appeals Coordinator, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand-delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable. Page 7 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 Habitat Biologist Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov for Director WDFWLarry Fisher 425-313-5683 Page 8 of 8 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Permit Number: 2015-4-971+02 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 6204 Project End Date: December 16, 2020 Issued Date: May 27, 2016 STORMWATER SITE PLAN North Auburn Logistics Auburn, Washington Our Job. No. 14423 14423.024.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 4.1 Threshold Discharge Areas and Applicable Requirements for Treatment, Flow Control and Wetlands Protection 4.2 Pre-developed Site Hydrology 4.3 Developed Site Hydrology 4.4 Performance Standards and Goals 4.5 Flow Control System 4.6 Water Quality System 4.7 Conveyance System Analysis and Design 4.8 Culvert Sizing 5.0 DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS APPENDICES APPENDIX A OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL APPENDIX B CDS SIZING AND SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX C SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST APPENDIX D HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS WORKSHEET APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS APPENDIX F VENTURE DITCH CULVERT SIZING 14423.024.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed North Auburn Logistics project is approximately 15.3 acres in size (approximately 14.0 acres developed) and it comprises a portion of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. More particularly, the site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Valley Highway South and South 287th Street. The property is bound on the east by West Valley Highway South, to the south by a warehouse building and vacant parcel, on the west by an existing single family residence, and on the north by South 287th Street. The existing project site has some trees with light brush ground cover. Currently the east portion of the site has been cleared and preloaded and existing buildings on the site were removed as part of work approved under GRA09-0019 during summer of 2014. A TESC pond and other erosion control measures were also installed at that time. Groundwater monitoring during construction revealed that groundwater elevations were higher than originally anticipated with elevations being measured as high as 47.36 near the proposed east pond and 48.54 near the west pond. A TESC contingency plan was prepared in response to this. The majority of the developed site will house a parking lot and warehouse building. The existing site drains both east and west to existing ditches. The developed site will include ponds for flow control and sediment control and the discharge will be directed to the existing ditches. Venture Ditch is located along the southern property boundary and conveys offsite flows through the property. The proposal for this project is to obtain permits associated with construction final development of the site. Permits that will be required for this project include: · NPDES Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit - Obtained · City of Auburn Building, Plumbing, Demolition and Mechanical Permits · City of Auburn Building, FAC and Grading Permit · JARPA - HPA has been obtained for the two culvert crossings · CWA Section 404 - Pending · CWA Section 401 - Pending The final development will consist of an approximate 259,213 square foot warehouse and associated dock high loading, parking, drive aisle, landscaping, stormwater conveyance, detention and water quality facilities for on-site and off-site stormwater runoff and frontage improvements. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces will be captured by catch basins and conveyed underground via storm pipes to one of two detention ponds. A stormwater detention pond will be constructed at the west end of the site. Only clean, non-polluting runoff from a majority of the roof will be directed to this pond. The remainder of the roof runoff, as well as pollution generating runoff from the parking lot and frontage will be directed to another pond constructed at the east end of the project site. This pond will be a combined detention pond and stormwater treatment wetland. Runoff from the right of way will be treated in a Contech CDS manhole prior to being sent to the east pond. 14423.024.doc The storm ponds are sized according to the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (Nov. 2009 w/revision #1 June 6, 2014). The ponds are designed with an overflow and are not required to be designed with a correction factor. The west pond is designed to meet level 2 flow control standards and the east pond is designed to meet level 3 flow control standards. Level 2 Flow Control is a King County Surface Water Design Manual Standard that matches developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations for the range of predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Also matches developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2- and 10- year return periods. Level 3 Flow Control applies the Level 2 flow control standard, AND matches the developed 100- yr peak discharge to the predeveloped 100-yr peak discharge. See Section 4.0 for the calculations to size the storm ponds. A continuous simulation model program, WWHM3 has been used to determine the required size of the ponds and treatment wetlands. Pipes conveying runoff to the ponds have been sized using SBUH methodology using the design software Stormshed3G. Upon leaving the west pond, most of the runoff will travel west to Tributary 045 then travel north to Mullen Slough. Tributary 045 has potential flooding problems downstream due to a narrow ditch and an underwater culvert that is partially filled with mud. Tributary 045 is located primarily on private property. Mullen Slough travels north/northwest eventually reaching the Green River. There is a small historic livestock pond and agricultural ditch located to the west of the property. The pond is delineated with wetland flags on our plans but is not considered a wetland. A flow splitter is proposed in the west pond to continue recharging the ditch and livestock pond to the west. Upon leaving the east pond, runoff will discharge to an existing ditch that flows north along West Valley Highway. Runoff continues north in the ditch until reaching Tributary 053, continuing north until it reaches Mill Creek. This ditch and culvert system which runs along the west side of West Valley Highway (West Ditch) is currently not capable of conveying existing flows from adjacent properties in their existing conditions and causes localized flooding on the adjacent properties. Mill Creek continues northwest until it discharges to the Green River. The site is proposing to detain storm runoff and release at or below existing conditions. This will ensure that this development does not alter how the existing downstream system functions. Please refer to the Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis, submitted previously, for more details on the downstream drainage system. N.T.S. VICINITY MAP Scale: 06/30/11 REFERENCE: Thomas Guide (2006) SITE DATE: Job NumberFor: Title:bar g h au senbar g h au senCONSUL TING EN G I N E E R S,INC.CONSUL TING EN G I N E E R S,INC.CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 - PHONE (425) 251-8782 - FAX P:\14000S\14423\exhibit\14423 drainage report.cdr 14423NORTHCREEK CORPORATE CAMPUS AUBURN, WASHINGTON 14423.024.doc 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY Under the pre-developed conditions, this site was assumed to be undisturbed forested condition for hydrologic group "D" or till type soils. Per the soils map, there are three soils groups represented onsite. The groups include predominantly Norma (No) soils with Puget (Pu) and Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF) over a small portion of the site. All of the on-site soils are classified as group "D" or till type soils. The existing parcels on the subject property used to contain three vacant single-family residences as well as associated outbuildings. The existing structures on the site were removed during activity associated with GRA-09-0019 during summer of 2014 and the east part of the site was rough graded, preloaded for the building, and sediment controls were installed. All stormwater modeling will be completed assuming the entire site is undeveloped forest. This condition best represents the undisturbed condition of this site because the majority of the project site has some trees with light brush ground cover. The existing site has a ridge running north-south towards the western side of the site. The project site is two separate drainage basins that comprise a total basin area of approximately 14.0 acres in size. The eastern portion of the site slopes gently from the southwest to the northeast and flows to the existing ditch on the west side of West Valley Highway. The western portion of the site slopes from the ridge line to the northwest and flows to an existing pond and agricultural ditch. The existing agricultural ditch is blocked, therefore in the developed condition a portion of the onsite flows will continue to be directed to the adjacent pond to the west, most of the site discharge will be directed further west to Tributary 045. Please refer to the Off-Site Drainage Analysis for a complete downstream analysis. There are upstream flows that discharge through the site. Upstream flows enter the site through an existing manmade ditch. The ditch along the south property line, known as Tributary 053 or the Venture Ditch, will remain undisturbed during the grading and erosion control phase of the development. The total site area is approximately 15.3 acres. The southern boundary and the southeast corner will continue to drain to Venture ditch. This area will not be directed to the onsite storm ponds and are therefore not included in the drainage basin areas. The eastern basin flows to the ditch on the west side of West Valley Highway. Storm drainage flows leaving the project site generally head north/northeast to the Green River. The majority of the site discharges flows to the eastern property boundary, discharging into the existing ditch system along West Valley Highway. This flow discharges into Mill Creek, which discharges into the Green River approximately 2 miles downstream of the project site. A part of the western portion of the project drains to the north in agricultural ditches and eventually to Mullen Slough. Please refer to the Level 2 Downstream Analysis for a description and analysis of the downstream conditions. A review of critical and sensitive area maps show the subject property within an area of known seismic hazard. It also contains wetlands and a stream (Venture Ditch). The site is not shown to be in the FEMA floodplain. Please refer to the Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Report for more information. There are several isolated wetlands on the subject property. Wetland A on the east side of the site will remain undisturbed. The buffer of Wetland A will be disturbed during construction and replanted. Refer to the Wetland Mitigation Plans for this site. Wetland B will be filled and a permit for that work will be obtained prior to construction. There are also eight small wetland areas (identified as P1 through P8) on the plans that will be filled as part of the grading activity on the west portion of the site. These wetlands as well as Venture Ditch are identified on the City of Auburn critical map data. 14423.024.doc There are two existing septic tanks on site that have been or will be decommissioned in accordance with Department of Health requirements during the TESC phase of this project. Groundwater monitoring during construction revealed that groundwater elevations were higher than originally anticipated with elevations being measured as high as 47.36 near the proposed east pond and 48.54 near the west pond. 14423.024.doc 3.0 LEVEL 2 OFF-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS See Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis on file with the City of Auburn. Tab 4.0 14423.024.doc 4.0 PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 4.1 THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREAS AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT, FLOW CONTROL AND WETLAND PROTECTION Threshold discharge areas and post-developed flows have been summarized within Section 4.0 of this report. Level 2 flow control or Flow Duration matching ½-year to the 50-year pre-developed conditions is being applied to the western basin because the downstream system is capable of handling the existing flows from the site. In addition to Level 2 flow control for the western basin, pre-developed flow volumes need to be directed to the existing pond west of the site. Level 3 flow control or matching up to the 100-yr pre-developed discharge is being proposed for the eastern basin because the downstream conveyance system is not capable of conveying the existing flows. Wetland protection is discussed in the Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis and the Wetland Mitigation Report. 4.2 PRE-DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY The existing site has a ridge running north-south approximately 440 feet from the western property line. The eastern portion of the site slopes gently from the southwest to the northeast and flows to the existing ditch on the west side of West Valley Highway. The western portion of the site slopes from the ridge line to the northwest and flows to an existing livestock pond and agricultural ditch both located off of the project site to the west on private property. The livestock pond to the west was incorrectly identified as wetlands during initial surveys. The culvert that conveys the existing agricultural ditch under S 287th Street is blocked, therefore in the developed condition an equivalent portion of the onsite flows matching predeveloped flows will continue to be directed to the adjacent pond to the west as recharge, most of the west site discharge will be directed further west to Tributary 045. Please refer to the Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis for a complete downstream analysis. There are upstream flows that discharge through the site. Upstream flows enter the site through an existing manmade ditch. The ditch along the south property line, known as Tributary 053 or the Venture Ditch, will remain undisturbed during the grading and erosion control phase of the development. The Venture Ditch culvert across West Valley Highway is being replaced as part of these plans. See Appendix F for culvert sizing. A bypass pipe was to be installed during the final site development to allow overflow from the ditch located on the west side of West Valley Highway to enter the Venture Ditch. During SEPA review it was required to meet ditch overflow or bypass routes. At the time of SEPA review it was believed that Tributary 053 (Venture Ditch) would back up into the existing ditch on the west side of the road and overtop the ridge at the center of the property and flow north. Based on topographic survey of the site it is unlikely that Tributary 053 ever reaches a peak stage where it would overflow to the north. As such, the bypass line that was included in the design until now is being eliminated. With the West Valley culvert replacement, which provides adequate flow capacity, the bypass is no longer necessary or needed. Since Venture Ditch will be disturbed during the site development phase, a hydraulic project approval (HPA) will be required. No other form of upstream flows enters the proposed project site. The majority of the project site has some trees with light brush ground cover. The total site area is approximately 15.3 acres. The area along the western boundary will continue to drain to the existing pond and agricultural ditch. The southern boundary and the southeast corner will continue to drain to Venture Ditch. These areas will not be directed to the onsite storm ponds and are therefore not included in the drainage basin 14423.024.doc areas. The project site is two separate drainage basins that comprise a total basin area of approximately 14.0 acres in size. The basins are separated from east to west. The basins flow north where they ultimately discharge to the Green River. The existing site is modeled as till soil, flat forested conditions. Sub-Basin ID Existing Land Use and Cover Condition Acreage Soil Group Modeled As Comments P1 Currently vacant, bare ground and grass cover 9.12 ac C Forest East Side. Cleared and Graded Summer 2014 P2 Currently vacant, Trees w/ light brush ground cover 4.90 ac C Forest West Side Pre-Developed Condition Event Output: WWHM Basin ID: P1 Peak Flow (cfs) Area (ac) 2-yr Existing 0.23 9.12 10-yr Existing 0.42 9.12 25-yr Existing 0.49 9.12 100-yr Existing 0.57 9.12 Basin ID: P2 Peak Flow (cfs) Area (ac) 2-yr Existing 0.12 4.90 10-yr Existing 0.23 4.90 25-yr Existing 0.27 4.90 100-yr Existing 0.31 4.90 14423.024.doc 4.3 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY The developed site consists of two drainage basins. The western basin drains toward the western boundary of the site. The western basin is comprised of clean, non-polluting runoff from the building roof as well as the actual west pond area itself. A sedimentation and flow control pond will be located at the west end of the site, discharging into both the existing agricultural ditch and Tributary 045. Because the agricultural ditch is blocked, most of the discharge will be directed to Tributary 045 in a pipe to the west. A flow splitter will be used downstream of the west pond outlet to direct a volume of water similar to pre-developed conditions to the existing pond and ditch to the west. The eastern basin drains toward the eastern boundary of the site. The east basin consists of the onsite pollution generating surfaces (parking lots and frontage), any roof area not sent to the west pond, and the east pond area itself. A water quality and flow control pond will be located at the east end of the site, ultimately discharging to Mill Creek. The runoff from the right of way will be pretreated in Contech CDS manholes prior to being sent to the east pond. Developed stormwater flows will be discharged to their respective basins as shown on the Developed Conditions Map in this section. Implementation of all temporary erosion control measures will be in accordance with the City of Auburn standard details and best management practices. 14423.024.doc Sub-Basin ID Developed Land Use and Cover Condition Acreage Soil Group Modeled As Comments West Basin Light Industrial, 91% Impervious 4.90 ac C 0.45 ac pervious 4.45 ac impervious D1 Light Industrial, 88% Impervious 9.12 ac C 1.09 ac pervious 8.03 ac impervious East Side. Cleared and Graded Summer 2014 D1b Roadway 0.27 ac C 0.27 ac impervious Bypasses Site. Does not contribute runoff Developed Condition Event Output: WWHM Basin ID: West Basin Peak Flow (cfs) Area (ac) 2-yr Developed 0.07 4.90 10-yr Developed 0.18 4.90 25-yr Developed 0.28 4.90 100-yr Developed 0.48 4.90 Basin ID: East Basin (D1) Peak Flow (cfs) Area (ac) 2-yr Developed 0.13 9.12 10-yr Developed 0.28 9.12 25-yr Developed 0.36 9.12 100-yr Developed 0.55 9.12 14423.024.doc 4.4 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND GOALS The performance standards for this project are to limit the site discharge to pre- developed conditions and to meet the applicable flow control standard of the basin. The site shall also abide by the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the Construction General Permit to meet the applicable sediment and pollutant requirements. The collected stormwater will flow through catch basins via underground pipes into the detention ponds where it will be released into the existing downstream conveyance systems. All facilities will be installed and maintained in accordance with City of Auburn requirements. 4.5 FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM West Basin Level 2 Flow control is being proposed for this basin of the proposed project using forested as the existing condition and a future developed site (mostly future roof runoff) as the developed condition. Immediately downstream of the control structure a flow splitter will be installed. The flow splitter will direct some of the runoff volume to the existing pond and ditch west of the project. The remainder of the flow will be directed downstream to Tributary 045 that lies further to the west. In the included WWHM sizing calculations the flow splitter was designed to direct the equivalent volume of runoff to the existing pond and ditch between pre-developed and developed conditions. To design the flow splitter: First, an existing volume of runoff to the existing livestock pond from the west basin (i.e. 4.90 ac) was determined by using WWHM3 with a dummy pond with a dummy infiltration rate. This resulted in a predeveloped volume of 140 ac-ft flowing to the pond in the existing condition. Secondly, a flow splitter and more dummy ponds are used in the developed conditions for WWHM to determine the volume of runoff being sent to the existing pond and Tributary 045 in the developed condition. The volume of runoff being sent to the existing pond from the flow splitter is 133.3 ac-ft and is believed to be within acceptable design tolerance for maintaining the offsite pond hydrology. East Basin Level 3 Flow control is being proposed for this basin of the proposed project using forested as the existing condition and a graded site as the developed condition. By matching flows up to the 100-yr storm event the development will not add to any conveyance issues downstream and will match existing conditions. 14423.024.doc 4.6 WATER QUALITY SYSTEM For commercial development, enhanced water quality treatment is required. During the final site development phase, a stormwater treatment wetland is proposed for the east pond. This will provide enhanced water quality treatment for the pollution generating impervious surfaces of the project. Two Contech CDS manholes will provide pre- treatment of runoff from the right of way prior to being routed to the east pond. The roads are not considered high-use, however due to City concern of potential oil spills the CDS units are proposed as protection against this. The west pond receives only roof and pond drainage which is non-pollution generating. Therefore the west pond shall be designed for flow control only. 4.7 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system sizing for the development utilizes the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method. The conveyance system calculations are included in the following pages. 4.8 CULVERT SIZING Venture Ditch crosses West Valley Highway at the southeast corner of the project. Due to the required road improvements to West Valley Highway, the existing pipes are being replaced with a fish passage culvert. The proposed culvert is sized per the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013 Water Crossing Design Guidelines using the roughened channel design process. See Appendix F for the calculations and documentation used to size this culvert. 14423.024.doc EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY CALCULATIONS West Basin = 4.9 acres Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing L = Q100 - 2.4 H 3.21 H3/2 Q100 = 3.84 cfs = (2.04 cfs x1.6) H = 0.30 ft L = 6.56 ft Therefore, use 7-foot spillway. Appended on: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:30:42 AM ROUTEHYD [] THRU [NORTHCREEK ROOF] USING [10 year] AND [TYPE1A.RAC] NOTZERO RELATIVE SCS/SBUH Gravity Analysis using 24 hr duration storm Licensed to: Barghausen Consulting Engineers Reach ID Area (ac) Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Depth ratio Size nVel (ft/s) fVel (ft/s) Infil Vol (cf) CBasin / Hyd P- ROOF W 0.23 0.1283 0.5746 0.2232 0.1606 0.3212 6 in Diam 2.3554 2.9266 0.00 ROOF W P- ROOF SW 2.16 1.2046 3.6488 0.3301 0.393 0.393 12 in Diam 4.2043 4.6457 0.00 ROOF SW Reach ID Area (ac) Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Depth ratio Size nVel (ft/s) fVel (ft/s) Infil Vol (cf) CBasin / Hyd P- ROOF NW 1.68 0.9369 2.3077 0.406 0.4439 0.4439 12 in Diam 2.7828 2.9382 0.00 ROOF NW Page 1 of 1 10/6/2015file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Appended on: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:33:01 AM Layout Report: NORTHCREEK ROOF Reach Records Record Id: P-ROOF NW Record Id: P-ROOF SW Event Precip (in) 2 yr 24 hr 2.00 10 year 2.50 25 year 3.40 100 year 3.95 Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode OUT-ROOF NW UpNode ROOF NW Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 77.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.846 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode OUT-ROOF SW UpNode ROOF SW Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 88.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.56 ft Conduit Constraints Page 1 of 4 10/6/2015file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P-ROOF W Node Records Record Id: OUT-ROOF NW Record Id: OUT-ROOF SW Record Id: ROOF NW Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode ROOF SW UpNode ROOF W Material unspecified Size 6 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 170.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.15 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Page 2 of 4 10/6/2015file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: ROOF SW Record Id: ROOF W Contributing Drainage Areas Record Id: ROOF NW Record Id: ROOF SW Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 1.68 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)1.68 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Page 3 of 4 10/6/2015file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: ROOF W Licensed to: Barghausen Consulting Engineers Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 1.93 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)1.93 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.23 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.23 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Page 4 of 4 10/6/2015file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... 14423.024.doc EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY CALCULATIONS East Basin = 9.12 acres Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing L = Q100 - 2.4 H 3.21 H3/2 Q100 = 5.95 cfs = (3.72 cfs x1.6) H = 0.30 ft L = 10.57 ft Therefore, use 11-foot spillway. Appended on: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:28:04 PM ROUTEHYD [] THRU [NORTHCREEK ON-SITE] USING [10 year] AND [TYPE1A.RAC] NOTZERO RELATIVE SCS/SBUH Gravity Analysis using 24 hr duration storm Reach ID Area (ac) Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Depth ratio Size nVel (ft/s) fVel (ft/s) Infil Vol (cf) CBasin / Hyd P- ROOF E 0.23 0.1283 0.5746 0.2232 0.1606 0.3212 6 in Diam 2.3554 2.9266 0.00 ROOF E P- ROOF N 1.68 0.9369 1.2372 0.7572 0.4336 0.6505 8 in Diam 3.8984 3.5451 0.00 ROOF N CB-R1 0.12 0.0669 2.3077 0.029 0.1171 0.1171 12 in Diam 1.2989 2.9382 0.00 CB-R1 CB-R2 0.37 0.2063 2.3077 0.0894 0.202 0.202 12 in Diam 1.8187 2.9382 0.00 CB-R2 CB-R3 0.49 0.2733 2.3077 0.1184 0.2329 0.2329 12 in Diam 1.9674 2.9382 0.00 CB-R3 CB-R4 0.74 0.4127 2.6813 0.1539 0.2648 0.2648 12 in Diam 2.4792 3.4139 0.00 CB-R4 P30 0.16 0.0892 2.3077 0.0387 0.1342 0.1342 12 in Diam 1.4202 2.9382 0.00 CB30 P28 0.76 0.4238 2.3077 0.1837 0.2904 0.2904 12 in Diam 2.2379 2.9382 0.00 CB28 P27 1.25 0.6971 2.3077 0.3021 0.3771 0.3771 12 in Diam 2.5721 2.9382 0.00 CB27 P26 1.29 0.7194 2.3077 0.3117 0.3826 0.3826 12 in Diam 2.6032 2.9382 0.00 CB26 P25 1.81 1.0094 2.873 0.3513 0.409 0.409 12 in Diam 3.34 3.6581 0.00 CB25 P24 4.82 2.688 4.1841 0.6424 0.7286 0.5828 15 in Diam 3.6205 3.4095 0.00 CB24 P22 4.99 2.7828 4.1841 0.6651 0.7453 0.5963 15 in Diam 3.6468 3.4095 0.00 CB22 P21 5.15 2.872 4.1841 0.6864 0.761 0.6088 15 in Diam 3.6716 3.4095 0.00 CB21 P20 5.58 3.1118 16.2049 0.192 0.3713 0.2971 15 in Diam 10.1883 13.205 0.00 CB20 Reach ID Area (ac) Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Depth ratio Size nVel (ft/s) fVel (ft/s)Infil Vol CBasin / Hyd Page 1 of 2 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. (cf) P- ROOF S 0.19 0.106 0.5746 0.1844 0.1455 0.291 6 in Diam 2.2317 2.9266 0.00 ROOF S P19 0.16 0.0892 3.6488 0.0245 0.108 0.108 12 in Diam 1.9496 4.6457 0.00 CB19 P18 0.30 0.1673 3.6488 0.0459 0.1457 0.1457 12 in Diam 2.3629 4.6457 0.00 CB18 P17 0.49 0.2733 3.6488 0.0749 0.185 0.185 12 in Diam 2.7333 4.6457 0.00 CB17 P16 0.58 0.3235 3.6488 0.0886 0.2012 0.2012 12 in Diam 2.8683 4.6457 0.00 CB16 P15 0.67 0.3736 3.1388 0.119 0.2334 0.2334 12 in Diam 2.681 3.9964 0.00 CB15 P14 0.76 0.4238 2.8263 0.15 0.261 0.261 12 in Diam 2.5975 3.5986 0.00 CB14 P13 0.87 0.4852 2.8263 0.1717 0.2798 0.2798 12 in Diam 2.6984 3.5986 0.00 CB13 P12 0.96 0.5354 2.8263 0.1894 0.295 0.295 12 in Diam 2.7657 3.5986 0.00 CB12 P11 1.24 0.6915 2.8263 0.2447 0.3367 0.3367 12 in Diam 2.9768 3.5986 0.00 CB11 P10 1.35 0.7529 7.1127 0.1058 0.219 0.219 12 in Diam 5.9134 9.0562 0.00 CB10 Page 2 of 2 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Appended on: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:31:38 PM Layout Report: NORTHCREEK ON-SITE Reach Records Record Id: CB-R1 Record Id: CB-R2 Event Precip (in) 2 yr 24 hr 2.00 10 year 2.50 25 year 3.40 100 year 3.95 Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB-R2 UpNode CB-R1 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 187.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.626 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB-R3 UpNode CB-R2 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 243.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.514 ft Conduit Constraints Page 1 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB-R3 Record Id: CB-R4 Record Id: P10 Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB-R4 UpNode CB-R3 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 330.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.34 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB24 UpNode CB-R4 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 82.00 ft Slope 0.27% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.7786 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Page 2 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P11 Record Id: P12 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode OUT-E2 UpNode CB10 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 105.00 ft Slope 1.90% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 98.005 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB10 UpNode CB11 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 100.00 ft Slope 0.30% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.70 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB11 UpNode CB12 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 135.00 ft Slope 0.30% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.595 ft Conduit Constraints Page 3 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P13 Record Id: P14 Record Id: P15 Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB12 UpNode CB13 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 135.00 ft Slope 0.30% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.595 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB13 UpNode CB14 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 135.00 ft Slope 0.30% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.595 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Page 4 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P16 Record Id: P17 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB14 UpNode CB15 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 135.00 ft Slope 0.37% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.5005 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB15 UpNode CB16 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 135.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.325 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB16 UpNode CB17 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 161.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.195 ft Conduit Constraints Page 5 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P18 Record Id: P19 Record Id: P20 Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB17 UpNode CB18 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 149.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.255 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB18 UpNode CB19 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 105.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.475 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Page 6 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P21 Record Id: P22 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode OUT-E1 UpNode CB20 Material unspecified Size 15 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 67.00 ft Slope 3.00% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 97.99 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB20 UpNode CB21 Material unspecified Size 15 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 127.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.746 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB21 UpNode CB22 Material unspecified Size 15 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 126.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.748 ft Conduit Constraints Page 7 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P24 Record Id: P25 Record Id: P26 Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB22 UpNode CB24 Material unspecified Size 15 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 190.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.62 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB24 UpNode CB25 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 167.00 ft Slope 0.31% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.4823 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Page 8 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P27 Record Id: P28 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB25 UpNode CB26 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 131.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.738 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB26 UpNode CB27 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 99.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.802 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB27 UpNode CB28 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 147.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.706 ft Conduit Constraints Page 9 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P30 Record Id: P-ROOF E Record Id: P-ROOF N Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB28 UpNode CB30 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 209.00 ft Slope 0.20% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.582 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB20 UpNode ROOF E Material unspecified Size 6 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 36.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.82 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Page 10 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: P-ROOF S Node Records Record Id: CB10 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB24 UpNode ROOF N Material unspecified Size 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 88.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.56 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Section Shape:Circular Uniform Flow Method:Manning's Coefficient:0.009 Routing Method:Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB11 UpNode ROOF S Material unspecified Size 6 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 22.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 100.00 ft Dn Invert 99.89 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50%2.00%3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Page 11 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB11 Record Id: CB12 Record Id: CB13 Record Id: CB14 Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Page 12 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB15 Record Id: CB16 Record Id: CB17 Record Id: CB18 Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Page 13 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB19 Record Id: CB20 Record Id: CB21 Record Id: CB22 Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Page 14 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB24 Record Id: CB25 Record Id: CB26 Record Id: CB27 Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Page 15 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB28 Record Id: CB30 Record Id: CB-R1 Record Id: CB-R2 Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 3.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 3.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Page 16 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB-R3 Record Id: CB-R4 Record Id: OUT-E1 Record Id: OUT-E2 Record Id: ROOF E Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 3.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB-TYPE 1 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 3.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Page 17 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: ROOF N Record Id: ROOF S Contributing Drainage Areas Record Id: CB10 Record Id: CB11 Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Descrip:Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El.100.00 ft Max El.108.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.11 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.11 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Page 18 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB12 Record Id: CB13 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.09 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.09 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.09 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.09 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.11 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min Page 19 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB14 Record Id: CB15 DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.11 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.09 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.09 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.09 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.09 ac 98.00 Page 20 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB16 Record Id: CB17 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.09 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.09 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.19 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.19 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Page 21 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB18 Record Id: CB19 Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.14 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.14 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.16 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.16 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Page 22 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB20 Record Id: CB21 Record Id: CB22 Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.20 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.20 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.16 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.16 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Page 23 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB24 Record Id: CB25 Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.17 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.17 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.59 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.59 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.52 ac Page 24 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB26 Record Id: CB27 Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.52 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.04 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.04 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.49 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Page 25 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB28 Record Id: CB30 Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.49 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.60 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.60 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.16 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.16 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 Page 26 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB-R1 Record Id: CB-R2 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.12 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.12 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.25 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.25 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Page 27 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: CB-R3 Record Id: CB-R4 Record Id: ROOF E Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.12 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.12 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.25 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.25 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Page 28 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Record Id: ROOF N Record Id: ROOF S Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.23 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.23 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 1.68 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)1.68 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPE1.RAC Hyd Intv 10.00 min Peaking Factor 484.00 Storm Duration 24.00 hrs Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Page 29 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. Pervious Area 0.00 ac DCIA 0.19 ac Pervious CN 0.00 DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 0.00 min DC TC 6.30 min DCI - CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc)0.19 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2)98.00 DCI - TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet 0.00 ft 0.0%6.3 0.00 in 6.30 min Pervious TC 6.30 min Page 30 of 30 3/31/2016file:///P:/14000s/14423/engineering/stormshed/14423%20-%20On-Site%20Conveyance.ht... 14423.024.doc 5.0 DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of a Stormwater Site Plan A Stormwater Site Plan has been prepared in accordance with the 2009 City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) A SWPPP has been prepared for this project in accordance with the 2009 City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual. The SWPPP is submitted as a separate document. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution Source Control of Pollution during the clearing and grading portion of this project have been design in accordance with Volume II Chapter 3 of the 2009 City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual and are described in further detail within the SWPPP. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems Stormwater will be discharged from the proposed project site at the existing natural locations via sedimentation and flow control ponds. The ponds have been designed in accordance with the 2009 City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual. Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management Stormwater will be collected and routed to on-site sedimentation ponds. The ponds have been designed in accordance with the 2009 City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment Enhanced treatment will be provided with in the form of a constructed wetland in the East pond. Two Contech CDS manholes will provide pretreatment of right of way runoff. Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control Level 2 flow control is proposed for the western basin and Level 3 flow control is proposed for the eastern basin. Minimum Requirement #8: Wetland Protection Wetland A, near the south east corner of the project will remain with the development. Wetland A will be protected by silt fence during the construction phase of the project. Wetland B, near the center of the site and Wetlands P1 through P8 on the west portion of the site will be filled for construction of the new building. An application for filling Wetland B has been submitted. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance Operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities are identified within the Operations and Maintenance Manual included in Appendix A. 14423.024.doc Minimum Requirement #10: Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation A Level 2 Downstream Drainage Analysis has been prepared for the proposed project and is on file at the City of Auburn. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR THE STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES North Auburn Logistics 28721 West Valley Highway South Auburn, WA 98032 Prepared for: SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC 801 North Brand Blvd., Suite 800 Glendale, CA 91203 Revised April 4, 2016 October 06, 2015 Our Job No. 14423 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES ¨ TUMWATER, WA ¨ LONG BEACH, CA ¨ ROSEVILLE, CA ¨ SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com 14423.030.doc 1.0 SITE ADDRESS The North Auburn Logistics project is located at 28721 West Valley Highway South, Auburn WA 98032. 2.0 INTRODUCTION The site has a drainage system that needs periodic maintenance in order to function properly. This report describes the storm drainage system and delineates operation and maintenance responsibilities and requirements for the site. The design of the drainage facilities discussed in this manual can be found in the North Auburn Logistics project construction drawings and Storm Drainage Report on file with the City of Auburn. The site is approximately 15.3 acres in size. The purpose of this manual is to address maintenance of stormwater facilities installed with the construction of the North Auburn Logistics project. These facilities are intended to detain and treat the developed 14 acres of the campus. Non-pollution generating runoff from roof of the building is sent to the west pond via catch basins and underground pipes. Part of the roof, as well as all pollution generating runoff is sent to the east pond via catch basins and underground pipes. There was also a constructed wetland in the east pond area to treat pollutants from the site. Roadway runoff is pre-treated in Contech CDS manholes prior to being sent to the east pond. 3.0 PLAN GOAL The specific purpose of the storm water facilities is to minimize pollution that is typically associated with modern development. Stormwater runoff contains pollutants harmful to humans and aquatic life. The majority of pollution is generated by motor vehicles and lawn / landscape maintenance. The ponds detain stormwater runoff to limit the discharge rate downstream. Discharge rates must be controlled to prevent flooding and erosion of downstream parcels and water bodies. 4.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Owners/Tenants have the following Operations and Maintenance responsibilities, which include: I. Inspection and maintenance of all on-site drainage facility components (catch basins, fencing, storm manholes, pipes, ponds) at least annually: A. Remove accumulated sediment and debris from all pipes, structures, and ponds (any debris and/or sediment collected shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable State and Federal requirements). Extreme caution shall be used when excavating around or in ponds to prevent damage to the impermeable pond liner. If the pond liner is damaged it shall be repaired or replaced. B. Inspect and repair any damage, including; cracks, unsealed joints and pipes that deviate from their design shape C. Maintain access points including manhole hole lids, grates and ladders D. Debris and leaves shall be removed from catch basin grates E. Control structures shall be kept in good repair and ensure that the outlet orifice is unobstructed 14423.030.doc F. General site surroundings: 1) Maintaining good housekeeping practices on the site will reduce the amount of trash, debris, and sediment that reaches the storm system. 2) The owner, tenants and anyone doing landscaping on the property must be careful to avoid introducing landscape fertilizer to receiving waters or groundwater. 5.0 REPORTING The above maintenance activities will be documented each year and kept in a log book. Maintenance logs shall be made available to the City of Auburn upon request. 14423.030.doc INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST The items in this checklist will be inspected at least twice per year and maintenance performed as necessary. STRUCTURE/ FACILITY DATE OF INSPECTION MAINTENANCE Maintenance Standard(s) RESULTS/ MAINTENANCE DATE COMMENTS West Pond Control Structure and outlet Sediment/Debris Cracks/Joints Grates/Damage Inspection Results Maintenance Done West Pond Flow Splitter Sediment/Debris Cracks/Joints Grates/Damage Inspection Results Maintenance Done West Pond Sediment/Debris Weeds/Insects Pollutants/Erosion Fencing/Liner Inspection Results Maintenance Done East Pond Control Structure and outlet Sediment/Debris Cracks/Joints Grates/Damage Inspection Results Maintenance Done East Pond Sediment/Debris Weeds/Insects Pollutants/Erosion Fencing/Liner Inspection Results Maintenance Done Catch Basins Sediment/Debris Cracks/Joints Grates Inspection Results Maintenance Done Conveyance Pipes Sediment/Debris Shape/Damage Inspection Results Maintenance Done 14423.030.doc STRUCTURE/ FACILITY DATE OF INSPECTION MAINTENANCE Maintenance Standard(s) RESULTS/ MAINTENANCE DATE COMMENTS CDS Manhole 1 Sediment/Debris Cracks/Joints Grates/Lids Inspection Results Maintenance Done CDS Manhole 2 Sediment/Debris Cracks/Joints Grates/Lids Inspection Results Maintenance Done General Site Landscaping Trash Fertilizer Use Inspection Results Maintenance Done I hereby certify that the above noted inspections and maintenance was performed in accordance with the approved Operations and Maintenance Manual for the North Auburn Logistics project, Auburn, Washington. Signature Date Title S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Maintenance Standards for Volume I Drainage Facilities Appendix D 55 Appendix D Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities The facility-specific maintenance standards contained in this section are intended to be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection. They are not intended to be measures of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. In other words, exceeding these conditions at any time between inspections and/or maintenance does not automatically constitute a violation of these standards. However, based upon inspection observations, the inspection and maintenance schedules shall be adjusted to minimize the length of time that a facility is in a condition that requires a maintenance action. Table I-D-1. Maintenance Standards No. 1 – Detention Ponds Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Trash & Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. Trash and debris cleared from site. Poisonous Vegetation and noxious weeds Any poisonous or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to maintenance personnel or the public. Any evidence of noxious weeds as defined by State or local regulations. (Apply requirements of adopted IPM policies for the use of herbicides). No danger of poisonous vegetation where maintenance personnel or the public might normally be. (Coordinate with local health department) Complete eradication of noxious weeds may not be possible. Compliance with State or local eradication policies required Contaminants and Pollution Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants (Coordinate removal/cleanup with local water quality response agency). No contaminants or pollutants present General Rodent Holes Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is acting as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water piping through dam or berm via rodent holes. Rodents destroyed and dam or berm repaired. (Coordinate with local health department; coordinate with Ecology Dam Safety Office if pond exceeds 10 acre-feet.) S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Maintenance Standards for Volume I Drainage Facilities Appendix D 56 No. 1 – Detention Ponds Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Beaver Dams Dam results in change or function of the facility. Facility is returned to design function. (Coordinate trapping of beavers and removal of dams with appropriate permitting agencies) Insects When insects such as wasps and hornets interfere with maintenance activities. Insects destroyed or removed from site. Apply insecticides in compliance with adopted IPM policies General Tree Growth and Hazard Trees Tree growth does not allow maintenance access or interferes with maintenance activity (i.e., slope mowing, silt removal, vactoring, or equipment movements). If trees are not interfering with access or maintenance, do not remove If trees are dead, diseased, or dying. (Use a certified Arborist to determine health of tree or removal requirements) Trees do not hinder maintenance activities. Harvested trees should be recycled into mulch or other beneficial uses (e.g., alders for firewood). Remove hazard trees Side Slopes of Pond Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where cause of damage is still present or where there is potential for continued erosion. Any erosion observed on a compacted berm embankment. Slopes should be stabilized using appropriate erosion control measure(s); e.g., rock reinforcement, planting of grass, compaction. If erosion is occurring on compacted berms a licensed civil engineer should be consulted to resolve source of erosion. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 10% of the designed pond depth unless otherwise specified or affects inletting or outletting condition of the facility. Sediment cleaned out to designed pond shape and depth; pond reseeded if necessary to control erosion. Storage Area Liner (If Applicable) Liner is visible and has more than three 1/4-inch holes in it. Liner repaired or replaced. Liner is fully covered. S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Maintenance Standards for Volume I Drainage Facilities Appendix D 57 No. 1 – Detention Ponds Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Settlements Any part of berm which has settled 4 inches lower than the design elevation. If settlement is apparent, measure berm to determine amount of settlement. Settling can be an indication of more severe problems with the berm or outlet works. A licensed civil engineer should be consulted to determine the source of the settlement. Dike is built back to the design elevation. Pond Berms (Dikes) Piping Discernable water flow through pond berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to continue. (Recommend a Geotechnical engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Piping eliminated. Erosion potential resolved. Tree Growth Tree growth on emergency spillways creates blockage problems and may cause failure of the berm due to uncontrolled overtopping. Tree growth on berms over 4 feet in height may lead to piping through the berm which could lead to failure of the berm. Trees should be removed. If root system is small (base less than 4 inches) the root system may be left in place. Otherwise the roots should be removed and the berm restored. A licensed civil engineer should be consulted for proper berm/spillway restoration. Emergency Overflow/ Spillway and Berms over 4 feet in height. Piping Discernable water flow through pond berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to continue. (Recommend a Geotechnical engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Piping eliminated. Erosion potential resolved. Emergency Overflow/ Spillway Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil at the top of out flow path of spillway. (Rip-rap on inside slopes need not be replaced.) Rocks and pad depth are restored to design standards. Emergency Overflow/ Spillway Erosion See “Side Slopes of Pond” S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Maintenance Standards for Volume I Drainage Facilities Appendix D 60 No. 4 – Control Structure/Flow Restrictor Maintenance Component Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Trash and Debris (Includes Sediment) Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 foot below orifice plate. Control structure orifice is not blocked. All trash and debris removed. Structure is not securely attached to manhole wall. Structure securely attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to 10% from plumb). Structure in correct position. Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and show signs of rust. Connections to outlet pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. General Structural Damage Any holes--other than designed holes--in the structure. Structure has no holes other than designed holes. Cleanout gate is not watertight, is missing, or is left open. Gate is watertight, works as designed, and is left closed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one maintenance person. Gate moves up and down easily and is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards. Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. Plate is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation blocking the plate. Plate is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. Pipe is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Manhole See “Closed Detention Systems” (No. 3). See “Closed Detention Systems” (No. 3). See “Closed Detention Systems” (No. 3). Catch Basin See “Catch Basins” (No. 5). See “Catch Basins” (No. 5). See “Catch Basins” (No. 5). S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Maintenance Standards for Volume I Drainage Facilities Appendix D 63 No. 7 – Energy Dissipaters Maintenance Components Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed External: Missing or Moved Rock Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil. Rock pad replaced to design standards. Rock Pad Erosion Soil erosion in or adjacent to rock pad. Rock pad replaced to design standards. Pipe Plugged with Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it matches design. Not Discharging Water Properly Visual evidence of water discharging at concentrated points along trench (normal condition is a “sheet flow” of water along trench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. Trench redesigned or rebuilt to standards. Perforations Plugged. Over 1/2 of perforations in pipe are plugged with debris and sediment. Perforated pipe cleaned or replaced. Water Flows Out Top of “Distributor” Catch Basin. Maintenance person observes or receives credible report of water flowing out during any storm less than the design storm or its causing or appears likely to cause damage. Facility rebuilt or redesigned to standards. Dispersion Trench Receiving Area Over-Saturated Water in receiving area is causing or has potential of causing landslide problems. No danger of landslides. Internal: Worn or Damaged Post, Baffles, Side of Chamber Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to 1/2 of original size or any concentrated worn spot exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. Structure replaced to design standards. Manhole/Ch amber Other Defects See “Catch Basins” (No. 5). See “Catch Basins” (No. 5). S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Maintenance Standards for Volume I Drainage Facilities Appendix D 67 No. 11 – Wetponds Maintenance Component Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Water level First cell is empty, does not hold water. Line the first cell to maintain at least 4 feet of water. Although the second cell may drain, the first cell must remain full to control turbulence of the incoming flow and reduce sediment resuspension. Trash and Debris Accumulation that exceeds 1 CF per 1000-SF of pond area. Trash and debris removed from pond. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Inlet/Outlet pipe clogged with sediment and/or debris material. No clogging or blockage in the inlet and outlet piping. Sediment Accumulati on in Pond Bottom Sediment accumulations in pond bottom that exceeds the depth of sediment zone plus 6-inches, usually in the first cell. Sediment removed from pond bottom. Oil Sheen on Water Prevalent and visible oil sheen. Oil removed from water using oil-absorbent pads or vactor truck. Source of oil located and corrected. If chronic low levels of oil persist, plant wetland plants such as Juncus effusus (soft rush) which can uptake small concentrations of oil. Erosion Erosion of the pond’s side slopes and/or scouring of the pond bottom, that exceeds 6-inches, or where continued erosion is prevalent. Slopes stabilized using proper erosion control measures and repair methods. Settlement of Pond Dike/Berm Any part of these components that has settled 4-inches or lower than the design elevation, or inspector determines dike/berm is unsound. Dike/berm is repaired to specifications. Internal Berm Berm dividing cells should be level. Berm surface is leveled so that water flows evenly over entire length of berm. General Overflow Spillway Rock is missing and soil is exposed at top of spillway or outside slope. Rocks replaced to specifications. CDS® Inspection and Maintenance Guide ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Maintenance The CDS system should be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit. For example, unstable soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow accumulation. Inspection Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily performed. Pollutant transport and deposition may vary from year to year and regular inspections will help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum, inspections should be performed twice per year (e.g. spring and fall) however more frequent inspections may be necessary in climates where winter sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. Installations should also be inspected more frequently where excessive amounts of trash are expected. The visual inspection should ascertain that the system components are in working order and that there are no blockages or obstructions in the inlet and separation screen. The inspection should also quantify the accumulation of hydrocarbons, trash, and sediment in the system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument. If absorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons, the level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also be identified during inspection. It is useful and often required as part of an operating permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple form for doing so is provided. Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole access covers. One opening allows for inspection and cleanout of the separation chamber (cylinder and screen) and isolated sump. The other allows for inspection and cleanout of sediment captured and retained outside the screen. For deep units, a single manhole access point would allows both sump cleanout and access outside the screen. The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump or when an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated. If absorbent material is used, it should be replaced when significant discoloration has occurred. Performance will not be impacted until 100% of the sump capacity is exceeded however it is recommended that the system be cleaned prior to that for easier removal of sediment. The level of sediment is easily determined by measuring from finished grade down to the top of the sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the top of the sediment pile carefully. Particles at the top of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than consolidated particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the as-built drawing for the unit to determine weather the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 75% of the total height of isolated sump. Cleaning Cleaning of a CDS systems should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Simply remove the manhole covers and insert the vacuum hose into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the screen should also be cleaned out if pollutant build-up exists in this area. In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. However, the system should be cleaned out immediately in the event of an oil or gasoline spill should be cleaned out immediately. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may be preferable to use absorbent pads since they are usually less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash and debris can be netted out to separate it from the other pollutants. The screen should be power washed to ensure it is free of trash and debris. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and also to ensure that proper safety precautions have been followed. Confined space entry procedures need to be followed if physical access is required. Disposal of all material removed from the CDS system should be done in accordance with local regulations. In many jurisdictions, disposal of the sediments may be handled in the same manner as the disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. CDS Diameter Distance from Water Surface Sediment Model to Top of Sediment Pile Storage Capacity ft m ft m yd3 m3 CDS2015-4 4 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 CDS2015 5 1.5 3.0 0.9 1.3 1.0 CDS2020 5 1.5 3.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 CDS2025 5 1.5 4.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 CDS3020 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3030 6 1.8 4.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 CDS3035 6 1.8 5.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 CDS4030 8 2.4 4.6 1.4 5.6 4.3 CDS4040 8 2.4 5.7 1.7 5.6 4.3 CDS4045 8 2.4 6.2 1.9 5.6 4.3 CDS5640 10 3.0 6.3 1.9 8.7 6.7 CDS5653 10 3.0 7.7 2.3 8.7 6.7 CDS5668 10 3.0 9.3 2.8 8.7 6.7 CDS5678 10 3.0 10.3 3.1 8.7 6.7 Table 1: CDS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities 800.925.5240 www.ContechES.com Support • Drawings and specifications are available at www.contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2014 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater, earth stabilization and wastewater treament products. For information, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WARRANTY OR AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SEE THE CONTECH STANDARD CONDITION OF SALES (VIEWABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/ COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; 7,296,692; 7,297,266; 7,517,450 related foreign patents or other patents pending. cdsMaintenance 11/14 ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CDS Inspection & Maintenance Log CDS Model: Location: Water Floatable Describe Maintenance Date depth to Layer Maintenance Personnel Comments sediment 1 Thickness 2 Performed —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1. The water depth to sediment is determined by taking two measurements with a stadia rod: one measurement from the manhole opening to the top of the sediment pile and the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the difference between these measurements is less than the values listed in table 1 the system should be cleaned out. Note: to avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile. 2. For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickness. In the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately. 1 Brandon Chaisy From:Thomason, Kathryn <KThomason@conteches.com> Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:26 PM To:Brandon Chaisy Cc:Vandenhaak, Jelena Subject:RE: BCE#14423 North Auburn Logistics Attachments:CDS2015-4-C-DTL.dwg; SFCB4-DTL.dwg Categories:Filed by Newforma Brandon, Thank you for discussing this project with me. As we discussed, since the flow rate for basin 2 is so small, I would recommend looking at a Catchbasin StormFilter instead of the CDS unit. The CDS unit screen can occlude when flows are so small that they do not provide the velocity needed to keep it clean. The performance of the CDS unit will be great, but it can require more frequent maintenance. Here is what I would recommend: Basin 1: Area = 0.86 acres WQ flow rate 0.137 cfs Recommended CDS size = CDS2015-4 Estimated price = $8,500 Basin 2: Area = 0.36 acres WQ Flow = 0.0572 cfs Recommended CDS size = CDS2015-4 Estimated price = $8,500 OR Recommended StormFilter size = Catchbasin StormFilter with (4) 18” tall ZPG cartridges Estimated p[rice = $14,400 I have attached the CAD details for both options for your use. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks! Sincerely, Kathryn Thomason, P.E. Senior Design Engineer – Rainwater Harvesting | Team Lead Contech Engineered Solutions LLC 11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive | Portland, OR 97220 Off: 503-258-3176 Mob: 503-367-9222 Fax: 800-561-1271 kthomason@conteches.com www.ContechES.com 2 From: Brandon Chaisy [mailto:bchaisy@barghausen.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:59 AM To: Thomason, Kathryn <KThomason@conteches.com> Subject: BCE#14423 North Auburn Logistics Hello Kathryn, We are doing a project in Auburn WA and are planning to use CDS units in a couple locations. The CDS units will be located before detention. CDS#1 Area = 0.86 acres WQ flow rate 0.137 cfs CDS#2 Area = 0.36 acres WQ Flow = 0.0572 cfs Would you please help confirm my calculation and that the CDS2015-4-C is the unit we should be using? Thanks, Brandon Barghausen Engineers 425-251-6222 This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that retention, dissemination, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and permanently delete this email and any attachments. Thank you, Contech Engineered Solutions Project Information Project Name 14423 Option #A Country US State Washington City Auburn Contact Information First Name Brandon Last Name Chaisy Company Phone #425-251-6222 Email bchaisy@barghausen.com Design Criteria Site Designation CDS#1 Drainage Area (ac)0.86 Runoff Coefficient 0.90 TC (Min)10 Peak Flow (cfs)0.14 Screening Required?No Pipe Invert Depth (ft)0 - 5 Bedrock Depth (ft)>15 Groundwater Depth (ft)0 - 5 Grate Inlet Required?No Pipe Size (in)12 Multiple Inlets?No 180° between inlet and outlet? Yes 90° between two inlets?N/A Required Particle Size Distribution? No Rainfall Station 171 - Sea-Tac Airport, WA Treatment Selection Treatment Unit CDS System Model 2015-4 Target Removal 80.00%Mean Particle Size (microns) 125 Predicted Net Annual Removal 92.70% Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator 14423 CDS#1 CDS 2015-4 CDS ESTIMATED NET ANNUAL SOLIDS LOAD REDUCTION BASED ON THE RATIONAL RAINFALL METHOD Rainfall Intensity¹ (in/hr) % Rainfall Volume¹ Cumulative Rainfall Volume Rainfall Volume Treated Total Flowrate (cfs) Treated Flowrate (cfs) Operating Rate (%) Removal Efficiency (%) Incremental Removal (%) 0.0200 17.53%17.53%17.53%0.0155 0.0155 2.21%100.00%17.53% 0.0400 18.92%36.45%18.92%0.0310 0.0310 4.43%100.00%18.92% 0.0600 16.21%52.66%16.21%0.0464 0.0464 6.63%100.00%16.21% 0.0800 12.79%65.45%12.79%0.0619 0.0619 8.84%99.64%12.74% 0.1000 9.71%75.16%9.71%0.0774 0.0774 11.06%99.20%9.63% 0.1200 6.01%81.17%6.01%0.0929 0.0929 13.27%98.75%5.93% 0.1400 4.42%85.59%4.42%0.1084 0.1084 15.49%98.31%4.35% 0.1600 3.44%89.03%3.44%0.1238 0.1238 17.69%97.87%3.37% 0.1800 2.92%91.95%2.92%0.1393 0.1393 19.90%97.43%2.84% 0.2000 2.09%94.04%2.09%0.1548 0.1548 22.11%96.99%2.03% 0.2500 2.36%96.40%2.36%0.1935 0.1935 27.64%95.88%2.26% 0.3500 2.69%99.09%2.69%0.2709 0.2709 38.70%93.67%2.52% 0.4500 0.60%99.69%0.60%0.3483 0.3483 49.76%91.45%0.55% 0.5000 0.30%99.99%0.30%0.3870 0.3870 55.29%90.35%0.27% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 99.15% Removal Efficiency Adjustment2 =6.45% Predicted % Annual Rainfall Treated =93.54% Predicted Net Annual Load Removal Efficiency =92.70% 1 - Based on 10 years of rainfall data from NCDC station 7473, Seattle / Tacoma Airport, King County, WA 2 - Reduction due to use of 60-minute data for a site that has a time of concentration less than 30-minutes. Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator 14423 CDS#1 CDS 2015-4 Project Information Project Name 14423 Option #A Country US State Washington City Auburn Contact Information First Name Brandon Last Name Chaisy Company Phone #425-251-6222 Email bchaisy@barghausen.com Design Criteria Site Designation CDS#2 Drainage Area (ac)0.36 Runoff Coefficient 0.90 TC (Min)10 Peak Flow (cfs)0.06 Screening Required?No Pipe Invert Depth (ft)0 - 5 Bedrock Depth (ft)>15 Groundwater Depth (ft)0 - 5 Grate Inlet Required?No Pipe Size (in)12 Multiple Inlets?No 180° between inlet and outlet? No 90° between two inlets?N/A Required Particle Size Distribution? No Rainfall Station 171 - Sea-Tac Airport, WA Treatment Selection Treatment Unit CDS System Model 2015-4 Target Removal 80.00%Mean Particle Size (microns) 125 Predicted Net Annual Removal 93.42% Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator 14423 CDS#2 CDS 2015-4 CDS ESTIMATED NET ANNUAL SOLIDS LOAD REDUCTION BASED ON THE RATIONAL RAINFALL METHOD Rainfall Intensity¹ (in/hr) % Rainfall Volume¹ Cumulative Rainfall Volume Rainfall Volume Treated Total Flowrate (cfs) Treated Flowrate (cfs) Operating Rate (%) Removal Efficiency (%) Incremental Removal (%) 0.0200 17.53%17.53%17.53%0.0065 0.0065 0.93%100.00%17.53% 0.0400 18.92%36.45%18.92%0.0130 0.0130 1.86%100.00%18.92% 0.0600 16.21%52.66%16.21%0.0194 0.0194 2.77%100.00%16.21% 0.0800 12.79%65.45%12.79%0.0259 0.0259 3.70%100.00%12.79% 0.1000 9.71%75.16%9.71%0.0324 0.0324 4.63%100.00%9.71% 0.1200 6.01%81.17%6.01%0.0389 0.0389 5.56%100.00%6.01% 0.1400 4.42%85.59%4.42%0.0454 0.0454 6.49%100.00%4.42% 0.1600 3.44%89.03%3.44%0.0518 0.0518 7.40%99.93%3.44% 0.1800 2.92%91.95%2.92%0.0583 0.0583 8.33%99.74%2.91% 0.2000 2.09%94.04%2.09%0.0648 0.0648 9.26%99.56%2.08% 0.2500 2.36%96.40%2.36%0.0810 0.0810 11.57%99.09%2.34% 0.3500 2.69%99.09%2.69%0.1134 0.1134 16.20%98.17%2.64% 0.4500 0.60%99.69%0.60%0.1458 0.1458 20.83%97.24%0.58% 0.5000 0.30%99.99%0.30%0.1620 0.1620 23.14%96.78%0.29% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 0.0000 0.00%99.99%0.00%0.0000 0.0000 0.00%100.00%0.00% 99.87% Removal Efficiency Adjustment2 =6.45% Predicted % Annual Rainfall Treated =93.54% Predicted Net Annual Load Removal Efficiency =93.42% 1 - Based on 10 years of rainfall data from NCDC station 7473, Seattle / Tacoma Airport, King County, WA 2 - Reduction due to use of 60-minute data for a site that has a time of concentration less than 30-minutes. Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator 14423 CDS#2 CDS 2015-4 SECTION [_____] STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICE PART 1 – GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. Scope The Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment and materials necessary to install the storm water treatment device(s) (SWTD) and appurtenances specified in the Drawings and these specifications. B. Related Sections Section 02240: Dewatering Section 02260: Excavation Support and Protection Section 02315: Excavation and Fill Section 02340: Soil Stabilization 1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCES A. Inspection All components shall be subject to inspection by the engineer at the place of manufacture and/or installation. All components are subject to being rejected or identified for repair if the quality of materials and manufacturing do not comply with the requirements of this specification. Components which have been identified as defective may be subject for repair where final acceptance of the component is contingent on the discretion of the Engineer. B. Warranty The manufacturer shall guarantee the SWTD components against all manufacturer originated defects in materials or workmanship for a period of twelve (12) months from the date the components are delivered to the owner for installation. The manufacturer shall upon its determination repair, correct or replace any manufacturer originated defects advised in writing to the manufacturer within the referenced warranty period. The use of SWTD components shall be limited to the application for which it was specifically designed. C. Manufacturer’s Performance Certificate The SWTD manufacturer shall submit to the Engineer of Record a “Manufacturer’s Performance Certification” certifying that each SWTD is capable of achieving the specified removal efficiencies listed in these specifications. The certification shall be supported by independent third-party research 1.3 SUBMITTALS A. Shop Drawings The contractor shall prepare and submit shop drawings in accordance with Section [_____] of the contract documents. The shop drawings shall detail horizontal and vertical dimensioning as well as joint type and locations. 1.4 PRODUCT SUBMITTALS No product substitutions shall be accepted unless submitted 10 days prior to project bid date, or as directed by the engineer of record. Submissions for substitutions require review and approval by the Engineer of Record, for hydraulic performance, impact to project designs, equivalent treatment performance, and any required project plan and report (hydrology/hydraulic, water quality, stormwater pollution) modifications that would be required by the approving jurisdictions/agencies. Contractor to coordinate with the Engineer of Record any applicable modifications to the project estimates of cost, bonding amount determinations, plan check fees for changes to approved documents, and/or any other regulatory requirements resulting from product substitutions. PART 2.0 – PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS AND DESIGN A. Housing unit of stormwater treatment device shall be constructed of pre-cast or cast-in-place concrete, no exceptions. Precast concrete components shall conform to applicable sections of ASTM C 478, ASTM C 857 and ASTM C 858 and the following: 1. Concrete shall achieve a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square-inch (psi); 2. Unless otherwise noted, the precast concrete sections shall be designed to withstand lateral earth and AASHTO H-20 traffic loads; 3. Cement shall be Type III Portland Cement conforming to ASTM C 150; 4. Aggregates shall conform to ASTM C 33; 5. Reinforcing steel shall be deformed billet-steel bars, welded steel wire or deformed welded steel wire conforming to ASTM A 615, A 185, or A 497. 6. Joints shall be sealed with preformed joint sealing compound conforming to ASTM C 990. 7. Shipping of components shall not be initiated until a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi is attained or five (5) calendar days after fabrication has expired, whichever occurs first. B. Internal Components and appurtenances shall conform to the following: 1. Screen and support structure shall be manufactured of Type 316 and 316L stainless steel conforming to ASTM F 1267-01; 2. Hardware shall be manufactured of Type 316 stainless steel conforming to ASTM A 320; 3. Fiberglass components shall conform to the National Bureau of Standards PS-15 and coated with an isophalic polyester gelcoat and 4. Access system(s) conform to the following: a. Manhole castings shall be designed to withstand AASHTO H-20 loadings and manufactured of cast-iron conforming to ASTM A 48 Class 30. 2.2 PERFORMANCE A. REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES 1. The SWTD shall be sized to either achieve an 80 percent average annual reduction in the total suspended solid load or treat a flow rate designated by the jurisdiction in which the project is located. 2. The SWTD shall be capable of capturing and retaining 100 percent of pollutants greater than or equal to 2.4 millimeters (mm) regardless of the pollutant’s specific gravity (i.e.: floatable and neutrally buoyant materials) for flows up to the device’s rated-treatment capacity. The SWTD shall be designed to retain all previously captured pollutants addressed by this subsection under all flow conditions. The CDS unit shall be fitted with a 2400 micron or stainless steel screen. 3. The SWTD shall be capable of capturing and retaining total petroleum hydrocarbons. The SWTD shall be capable of achieving a removal efficiency of 92 and 78 percent when the device is operating at 25 and 50 percent of its rated-treatment capacity (125 micron flow rates listed in table 1.). These removal efficiencies shall be based on independent third-party research for influent oil concentrations representative of storm water runoff (20 ± 5 mg/L). The SWTD shall be greater than 99 percent effective in controlling dry-weather accidental oil spills. B. HYDRAULIC CAPACITY 1. The SWTD shall provide verified treatment performance up to and including the rated treatment capacity of the selected unit listed in Table 1. The treatment performance shall be verified through a nationally or regionally accredited testing protocol. 2. The SWTD shall convey the flow from the peak storm event of the drainage network, in accordance with required hydraulic upstream conditions as defined by the Engineer. If a substitute SWTD is proposed, supporting documentation shall be submitted that demonstrates equal or better upstream hydraulic conditions compared to that specified herein. This documentation shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of the work. All costs associated with preparing and certifying this documentation shall be born solely by the Contractor. C. STORAGE CAPACITY 1. The SWTD shall be designed with a sump chamber for the storage of captured sediments and other negatively buoyant pollutants in between maintenance cycles. The minimum storage capacity provided by the sump chamber shall be in accordance with the volume listed in Table 1. The boundaries of the sump chamber shall be limited to that which do not degrade the SWTD’s treatment efficiency as captured pollutants accumulate. The sump chamber shall be separate from the treatment processing portion(s) of the SWTD to minimize the probability of fine particle re- suspension. In order to not restrict the Owner’s ability to maintain the SWTD, the minimum dimension providing access from the ground surface to the sump chamber shall be 20 inches in diameter. 2. The SWTD shall be designed to capture and retain Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons generated by wet-weather flow and dry-weather gross spills and have a capacity listed in Table 1 of the required unit. 2.3 MANUFACTURER The manufacturer of the SWTD shall be one that is regularly engaged in the engineering design and production of systems deployed for the treatment of storm water runoff for at least five (5) years and which have a history of successful production, acceptable to the Engineer. In accordance with the Drawings, the SWTD(s) shall be a CDS® device manufactured by: CONTECH Engineered Solutions, LLC 9025 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 400 West Chester, OH 45069 (800) 338-1122 www.ContechES.com PART 3 – EXECUTION 3.1 HANDLING AND STORAGE 1. The contractor shall exercise care in the storage and handling of the SWTD components prior to and during installation. Any repair or replacement costs associated with events occurring after delivery is accepted and unloading has commenced shall be borne by the contractor. 3.2 INSTALLATION 1. The SWTD shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and related sections of the contract documents. The manufacturer shall provide the contractor installation instructions and offer on- site guidance during the important stages of the installation as identified by the manufacturer at no additional expense. A minimum of 72 hours notice shall be provided to the manufacturer prior to their performance of the services included under this subsection. 2. The contractor shall fill all voids associated with lifting provisions provided by the manufacturer. These voids shall be filled with non-shrinking grout providing a finished surface consistent with adjacent surfaces. The contractor shall trim all protruding lifting provisions flush with the adjacent concrete surface in a manner, which leaves no sharp points or edges. 3. The contractor shall removal all loose material and pooling water from the SWTD prior to the transfer of operational responsibility to the Owner. TABLE 1 Storm Water Treatment Device Hydraulic and Storage Capacities CDS Model Treatment Capacity (cfs)/(L/s) Minimum Sump Storage Capacity (yd3)/(m3) Minimum Oil Storage Capacity (gal)/(L) CDS2015-G 0.7 (19.8) 0.5 (0.4) 70 (265) CDS2015-4 0.7 (19.8) 0.5 (1.4) 70 (265) CDS2015 0.7(19.8) 1.3 (1.0) 92 (348) CDS2020 1.1 (31.2) 1.3 (1.0) 131 (496) CDS2025 1.6 (45.3) 1.3 (1.0) 143 (541) CDS3020 2.0 (56.6) 2.1 (1.6) 146 (552) CDS3030 3.0 (85.0) 2.1 (1.6) 205 (776) CDS3035 3.8 (106.2) 2.1 (1.6) 234 (885) CDS4030 4.5 (127.4) 5.6 (4.3) 407 (1540) CDS4040 6.0 (169.9) 5.6 (4.3) 492 (1862) CDS4045 7.5 (212.4) 5.6 (4.3) 534 (2012) CDS2020-D 1.1 (31.2) 1.3 (1.0) 131 (495) CDS3020-D 2.0 (56.6) 2.1 (1.6) 146 (552) CDS3030-D 3.0 (85.0) 2.1 (1.6) 205 (776) CDS3035-D 3.8 (106.2) 2.1 (1.6) 234 (885) CDS4030-D 4.5 (127.4) 4.3 (3.3) 328 (1241) CDS4040-D 6.0 (169.9) 4.3 (3.3) 396 (1499) CDS4045-D 7.5 (212.4) 4.3 (3.3) 430 (1627) CDS5640-D 9.0 (254.9) 5.6 (4.3) 490 (1854) CDS5653-D 14.0 (396.5) 5.6 (4.3) 599 (2267) CDS5668-D 19.0 (538.1) 5.6 (4.3) 733 (2774) CDS5678-D 25.0 (708.0) 5.6 (4.3) 814 (3081) CDS3030-DV 3.0 (85.0) 2.1 (1.6) 205 (776) CDS5042-DV 9.0 (254.9) 1.9 (1.5) 294 (1112) CDS5050-DV 11.0 (311.5) 1.9 (1.5) 367 (1389) CDS7070-DV 26.0 (736.3) 3.3 (2.5) 914 (3459) CDS10060-DV 30.0 (849.6) 5.0 (3.8) 792 (2997) CDS10080-DV 50.0 (1416.0) 5.0 (3.8) 1057 (4000) CDS100100-DV 64.0 (1812.5) 5.0 (3.8) 1320 (4996) END OF SECTION S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 46 Appendix B Stormwater Site Plan Submittal Requirements Checklist The Submittal Requirements Checklist is intended to aid the design engineer in preparing a Stormwater Site Plan. All items included in the following checklist must be addressed as part of any stormwater site plan. The City recommends the design engineer follow the order and structure of the checklist to facilitate review, which in turn will expedite permit issuance. Chapter 1 – Project Overview The project overview is intended to be a summary of detailed information contained in the body of the Stormwater Site Plan. Identify type of permit requested and permit number Identify other permits required (e.g. hydraulic permits, Army Corps 404 permits, wetlands, etc.). Identify the project location (including address, legal description, and parcel number). Brief description of project to include the following: Current and proposed condition/land-use Size of parcel Acreage developed, redeveloped, replaced or converted by the project Current assessed value and cost of proposed improvements (for redevelopment projects) Watershed Proposed flow control improvements Proposed runoff treatment improvements Proposed conveyance improvements Proposed discharge location and improvements Downstream condition, impacts and problem Locations of surface water run-on to the property Reference appropriate Sections/Chapters/Appendices of the document for detailed descriptions. Chapter 2 – Existing Condition Summary The Existing Condition Summary is intended to provide a complete understanding of the project site and must be based on thorough site research and investigation. Describe, discuss and identify the following for the project site: Topography Land use and ground cover Natural and man-made drainage patterns Points of entry and exit for existing drainage to and from the site Any known historical drainage problems such as flooding, erosion, etc. Existing utilities (storm, water, sewer) Areas with high potential for erosion and sediment deposition Locations of sensitive and critical areas (i.e. vegetative buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, geologic hazard areas, streams, creeks, ponds, ravines, springs, etc). Existing fuel tanks S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 47 Groundwater wells on-site and within 100 feet of site Septic systems on-site and/or within 100 feet of the site Identify difficult site conditions. State whether the project is located in an aquifer recharge area or wellhead protection area as defined by the Washington State Health Department, the Environmental Protection Agency or by the City. Identify any Superfund areas in the vicinity, and state whether they are tributary to, or receive drainage from, the project site. Identify any specific requirements included in a basin plan for the area. Include references to relevant reports such as basin plans, flood studies, groundwater studies, wetland designations, sensitive area designations, environmental impact statements, environmental checklists, lake restoration plans, water quality reports, etc. Where such reports impose additional conditions on the Proponent, state these conditions, and describe any proposed mitigation measures. Grading Plan per requirements. A soil report to identify the following: Soil types Hydrologic soil group classification Groundwater elevation Presence of perched aquifers, acquitters and confined aquifers Location of test pits Infiltration rates determined per the requirements of Volume III (where applicable) Discussion of critical areas or geologic hazards where present Soil reports should be contained in an Appendix of the report or as a separate document. Describe the 100-year flood hazard zone. Chapter 3 – Off-Site Analysis (Minimum Requirement #10) The City requires a qualitative discussion of the off-site upstream and downstream system for all projects. The City may require a quantitative analysis for any project deemed to need additional downstream information. Detailed calculations shall be contained in an Appendix of the report. Volume I, Chapter 4 describes the Off-site Analysis. In addition, a list of elements to be included is provided as follows. Qualitative Analysis Review all available plans, studies, maps pertaining to the off-site study area. Investigate the drainage system ¼ mile downstream from the project by site visit, including the following items: Problems reported or observed during the resource review Existing/potential constrictions or capacity deficiencies in the drainage system Existing/potential flooding problems Existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation Significant destruction of aquatic habitat (e.g., siltation, stream incision) Existing public and private easements through the project site and their corresponding widths Qualitative data on features such as land use, impervious surface, topography, soils, presence of streams, and wetlands S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 48 Information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics and drainage structures Verification of tributary drainage areas Date and weather at the time of the inspection Describe the drainage system and its existing and predicted problems through observations, reports, and hydraulic modeling (as necessary) of the City-specified design storm event described in Chapter 3 of Volume III. Describe all existing or potential problems as listed above (e.g. pooling water or erosion). The following information shall be provided for each existing or potential problem: Magnitude of or damage caused by the problem General frequency and duration Return frequency of storm or flow when the problem occurs (may require quantitative analysis) Water elevation when the problem occurs Names and concerns of the parties involved Current mitigation of the problem Possible cause of the problem Whether the project is likely to aggravate the problem or create a new one Properly include off-site areas in drainage calculations. Quantitative Analysis (see Volume III, Section 3.1.2) Clearly describe tail water assumptions. Summarize results in text. Include calculations in Appendix B of the report. Discuss potential fixes for capacity problems. Provide profiles where appropriate. Chapter 4 – Permanent Stormwater Control Plan Chapter 4 will contain the information used to select, size and locate permanent stormwater control BMPs for the project site. Pre-Developed Site Hydrology Provide a list of assumptions and site parameters for the pre-developed condition. Identify all sub-basins within, or flowing through, the site. Use consistent labeling for all sub- basins throughout figures, calculations, and text. For each sub-basin, identify current land use, acreage, hydrologic soil group and land use to be modeled under pre-developed conditions. The format used in Example Table I-B-1 show below is recommended. Provide justification for land uses other than forest. Summarize output data from the pre-developed condition. Example Tables I-B-2a or I-B-2b are recommended formats. Include completed Hydraulic Analysis worksheet (see Appendix C in this volume) and hydrologic calculations in Appendix D of the report. For WWHM models, provide model files electronically. S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 49 Example Table I-B-1 Sub- Basin ID Land Use and Cover Condition Acreage Soil Group Modeled as: (List CN) Comments Example Table I-B-2a Pre-Developed Condition Event Output: SBUH Basin ID: Peak Flow (cfs) Volume (ac-ft) Area (ac) 2-year existing 10-year existing 25-year existing 100-year existing Example Table I-B-2b Pre-Developed Condition Event Output: WWHM Basin ID: Peak Flow (cfs) Area (ac) 2-year existing 10-year existing 25-year existing 100-year existing Developed Site Hydrology Provide a list of assumptions and site parameters for the developed condition. Identify all sub-basins within, or flowing through, the site. Use consistent labeling for all sub- basins throughout figures, calculations, and text. For each sub-basin, identify current land use, acreage, hydrologic soil group and land use to be modeled under developed conditions. The format used in Example Table I-B-1 is recommended. Summarize output data from the developed condition. The formats used in Example Tables I-B-2a or I-B-2b are recommended. Include completed Hydraulic Analysis worksheet (see Appendix C in this volume) and hydrologic calculations in Appendix D of the report. S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 50 Performance Goals and Standards Indicate total acreage of impervious surfaces, pollution-generating impervious surfaces and pollution-generating pervious surfaces for each Threshold Discharge Area (TDA). The format used in Example Table I-B-3 is recommended. Include applicable decision chart (Figure I-3-1, Figure I-3-2, or Figure I-3-3) with treatment requirements clearly marked and supported. Include applicable decision chart (Figure I-3-2) with flow control requirements clearly marked and supported. If flow control facilities are required, indicate that they are required. State conclusions from decision and flow charts. Example Table I-B-3 Threshold Discharge Area ID: Total pollution generating pervious surface (PGPS) acres Total pollution generating impervious surface ((PGIS) acres Native vegetation converted to lawn/landscape acres Total effective impervious surface acres Increase in 100-yer storm peak cfs Flow Control System (where required) Identify sizing system used. Summarize model results. Describe proposed flow control system and appurtenances, including size, type, and characteristics of storage facility and control structure. Provide a drawing of the flow control facility and its appurtenances, including: Include Hydraulic Analysis Worksheet, calculations, and computer printouts (including stage storage tables) for the flow control system to be included in Appendix D of the report. Water Quality System (where required) Identify the sizing method used. Summarize model results. Identify treatment methods used, including size, type, and characteristics of treatment facility and appurtenances. Provide a drawing of the treatment facility and its appurtenances, including: Dimensions Inlet/outlet sizes and elevations Location of the facility on the project site Appurtenances/fittings Calculations for the water quality design storm and facility sizing calculations must be included in an Appendix of the report. Where appropriate, include manufacturer’s specifications in an Appendix of the report. S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 51 Conveyance System Analysis and Design Illustrate the proposed conveyance system on a project site plan. Identify pipe sizes, types, and slopes. Describe capacities, design flows, and velocities for each reach. Include conveyance calculations in an Appendix of the report. Chapter 5 – Discussion of Minimum Requirements Chapter 5 is intended as a checklist for the applicant and reviewer to verify that the applicable Minimum Requirements have been met within the project submittal. Include applicable flowcharts for determining minimum requirements (Figure I-3-1, Figure I-3-2, or Figure I-3-3) with decision path clearly marked. List the minimum requirements that apply to the project. Discuss how the project satisfies each minimum requirement. Indicate where in the project documentation each minimum requirement is satisfied. Chapter 6 – Operation and Maintenance Manual The Operation and Maintenance Manual may be included in the Stormwater Site Plan, however it shall be written with the intention of becoming a stand-alone document for the project owner once the project is complete. The Operation and Maintenance Manual must include: A narrative description of the on-site storm system. An 11 x 17 inch map of the site, with the locations of the treatment/detention/infiltration/etc. facilities prominently noted. This is needed to enable the Operation and Maintenance manual to be a stand-alone document. The person or organization responsible for maintenance of the on-site storm system, including the phone number and current responsible party. Where the Operation and Maintenance manual is to be kept. Note that it must be made available to the City for inspection. A description of each flow control and treatment facility, including what it does and how it works. Include any manufacturer’s documentation. A description of all maintenance tasks and the frequency of each task for each flow control and treatment facility. Include any manufacturer’s recommendations. A sample maintenance activity log indicating emergency and routine actions to be taken. Chapter 7 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Short-Form – Please refer to Volume II, Appendix C for a complete checklist, or Formal/Long-Form – Please refer to Volume II, Chapter 2 for a complete checklist. S U R F A C E W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T M A N U A L N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 Submittal Requirements Checklist Volume I Appendix B 52 Appendices Appendix A – Operations and Maintenance Manual Appendix B – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix C – Submittal Requirements Checklist Appendix D – Hydraulic Analysis Worksheet Appendix E – Other reports, as required Required Drawings Project drawings shall be provided as required in Chapter 4, and shall include the following: Vicinity Map Site Map and Grading Plan Basin Map Storm Plan and Profile Erosion Control Plan Detail Sheets EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring 1805 -136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,WA 98005 (425)449-4704 Fax (425)449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY NORTH CREEK CORPORATE CAMPUS WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY SOUTH AUBURN,WASHINGTON ES-1443.03 Drwn. Checked Date Date Proj.No. Plate Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Monitoring EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC and Environmental Sciences Vicinity Map North Creek Corporate Campus King County,Washington GLS 01/29/2014 1443 SSR Jan.2014 1 NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. Reference: King County,Washington Map 715 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition NORTH SITE Drwn. Checked Date Date Proj.No. Plate Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Monitoring EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC and Environmental Sciences Boring and Test Pit Location Plan North Creek Corporate Campus King County,Washington GLS 01/29/2014 1443.03 SSR Jan.2014 2 NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and /or proposed site features.The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others.NORTHLEGEND Approximate Location of SNR Company Test Pit, Proj.No.05-08-006,Nov.2008 Approximate Location of SNR Company Boring, Proj.No.05-08-006,Nov.2008 Subject Site Proposed Building Not -To -Scale WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S.287THSTREETTP-24 B-2 TP-22 TP-26 B-3 TP-1 B-1 TP-2 TP-7 Bldg.“A” Bldg.“B” TP-1 B-1 Drwn. Checked Date Date Proj.No. Plate Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Monitoring and Environmental Sciences EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Slope Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1"Rock) 18"(Min.) 2"(Min.) NOTES: Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. Surface Seal to consist of 12"of less permeable,suitable soil.Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal;native soil or other low permeability material. 1"Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT OT SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING North Creek Corporate Campus King County,Washington GLS 01/29/2014 1443.03 SSR Jan.2009 3 14423.036.docx West Valley Highway Culvert Crossing As part of the North Auburn Logistics development, road improvements were required on West Valley Highway to widen the road and add a sidewalk on the west side. The existing storm crossing of Venture Ditch at the southeast corner of the site is through two 24-inch pipes east into an existing manhole and then north in a 36-inch pipe. As part of the road widening process it was determined that this culvert system needed to be upgraded for a fish passage culvert. The existing ditch is straight with no meandering and relatively uniform side slopes, both upstream and downstream. The bottom if the ditch is silt and vegetation. The proposed culvert would be installed at approxim ately a 45 degree angle to West Valley Highway. This will improve the channel flow by softening the existing 90 degree bend at the manhole. The proposed culvert is sited so that the existing 36-inch pipe from the south will remain and will tie into the new culvert. The existing storm system collects runoff from the south and must remain. The two 24-inch pipes across West Valley Highway will be removed. The existing storm system from the south is constructed lower than the bottom of the ditch on the east side of West Valley Highway. This creates a backwater condition in the existing pipes and will create a backwater condition in the new culvert. After meeting onsite with Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, it was determined that the bankfull width was 10 feet in the existing channel. Using this existing width, a concrete box culvert width of 14'-8" is proposed. This satisfies the existing bankfull width times 1.2 plus 2 feet criteria used for the Stream Simulation Method of determining fish passage culverts. Unfortunately, the Stream Simulation Method in its entirety could not be used on this project because the culvert slope is greater than 1.25 times the existing upstream channel slope. The proposed culvert design was evaluated per the Hydraulic Design Option - Roughened Channel design criteria. In order to try and meet more of the criteria of the Stream Simulation Method, the upstream channel will be regraded for approximately 60 feet upstream of the proposed culvert. This will require channel disturbance but adding stream bedding material to the channel where there is currently silt, will improve habitat and add a possibility for fish spawning. It will also provide grade transition from the existing channel to the culvert. The proposed box culvert will have an interior height of 8 feet. This will provide plenty of depth for the well graded stream bad material (3-4 feet) and will allow the contractor the option of building the culvert in two parts. The bottom half of the culvert can be installed and the stream bed material placed before the top of the culvert is added. This allows easier installation and better compaction of the stream bed material in place. The upstream basin was mapped using topographic data from the King County GIS website as well as an existing basin map of Mill Creek and the Lower Green River. The basin is made up of a small amount of commercial development, residential homes and forest. Flows were determined using Western Washington Hydrology Model which is a continuous simulation model using over 50 years of rainfall data. The uniform flow calculations showed that the culvert as proposed can pass the 100-year flows and still maintain fish passage velocities. The stream bedding material will be well graded and will include fines to limit the porosity of the bedding. Rounded cobbles 3"-9" will be the largest rock size and will make up approximately 16 percent of the bedding. This rock is sized to be large enough to stay in place during high flow events. Because this culvert is considered a fishway, it will need regular inspection and maintenance to ensure it is functioning as intended. Calculations, maps and the proposed culvert design are shown on the following pages. Culvert Design Summary Per Chapter 6 of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013 Water Crossing Design Guidelines. 1) Length of Culvert - 97.5 feet 2) Fish Passage Requirements - Maximum velocity = 4 ft/sec 3) Hydrology: a. Basin area - 419.1 acres (see attached basin map) b. From WWHM: i. Q2=64.4 cfs ii. Q100=154.4 cfs (used as flood flow) 4) Velocity, Depth and Turbulence: a. Culvert/channel properties i. Trapezoidal channel ii. 10 foot bed iii. 6:1 side slopes iv. Assume 6" rock, n=0.069 and natural channel, n=0.05 v. Channel slope = 1.18% b. Velocity/Depth - Using Uniform Flow: i. Q2- depth = 1.55 ft, velocity = 2.21 ft/sec, n=0.069 ii. Q2- depth = 1.27 ft, velocity = 2.96 ft/sec, n=0.05 iii. Q100 - depth = 2.33 ft, velocity = 2.77 ft/sec, n=0.069 iv. Q100 - depth = 1.92 ft, velocity = 3.73 ft/sec, n=0.05 c. Bed Stability: i. Using Water Crossing Design Guidelines Equations 3.3 and 3.4 and 3.6 - 3.8 ii. Calculated rock size 1. D16 = 0.36 ft 2. D50 = 012 ft 3. D84 = 0.29 ft 4. D100 = 0.725 ft iii. Well graded stream bed mix with largest cobbles 3"-9" d. Energy Dissipation Factor (EDF): i. EDF to be less than 4 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel info@wra-ca.com www.wra-ca.com Floodplain Habitat Assessment for the North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development AUBURN, KING COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Albert Pura SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94111 Prepared By: Tanner Harris WRA, Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California 94901 Date: April 13, 2016 WRA Project No.: 24271 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Statement of Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area and Project Description ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Mitigation and Minimization Measures ............................................................................. 2 1.4 Water Resources and Protected Species Information ...................................................... 2 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Background Review ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................................................ 3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Stream and Riparian Habitat Conditions .......................................................................... 3 3.2 Regulatory Flood Plain .................................................................................................... 3 4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES INFORMATION ............................................................................. 3 5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ........................................................................................... 4 APPENDICES Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Confirmation Email from WDFW Biologist Larry Fisher ii 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of Purpose The Project Proponent, SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC, has proposed the development of an approximately 260,000 sq. ft. light industrial warehouse with office space, truck yard, parking areas, and onsite stormwater facilities. In addition, the Project will include frontage improvements and the replacement of two culverts. A minor portion of the work occurs within the City of Auburn Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and the associated Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) as defined by Auburn City Code [ACC] Chapter 15.68. The work within the SFHA and RHZ is limited minor road widening and repaving as required by the City of Auburn. As part of the road widening, a stormwater ditch located on the western side of West Valley Highway (WVH), north of S. 287th Street, will be regraded at the new edge of pavement. The work will occur at the southern edge of the SFHA and RHZ (Figure 1), near the northern edge of the City limits. This floodplain habitat assessment is required as part of the floodplain development permit application for the proposed road and ditch work. A floodplain habitat assessment for is required under City of Auburn Municipal Code (AMC) 15.68.135(1), unless a development activity is allowed under AMC 15.68.130(D). The format of the assessment generally follows the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation guidance for Region 10 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and AMC 15.68.135(J)(4). Note to the reader: all figures referenced in the text are included in Appendix A. 1.2 Study Area and Project Description Study Area Description For purposes of this habitat assessment, the Study Area encompasses only the portion of the work related to the floodplain development permit, which includes all work within the SFHA and associated RHZ (Figure 1). The RHZ shown on Figure 1 has been clipped to the footprint of the SFHA based on the description of the RHZ found in AMC 15.68 which indicates that the RHZ is found within the SFHA (and therefore should not extend beyond the SFHA). The Study Area contains a portion of WVH, as well as the stormwater ditch along the western side of WVH. The SFHA and RHZ do not extend to the east side of WVH where Tributary 053 is located. The stormwater ditch within the SFHA and RHZ is not a regulated stream and does not represent sensitive habitat. The adjacent vegetation includes non-native annual grasses and ornamental plantings associated with the residences on the adjacent parcels (APN 3522049067, 3522049039) (see Figure 2). No riparian vegetation occurs in association with the stormwater ditch. No Critical Areas designated by the City under AMC Chapter 16.10 or any other sensitive natural resources protected by State or Federal laws occurs within the Study Area for this Floodplain Habitat Assessment. Project Description The proposed work within the SFHA and RHZ is shown on Figure 3 and includes widening WVH on its western side for approximately 275 feet. To accommodate this widening, the stormwater ditch to the west of WVH will be regraded along the same distance, but relocated to the new edge of pavement. Following the road widening and ditch work, the roadway within the 2 immediate vicinity will be ground and resurfaced. Work within the ditch will be completed during the dry season, when water is not present in the ditch. Traffic controls and BMPs will be implemented during the work. The proposed work will not result in impacts to any sensitive habitat (e.g., streams or wetlands) or vegetation (e.g., riparian vegetation), including any Critical Areas designated by the City under AMC Chapter 16.10 or any other sensitive natural resources protected by State or Federal laws. 1.3 Mitigation and Minimization Measures Mitigation Measures The proposed road widening will occur only on the west side of WVH, which does not contain any sensitive natural resources or Critical Areas, nor does it contain riparian vegetation. Because no Critical Areas or any other sensitive natural resources occur within the Study Area for this Floodplain Habitat Assessment, no impacts requiring compensatory mitigation are expected. Minimization Measures The road widening is required by the City of Auburn and therefore cannot be minimized. As such, minimization measures associated with the proposed work within the SFHA and RHZ will be limited to standard BMPs for erosion control and sedimentation and working during the dry season when no water is present within the ditch. Standard BMPs will be implemented to prevent any adverse impacts to sensitive resources found within the vicinity of the proposed work within the SFHA and RHZ. The primary sensitive resource found within the vicinity of the proposed work, but located outside of the SFHA and RHZ, is Tributary 053, a regulated stream that has been channelized along the eastern side of WVH within the Study Area. Prior to conducting work within this area, a silt fence will be installed along the western edge of Tributary 053 to prevent any materials from being washed into the stream. The silt fence will also keep construction personnel from entering the area. To prevent sedimentation of downstream waters connected to the stormwater ditch on the west side of WVH, work will be completed during the dry season, when water is not present within the ditch. Following re-grading of the ditch, the area will be stabilized with hydroseed, jute netting, or similar methods. The effects of the larger project on stormwater discharges to downstream channels has been minimized through the use of onsite stormwater basins which will regulate the discharge of stormwater to downstream tributaries. A detailed analysis of the potential impacts of stormwater runoff to downstream channels is presented in the Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers and previously submitted to the City. 1.4 Water Resources and Protected Species Information As noted in Section 1.2, no regulated streams or wetlands occur within the proposed work area associated with the SFHA and RHZ. The work area contains a stormwater drainage ditch which is not a regulated stream. The rest of the work area contains the roadway for WVH and non- native grasses and ornamental plantings. The only water resource within 300 feet of the work area associated with the SFHA and RHZ is Tributary 053, which occurs on the east side of WVH. Listed fish species such as Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) have been reported from this portion of Tributary 053. However, no work is proposed within this portion of Tributary 053, and with the implementation of the BMPs listed in Section 1.3, the proposed road widening will not adversely affect any listed species which could occur within Tributary 053. 3 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Review The following resources were reviewed in preparing this Floodplain Habitat Assessment: a) FEMA (1995) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 1232F, revision date May 16, 1995 b) City of Auburn Regulatory Floodplain Map (Map ID 4597, Printed on April 23, 2015) c) City of Auburn Municipal Code Section 15.68, Flood Hazard Areas 2.2 Field Investigation WRA biologists visited the Study Area on multiple occasions (March 13, 2015; July 3, 2015; October 27, 2015) to document conditions within the Project Area and any associated offsite work areas, including the offsite work area that is the subject of this Floodplain Habitat Assessment. In addition, a site visit by Larry Fisher, Area Habitat Biologist for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, confirmed that the ditch in question d oes not meet the requirements of a regulated stream (see email from Larry Fisher included in Appendix B). 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Stream and Riparian Habitat Conditions No regulated streams or riparian habitat occur within the portion of the project that occurs within the SFHA and RHZ. See Section 1.2 for a description of the Study Area. The feature in question is a stormwater drainage ditch located on the west side of WVH. The ditch is not a regulated stream. The ditch is ephemeral, only containing water following rainfall events. The ditch does not contain any riparian vegetation. Based on these conditions, the ditch does not have potential to support listed fish species. 3.2 Regulatory Flood Plain The City of Auburn municipal code defines the regulatory floodplain as the area of the SFHA (i.e., the base flood or the 100-yr flood plain) (AMC 15.68.060.DD). The regulatory flood plain in the vicinity of the Project Area is shown on Figure 1. Within the Study Area, the regulatory floodplain does not include any regulated streams or riparian habitat. 4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES INFORMATION As noted in Section 1.4, no species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur within the Study Area. The only water resource within the Study Area is an ephemeral stormwater drainage ditch which does not represent potential habitat for listed fishes. The ditch is not considered Essential Fish Habitat. 4 Tributary 053 occurs adjacent to the Study Area and is known habitat for listed fishes such as Coho salmon; however, the proposed work within the SFHA will not affect Tributary 053 and with the implementation of the BMPs listed in Section 1.3, no adverse impacts to listed fishes or any primary constituent elements of their habitat will occur. 5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT No work will occur within any regulated streams or other sensitive habitats within the SFHA and RHZ shown on Figure 1. Work within the stormwater ditch will occur during the dry season when water is not present in the ditch and will therefore not affect downstream water quality. The implementation of standard BMPs to prevent construction materials or personnel from entering Tributary 053 or its associated buffer will ensure that the project does not affect any listed fish species which could potentially be present within that portion of Tributary 053. As such, WRA believes that the proposed work within the SFHA and RHZ will not affect listed fish species. Appendix A – Figures Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24271\GIS\ArcMap\March 2016\FigX_CriticalAreasZoom.mxd Map Prepared Date: 4/13/2016Map Prepared By: FhouriganBase Source: Esri Streaming ImageryData Source(s): WRA . Figure 1. City of Auburn Special Floodplain Hazard Area and Riparian Habitat Zone 28721 West ValleyHighway N. Auburn,Washington 0 50 10025 Feet Special Floodplain Hazard Area Riparian Habitat Zone Offsite Ditch Type Onsite Wetlands: (0.522 ac.) Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Streams Offsite Ditch Riparian Habitat Zone Special Floodplain Hazard Area Ditch along the west side of West Valley Highway where work is proposed (looking north). Note lack of water and lack of riparian vegetation. Ditch along the west side of West Valley Highway where work is proposed (looking south). Note lack of water and lack of riparian vegetation. Figure 2. Site Photographs Acquired from Google Earth Street View (September 2012) Figure 3 - Project Plans for Work within the SFHA and RHZ Appendix B – Confirmation Email from WDFW Biologist Larry Fisher 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel info@wra-ca.com www.wra-ca.com City of Auburn Critical Areas Mitigation Report for the North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Albert Pura SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94111 Prepared By: Tanner Harris WRA, Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California 94901 Original Submittal: March 17, 2016 Revised: April 13, 2016 WRA Project No.: 24271 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Description of Critical Areas, Ratings, and Buffers .............................................................. 1 3.1 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Streams ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Ground Water Protection Zone 4 ..................................................................................... 5 3.4 Special Flood Hazard Area and Riparian Habitat Zone .................................................... 5 4.0 Impacts Critical Areas ......................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Temporary Impacts .......................................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Temporary Impacts to the Eastern Roadside Ditch Buffer ......................................... 7 4.1.2 Temporary Impacts to Venture Ditch and the Eastern Road Side Ditch ..................... 7 4.2 Permanent Impacts ......................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1 Permanent Impacts to Onsite Wetlands .................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Permanent Impacts to the Buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland ............................. 8 4.2.3 Permanent Impacts to the Buffer for Venture Ditch and Wetland A ........................... 8 5.0 Mitigation for Impacts to Critical Areas ................................................................................ 9 5.1 Purchase of In-Lieu Fee Credits .....................................................................................10 5.1.1. Consistency with City of Auburn Critical Areas Policies ...........................................10 5.1.2 Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Requirements ..............................................10 5.1.3 Purchase of Credits and Documentation ..................................................................15 5.2 Buffer Enhancement .......................................................................................................15 5.2.1 Buffer Enhancement for Venture Ditch and Wetland A .............................................15 5.2.2 Buffer Enhancement for Western Offsite Wetland ....................................................17 5.2.3 Buffer Enhancement for Eastern Roadside Ditch .....................................................18 5.3 Self-Mitigating Impacts ...................................................................................................18 6.0 Performance Standards .....................................................................................................18 6.1 In-Lieu Fee Performance Standards ...............................................................................18 6.2 Buffer Enhancement Performance Standards .................................................................18 6.3 Self-Mitigating Impact Performance Standards ...............................................................19 7.0 Monitoring Program ............................................................................................................19 7.1 In Lieu Fee Monitoring ....................................................................................................19 7.2 Buffer Enhancement Monitoring .....................................................................................19 7.3 Self-Mitigating Impact Monitoring ....................................................................................19 ii 8.0 Contingency Plan ...............................................................................................................19 8.1 In Lieu Fee Contingency Plan .........................................................................................19 8.2 Buffer Enhancement Contingency Plan ..........................................................................20 8.3 Self-Mitigating Impact Contingency Plan .........................................................................20 APPENDICES Appendix A – Figures Figure 1. City of Auburn Critical Areas Figure 2. Impacts to City of Auburn Critical Areas and Proposed Mitigation Figure 3. Venture Ditch and Buffer Cross Section Figure 4. City of Auburn Buffer Enhancement Locations Figure 5. Wetland A Buffer Impact Calculation Appendix B – Wetland and Stream Report, Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report, Addendum to Northcreek Mitgation Project Appendix C – Wetland Delineation Forms for Wetlands P1-P8, E1, F1 Appendix D – Wetland Rating Forms for Wetlands P1-P8, E1, F1 Appendix E – Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form and Map Appendix F – Supplemental Wetland and Stream Report Appendix G – King County Mitigation Reserves Program Instrument and Technical Appendices Appendix H – In Lieu Fee Use Plan and Site Specific Wetland Scoring Analysis Appendix I – Debit Worksheets for Determining ILF Program Mitigation Requirements Appendix J – Example Terms of Sale Agreement 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In conformance with Chapter 16.10 of the City of Auburn Municipal Code, this report addresses Critical Areas identified in and immediately adjacent to the work area for the proposed North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development, herein referred to as the Project. The Project is located on three parcels (APN 3522049016, 3522049024, 3522049026) located at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Valley Highway North and South 287 th Street, Auburn, King County, WA (Project Area). This report provides a brief overview of the project for contextual purposes, a description of areas subject to regulation by the City as Critical Areas, an assessment of impacts to said Critical Areas, and proposed mitigation and monitoring for said impacts. Note to the reader: All figures referenced in the text are provided in Appendix A. 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project Proponent, SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC, has proposed the development of an approximately 260,000 sq. ft. light industrial warehouse with office space, truck yard, parking areas, and onsite stormwater facilities. In addition, the Project will include frontage improvements and the replacement of a culvert under West Valley Highway. The replaced culvert will be upgraded to improve the ability of the system to pass 100-year flows and associated debris and to improve conditions for fish passage. Installation of the culvert will require minor grading both up- and downstream of the culvert; following this work, graded streambed cobbles will be installed within the culvert and at the up- and downstream ends for scour protection. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF CRITICAL AREAS, RATINGS, AND BUFFERS The Project Area and adjacent lands occur in a portion of the City of Auburn containing a mix of agriculture, rural residential, and light industrial land uses. The Project Area was formerly under agricultural production and is currently in a ruderal state. The site is dominated by a mix of non- native grasses, with smaller patches of woody vegetation consisting of alders, willows, and hardhack. Some portions of the site contain shallow depressions where water collects and over time has resulted in the development of wetland conditions. Similar wetland areas occur on adjacent, offsite parcels. Venture Ditch (Tributary 053) runs along the southern boundary of the Project Area before crossing under West Valley Highway through a set of 24-inch pipes which empty into a roadside ditch running south to north along the east side of the highway. The onsite and offsite wetlands, Venture Ditch, and the roadside ditch along West Valley Highway may all be regulated by the City of Auburn as Critical Areas under Chapter 16.10 of the City Municipal Code. These features are shown on Figure 1. Descriptions of these features are provided in the following sections. 3.1 Wetlands The Project Area contains 12 wetland areas totaling 0.52 acre (Figure 1). Wetlands A and B were mapped by A.J. Bredburg in February 2011 (see Appendix B for the associated delineation forms and wetland rating forms). Wetlands P1-P8, E1, and F1 were mapped by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in March 2015 (see Appendix C for the associated data forms prepared by the Corps and Appendix D for the associated wetland rating forms prepared by WRA). The location and extent of all wetlands mapped on the site has been approved by the 2 Corps (see Appendix G for the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination form and map prepared by the Corps). In addition to the onsite wetlands, two offsite wetlands are known to occur on adjacent parcels, one located immediately west of the Project Area (herein referred to as the Western Offsite Wetland) and one located on the east side of West Valley Highway, east of the roadside ditch described above (herein referred to as the Eastern Offsite Wetland). The Western Offsite Wetland was delineated and rated by A.J. Bredburg (see Appendix F for the associated delineation forms and wetland rating forms). The Eastern Offsite Wetland is a mitigation wetland constructed with permits from the City of Auburn. The boundary of the Eastern Offsite Wetland was estimated from project plans provided by the City of Auburn and aerial imagery from Google Earth. The Eastern Offsite Wetland is located on private property, and therefore, WRA was not able to assess this wetland using the wetland rating system for western Washington. No information has been provided by the City regarding the wetland rating for Eastern Offsite Wetland. Although WRA does not have information regarding the category of the Eastern Offsite Wetland, the wetland is shown with a 25-foot buffer on Figure 1. To add confusion to the matter, the area between the portion of Tributary 053 on the east side of West Valley Highway and the Eastern Offsite Wetland does not match the project plans for the Eastern Offsite Wetland, causing confusion regarding what areas are buffer and what areas are wetland. A metal cyclone fence with sensitive wetland habitat signs surrounds the Eastern Offsite Wetland, and given that the City code requires the buffer for wetland mitigation sites to be fenced, it appears that the wetland buffer ends at the fence (see Photograph 1, below). Ultimately, the size of the buffer for the Eastern Offsite Wetland is irrelevant because the adjacent portion of Tributary 053 along the east side of West Valley Highway is considered a Class II stream and afforded a 75-foot buffer, which extends into the Eastern Offsite Wetland. Therefore, any impacts to the buffer for the Eastern Offsite Wetland would be accounted for by addressing impacts to the buffer for this portion of Tributary 053. The anticipated impacts to this area are limited to minor disturbance for vehicular access and all areas will be restored to pre- project conditions (see Section 4.4.1). 3 Photograph 1. Image of Tributary 053 along West Valley Highway, an adjacent upland area, and the fence around the Eastern Offsite Wetland. The fence is assumed to represent the outer edge of the wetland buffer for the Eastern Offsite Wetland. Photograph taken March 2016. Wetland acreage, rating, and minimum buffer widths are listed in Table 1, below. Wetland acreage for the onsite wetlands is based on the approved Corps map (Appendix E). Wetland ratings were developed by A.J. Bredburg in 2012 based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2004 edition, using the 2008 updated data forms). Minimum buffers are from the Municipal Code 16.10.090. The Eastern Offsite Wetland is located on property owned by a third party, and WRA did not have permission to access that area, therefore no information is provided regarding the size, wetland rating, or buffer for the Eastern Offsite Wetland. The wetland itself will be avoided by project construction, and any impacts to the buffer for this wetland will be addressed through the buffer for the portion of Tributary 053 along the eastern side of West Valley Highway (Section 4.4.1). 4 Table 1. Wetland acreage, rating, and minimum buffer widths for onsite and offsite wetlands Wetland Name Acreage Wetland Rating Minimum Buffer Width Cowardin Class A 0.145 Category III 25 ft PEM/PSS B 0.050 Category III 25 ft PEM/PFO E1 0.020 Category III 25 ft PEM/PSS F1 0.120 Category III 25 ft PFO P1 0.037 Category III 25 ft PEM P2 0.021 Category III 25 ft PEM P3 0.009 Category III 25 ft PEM P4 0.005 Category III 25 ft PEM P5 0.004 Category III 25 ft PEM P6 0.062 Category III 25 ft PEM P7 0.042 Category III 25 ft PEM P8 0.007 Category III 25 ft PEM Western Offsite Wetland 0.789 Category III 25 ft PEM/PFO Eastern Offsite Wetland unknown unknown unknown PEM/PSS 3.2 Streams Venture Ditch (a portion of Tributary 053), an historically realigned perennial stream, runs along the southern edge of the Project Area. The top of bank and ordinary high water for this stream were mapped in the field by A.J. Bredburg and Larry Fisher, a local area biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Venture Ditch is lined with a mix of native riparian vegetation consisting of willows, alders, and hardhack and non-native vegetation consisting of reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry. Venture ditch has been identified as a Class III stream by the City of Auburn. Venture ditch is conveyed under West Valley Highway by a set of two 24-inch pipes. Currently, the pipes are undersized and cannot pass debris associated with an 100-year event. The piped conveyance, which contains no natural light and has a 90-degree bend, does not provide suitable conditions for fish passage. Tributary 053 daylights into a roadside ditch approximately 50 feet to the north of where it crosses under West Valley Highway (herein referred to as the Eastern Roadside Ditch; Figure 1). The Eastern Roadside Ditch occurs within the public right- of-way (ROW) along West Valley Highway, and the adjacent upland areas appear to be regularly mowed and maintained by the City or other transportation authority. These areas are dominated by a mix on non-native grasses and other weedy herbaceous species. Due to the potential presence of listed fish species, the Eastern Roadside Ditch has been identified as a Class II stream by the City of Auburn. 5 Stream rating and minimum buffer widths are listed in Table 2, below. The approximate location of the top of bank and ordinary high water for Venture Ditch and the Eastern Roadside Ditch, as well as their associated buffer widths are shown on Figure 1. Note that buffers were mapped only to the edge of existing development (e.g., roadways) as those areas do not provide buffer functions. As an example, the buffer for the Eastern Roadside Ditch was extended to 75 feet on the eastern side of the ditch; however, on the western side of the ditch, the buffer extends west approximately 10 feet before meeting the edge of the pavement. Therefore, the buffer along the western side of the ditch is shown as approximately 10 feet, rather than the full 75 feet which would overlap with the existing roadway. Tributary 045 occurs to the west of the Project Area and is not shown on Figure 1. The project will replace a broken culvert under West Valley Highway associated with Tributary 045. The culvert will be replaced in-kind and all work will occur within the existing road prism. The work be conducted during the dry season when water is not present within the stream. As such, the work is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to species or habitat associated with Tributary 045 and in fact will result in improved conditions for fish passage, if fish are present, by installing a functioning culvert. Table 2. Stream rating and minimum buffer widths for onsite and offsite streams Stream Name Stream Class Minimum Buffer Width Venture Ditch (Tributary 053) III 25 ft Eastern Roadside Ditch (Tributary 053) II 75 ft The effects of the project on stormwater contributions to Tributary 053 or Tributary 045 were analyzed in the Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis (revision date April 4, 2016) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers and previously submitted to the City. With the exception of dewatering discharges during construction, the Project will not result in post-construction discharges to Tributary 053. Instead, stormwater will be discharged into Tributary 045. Stormwater discharge rates have been designed to accommodate the flow characteristics of Tributary 045. Discharges to Tributary 053 related to dewatering during construction are analyzed in the Dewatering Plan (revision date April 4, 2016) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers and previously submitted to the City. 3.3 Ground Water Protection Zone 4 The Project Area occurs within Ground Water Protection Zone 4. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to ground water during construction and the applicant shall implement best management practices for water resource protection per ACC 16.10.120.E.2. 3.4 Special Flood Hazard Area and Riparian Habitat Zone Special Flood Hazard Areas are defined in chapter 15.68 of the City Municipal Code. Chapter 15.68 of the City Municipal Code defines a Riparian Habitat Zone associated with the 100-year floodplain; the Riparian Habitat Zone includes any water bodies and a defined band of adjacent lands within the floodplain. Although the project is located outside of the regulatory floodplain, the public facility extension for required utility improvements along the west side of West Valley Highway, north of 287 th 6 Street, occurs within the 100-year floodplain. The portion of the Project Area that occurs within the Special Flood Hazard Area and the Riparian Habitat Zone contains a small roadside ditch that is not regulated as a stream. The adjacent vegetation is limited to non-native annual grasses and an ornamental hedge. The ditch is ephemeral, containing water for only a brief time during and immediately following rainfall events, and no riparian vegetation occurs along the ditch (see Photograph 2). The ditch does not represent potential habitat for threatened or endangered fish species. Impacts to the Special Flood Hazard Area and associated Riparian Habitat Zone are addressed in a separate Floodplain Habitat Assessment. Photograph 2. The location of project work within the Special Flood Hazard Area and Riparian Habitat Zone. Note lack of water in ditch and lack of riparian vegetation. Photograph from Google Earth (September 2012). 4.0 IMPACTS CRITICAL AREAS The Project will result in both temporary and permanent impacts to Critical Areas and/or their associated buffers. Impacts have been minimized to the fullest extent feasible. However, given the nature of the Project, which is to develop an industrial warehouse, it is necessary to maximize the size of the building and to provide the associated level of access and parking for commercial trucks. In addition, a significant area is required for the onsite stormwater facilities. Finally, some impacts to Critical Area buffers are the result of frontage improvements required by the City and therefore cannot be avoided. Between the need for a large building, commercial truck access and parking, onsite stormwater facilities, and City-required frontage improvements, it is not possible to avoid impacts to all Critical Areas mapped on and adjacent to the Project Area. Where feasible, the size and orientation of Project features has been modified to avoid impacts to Critical Areas. For example, the stormwater facilities on the western portion of the Project Area have been designed to maintain a minimum 50-foot buffer from the Western Offsite Wetland (Figure 1). Similarly, the Project Proponent has requested a deviation from the City 7 standards for frontage improvements in order to avoid directly impacting Wetland A and to minimize impacts to the associated buffer. A detailed accounting of the Project’s impacts to Critical Areas is outlined in the following sections. Impacts to Critical Areas are shown on Figure 2. 4.1 Temporary Impacts The project includes two types of temporary impacts, both related to the installation of the culvert under West Valley Highway (Figure 2). Temporary impacts include disturbance of the buffer for the Eastern Roadside Ditch for construction access and staging and disturbance to Venture Ditch and the Eastern Roadside Ditch in the immediate vicinity of the culvert installation. 4.1.1 Temporary Impacts to the Eastern Roadside Ditch Buffer The impacts to the buffer for the Eastern Roadside Ditch will be limited to minor ground disturbance resulting from driving equipment and staging in this area; the total impact area is approximately 0.022 acre. These impacts are considered temporary as the area is expected to be revegetated to pre-project conditions following installation of the culvert and no permanent changes to the buffer will occur (see Section 5.2.3 for a description of proposed revegetation efforts). As noted in Section 3.1, there is some confusion regarding the status of this area in relationship to the Eastern Offsite Wetland. However, based on the assessment presented in Section 3.1, it was determined that this area is in fact an upland buffer area, not a wetland. 4.1.2 Temporary Impacts to Venture Ditch and the Eastern Road Side Ditch During the installation of the culvert, it is expected that minor disturbances will occur to the banks of the ditches within the immediate vicinity of the inlet and outlet for the culvert. In addition, minor disturbances below the ordinary high water mark will occur as a result of the required grading within the stream channels and the placement of graded streambed cobble for scour protection at the culvert inlet and outlet. These disturbances, totaling approximately 0.038 acre, are considered temporary and self-mitigating as there will be no loss of Critical Area within the ditches and the culvert replacement will result in a net benefit (i.e., improved functions and values) to the streams by improving the ability to pass 100-year flows and associated debris and improving conditions for fish passage. 4.1.3 Temporary Impacts to Tributary 045 The Project will replace a culvert that conveys Tributary 045 under West Valley Highway. The culvert will be replaced in-kind and all work will occur within the existing road prism. No areas outside of the road prism will be impacted. All work will be conducted in the dry season, when no water is present. Because no work will occur outside of the road prism and work will be conducted when water (and species) are not present, no adverse impacts to Tributary 045 are expected. As such, no compensatory mitigation is proposed for temporary impacts to Tributary 045 related to the culvert replacement. 4.2 Permanent Impacts The project contains two types of permanent impacts. The first is the direct placement of fill within onsite wetlands for the purpose of building construction. The second is the placement of 8 fill within the buffers for the Western Offsite Wetland, Venture Ditch, and Wetland A for building construction and/or City-require frontage improvements. These impacts have been minimized to the extent feasible by increasing the buffer width along Venture Ditch and requesting a variance from the City to reduce the width of the required frontage improvements. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated through a combination of methods including purchase of mitigation credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program and onsite buffer enhancement activities, as described in Section 5.0. 4.2.1 Permanent Impacts to Onsite Wetlands With the exception of Wetland A, which will be preserved, all other onsite wetlands will be filled in their entirety for the construction of the building and associated facilities. The acreage of impacts to these wetlands is shown on Figure 2. These impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program, as described in Section 5.0. 4.2.2 Permanent Impacts to the Buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland Although the Project has been designed to maintain a 50-foot buffer around the Western Offsite Wetland, the City-required frontage improvements will encroach on a small portion of this buffer as shown on Figure 2. The frontage improvements will entail approximately 0.024 acre of permanent impacts to the buffer for this wetland. These impacts are relatively minor and will not significantly deteriorate the quality of the buffer given that the improvements occur at the outer edge of the buffer, immediately adjacent to the roadway. These impacts cannot be avoided due to the City’s requirement for frontage improvements. The Project Proponent proposes to mitigate for these impacts through onsite buffer enhancement within the onsite portion of the buffer that will be retained (Section 5.0). 4.2.3 Permanent Impacts to the Buffer for Venture Ditch and Wetland A Venture Ditch Buffer To reconcile the differences in grade between the building pad and the adjacent buffer along Venture Ditch, is was necessary to add fill to a narrow band along the southern side of the building pad and adjacent access road; approximately 0.317 acre of the buffer will be filled. The fill will be graded at a 2:1 slope and will be revegetated following construction. This fill is shown in plan view on Figure 2 and in cross section on Figure 3. To mitigate for these impacts, the Project Proponent has increased the width of the buffer from the 25-foot minimum to approximately 32 feet when measured from the ordinary high water line (29 feet when measured from the top of bank). The Project Proponent also proposes to implement buffer enhancement activities within the buffer for Venture Ditch, as described in Section 5.0. Wetland A Buffer The Project will encroach on the buffer for Wetland A in two locations: at the northern edge of the buffer for construction of the berm for the stormwater facilities and at the eastern edge for the construction of City-required frontage improvements. These impacts are shown on Figure 2. Due to the geotechnical requirements of the stormwater facilities, it was not possible to reduce the size and width of the berm supporting the stormwater basins at the eastern edge of the site. This will result in a minor area of overlap between the berm and the buffer for Wetland A. Although this is being treated as a permanent impact, the berm will be revegetated and will 9 ultimately provide some level of buffer function. At the eastern edge Wetland A, the buffer will be permanently impacted by the City-required frontage improvements. The Project Proponent has requested a variance from the City to minimize the width of the frontage improvements in that area to the fullest extent feasible. This will be accomplished by constructing a concrete wall to support the frontage improvements—this will allow the widest sidewalk possible, without directly impacting Wetland A. The combined impacts to the Wetland A buffer total 0.068 acre. As noted in the wetland and stream report by B&A (Appendix B), the hydrologic source for Wetland A is connection with Venture Ditch. While the Project may affect overland flow of stormwater into Wetland A, it will not affect the connection between the wetland and Venture Ditch. As such, the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the hydrologic source for Wetland A. To compensate for direct impacts to the buffer for Wetland A, the Project Proponent proposes to implement buffer enhancement activities within the buffer for Wetland A, as described in Section 5.0. In addition, the Corps has required the Project Proponent to mitigate for impacts to Wetland A using the Corps’ methods for calculating indirect impacts resulting from disturbances to wetland buffers. The Corps method for assessing impact to buffers treats the area of buffer impact as a wetland impact (e.g., as a “paper fill”) and requires compensatory mitigation (see the In-Lieu Fee Use Plan submitted as part of the JARPA application for a description of the methods used to calculate buffer impacts and mitigation). The project proponent proposes to mitigate for these impacts by purchasing credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. The buffer enhancement proposed for Wetland A, in addition to treating the buffer impact as a paper fill and purchasing credits from the Reserves Program, represents a step above and beyond the City’s mitigation requirements. 5.0 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS The Project Proponent proposes a combination of mitigation approaches to compensate for impacts to Critical Areas and their associated buffers. The proposed mitigation includes a combination of (1) purchase of mitigation credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program and (2) onsite buffer enhancement consisting of invasive weed removal and planting of appropriate native species. An overview of the proposed mitigation is shown on Figures 2 and 4. Details of the proposed mitigation are provided in the following sections. The City of Auburn Municipal Code, Section 16.10.110, lists the preferred order of mitigation as follows: (1) onsite permittee-responsible mitigation, (2) off-site permittee responsible mitigation within the region covered by the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), (3) off-site compensatory mitigation (e.g., mitigation banking or in-lieu fee programs). Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory mitigation must demonstrate that: 1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations; 2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and 3. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical functions. 10 The proposed onsite buffer enhancement meets the City’s preferred mitigation approach and also meets the three stipulations outlined above. Although purchase of mitigation credits from an in-lieu fee program is not the City’s preferred mitigation approach, the King County Mitigation Reserves Program is highly regulated and tracked and will ensure that the three stipulations above are met. More details on the use of in-lieu fee payments are provided in the following section. 5.1 Purchase of In-Lieu Fee Credits 5.1.1. Consistency with City of Auburn Critical Areas Policies To compensate for direct impacts to onsite wetlands (P1-P8, E1, F1, B) and for indirect impacts to Wetland A, the Project Proponent will purchase mitigation credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program, which is an in-lieu fee (ILF) program approved and regulated by the Corps, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE); the program is administered by King County. As part of the purchase, the applicant will enter into a binding Terms of Sale Agreement with the County. The guiding document for the program, the In Lieu Fee Instrument, details the operation of the program and the associated regulatory requirements and restrictions. The program is heavily regulated by the Corps to ensure that payments to the program are appropriately utilized for wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement activities to ensure that the program meet’s the Corps’ Federal Mitigation Rule, which mandates that there shall be no net loss of wetland functions or values, as is also required by the Section 16.10.110 of the City’s municipal code (from the City Code: No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland). Restoration sites administered by the program are preserved and maintained in perpetuity and are required to implement a robust monitoring program (from the City Code: The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces) and to adhere to strict performance criteria. Details of the ILF program requirements can be found in the In Lieu Fee Instrument and Technical Appendices included in Appendix G. As shown on the In Lieu Fee Instrument and the associated technical appendices, the King County Mitigation Reserves Program requires no net loss of wetland functions and values, thereby meeting stipulation 3 for less preferred mitigation. All wetland restoration sites funded by the program are preserved and required to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity, thereby meeting stipulation 2 for less preferred mitigation. As indicated in Section 4.0, the project proponent has avoided impacts to the extent feasible and practicable given the nature (purpose) of the project by increasing buffer widths where feasible, requesting variances from the City to reduce impacts associated with the City-required frontage improvements, and proposing buffer enhancement activities, thereby meeting stipulation 1 for less preferred mitigation. 5.1.2 Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Requirements City municipal code section 16.10.110.C has set mitigation ratios based on wetland category, the acreage of impact, and the type of mitigation (enhancement vs. creation). The success of mitigation is based on (1) meeting the mitigation ratio and (2) meeting performance standards related primarily to plant survivorship and cover, plant species diversity, and plant structural 11 diversity. If mitigation ratios cannot be achieved, ACC 16.10.110.C.3(b) allows “implementing mitigation which ensures no net loss of values and functions of the larger ecosystem in which the critical area is located.” The King County Mitigation Reserves Program requires the use of the methods outlined in the DOE’s Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Western Washington (March 2012). Based on the DOE’s Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, the methods for calculating credits and debits rely on a system that scores wetland functions and values for (1) improving water quality, (2) providing hydrologic functions (e.g., flood attenuation), and (3) providing wildlife habitat. The system results in a wetland score that reflects a function of size and function referred to as “acre-points.” The assessment provides a detailed qualitative and quantitative assessment of wetland functions and values, which allows the program to accurately assess the success of their mitigation efforts which are held to strict standards by the Corps, EPA, State of Washington, and other public entities that participate in the program. However, because acre-points are a function of size and function, they cannot be directly related to size alone and therefore cannot be directly compared to the area-based mitigation ratios provided in ACC 16.10.110.C. However, the detailed assessment of functions and values expressed as a function of wetland area required by the In Lieu Fee Instrument will ensure that the wetland mitigation adheres to the City’s requirement to implement “mitigation which ensures no net loss of values and functions of the larger ecosystem in which the critical area is located” (ACC 16.10.110.C.3(b)) by accurately assessing the functions and values of the impacted wetlands and providing an exact comparison to the mitigation wetlands using the same detailed analysis of functions and values. In addition to matching the functions and values between the impacted wetlands and the mitigation wetlands, the wetland rating system requires the use of a temporal delay factor that increases the mitigation requirement, thereby requiring a greater level of functions and values in the mitigation wetlands and surpassing the requirements outlined in ACC 16.10.110.C.3(b). Additional details about the wetland rating system are provided in the following paragraphs. The system used by the Mitigation Reserves Program is designed to provide a Basic Mitigation Requirement (BMR) based on scores for the three functions outlined above. The BMR is then multiplied by a temporal loss factor to help compensate for any temporal loss of functions or values. The temporal loss factor for emergent- or shrub-dominated wetlands is 3; the temporal loss factor for forested wetlands is 4. This results in a mitigation ratio of 3:1 for herbaceous- and shrub-dominated wetlands and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 for forested communities. These ratios fall within the range of mitigation ratios for Category III and IV wetlands listed in Section 16.10.110(C)(3) of the City’s municipal code, which requires ratios between 1.25:1 and 4:1 for emergent- and shrub-dominated wetlands and ratios between 1.25 and 6:1 for forested wetlands. Scoring forms for the onsite wetlands (P1-P8, E1, F1, B, A) are provided in the form of an In- Lieu Fee Use Plan included in Appendix H. The In-Lieu Fee Use Plan follows a standard format required by the Corps. Associated with the In-Lieu Fee Use Plan is a Site-Specific Wetland Scoring Analysis, also included in Appendix H. Due to the limitations inherent in the state’s wetland rating system, the system often does not account for site-specific characteristics which may reduce the overall functions and values of the wetland. Therefore, the Corps has approved a site-specific evaluation of wetland functions and values and has allowed the use of scores lower that reflect site-specific conditions. These scores are shown on the Debit Worksheets included in Appendix I. The debit worksheets determine the number of credits required to be purchased from the ILF program. A summary of the debits for each wetland to be impacted is proved in Table 3, below (for comparison, the City’s area-based mitigation requirements are 12 shown on Table 4). In total, the Project has a basic mitigation requirement of 3.725 acre points. With the temporal loss factor, the Project’s total mitigation requirement for wetland impacts that will be mitigated through the ILF program is 12.905 acre points, which is rounded up to 12.91 acre points. This is the number of credits that will be purchased from the ILF program and represents a functional uplift of approximately 1:3.5. 13 Table 3. Summary of Wetland Rating Scores and Mitigation Requirements Using Corps and DOE Methodology Wetland Impact Area (acres) Water Quality Score (acre points) Hydrologic Score (acre points) Habitat Score (acre points) Total Score (acre points) Basic Mitigation Requirement (acreage x total score) Temporal Loss Factor Total Mitigation Requirement (acre points) A1 0.0252 6 6 3 15 0.375 3 1.125 B 0.050 3 3 3 9 0.45 4 1.8 E1 0.020 4 4 2 10 0.2 4 0.8 F1 0.120 3 3 3 9 1.08 4 4.32 P1 0.037 3 3 2 8 0.296 3 0.888 P2 0.021 3 3 2 8 0.168 3 0.504 P3 0.009 3 3 2 8 0.072 3 0.216 P4 0.005 3 3 2 8 0.04 3 0.12 P5 0.004 3 3 2 8 0.032 3 0.096 P6 0.062 4 4 2 10 0.62 3 1.86 P7 0.042 3 3 2 8 0.336 3 1.008 P8 0.007 3 3 2 8 0.056 3 0.168 Totals 0.402 - - - - 3.725 - 12.905 1 Impacts to Wetland A will be indirect (i.e., impacts will occur to the buffer only), no fill will occur within Wetland A. Direct impacts to the buffer will be mitigated through both payment to the King County Mitigation Reserves Program and buffer enhancement activities (see Section 5.2). 2 Indirect impacts to wetlands are calculated following Corps guidance which inverts the minimum buffer width into the wetland, starting at the edge of the buffer impact. For example, if a wetland required a 25-foot minimum buffer, but the buffer was reduced by 10 feet, the indirect impacts would be measured by inverting the 25-foot buffer into the wetland, starting 15 feet from the edge of the wetland (25 ft. min buffer – 10 ft. of impacts = 15 ft. of remaining buffer) and quantifying the acreage of the wetland that overlaps with the inverted buffer. That acreage is then multiplied by 0.5 to get the final indirect impact acreage (see Figure 5). 14 Table 4. Summary of Mitigation Requirements based on the City of Auburn Municipal Code 16.10.110.C.3 (provided for comparison with mitigation requirements calculated using the wetland rating system for Western Washington, Table 3). Wetland Impact Area (acres) Rating Cowardin Class Mitigation Ratio Based on Type Mitigation Area (Acres) Based on Type Creation Enhancement Creation Enhancement A 0.0251 Category III PEM/PSS 2:1 4:1 0.050 0.100 B 0.050 Category III PEM/PFO 3:1 6:1 0.150 0.300 E1 0.020 Category III PEM/PSS 2:1 4:1 0.040 0.080 F1 0.120 Category III PFO 3:1 6:1 0.360 0.720 P1 0.037 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.074 0.148 P2 0.021 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.042 0.084 P3 0.009 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.018 0.036 P4 0.005 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.010 0.020 P5 0.004 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.008 0.016 P6 0.062 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.124 0.248 P7 0.042 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.084 0.168 P8 0.007 Category III PEM 2:1 4:1 0.014 0.028 Totals: 0.402 - - - - 0.974 2.00 1 Indirect impacts to wetlands are calculated following Corps guidance which inverts the minimum buffer width into the wetland, starting at the edge of the buffer impact. For example, if a wetland required a 25-foot minimum buffer, but the buffer was reduced by 10 feet, the indirect impacts would be measured by inverting the 25-foot buffer into the wetland, starting 15 feet from the edge of the wetland (25 ft. min buffer – 10 ft. of impacts = 15 ft. of remaining buffer) and quantifying the acreage of the wetland that overlaps with the inverted buffer. That acreage is then multiplied by 0.5 to get the final indirect impact acreage (see Figure 5). 15 5.1.3 Purchase of Credits and Documentation As identified in Section 5.1.2, a total of 12.91 acre points will be purchased from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program to compensate for direct impacts to Wetlands B, E1, F1, and P1-P8, and for indirect impacts to Wetland A (direct impacts to the buffer for Wetland A are accounted for in Section 5.2). To purchase credits from the Mitigation Reserves Program, the project proponent will be required to execute a binding Terms of Sale Agreement with the Program. Once the agreement is executed, the mitigation burden is officially transferred to the Program and the project proponent is cleared of all mitigation requirements covered by the agreement. An example agreement is provided in Appendix J. 5.2 Buffer Enhancement To mitigate for direct impacts to the buffers for the Western Offsite Wetland, the Western Roadside Ditch, Venture Ditch, and Wetland A, the project proponent proposes to implement buffer enhancement activities consisting of removal of invasive plants and planting of appropriate native riparian and upland species based on community descriptions provided in the book Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington1 for areas within the Central Puget Lowlands Marine West Coast Forest, they Department of Ecology ecotone in which the project area occurs. The plant species that will be planted are typical of wetland and riparian communities in the vicinity of the Project Area, and many already occur on or in close proximity to the Project Area. The buffers in question are generally of low to moderate quality, with some areas containing native woody species such as willows, alders, and hardhack, but with most areas being dominated by non-native and invasive species such as reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry. The project proponent proposes to retain existing native vegetation where feasible and plant additional native woody vegetation within areas currently dominated by non-native and invasive species. Invasive species will be controlled throughout the buffer enhancement areas. 5.2.1 Buffer Enhancement for Venture Ditch and Wetland A The buffer enhancement activities will be implemented according to the Mitigation Plans which have been submitted separately. The Mitigation Plans were developed based on the City of Auburn Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report and associated plans prepared for the project by A.J. Bredburg in 2012 (Appendix B; also see the Addendum to Northcreek Mitigation Project and Response to City Wetland Comments included in the same location), with two minor variances outlined below. The Mitigation Plans provide recommended plant palettes and performance standards for each buffer area and an estimate of the required financial assurances for implementing the buffer enhancement plantings and the associated monitoring and reporting program. The buffer for Venture Ditch and Wetland A will be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement to be approved by the City. The buffers for Venture Ditch and Wetland A contain some areas of existing native vegetation which will be preserved. The Mitigation Plans show the area of existing vegetation to be retained and the area proposed for planting. Note that some portions of the vegetation to be 1 Franklin, J. and C. Dyrness. 1998. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. 16 retained may still be planted (i.e., the overstory species are native and would be retained; however, in many areas the understory species are non-native and would be removed and replaced with plantings of native understory species). A cross section showing the relative positions of the easement, buffer, proposed plantings, and proposed building footprint is provided as Figure 3. Planting Palette Modification The buffer for Venture Ditch is subject to an existing easement for the overhead powerlines that run along the southern edge of the site. The easement extends approximately 7 feet beyond the northern bank of Venture Ditch. The easement allows Puget Sound Energy to cut back any vegetation within the easement. This easement is a preexisting burden on the buffer and cannot be revoked or modified by the Project Proponent. As such, the Project must incorporate the conditions of the easement into the buffer enhancement plans. Puget Sound Energy has indicated that only vegetation that will reach a maximum height of less than 15 feet can be planted in this area. While this may reduce opportunities for providing a diverse canopy structure, it does not preclude planting a diversity of large shrubs that will provide soil stabilization and water quality benefits, as well as a host of wildlife benefits including both shelter and food sources. The original planting palette recommended in the 2012 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report (Appendix B) included several species which reach heights of over 15 feet, including quaking aspen, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, and Pacific willow. While some of these species already occur within the buffer and will be preserved, no additional specimens will be planted within the PSE easement. Instead, WRA recommends replacing those species with a mix of tall and short native shrubs typical of the Central Puget Lowlands Marine West Coast Forest ecoregion. The species selected are primarily clonal, meaning that they resprout and spread by underground structures and can therefore be cut to the ground and regrow within a relatively short period and will continue to provide a high level of soil stabilization during their regrowth period. In addition, each of the recommended species produces fruits of some type and will provide valuable wildlife foraging habitat. The recommended species for the PSE easement include are below in Table 5. These same species are recommended for planting outside of the PSE easement; however, outside of the PSE easement, several additional taller and shorter shrub species are recommended for planting to increase structural diversity within the buffer. Table 5. Plant species to be planted within the buffers for Wetland A and Venture Ditch, including within the PSE easement. Common Name Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Venture Ditch and Wetland A Buffers (excluding PSE easement) Pacific willow Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra whips 10 ft. 250 Redtwig dogwood Cornus stolonifera whips 6 ft. 250 Salmon berry Rubus spectabilis 1 gal 6 ft. 75 Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1 gal 6 ft. 75 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gal 3 ft. 150 17 Common Name Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Hardhack Spiraea douglasii 1 gal 6 ft. 75 Dwarf Oregon Grape Berberis aquifolium var. aquifolium 1 gal 3 ft. 150 PSE Easement Redtwig dogwood Cornus stolonifera whips 6 ft. 100 Salmon berry Rubus spectabilis 1 gal 6 ft. 75 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gal 3 ft. 75 Buffer Width Modification To help compensate for the restrictions on the buffer imposed by the pre-existing utility easement, the project proponent proposes to increase the buffer from the minimum of 25 feet, extending the buffer to the edge of the development for a buffer of approximately 29 feet. The additional 4 feet of buffer will be planted similarly to the rest of the 25-foot buffer and will add to the functions and values of the buffer. 5.2.2 Buffer Enhancement for Western Offsite Wetland As shown on Figure 2, the City-required frontage improvements along South 287th Street will result in 0.024 acre of permanent impacts to the buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland. To mitigate for these unavoidable impacts, the project proponent proposes to implement buffer enhancement activities within the remaining portion of the buffer (approximately 0.074 acre) that occurs within the Project Area. Currently, this buffer is dominated the non-native, invasive reed canary grass. WRA recommends removal of the reed canary grass and planting of woody shrubs such as hardhack or ocean spray as outlined in Table 6. These species are common in wetland areas in relatively open conditions at the edge of forested wetlands, as is the case for the buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland. The Mitigation Plan provides a recommended plant palette, performance standards, and an estimate of the required financial assurances for implementing the buffer enhancement plantings and the associated monitoring and reporting program. The portion of the buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland that occurs within the Project Area will be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement to be approved by the City. Table 6. Plant species to be planted within the buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland Common Name Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Hardhack Spiraea douglasii 1 gal 6 ft. 50 Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor 1 gal 6 ft. 25 18 5.2.3 Buffer Enhancement for Eastern Roadside Ditch The buffer for the Eastern Roadside Ditch occurs within the public ROW along West Valley Highway and appears to be regularly maintained by the City or other transportation agency. The buffer is dominated by non-native grasses typical of disturbed, roadside habitats. Given that the only impacts to this area will be temporary in nature, resulting from minor disturbance from the use of heavy equipment and other vehicles in this area, it is expected that only minimal seeding will be required to restore this buffer to its pre-project condition. The project proponent proposes to reseed any disturbed portions of this buffer with the standard WSDOT erosion control seed mix for Western Washington. 5.3 Self-Mitigating Impacts Temporary impacts to areas below the top of bank, including minor grading and placement of streambed cobble within Venture Ditch and the Eastern Roadside Ditch within the immediate vicinity of the culvert replacement area are anticipated to be self-mitigating in that the proposed work will result in improved hydrologic functions (by increasing the size of the culvert to accommodate 100 year flows) and habitat functions (by improving conditions for fish passage). Given that the impacts in these area will be self-mitigating, no additional mitigation is proposed. 6.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6.1 In-Lieu Fee Performance Standards The King County Mitigation Reserves Program is subject to strict ecological performance standards which are detailed in Appendix M of the In Lieu Fee Program Instrument (see Appendix G of this report). These standards focus on measurable physical (including hydrological), chemical, and biological attributes of the mitigation wetlands and help to ensure no net loss of wetland functions or values. 6.2 Buffer Enhancement Performance Standards The following performance standards (modified from the 2012 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report in Appendix B) will be applied to the buffer enhancement activities for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, and the Western Offsite Wetland. No performance standards are recommended for the buffer enhancement activities associated with the Eastern Roadside Ditch given that this area will be minimally disturbed, will be restored to pre-project conditions within 1 growing season following initial impacts, and is anticipated to be regularly disturbed by maintenance activities within the public ROW. Performance Standards: Less than 20% coverage of invasive species such as reed canary grass or Himalayan blackberry. A total of 80% survival of planted plants and desirable native volunteer plants. A total of 80% cover of naturalized non-native species and desirable native species (including plantings, existing vegetation, and naturally recruited vegetation). The 80% cover is exclusive of invasive species. 19 At least three layers of structural diversity (i.e., vegetation strata) must be present. 6.3 Self-Mitigating Impact Performance Standards Temporary impacts to areas below the top of bank within the immediate vicinity of the culvert replacement area are anticipated to be self-mitigating. Given that the impacts in these area will be self-mitigating, no performance standards are proposed. 7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 7.1 In Lieu Fee Monitoring The wetland restoration sites managed by the King County Mitigation Reserves Program are subject to a robust, quantitative monitoring program which is outlined in Appendix N of the In Lieu Fee Program Instrument Technical Appendices (see Appendix G of this report). 7.2 Buffer Enhancement Monitoring The Project Proponent proposes to implement the monitoring program outlined in the 2012 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report and associated documents (Appendix B). As noted in the 2013 Addendum to Northcreek Mitigation Project and Response to City Wetland Comments (Appendix B), the monitoring program will be implemented for a 5-year period, with annual reports to be provided to the City in December of each monitoring year. The monitoring program will be applied to the buffer enhancement activities for the Western Offsite Wetland, Venture Ditch, and Wetland A. A similar monitoring plan will be applied to the reestablishment efforts for temporary construction impacts to the buffer for the Eastern Roadside Ditch (Tributary 053) and the Eastern Offsite Wetland; however, if this area successfully reestablishes monitoring may be discontinued prior to the end of the 5-year monitoring period. 7.3 Self-Mitigating Impact Monitoring Temporary impacts to areas below the top of bank within the immediate vicinity of the culvert replacement area are anticipated to be self-mitigating. Given that the impacts in these area will be self-mitigating, no monitoring is proposed. 8.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 8.1 In Lieu Fee Contingency Plan All restoration projects implemented by the King County Mitigation Reserves Program are fully bonded, as required by the In Lieu Fee Program Instrument. Details of the Program’s financial assurances and policies regarding non-compliance are provided in Appendices R and S, respectively, of the In Lieu Fee Program Instrument Technical Appendices (see Appendix G of this report). 20 8.2 Buffer Enhancement Contingency Plan The proposed onsite buffer enhancement activities will be fully bonded, including a performance bond and a monitoring bond, as shown on the Mitigation Plans. 8.3 Self-Mitigating Impact Contingency Plan Temporary impacts to areas below the top of bank within the immediate vicinity of the culvert replacement area are anticipated to be self-mitigating. Given that the impacts in these area will be self-mitigating, no contingency plans are proposed. APPENDIX A Figures Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24271\GIS\ArcMap\March 2016\FigX_CriticalAreas.mxd Map Prepared Date: 4/7/2016 Map Prepared By: SGillespie Base Source: Esri Streaming Imagery Data Source(s): WRA . Figure 1. City of Auburn Critical Areas, Special Floodplain Hazard Zone, and Riparian Habitat Zone 28721 West Valley Highway N. Auburn, Washington 0 100 20050 Feet 100 Year Floodplain Offsite Ditch Riparian Habitat Zone Type Onsite Wetlands: (0.522 ac.) Critical Area Buffer Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands E1 B A Venture Ditch Eastern Roadside DitchEastern Offsite Wetland Western Offsite Wetland 25ft. 25ft. 25ft. 25ft. 25ft. 25ft. 25ft. 25ft. 75ft.29ft.50ft. 25ft. P1 F1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Onsite Wetlands: (0.522 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands Offsite Ditch Riparian Habitat Zone Critical Area Buffer 100 Year Floodplain Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24271\GIS\ArcMap\March 2016\FigX_CriticalAreasImpacts.mxd Map Prepared Date: 4/7/2016 Map Prepared By: SGillespie Base Source: Esri Streaming Imagery Data Source(s): WRA . Figure 2. Impacts to City of Auburn Critical Areas and Proposed Mitigation Types 28721 West Valley Highway N. Auburn, Washington 0 100 20050 Feet Permanent Impacts: (0.522 ac.) Type Onsite Wetlands: (0.522 ac.) Type Permanent Impacts:(0.401 ac.) Critical Area Buffer Type Temporary Construction Easement Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Type Temporary Impacts: (0.073 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands E1 B A Venture Ditch Eastern Roadside DitchEastern Offsite Wetland Western Offsite Wetland P1 F1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Onsite Wetlands: (0.522 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands Critical Area Buffer Permanent Impacts: (0.522 ac.) Temporary Impacts: (0.073 ac.) Permanent Impacts:(0.401 ac.) Proposed Mitigation TypesA - Credits from ILF ProgramB - Buffer EnhancementC - Self-Mitigating Feature Impact Type Mitigation Type AcresWetland E1 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.020Wetland F1 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.120Wetland A Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.145Wetland B Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.050Wetland P1 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.037Wetland P2 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.021Wetland P3 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.009Wetland P4 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.005Wetland P5 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.004Wetland P6 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.062Wetland P7 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.042Wetland P8 Permanent Wetland Impact A 0.007Wetland A Buffer Permanent Wetland Buffer Impact A/B 0.068Venture Ditch Buffer Permanent Stream Buffer Impact B 0.317Offsite Wetland Buffer Permanent Wetland Buffer Impact B 0.024Offsite Wetland Buffer Temporary Construction Easement B 0.034Venture Ditch Temporary Culvert Installation C 0.030Eastern Roadside Ditch Temporary Culvert Installation C 0.008 Figure 3.4:1 Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24271\GIS\ArcMap\March 2016\FigX_CriticalAreasMitigation.mxd Map Prepared Date: 4/7/2016 Map Prepared By: SGillespie Base Source: Esri Streaming Imagery Data Source(s): WRA . Figure 4. City of Auburn Proposed Mitigation Areas 28721 West Valley Highway N. Auburn, Washington 0 100 20050 Feet Label Onsite Wetlands: (0.145 ac.) Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands Type Proposed Buffer Enhancement Areas: (1.310 ac.) Vegetation to Retain: (0.313 ac.) A Venture Ditch Eastern Roadside DitchEastern Offsite Wetland Western Offsite Wetland 1.214 ac. 0.074 ac. 0.022 ac. Project Area: (15.168 ac.) Onsite Wetlands: (0.145 ac.) Proposed Buffer Enhancement Areas: (1.310 ac.) Vegetation to Retain: (0.313 ac.) Streams Offsite Wetlands Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24271\GIS\ArcMap\October 2015\FigX_WetlandIndirectImpacts.mxd Map Prepared Date: 11/19/2015 Map Prepared By: SGillespie Base Source: Esri Streaming Imagery Data Source(s): WRA . Figure 5. Indirect Impacts Detail Sheet 28721 West Valley Highway N. Auburn, Washington 0 25 5012.5 Feet Project Area Wetland: ( 0.14 ac.) Limit of Project Work Limit of Indirect Impacts Type Indirect Impacts Indirect Impacts: 0.05 ac.(0.05 x 0.5 = 0.025 ac.) Project Footprint 25ft. Wetland Buffer Project Area Limit of Project Work Limit of Indirect Impacts Project Footprint Indirect Impacts Wetland: ( 0.14 ac.) 25ft. Wetland Buffer 25' 25' Indirect Impacts: 0.05 ac. x 0.5 = 0.025 ac. APPENDIX B Wetland and Stream Report Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report Addendum to Northcreek Mitgation Project and Response to City Wetland Comments (Prepared by A.J. Bredburg) INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY PREVIOUS PROJECTS SITE DESCRIPTION VEGETATION SOILS HYDROLOGY WETLANDS STREAMS CLASSIFICATION BUFFERS MITIGATION GOALS TABLE OF CONTENTS MITIGATION STANDARDS PERFOMRANCE STANDARDS MONITORING PROGRAM AND CONTINGENCY PLAN LIMITS OF LIABILITY LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP (see engineering dwg) FIGURE 2 SOIL MAP FIGURE 3 NWI MAP FIGURE 4 TEST HOLE OVERVIEW FIGURE 5 TEST HOLE MAP EAST END FIGURE 6 TEST HOLE MAP WEST END FIGURE 7 1936 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 8 1946 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 9 1960 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 10 2009 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 11 WETLAND FILL EXHIBIT TABLE 1 MONITORING DATA 4548 Page ii ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 DATA SHEETS ATTAC HMENT 2 RATING FORMS ATTACHMENT 3 MONITORING FORMS ATTACHMENT 4 PHOTOS ATTACHMENT 5 ARMY COR PS MEMO ATTACHMENT 6 COE MEMO ATTACHMENT 7 TREE THROW PAPER A TTACHMENT.8 PLOW PAN DISCUSSION 4548 Page iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report meets City of Auburn requirements for a wetland and stream study. Two wet areas are delineated and shown on the maps , Wet area A is in the southeast corner of the site , considered regulated but may not be jurisdictional as it is a result of plugged roadside ditches and culverts . Wetland B is considered regulated and Category 4 . Data sheets from deep test holes and shovel holes are provided to document the delineation . Hydrology data was collected to verify the delineation . The Venture Ditch is regulated as a Class 3 stream and 25 foot buffers provided. The small wetlands will be filled and relocated next to Venture Ditch . The buffer for the wetlands and stream will be enhanced . A detailed planting construction worksheet with bonding amounts will be provided when the City approves the conceptual mitigation as proposed or revised per their directions. No wetlands other than those delineated are near enough the property to encumber the project with buffers or setbacks. The project is setback from the western property line by 100 feet to ensure there is no conflict with the constructed ditch/wetlands offsite to the west. Attachment 4 is a series of photos taken February 17, 2011 demonstrating the absence of a water table within 2 to 4 feet of the surface except near wet area A. While the site has areas of hydric soils and appears wet, the lack of a water table as monitored and documented in the photos proves no wetland hydrology is present in the early growing season and the delineation is accurate. The winter of 2010/2011 had unusually heavy rainfall preceding the sampling , thus the lack of water in the test pits is clear evidence of no wetlands over the majority of the site. Puddles are obvious and present only from frequent rainfall and not permanent, as obvious from the only moist soils beneath the puddles. 4548 Page iv INTRODUCTION This report is prepared for the City of Auburn and provides information as required per 16.10.070 Critical area review process and application requirements of City code . City code is used as an outline and all required information is presented in this format. METHODOLOGY The 2010 Federal Manual was used for the delineation ; it relies on the 1987 Federal Manual. The 1997 DOE Manual was also used as it contains information after the production of the 1987 Manual. The USDA Soil Survey , National Wetland Inventory Map , air photos , information from other approved projects in the area and over 20 year of technical knowledge of the area were all accessed for this report . Interviews with numerous neighbors and review of the SAMP were all helpful in generating the wetland report. The majority of the site had upland soils and did not need water table monitoring . Those areas monitored were either puddle or had questionable upland soils . Some of the soil pits could pass for hydric, but that is due to disturbance as discussed in the tree throw paper. These areas were also monitored and had no water table to meet wetland criteria. Thus , the disturbance masked the actual upland soils as proven by the hydrology monitoring . While the soils may be marginally upland , the monitoring proves the non-wetland areas are non-wetland and the wetland areas may end up being non-wetland with further monitoring . Wetland Areas A and B are larger than the actual wetlands. We delineated the wetlands , but to be on the safe side we enlarged the areas to make sure we are not encroaching into anything that could be a wetland . A comb ination of the Routine and Comprehens ive Methodologies was used as detailed below. Data sheets from the 2010 Supplemental Manual are submitted . Current DOE mandate calls for use of the 2010 Supplement to the 1987 Manual , which requires the 1987 Manual and also is consistent with the 1997 DOE Manual. All of these were used . Specifically refer to the following section from the 87 Manual : Section E. Comprehensive Determinations 67. Th is sec tion describes procedures for making com prehens ive wet land Determinat ion s. Unl ike procedures for mak ing rou t ine dete rmi na ti ons (Section 0 ), application of procedures described in this sec tion will result in maximum information for use in making determinations, and th e information usually will be quantitatively expressed. Comprehensive determinations should only be 4548 Page 1 used when th e project area is very com pl ex and/or when th e determinat ion requires ri go rous docu men tati on. This type of detennination may be required in areas of any s ize , but will be especia ll y useful in large areas. Ther e may be ins tances in which only one parameter (vegetation, s oil , or hydrology) is d is puted . In s u ch ca ses, only procedures d escribed in this section that pertain to th e di s puted para meter n eed be co mpl eted. It is assumed that th e user ha s already co mpl eted all app li cab le steps in Section B. NOTE: Dep ending 011 s ite c ltaracte r istics, it mav be n ecessary to alter tlte s ampling <les ig11 a11d/or data c ollection procedures. The above discussion is allows considerable latitude for the investigator to perform a re v iew that fits the site "NOTE: De pending on s ite cltaracteri.~tics, it mav be n ecessary to alter tlte sampling d es ign and/or data collection procedures.''. All the factors have some level of disturbance . The absence of any one of the parameters is sufficient to make a determination . Hydric soils or hydrology were absent in each of the sample locations , this simplified the determination as stated below: 72. When any of th e three types of s ituations described in paragraph 71 occ urs, application of method s described in Sections D and/or E will lead to th e conclusion that the a r ea is not a wetla nd beca use pos iti ve we tl a nd indicato rs for a t least one of the three parameters w ill be absent. Therefore, apply proce dures described in one o f the following subsections (as appropriate) to determine whether po s itive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology existed prior to a lt eration of the area. Once these procedures have bee n employed, RET URN TO Sect ion D or E to make a wetland deten11ination . PR OCEED TO th e appropri ate s ub sect ion. The above section from the Manual was used in the determination . Standard 2010 data forms collected the proper information to show "the area is not a wetland bec ause pos itive wetland indicators for at least on e of th e three paramete rs will be abse nt." This is a combination of the Routine , Comprehensive and Atypical S itu ations. We also used the little recognized or used yet simple and logical technical approach found on page 11 of the 1987 Manual : Nonwetlands 28. The fo ll owi ng definition, dia gno stic environmental characteristics, and technical approach comprise a gu ideline for the identification and delineation of non wet lands: a. Deflnitio11. Nonwet land s includ e up lands and lowland areas th at are nei ther deepwatcr aquatic habitats. wetlands, no r other special aquatic s ite s. They arc seldom or never inundated, or if frequentl y inundat ed. th ey have saturated so il s for only brief periods during the growing season, and, if vegetated, they norma ll y support a preva lence of vegetation typically adapted for life on ly in aerobic so il condi ti ons. 4548 Page 2 b. Diagnostic e nviro nmental characteristics. Nonwet land s have th e fo ll ow in g genera l diagnostic envi ronm ent al characteri stics: (I ) Ve g e tation. The prevalent vegetati on consists of plant species that are typ ica lly adapted fo r life on ly in aerobic soil s. These mesophyt ic and/o r xero phyti c macroph ytes cannot pers ist in predomi nantl y anaerobic so il co nditi ons .1 (2) Soil. So il s, when pre sen t, are not classifi ed as hydric. and posse ss characteristics associated with aerobic condi tion s. (3) Hydrology. Although th e so il may be inundated or sa turated by su rface wa ter or ground water periodi ca ll y durin g the grow in g season of th e prevalent vege tation , th e ave rage annu al durati on of inundati on or soi l saturation does not prec lud e the occu rrence of plant spec ies ty pi ca ll y adapted for life in aerobic so il cond iti ons. c . Technical appro ach for the ide111ijication and d elineatio n of 11011we tlands. Wh en any one of the diagnos t ic characteristi cs identified in b above is present, the area is a nonwet land. Per "c" above, the technical approach calls for verification of the absence of hydrology or hydric soils per (2) and (3) above. We have verification of the absence of these on the standard data forms , thus the delineation is accurate per this methodology . The Barghausen Consulting Engineering (BCE) Cover Sheet 1 of 1 provides a Vicinity Map , legal descriptions , and information on owner, engineer, architect, surveyor, parcel numbers, site address , utilities/services and other information . Several deep test pits were dug with a machine in the wet season and another set of hand dug shovel holes were used to for the data sheets as provided. Additional water table monitoring was performed during the spring growing season to confirm the absence of a water table meeting wetland criteria. The sampling was simple in that the lowest points in the landscape were sampled. While the field is nearly level , the landscape generally slopes to the northeast and northwest. The house in the middle of the site along 28?'h St. is at elevation 49 feet and the western garage is at elevation 50 .. Thus, there were no test pits dug around these high areas on the property . The landscape slopes to the north from these higher areas . The south end of the site is lower than the north side of the site , thus the Venture Ditch at the south end of the site intercepts water to protect the old farm fields from high water tables . Additional ditches are on the east and western property edges , or near edges . All these ditches control water and prevent hydrology from impacting the site . The 4548 Page 3 exception being the southeast corner where plugged ditch/culverts maintain a higher than normal water tab le in Wetland A. The site has small localized depressions from ditching and farming . These low areas were easi ly identified in the rainy season as they were puddle with water (Photo 2). The test pits were dug in or near these puddles (Photo 3). Puddles were not present in the northern portion of the site east of the western garage and central home site . The northeast third of the site had no puddling other than a small area at the west edge of the trees along 28?'h St. Test holes were dug in to prove the lack of a water table. Off-site areas, such as across the street in the pasture , show that tillage was the only reason for saturation . The horse pastures had no saturation below a few inches. The samp lin g began with deep trackhoe pits to cha racterize the site . Subsequent holes were with the shovel and were consistent with what was seen in the backhoe pits . The water table was monitored by augering near each monitoring location . Piezometers were not used as they are not reliable in these soil conditions. Test pits showed the water table at depth in most areas . Monitoring was done with fresh shovel/auger holes. Piezometers were shown to be unreliable and have been found to be unreliable in soils of the Auburn Valley . Photos in the report show this. Photo 3 is dug next to a puddle and shows no saturation or water table to at least 3 feet from the surface. The test pit shows that there is not even saturation in the Ap/p low laye r. The puddles are present only on the surface and are a result of the latest seasons farming . If the fields were to be farmed and plowed again the puddles would be in different spots next year. Piezometers were not used for monitoring as they are not reliable on these types of soils . Photo 5 shows a test pit next to a monitoring well and no water table or saturation within 3 feet of the surface. Photo 6 was taken at the same monitoring well that is visible in Photo 5 . It is clear from Photo 6 that the monitoring well/piezometers shows a water tab le at about 3 inches , but the deep test pit a few feet away shows no water table or saturation . The monitoring wells disturb the soils and create a bathtub condition . When the wells are installed the fine textured soils around the well seal the well so that the rainfall collects but cannot drain out like the undisturbed soils around it. Thus, the bathtub effect. The 1997 DOE Manual includes the following guidance 23 May 1994 to the 1987 Federal Manual : Guidance. 4548 Page 4 Ground-water well data mu sl always be supplemented with observations of the exte nt in the so il profile of the cap illa ry frin ge. Thi s can be done by examining a so il profile in th e nearby vicinity of a gro und -water well every time depth to the ground water is measured. Observations of s urface ponding and/or flooding should al so be made. In addition , soi l temperature s at approx imate ly 20 inch es s hou ld be reco rd ed to adequate ly determine extent of the grow in g season at th at s ite. As di sc usse d in Issue 4 , re li ance o n air temperature data to determine growing season may artificially restrict the time pat a s ite is active ly functioning as a wet land. Per the above guidance fresh holes we re dug at each monitoring visit with a shovel or auger to confirm the depth to the water table and saturation. It does not make sense to install wells that are proven and observed to be unreliable and in addition the COE provides guidance to dig a fresh hole at each observation to confirm it anyway . There is no need to install a well when Guidance calls for fresh holes . PREVIOUS PROJECTS This site is comp lex in the interpretation ; we have dealt with the same issues on many sites and our Best Available Science was found to be accurate and accepted. Some examples of the hundreds of projects overturning erroneous decisions by agencies and other firms are provided below: Glenmont Farms in Marysville, 600 acres We delineated over 600 acres of farmland in the City of Marysville . The City consultant designated in the Master Plan that 30% of this area was wet land and to plan according ly . We found about 1 % of the area met jurisdictional criteria and this was approved by the Army Co rp s. Th e Army Corps even changed one of their decisions (Attachment 6). One field had surface puddles li ke the subject property as observed by the Army Corps in 2009 . They called it wetlands and in 2010 they reversed their decision on the second visit a year later when they found the water and saturation in the plow layer was temporary. The conclusion at the end of the memo states: CONCLUSION : Adapting review steps in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual-Section F , Atypical Conditions, Subsection 4 , Man-induced Wetlands, we concluded that hydrologic indicators are present in the southeast quadrant area only because of man-induced conditions (e.g. machine compacted soil) that would cease to occur if the sod farming practices were to be permanently terminated , Therefore, the southeast quadrant should not be considered a wetland . The subject field in Auburn is similar in that it was plowed in the fall of 2010 and left the field with fluffed up topsoil that held water. The field also had surface 4548 Page 5 compaction from farm in g that formed a seal leaving pudd le s . T hese pudd le s are not present th is fall w ith the heavy rains because the plant roots break up the compaction and the surface is no longer sea led over. This allows the water to soak in and move down to the water table , a co uple feet below t he surface. Sequence Farms in Kent along SR 167 now Panatonni This site is east across SR 167 and has the same soil condition as the subject property . David Evans and Associates delineated the majority of the property, which currently has a large building on it , as a wetland . We did a proper interpretation and it was approved by the Army Corps. Thu s , allowing building co nstruction on a majority of the property . Smith Dairy and City of Kent sewer line This project was approved by the City of Kent last year. Smith Brother's Dairy is or did construct a sewer line north of the dairy office , next to West Valley Highway and then east across the middle of Carpenito Farms field to connect with the City of Kent sewer system on the east side of SR 167 . A local consultant delineated as wetlands the entire fields west of West Va ll ey Highway and a portion of the Carpenito Farms field as well . We spent a few mont hs with Andrea , City of Kent Biologist, observing hydrology and so il s in the spring of 2010 . She agreed and the Cit y of Kent approved our determination and disregarded the other biologist's erroneous work . Carpenito Farms at 172nd and West Valley Highway This includes the two large fields between SR 167 and West Valley Highway, north of 272 nd . These have been assumed wetlands by the genera l public and we have on the records , severa l determinations by the City of Kent and Army Corps that confirms our findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands in these fields . BRC , Inc topsoil/processing Shear/Spencer owners This property is about four parcels north of the current site on West Valley Highway. King County alleged that a wetland fill on the property . We provided evidence and testified at Hearing that there was no wetland under the large mulch piles. The Hearing Examiner found in our favor on this matter and the wetland violations regarding the large mulch piles were found to be without warrant and agreed with o ur findings . Fife Race Track site 67 acres of wetland , redu ced to 1 acre 4548 Page 6 The soils of the former Fife Race track site are similar Valley Soils to what we have on this site. The Army Corps determined that 67 acres of that large tract of land were wetlands . We did studies and it was confirmed the Army Corps was in error and only 1 acre of wetlands was present and now buildings cover the entire area. Belfast Gravel , Skagit County, 20 acres of wetland , reduced to no wetlands. Paul Anderson of the Department of Ecology (DOE) determined that there was a 20 acre wetland fill on this 40 acre property in Skagit County. We did a study and found no wetland fill. The Army Corps intervened on behalf of the owner to correct the situation and confirm there was no wetland fill , we were correct in our determination and DOE was in error. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is comprised of three 5 acre parcels. To the north is South 28J1h St. with single family homes and farmland north of 2871h St. To the east is West Valley Highway with farmland and industrial land east of West Valley Highway . To the south is Venture Creek Ditch and industrial land south of the ditch. To the west is former ag land that was cut , filled , ditched and now in grass , shrubs and woods . The entire site is historic farmland per the numerous air photos back to 1936. The fields grew a variety of commodity , vegetable , fruit and forage crops over the decades. Areas of the site have not been farmed and trees and brush have encroached . Numerous buildings , abandoned and occupied , are on the three parcels. The older air photos show no wetland patterns . The fields have uniform cropping and color patterns . The 1946 air photos has a smudge in the northwest corner of the parcel from a ra indrop h itting the original photo at a site visit. Just across the street is an orchard of 21 trees on that photo. The 1936 photo shows the same orchard with 22 small trees. The 1960 photo shows the same orchard with 17 trees remaining . Gray concrete and red clay subsurface drain tile are around the site . The culvert at the northwest corner of the site drains to a concrete main line flowing north to a concrete manifold riser about 800 feet from the S 287th St. at the corner of 4 properties . Th is main line is fed by lateral lines with red clay tile know present four properties to the north on the Spencer property. 4548 Page 7 The Venture Stream Ditch does not show up on the older photos to the extent it is today , it is considered a regulated stream . The importance of all the historic drainage features is the site was drained and farmed with no wet issues. In recent years the main drainage ditch about a mile to the north was dammed up for duck hunting . This created wet problems for all the property owners in the area, including this site . The dam was removed about a year ago once the presence was made clear at a hearing and neighbors demanded the County take action. The result was the site was much wetter for several years than it has been since the 1936 photo . The existing conditions are drier than 3 years ago . Vegetation still reflects those conditions from the illegal blockage of the drainage ditch. Hydrology data indicates the water table has returned to near normal levels , being below 18 inches from the surface for the majority of the monitoring period in all the upland holes. Another consideration is development on the hill above the site in the upper watershed . In the past 20 years large amounts of runoff have been accelerated onto this lower part of the watershed. A period of inaction resulted in the area being wetter than normal. It has been in the past 5 or so years that ditch maintenance has been undertaken to protect the area properties . Currently there are ongoing drainage issues . The 24 inch culverts under West Valley Highway at the southeast corner of the site are full to the top with water. The downstream ditches are plugged and not carrying the water away . This has created a delineated wetland (Wetland A) in the southeast corner of the site only because the governmental agencies have failed to maintain historic drainage. If the drainage were maintained this wetland would disappear. Wetland area A is delineated and impacted areas fully mitigated per City Code . Wetland area B is in the center of the site served as a collection area for water to be collected and drained to the Venture Ditch. The site was plowed and reseeded in 2010 . This had two impacts on the surface water. Attachment 8 provides a detailed description of the impacts of tillage on infiltration on the surface per "crusting " (page 9 of 14) and "puddling " (page 10 of 14 ). Plow pan (page 7 of 14 ) is also well described and explained in text and diagrams. The discussion below is relevant to this site . First, the bare soil was subject to impact by the rainfall. This sealed the surface or per Attachment 8 caused "crusting " so that water could not infiltrate leaving puddles in the low spots in the fields . The puddles are an inch or so deep . These puddles are temporary and move about the field with different farming 4548 Page 8 practices. These puddles also disappear from year to year. As the plan roots penetrate the bare soil and plant grow in the bare soil, it creates small cracks in the sealed surface so that the surface no longer is sealed and the rainfall can seep/infiltrate into the so il. The result is that on the second s pring after the tillage 2012 , there will be less surface puddling than in the first spring after tillage, 2011 . Th is fall we have not seen any surface puddles , even with the heavy fall rains . As we farm the fields by ha ying or ani mals graze the fields , we get compaction with wheels or hooves that wi ll c re ate a traffic o r hoof pan , discussed below. Secondly, farming create s temporary restrictive pans. The ca n be plow pans , at the depth of tillage , in this case around 9 in c hes for the recent plowing or 11 i nc hes for the histori c plowing. Hoof pans are around 2 to 3 inches deep and traffic pans can be at the surface or at variable depths. T he site still has the o ld plow layer that holds water. During the rainy season the surface was very moist to saturated in the plow layer. Below the plow layer the water table was over 18 inches from the surface. The plow layer had steady increm ents of oxygenated water added and was not anaerobi c. Thus the plow layer did not meet wetland criteria . It is not "normal circumstances " and is a manmade and maintained featured . Likewi se, throughout the s ite puddles were present in the field . These puddles were water t rapped on the surface, below th is water there was no water table or saturati on. Furthermore, these puddle areas are transient, meaning they move a round year t o year based on farming pract ices. As a matter of fact , many of the puddle areas follow old fence lines where livestock created depressions from walking . On the west parcel behind the garage are a series of dug pits and mounds (Figure 10: 2009 Air Photo) where the soil was piled. These are from a motorcycle race cou rse created in uplands. These depress ion s meet wetland criteria but are not jurisd icti onal ; they were intentionally created from non-wetland areas . 16.10.080 C l assification and rating of c r it ical areas. 5. "Artificially created wetlands" are purposefully created landscape features, ponds and storm water detention or retention facilities . Artificially created wetlands do not include wetlands created as mitigation , and wetlands modified for approved land use activities. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated to the director through documentation , photographs , statements and/or other evidence. Artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland si tes are excluded from regulation under this section . The northeast corner along 28?'h puddles water during rainstorms , but no water table is present. We monitored this area and even with surface puddling for a week or less , th ere was no water table within 18 inches of the surface . The soils also do not meet hydric conditions . They are upland soils . 4548 Page 9 Site conditions , in summary, look terrible. If we had not observed the site througho ut the rainy season and confirmed that no water table was present, we could not support the findings that the site has two small wetlands. Removing the dam to the north has returned the site to its normal non-wetland conditions . The 1936, 1946, and 1960 air photos confirm this, a long with the hydrology data and interviews with numerous li fe long neighbors . VEGETATION The s it e is dominated by reed canary grass, velvet grass , toad rush , buttercup , quack grass, rye grass and other non native species in the open areas. The wooded areas are dominated by black cottonwood , red alder in the forest canopy , red dogwood , sa lmonberry, hardhack and Indian plum in the scrub shrub and Hi ma layan blackberry in the vine canopy. The data sheets reflect vegetation observed at the time the test holes were dug . Vegetation changes as the growing season progresses, thus the percent cover and species currently in the fie ld may differ from that reported on the data form . Wetland vegetation is assumed on all the data forms so this is a moot point on the wetland determination. SOILS The Soil Survey shows the site mapped as the Norma and Puget series. Both soils are on the hydric soils list. Test pits in the field show the soils do not match the mapped units. The soi ls are underlain by sand , which provide good drainage when the ditches and drain tile are maintained. HYDROLOGY Hydrology was monitored during the early growing season. Wetland hydrology was found in the wetland areas. The remainder of the site had no water table or saturation within 12 inches of the surface for 2 weeks that would qualify as wetland criteria . The majority of the site had upland soils and did not need water table monitoring. Those areas monitored were either puddle or had questionable upland soils . Some of the soil pits could pass for hydric , but that is due to disturbance as discussed in the tree throw paper. These areas were also monitored and had no water table to meet wetland criter ia. Thus, the disturbance masked the actual upland soils as proven by the hydrology monitoring. While the soils may be 4548 Page 10 marginally upland , the monitoring proves the non-wetland areas are non-wetland and the wetland areas may end up bei ng non-wetland w ith furthe r monitoring . The section on site co nditions discusses surfi cial hydrology a long wit h Attachment 8 . The Venture Ditch provides subsurface hydrology as water from the ditch seeps to the north . Thi s creates a water table at about the same elevation as the water in the ditch . Going north the water infiltrates into t he ground to deeper depths and the site gets drier. It is at the wetland bou ndary that the water table is sufficientl y below the surface that we do not have saturation to the surface to meet wetland hydrology criteria . Attachment 4 , Photos , sho ws several of the test holes an d that there is no water table . This confirms the la ck of wetland hydrology . The Site Description describes puddling and drainage. WETLAN DS Two wetland areas are delineated on the site shows wetland A (6 , 195 sq . ft) and B (2 ,203 sq. ft.). FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Wetlands perform a variety of functions that include maintaining water qua l ity; storing and conveying storm wat er and f l ood water; recharging ground water; providing important fish and wildlife habitat; and serve as areas for recreat ion, education and scientific study , and aesthetic appreciati on. Wetland A and B provide a low value for a ll these functions due simply to th eir s mall size. The new wetland will be adjacent to Venture Ditch a nd have increased functional values for m ainta in ing water quality; st oring and conveying storm water and flood wate r and providing important water quality for fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates ; reduce sediment, chemica l nutrient and toxic po llutants ; prov id e shad in g to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat fo r wildlife ; and protect wetla nd resources from harmful intrusion . The wetland buffers provide a low value for these functions due to the small size of the wetlands and la ck of proximity to Venture Ditch. T he enhance buffer will improve shading of Venture Ditch , and the control of reed canarygrass by replacement with trees and shrubs will improve wi ld li fe habitat. 4548 Page 11 STREAMS The Venture Ditch on the south property line is being regulated as a stream . The stream will not be impacted by the project. The stream buffer wi ll be enhanced by the project. CLASS I FICATION Attachment 2 contains the WA State Rating Forms confirming both wetland rate Category 4 as they score less than 30 points on both forms. Wetland B is too sma ll to be classified per d iscussions w ith DOE in the field, the form provides an accurate assessment. Venture Ditch Stream is a Class 3 stream. BUFFERS E. Buffer widths shall be established for specific critical areas according to the following standards and criteria: 1. Wetland buffers shall be established as follows : Max imum Mini mum B uffer W idth Bu ffer (see subsection Wetland Wi dth (E)(1) (g) of this Cate g ory section) Category I 100 feet 200 feet Category II 50 feet 100 feet Category Ill 25 feet 50 feet Category IV 25 feet 30 feet Different buffer width requirements may apply to various portions of a site , without requiring averaging or variances , based on the site plan , the intensity of land uses in various locations , and differences in the category of wetland . Wetland Area B will not be filled , but it will be mitigated as if it were being filled to meet City requirements . This allows the project to proceed without Army Corps or Department of Ecology fill review requirements. The wetland boundaries will be confirmed and a formal fill application to the State and Federal agencies made 4548 Page 12 when the area is fi ll ed . This is called a "paper fill " a nd allows the city to avoid the buffer iss ues around th is a rea while fo ll owing sta t e a nd f ederal regula ti o ns as there w ill be no wetla nd impact s fo r t hose age ncies. The wetla nd and buffer impacts w ill be mitigated by enhancing Wetland Area A and t he 4 entire stream buffer with native plants per th e Conceptual Mitigation P lan. 2 . Stream buffers sha ll be established as follows: Minimum Buffer Stream Cla ss Width Class I 100 (see subsection (E)(2)(b) of feet this section) C lass II 75 feet C lass Il l 25 feet C lass IV 25 feet A 25 foot buffer is provided on the Venture Ditch Stream . M ITIGATION 16.10.1 00 Alteration o r developm ent o f crit ic al a reas - Sta nd ards and crite ri a. Alteration of spec ific critical areas and/or their buffers may be a llowed by the director subject to the criteria of this section. A lteration shall implement the mitigation standards as identified in ACC 16.10.110, and the performance standards of ACC 16 .10 .120 and the monitoring requirements of ACC 16 .10.130. A Wetlands . 3. Category Il l and IV Wetlands . a . A lteration and mitigation shall comply with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations ; b . Where enhancement, restoration or creation is proposed , replacement rat ios shall comply with the requirements of these regulations ; and c . No net loss of wetland functions and values may occur. 4548 Page 13 MITIGATION STANDARDS 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements. A. Mitigation Standards. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated . Mitigation actions shall generally be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory mitigation shall demonstrate that: 1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations ; Avoidance of the wetlands would not provide protection of the wetlands . The wetlands are a result of disturbance and lack of drainage maintenance . The project could not guarantee these wetlands would be sustained in perpetuity if left intact in t heir curre nt location . The new wetland is next to Venture Ditch and will be maintained in perpetuity as hydrology is assured. The new wetland provides a great function than the existing wetlands for providing water quality benefits to the Venture Ditch Stream. 2 . The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and The new wetland will be more viable and enduring with greater functional value than the existing wetlands . 3. No overall net lo ss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological , biological , physical , and chemical functions. There will be no net loss of area or functions and values. B. Location and Timing of Mitigation. 1. Mitigation will be on-site and close to the existing wetlands. 2. In-kind mitigation is provided . 3. The wetland mitigation permitted by these regulations is near the Venture Ditch which will ensure hydrology. 4548 Page 14 4. A p h ased o r concu rre n t schedule ass ures completion of t h e new wetl and prior to occupancy . C. Wetland Replacement Ratios . 3. Category IV wetlands can either be mitigated by either: (a) meeting one of the rep lacement ratios (*see followi ng table); or (b) im p lementing m itigation which e n s u res n o net loss of values and f un cti o n s of the la rg er ecosyst e m i n w hich the critica l a rea i s located. T h e w etlands w ill be rep laced at t h e 1.25 :1 ration . Wetland Creation Wetland Wetland Enhancement Category Ratio (Acre s) Ratio (Acres) (Acres Creat ed or Enhanced : Acres Impacted) Category I 6:1 12:1 Category II Forested 3:1 6:1 Scru b/S h rub 2: 1 4:1 Em e rgent 2 :1 4 :1 Category 111 Forested 3 :1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2 : 1 4:1 E mergent 2 :1 4:1 Category IV* 1.25: 1 * 2 .5:1* MI T IGATI O N The Mitigation section is taken d irectly from C ity Code. Wetland area B will not be filled , yet it will be mit igated by enhancement of Wetland Area A and the entire stream buffer to meet fill req u irements under City Code so that it will not be regul ated by the C ity . Wetl a n d A rea B is 2 ,203 s q . ft at a ratio of 2 .5 : 1 re quires en ha ncement of 5,508 sq. ft . The e ntire Wetland A area of 6 , 195 sq. ft a nd its b uffer w i ll be en h ance with nat ive plantings as well as t h e stream buffer for a t otal area of 33 ,586 sq. ft . (Figure 11 ). The mitigation will include enhancement of th e 25 foot stream buffer and wetland buffer. Some of the buffer is vegetated with desirable natives and planting will be made as appropr iate and supervised by the biologist preparing the report. The as-bui lt will provide planting detai ls on numbers of plants used. 4548 Page 15 Upon acceptance or per comments of the City , a final mitigation plan including a 24 X 36 inch plot drawing will be submitted for construction use. All notes below as appropriate will be included on the set of construction sheets. GOALS 1. Construct a new wetland adjacent to Venture Ditch 2. Use native plants that improve the functions of the wetland 3. Suppress invasive exotics , such as reed canary grass and blackberries during the monitoring period so that the plantings will survive and over time shade out the undesirable exotics 4 . Avoid the use of potential danger trees such as black cottonwood and red alder PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Wetlands and Streams. 1. Use plants native to the Puget Lowlands or Pacific Northwest ecoregion ; non- native, introduced plants or plants listed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds (Chapter 16-750 WAC) shall not be used ; 2. Use plants adapted to and appropriate for the proposed habitats and consider the ecological conditions known or expected to be present on the site. For example , plants assigned a facultative wetland (FACW) wetland indicator status should be used for sites with soils that are inundated or saturated for long periods during the growing season . Use nearby reference wetlands or aerial photos to identify plants suitable to the site conditions and hydrologic regimes planned for the mitigation site. Avoid planting significant areas of the site with species that have questionable potential for successful establishment, such as species with a narrow range of habitat tolerances; 3 . Utilize plant species ' heterogeneity and structural diversity that emulates native plant communities described in "Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington " (Franklin , J .F . and C.T. Dyrness, 1988) or other regionally recognized publications on native landscapes ; 4. Specify plants that are commercially available from native-plant nurseries or available from local sources . If collecting some o r all native plants from donor sites, collect in accordance with ecologically accepted methods, such as those described in the "Washington Native Plant Society's Policy on Collection and 4548 Page 16 Sale of Native Plants ," that do not jeopardize the survival or integrity of donor plant populations ; 5. Use perennial plants in preference to annual species; the use of annuals species should be limited to a temporary basis in order to provide erosion control , support the establishment of perennial plants, or if mitigation monitoring determines that native plants are not naturally colonizing the site or if species diversity is unacceptably low compared to approved performance standards; 6 . Use plant species high in food and cover value for native fish and wi ldlife species that are known or likely to use the mitigation site (according to reference wetlands, published information, and professiona l judgment); 7. Install a temporary irrigation system and specify an irrigation schedule unless a sufficient naturally-occurring source of water is demonstrated ; the new wetland will be adjacent to Venture Ditch and sufficient moisture will be present throughout the year such that no irrigation is needed. 8. Identify methods of soi l preparation . For stream substrate or wetland soils , at least one foot of clean inorganic and/or organic materials, such as cobb le , gravel , sand, si lt , clay , muck , soil , or peat , as appropriate, shall be ensured . The stream substrate or wetland soils shall be free from solid , dangerous, or hazardous substance as defined by Chapter 70 .105 RCW and implementing rules ; Two excavation machines will be used to create the new wetland . The first machine will take a scoop of topsoi l and hold it while the second machine lowers the substrate to desired grade . The first machine will then replace the topsoil. The substrate will be placed outside the buffer. 9. Confine temporary stockpil ing of soils to upland areas . Identify construction access routes and measures to avoid resultant soil compaction. Unless otherwise approved by the director, comply with all applicable best management practices for clearing , grading , and erosion control to protect any nearby surface waters from sediment and turbidity ; the excavators will access the new wetland along the existing berm and will only disturb vegetation that will regrow on its own. Any permanent woody vegetation will be replanted and/or restored. 10. Show densities and placement of p lants ; these should be based on the ecological tolerances of species proposed for planting , as determined by a qualified consultant; the new wetland will be created by planting red dogwoods and willows on 6 foot centers . The buffer will be planted with trees and shrubs where lacking with shrubs on 6 foot centers and trees on 10 foot centers . Total numbers will be determined at time of planting as the wetland and buffer are restored . 4548 Page 17 11. Provide sufficient specifications and instructions to ensure proper placement and spacing of seeds , tubers , bulbs, rhizomes, springs, plugs and transplanted stock , and other habitat features , and to provide a high probability of success , and to reduce the likelihood of prolonged losses of wetland functions from proposed development; trees and shrubs will be used and planting supervised by the biologist preparing this study. 12. Do not rely on fertilizers and herbicides to promote establishment of plantings ; if fertilizers are used , they must be applied per manufacturer specifications to planting holes in organic or controlled release forms , and never broadcast on the ground surface; if herbicides are used to control invasive species or noxious weeds and to help achieve performance standards , only those approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department of Ecology shall be used; herbicides shall only be used in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations and be applied per manufacturer specifications by an applicator licensed in the state of Washington ; and No fertilizers w i ll be used . 13. Include the applicant's mitigation plan consultant in the construction process to ensure the approved mitigation plan is completed as designed. At a minimum, the consultant's participation will include site visits to inspect completed rough and final grading , installation of in-water or other habitat structures , and to verify the quality and quantity of native plant materials before and after installation ; the consultant preparing this plan will be on-s ite to assist the plantings and installations . 14. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Streams Critical Areas . a . Temporary Markers . The outer perimeter of the critical area or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur, and verified by the department prior to the commencement of authorized activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction , and shall not be removed until permanent signs , if required , are in place . b. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the department may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a critical area or buffer. Permanent signs shall be made of metal face and attached to a metal post, firmed anchored , or other materials of equal durability approved by the director. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less , and must be 4548 Page 18 maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: "Habitat Conservation Area" Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Auburn Planning Department regarding uses and restrictions c. Fencing. i. The director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter to require the application to install a permanent fence at the edge of the critical area or buffer, when fencing wi ll prevent future impacts on the critical area . ii. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the critical area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on-site. iii. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration , including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts . B . Wetlands . Do not exceed a maximum water depth of 6 .6 feet (two meters) at mean low water unless approved as part of a planned interspersion of wetland vegetation classes and deep-water habitats. 1. Do not exceed a slope of 25 percent (4H:1V) in the wetland unless it can be clearly demonstrated by supporting documentation that wetland hydrology and hydric soils capable of supporting hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation will be created on steeper slopes ; 2 . Do not exceed a slope of 25 percent (4H :1V) in the wetland buffer 3 . Limit deep-water habitat (greater than 6 .6 feet at mean low water) in compensatory wetland to no more than 60 percent of the total area , and approach this limit only when deep-water habitat is highly interspersed with wetland vegetation classes, including aquatic bed , emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. MONITORING PROGRAM AND CONTINGENCY PLAN 16.10.130 Monitoring program and contingency plan. 4548 Page 19 A Monitoring program: September 2012 , wetland earthwork completed during the dry season November 2012, wetland planting comp leted December 2012 as-built submitted June 2013 first report December 2013 second report June 2014 third report December 2014 fourth report June 2015 fifth report December 2015 final report B . A performance and maintenance security is required to ensure the applicant's compliance with the terms of the approved mitigation plan. The amount of the performance security shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period ; the director may agree to reduce the security in proportion to work successfully completed over the period of the security . The final mitigation plan will provide a table with amounts to be bonded. C. Incorporate the following into monitoring programs prepared to comply with this chapter: 1. Appropriate, accepted , and unbiased qualitative or precise and accurate quantitative sampling methods to evaluate the success or failure of the project compared to performance standards approved by the city ; The planting will flag all the plants with ribbons such that a total plant count of planted plants can be made. The long narrow buffer will be visually inspected for invasives and per coverage. 2 . Quantitative sampling methods that include permanent photopoints installed at the completion of construction and maintained throughout the monitoring period and shall also include permanent transects , sampling points (e .g., quadrants or water quality or quantity monitoring stations), and wildlife monitoring stati ons ; The as-bui lt report will establish the 3 sampling with two photo points at each. 3. Clearly stipulated qualitative and quantitative sampling methods that are approved by the city before implementation by the project proponent; 4548 Page 20 Attachment 3 is the form used for sampling . 4 . Appropriate qualitative and/or quantitative performance standards that wi ll be used to measure the success or failure of the mitigation. For wetlands , streams and habitat areas these will include, at a minimum , standards for plant survival and diversity , including structural diversity, the extent of wetland hydro logy, hydric soils , and habitat types and requirements as appropriate ; all proposed standards are subject to review and approval by the city or the consultant selected by the city to review the monitoring plan ; Performance standards : less than 20% coverage of undesirable exotic invasives in the mitigation area such as reed canarygrass and Hima layan b lackberry. A total of 80 % survival of planted plants and favorable native volunteer p lants 80 % overall cumulative coverage of the buffer by the final monitoring report. 5. A three year monitoring program as deta il ed above is suffic ient on this type of enhancement/creation project. Hydrology is assured and the narrow wetland planting will use plant stock from on-site for the wetland planting and purchased materials for the buffer enhancement; 6 . Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director by December 1st of the year in which monitoring is conducted . The reports are to be prepared by a qualified consultant and must contain all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data , photographs , and an evaluation of each of the applicable performance standards. If performance standards are not being met, appropriate corrective or contingency measures must be identified and communicated to the director and upon concurrence, implemented to ensure that performance standards will be met; 7. Provision for the extension of the monitoring period beyond the minimum timeframe if performance standards are not being met at the end of the initial five-year period ; and provision for additional financial securities or bonding to ensure that any additional monitoring and contingencies are comp leted to ensure the success of the mitigation . 4548 Page 21 ~ ,: 8.' R.) u, JI !' "' :r ~ .r. i ..... :'! ... V' ~ " I ~ "' b in g S ~8,.Tr .>~~,. V1 ~ ,p'i° ~, J S 2801 t I Sl "'' :;: ::i ~ J'\ .j~ .c.:;, ./' ~j )\~ ..... .n .. > <. J. ,.. ~ "' ~ ::- .... , .,, FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP Sou t h 287 1 h & West Va ll ey Hwy N A uburn, WA VI "' ~ -t; ; ' O • J'\ S 2%H1 5: .,. S .!t: • l! S·. SITE e, :? ~ rt. S ~'.IL '-i ~: .., \,/• :..0 ~ f LL >. Vl Q) ?:' f rn > ;:.... ~ ;.; > ~ ~ B~T -i ~: 167 z ~ :r: ~- ;.j > ?; 3 fTr-t S~ N\\ FIGURE 2: SOIL MAP Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington Symbol AkF No Os Pu Sm Wo Map Unit Name Alderwood and Kitsap soils , very steep Norma sandy loam Oridia silt loam Puget silty clay loam Shalcar muck Woodinville silt loam FIGURE 4 : SITE AND TEST HOLE OVERVIEW SCALE 1 "=-135' TOP OF PAGE IS WEST FIGURE 5 : TEST HOLE MAP OF EAST HALF OF SITE SCALE IS 1"=80 ' TOP OF MAP IS EAST FIGURE 6: TEST HOLE MAP OF WEST HALF OF S ITE SCALE IS 1"=80 I TOP OF MAP IS EAST ---ii ORCHARD I FIGURE 11: 33 ,586 SQ . FT. ENHANCMENT OF BUFFER AND WETLANDS FOR MITIGATION OF WETLAND AREA B ATTACHMENT 1 DATA SHEETS WETL.ANDDETERMINA TION DATA FOR Pro}ect!S;te: ~ r /./, c re e k L L c M-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Applica~ t• •, Ci/y/C~nlyc A A b .. .r ,,v' Sl.,np/;ng Oal<• _!/_lL 7 /J / A State: (,/.I A Samr>Mg Point~ hligatol(o): ~ .r B Section. Township, flange: 35 I ,}:J A.I) ye laridlorm(hlllslope, ~.«<.); z. #41.:S'fre~ 1'.f'ri1tJts1reliet(«1ncave,COf'J"x. none): Slope(%): a -.:2. SU!>tdgion{LllRJ: ..1 '1 Lat l,/7 26136,. t.fJl"1.JJng:IJ.:l. og!t; W Daum: :£6 Soi!MapUnitName: /\IQ£~~ l."k.f' , l';Wlclal$ification: _______ _ Ataolimatic/hydrologiccondiiion•onlhesltetypiC<llforlhistimeofyear? v .. / No __ (lfno,el<ploinil!Remol1a;.) Ate Vt!ge!afion ~ Soi __ • or Hy<1ro1ogy· __ slgnificarr11y diatul1>ed? tw "Normal (;''"""'1$boncea" pr-.t? v .. ..JL'__ No __ /W.Vegetation ~ Soil __ • or Hydrology_ naturally problemaUo? (ff needed, explain any answer& in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, tnmsect!l, lmporll!nt features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegfllation P.....,t? v .. :e= No __ lo the Sainpted Area NoL Hydric Soff Pteoenl? Vos No __ within a Welland? Vas Welland HydroloiWPreWil? v .. __ No_IL_· -- Remarks: VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. AMolule Dominant Indicator D~iRBl'.IC9 Tnt ~heat: TrM: Stratum (PIO! size: ) ~~~ NUmber of Dominant Species 1. ------Thal Aro OSL. FAON. or FAC; (A) 2. ---Total Number of~ 3. ------Species Aaoss All Strata: (8) 4. --- ---Percent of OOmlnar'lt Spec.Jes =Total Cover Thal~ OBL. FACW. or FAC; (AIB) §!gl!JQ!Sb!l!Q ~!:!Ill (~!Qt size: \ 1. -·-----~-nee tndex wvrbheet T otm o/o COver of; Mu16!Wla'.; 2. ---OBl epeoieo ' x1= 3. --- 4. FACW species x.2= 5. FAC$pedes x3= =Total COVer FACU specie• x4.;:; H•m §iJ:. (Plod'•' ) UPL species xs• ---Column Totals: (A) (6) ~: ~ Cit.Al""£ ~ ---Prevalenre lnde>< =BIA= 3. ---Hfdropliytic Ve~on Indicators: 4. ------OOminlliice Test ia P-50% 5. -------Prevalence Index is S3.01 6. -------M~ Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7. ----'data ill Remarks or on a separate stieet) it ---_ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 9. ---_ -matic.Hydrophytic Veg-' (E>plain) 10. ---'lndicllloro of hydric IOll 8.nd W•tl1lnd hydtology must 11. ---be presen~ ..,lsss dlslurbed or problematic. =Total CO\ler ~9211x Vme §!!mum (Pict-; ' I. ---Hydrophytic ---V!JQetation Yes V 2. ---------Pniunt? No __ = Total Cover % Bsre Ground In Herb StrahJm Remarks: A.5S°fA~eJ AA5ed A) .f'~,.,.... ....... ~ el tJ ej /)~j If. .f f imi e of d e:t f"' c t11 1e G-1 r' ·e> ....,; us Anny Corps Of Engineera. weistem Mountain&, Valleys. and Coast -lntenm VerstOn WETLAND DmRMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Reglo~ Project/Site: AJ,,r/J... C;ee_k L l C City/County: Ai..6,..r.v' SamPlingOote: f Applieanuawn:r: '° •I Stale: {j) A Sampling Point: s f,P 3 lnvestiga!Ot(s): A .! B Section. Tawnship. Range: 3& 1 J. :J N 1 </ /!! landform (h!Hslape, -•. ..to.~ Z Pie! $frt'A:4!1 "feJ'rd4' iellef (concave,~· noner. s'-(%f. 0 -.1 Subregion(LRR): Lat '/1 2o1 J6.. t...()/"LI><lg}J.:l "1£'5-W Datum: 56 Scill Map. Unit Name: c NWI cl8SS:ifialtion: -------- Are climatic/ hydrologlc cond'ltions oo tile sile typi<;!J for this time of year? y.,. / No __ (If no, explain in Rematlw.) Are Vegetation~ Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly d-? Are •Nomia1 Cln:umolanc:es" present? Yes L No __ Are Vogelation ~ Soil __ , or Hydro!Ogy __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any....._. in Remario;.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Al!ach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophylio Vegetation Pl8$8lll? Ye•~ No-V Is the sampled ...... No-X- Hydlic Soll Present? v .. __ No--:;;r-within a Wetland? Yes ___ Welland HycUoiogy Pment? Yes __ No_· Remarks: VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. ~~ Dominant Indicator Dominance Teat worksheet: TreeStrat,um (Plot$1z&: l ~ SDf!Cie&?~ Numbet of Dominant Species 1. ThatAreOBL. Fl>CW.orFAC: (A) 2. --- ---Total NumberOIP!Ominant 3. --- --- Species ACrou Alf Strata; (8) •• ------Peroon!.ol Dominont Species ---= Total Cover Thatl\re-OBL. FAGW. orFAC: (A/B) !~~1:1;~Yr!l 1t:.~~~ ) ---Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. ------TO!al % CQm of-MuftiDtyby: "3. DBL-X1= 4_ FACWspeeios x2= ------ 5. ------FACepecl6$ x3= ---=·Total Cover FACU species x4= ~ml': T~ ) UPL Gl)&Cies x·s= ;: e c. •~6.lj ------Column Totals: (A) (8) ------ 3. ---Pf'.&Valenee Index =SIA e --- 4. ------HydtopnyVc Vegetation Indicators: 5. ------_ Dominance Test is >50% 6. -Prettalence Index. ls sa·.o 1 ------ _ MOli>hololJlc:al Adaplolions' (Ptovkle aupportlng 7. ------data in ·Remarts or on a separate sheet) 8. ---------_ Welland Non.Vasouler Plsnto' 9. ------_ Probleinati.c Hydrophytic. VegetaUon' (Explsln) 10. ------'llldl<:ators Ofl)ydric $Oil and -d f>ydrology must 11.. ------be present, unless. disturbed or problematic. ---= TO!al Ce>ver Woat::N Vme Stratum (Plot_, \ 1. ------Hydrophytlc 2. Veg ... tlon Yes V ------Ptasent? No __ ___ =Total Cover % Bare Ground In Heth Stratum Remarks: (J.5$t<~eJ Att5ed f A.J .f~r,...,•-~ el ti ej U•j l{f f.rmie o dt::tfd <!a 1ec.-lr·-.,....,,. us Army Corps Of Engtneel'fO Western Mountalns. Valleys., and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Proie<ll5tte: ,Jar./-/... Cfee.k L l C cny/County: AIA..6i..r/ Sampmgoae:..s:.P.A App/lea_:; ,. •I S"1t@; ;;; A Sampfmg Point~ f lnvesllgator(s): A .I /3 5ectiol1, Town.mp, Range: 3S 1 ,J :l ,A,,/ 1 . </ E Landfoml(hlilslope, terraoo.etc.): Z #41 Sfre""Ali -r.J'rd~te1iet(concave."'l'7""·•cnol: stope(%): o -.2. SUbtegion(LRR): .::1 Lat <1?"2,/14.t.ol'(,,nv.IJ.~ ~ocff; w Dalum: 56 Soil Map unn Noma: IU ~ r ,,.,..,._ < ( .' k.,-, NWI dasSitioatlOn: ------- Ateclimatict hydrologic ~"" lf)Hite lypicot for lhio time of yeo(I Yes / No __ (~no, explaln in Remarf<s.) AteVegetation__:.SOll~-orH)'drotagy __ signlfieatdfyd;otuited? A1e"Normal~"present? ves.1L._ No __ Ate Vllgela1lon __ , SOil __ , cir Hydrolagy __ nalurally ,,,-,..UC? (lfneedod, explaln any lll1SWenl In Remmt<s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-AQach site map showing sampling point toi;atlons, transects, Important features, etc. Hydroph)'llO Vegotation Present? ves..L No __ Is the Simj>lod Araa No,t H)'dl1C' Soil ~I? Yea No V wlttlln •Wetland? Vos Ye•= NoL· --Wolland HydroliJgy Present? • Remarks: VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute ·Domfnant Indicator Dominal)CEI: Taat. worksheet: T[ft §tmlY!D (Plotaizo: ' ~~~ Numberafllomlnanl Species ,_ ---Thalke.OBL. FACW.orFAC: (A) . 2. ----Total. N"""'°' olOOmlnant 3. ---Spod!>• Af:ross AU Sllala: (B) 4. ------Pe ...... Of Dominant Spe- z:: T ot8I Cover Tha!Are'OBL. FACW, <>rFAC: (AID) §~~ (Plotsiza: ' Pt&vatenc. Index warialhuet 1. i::; .::~ ------ Tqta! '2 COyer of: M.Yllml2 ~i 2. ------OBlsp~ x1= 3. ------ F:.Af;W species x2= 4. ------ FACspecles x3= 5. ------ •Total.Cover FAOU species x4= Herb S!IJIUm (Plotsiza: ' UPLspecies Xfi"' 1. ----Column Totale: (A) (B) 2. --- 3. f:revalence Index = BIA = 4. ---------·--r ytit V~rt lnd_lca~rr. 5. ---_ Dortrinance Test Is >50% -Prev~ (ndex i!' '!0.01 6. ---------_ M~ Adaptotions' (Provide supporting 7. ------data In.Remarks or On a ~te tfleet) 8. ------_ Wetland Non-Vascular PlaJ\!s 1 9. ------_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explaln) 10. ------'lndk:ato<I ofh)'dric son and wetland hydrology must 11. ---be present, unless disturbed or probleri1atic. =Total Cover ~ood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: ' ,_ ----Hydrophytlc v ... ,/ V<illellllon 2. ---------Pntsent? No __ =Total Cover % Bate Groqnd in Herb Stratum Rernarf<s; A..5$e..-.ed fiD-512d f A.J .f'~r.-i•-~ ef tJ ej ti .. j I/. f f.-1111 e " de:. fa ~a 1e -I 1' -&> ...c/ US Anny Corps Of engineer$ We.Jl:em Mountains. Vafle!fS, and Coast -Interim Vemton WETLAND l>ETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: ,,J, r +J.. c { e e k L L c City/County: A IA. 6 (A. r / Sampling Datac iJ..h 7-/, ( Appllcant/Owner. ,. •I ~: {/) A Sampling Point I p !.. 6- lnve8llgGIO!(s): A .I j3 Seclion, Towro>hip, Range: 3$ 1 J :1 P 1 </ E Und!oni> (hlllslope, tesraoe. etc.): z tP 41.$'fftj1Ati "fil' rt1~1 relief (ootiam. ~· none): Slope ('l>): 0 -.2. Subtegion(LRR): ..'.1.!1 )~t (f1"2.r,:/3(,,.f.l>f"Long/l:J.1!1(~~ W Dalutn: 56 SOil Map Unit Name: !Y_ 0 T fl'>\. 4': (<bl!? , NWI claSJifloation: -------- Ale olimati<: I hydrologic oon<liticms<>n ""'site typicotror !his lime of year? Yes / No __ (II nc, explaln in Remarks.) Are Vegetation~ Soil~ Of Hydtology __ "1911ificonlly d;.tulbed? Ale "Normal Clrcumsiancea• preseot? Yes L No_ Are Vegetation __ , SOil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally p<Ob1emotie? (ff needed, elq>faln any answers in Retnarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydtophytic V~otation Prosent'I ves....IL_ No 18 lhe S.mj>led Area No~ Hydric SOil Preoent? v .. __ No ic..- Wlthlri a Welland? Yu __ . Wetland HydlOlogy P,....nl'I Yes_ No_· R-.ts: VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant lndli:ator Dominance t'eat watbheet! Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %C<iw SM'i'l? _M\IL Number of Domlnant Species 1. ---------That Are OBL. FACW, Of FAC: (A) . 2. ·---Total Numberot~n;ant 3. ------Specie$ Across All Strata: (8) 4. Percent Of Dominant Species ;; Total Coffr That Are 0BL. FA'CW. or FAC: (Ml) §aDlina/Sh!Jd! Stratum (Piot ~= ' I. Pravatence Index wartasheet: . 2. ------Total 2D Cover.of· Multiply by; 3. OBLspecies x 1;:; ------ FACW speoies x2= 4. ------ FACspecieS X:3= 5. ------ =Total Ccver FACU •pecles x4= ~-11! ~ (Plotolze: ) U.PL specie.s x5= 1. -fold l {!~D .. , .. 3 ---COIUmn Totals: (A) (8) 2. ------ 3. ------Prevafen<» l~l< = SIA a: _,ophytie Ve9"13~on lndlcalOta: 4. ----_ Dominance Test is >50% 5. --- 6. -Prevalerlce Index i$ $3.01 ---------Morphologloal Adaptations' (Ptavme supporting 7. -------data In Remarks or On a aeparate eheet) e. Wetland Non-.Vasa.tlar Planta1 -9. ---_ Problelnatic Hydtophytic Vege1alioil' (Elcplain) 10. ---'lndicat<><> of hydric ocil and wetland hydrology must 11. ------be present, unless disturbed-or problematic. =Total Cover WQQ!b: Yi!!f! ~IWD {Pfot size: ' 1. ---tfydrophyltc Yes ,/ V-tlon 2. ---------Ptasen!? No __ = Total Cover % ~Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: t>..5$1A/11\BJ bA5ed f A.J .(,_,..,......,,......-.5;, tf t.I e.j u.e j I[/ f<PJte o de:tfa e,., 1e.::-l1'-d...v' US Army CoJPS Of Enginee~ western Mountains, Valley&, and Coast-lnterim Vemion . WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region~ Project/Site: J.J,,r./.J.. Cree_k LL C c;iyJCoonly: A "-6"' r / Sampling0ate: I __ vawn:; .. • I S!afe: {;:I A Sampling Point Tl -"' lnvesligatOqs): A .I 8 sectiol1. Townsh!P. Range: 3S 1 J .:1 P 1 </ I! l.andform (hilr.lopo, terrace, etc.): z, 41 Sfre.t1Ati "f..r r .. ~ relief (concave, "'J'7"Xo nonet. Slope ("4): a ... ,.2. Subtegk>n(LRR): lat 41"2t1;/J6,. r.orloltg:fl.l °K/5 w Datum: 56 $olt Map Untt Name: ,. NWI claslifialtk>n: -------- A"' cllmatil; / hydrologic conditions on the site typicol for this time of year? Yes / No __ Of no, exploin in Remarl<s.) Ne Vegeialion~ SOil __ ., ot HydtO/ogy __ &ignlficalilly.d-? Ate "No<mol'c:;kcumslance1• present? Yes.!L._ No __ /Ve Veijelotlon ~Soll __ , or Hydrology __ natunlll!y plObtemalic? (If needed, explain any answeJB in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGs -Attach site map showing l!llmpllng paint locations, transects, important fealunes, ate>. Hydropll)'lic.Vegetalion Pt&sellfl Yes~No-V-18 th&SamPl"d Area ·• H-Soil Pifienl? Yoo __ No-V witbln a Wetland? v .. No./----,.__ Wetland H)'dtOlogy Present? Yes __ No_· ROmarl<s: VEGETATION-Use sclentlflc names Of plants. Abs<>luje Dominant Indicator uomlnaftC4t Taal ~heat t"'"t""' (Plotolzej ) l! i;..., §rejtt?~ NiJnJl>er of Dominant Specie$ 1. d. A I :e/" ---------That/Ve OBL. FACW, o.-FAC: (A) 2. ---Total Number ofC>Qminant 3. ---S-Ai:rossAll Sflata: (B) 4. ------Petoent of .Dominat'lt Species =Total Cover That!VeOBL. FACW. orFAC: (MJJ §ilolina/Shrub ~f!!&!m (Plot size: ' 1. .------Pr&valance Index worbhaBt: 2. ------Total% Cimro!: Ml4t:iplybv: ·a. --- --- OBLapecies x1= 4. ---FACWl!pedes x2= s. ------FACspeoie$ X3;;i: '"' Total Cover FACUo~ x4• HelbS;; (Plot oi%e: ' UPL-x6= ~: f~l::~~ .. ~~ ---Column Totals: (A) (8) --- 3. ---Prevalence Ind~ = SI~= 4. ------Hydropnytlc Vegetation Indicators: 5, ------_ Dominance Test ls >50% 6. ------_ Pnwaielicelndoxlsoll.O' 7. ------_ ~ AdaplatfO!l•' jProlli<te auppqrting data.in Remarks or on a separate-sheet) 8. ------_ Wetland Non-Vascular Plante" 9. ---_ Problematic Hyi!l<>phyticVegetatlcn' {El<plain) 10. ---1tndlcators of hydJ1c soil l:nd weUand hydrology inust 11. ---~ present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover !l[~Vme§tmtum (Plot size: ' 1. Hydrophydc 2. Veg-on Vas V ------Pmsent? No =Total Cover -.-- % Bate G"'""d in Herb Stratum Remsrk>: A.5Stt.-.ed bAsed f A.J .f'd-r,.....--~ e:f t1.~j U4j ~ f f imi e " d ~ fa <!. " 1e .:... I' r ,, _, US Army Corps of EngineOlll Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region PIOject/Site: ,d,, r .{.J.. c re e. k L L c City/County: A R 6 /A. r / Sampling Date ') !1 ~111 Ai>PrrcanUClwner: « • / State: {iJ A Sampling l'oii1t ~ 1- lnvestigator{s): A .! B Section. TOWllshif). Range: 35 1 J 2 P 1 (/ E Landlorm (hillslope. -eto.): Z "41 $f re,_., 1e.rr~tJ;;;., relief("""""""'· ""JIJ••.r11Jne): 51ope (%,): O -.2. Sublegion(LRR>: ..'1 t.at. y1•2e/J6,.t..()/"l.MIJ:IJ.J. "0Cf6-W oatem: 56 SoilMapUni!Neme:JJ,, NhA /;t.e -NWlciasSlficalion: _______ _ Are <lirnalic/ hydrologlc conditian$on lhesite typli)alforlhiHrneOfyeat? YO$ / No __ (If no,~ in Remarl<s.) Arev.getation_Soil __ ,orHydralogy __ siQl>llicanlly~Plturbed? Are"NormalClfaimot!nces•pr-Ye•L No __ Are~ __ , Soll __ • 0r Hydrt>logy __ naturally p<Oblemallo? {U needed, explain any""""""' in Remalts.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS·-Attach silll map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hyd(ophytic Vegetelion P.....nt? v .. L No ls·ll:I• Sampled Area No,&_ Hydrfc Soil Pre.ant? Yes __ No 'G/ within a Wetland? Yes Wetlond Hydn.togy Pr...nt? Yes __ No __ . -- ROmal1cs: VEGETATION -Use scienUflc names of plants. ~1e Dominant lndlca!or Domlnanc.e Test worksheet: Tr .. 8Y:JPIOl.olze:l ) % eover ~ ..§l!!!!L Number of Dominant Species 1. ~l er ---------Thal Are OBL. F"CW. or F"C: (A) . 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ------Spec!Os Across All Slr81a: (B) 4. ---Percent Of Dominant Species = Totel Cover That Are OBL, f ACW. or FAC: (All!) §Ji!olinol§bt.Y!:? §lt!flml (~size: \ 1. ------Prevalenca lndex·WOlf<sheet 2. -IQtal % Cgyerct. Multiply by· 3, ---OBLopedes ' x 1 ::;i 4. ---FACWspecies x2= 5. ---FAC•pecie$ x3• =Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plotsiie: I UPLspeciea x5• ·1. ---------Colufnn iOUils: {A) (8) 2. --- 3. PrevaJence Index =' 8/A • ------ 4. . 11Ydropllyticl(e9'1atton ln<!IOa!Ora: ------ 5. ------_ Dominance Test is >50% 6. _ Prevatence Index Is S3.01 ------· 7. ------_ Morphological Mapt.ations' {Provide supporting 8. data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. _ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 ---_ Pro~~illatic Hydropllytic-Vegetation 1 {Explain) 10. 11. 'lndi«!I01$ of hydric toil ond welland hydrology must -------be _present, unless diSturbed or problematic. :i:: Total Cover WQ:Qdx Yim stmt!!!!! (Plot size: l 1. ------Hl'droJ>hY!ic 2. V,getation Yes V ------Pnsent? No = Tata! Caver -- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: A.5$t-.M\ed ~Ased {AJ . .f'.,.r.-.•-~ el "ej t/41! j l/.f f•mie o d~f-a C.4 /lec.-11'-~..v us Army CoroG ol Enginesrs W8$1.em MountairJS. Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projed!Site: ,J,,r./J.. C;eek LL e City/County; A1t..6,..r/ SarnplingDatoo'iJ,.,_flf Applicam/awn:: ,. • ( Stale: (/.7 A Sampling Point:~ lnvesllgatot(•): . A .r 13 section. TOW111hip. Range: 3~ ' J.:; A.I } </ E umdfoan (hillslope. terrace, oto.): Z ii 41 $fret11df:t "f'el'r•~1 -r cconca11e. ~ none~ Slope<'\): cJ -;I. SUb .. (lRRl: ~ Lat CJ7•2e/J(,,,f,.t>/"1.<>ng:fl~OK'6= W Datum: 56 Soil Map Unlt Name: t:!._. F ~ l.. • ke , NWJ classification:-------- Aroc1i111111ic/ hydrologic condi!ion• on lhe site typical !Or this time of l'ftl'I Yes / No __ (ff no. explain in Remarks.) Are Vegeletion ~Soil--· or Hydrology __ signlfioantly dlSlurbed? Are "Normal Circums1ances· present?· Ye& L No __ Are·Vegelalioo ~ So~ __ , or Hydrology __ natunllly ph>blemallo? (If needed, exptaln any answera in Rem•rl<s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important featuies, etc. Hydr9phytic \/egolation Present? vesL_ No Is the Sampled AlOa No-A Hydric SoH Pi"esenf? Yes __ NoV- within a Wetland? Yes wetland Hydrology Pre&enl? Yes __ No::2:· -- Ri911'18f1(s: VEGETATION -Use scientific names Of planis. Absoklle Oom~nt l~r llqrntnance Test wolbheet: Tree§!e!tori'I (Plot ol.te: l % CoVer ~ Status Number of Dominant Speoie$ 1. ---------niat Are OBL, Fl'l:.W. or FAC: (A) z. ---T~tm Number of Dominant 3. ------Species Aiross All Slrata: (B) 4. ---Pe.~nt Of DomlnantSpeciel =Total Cover Thet Are OBL, fACW. or FAC: (A$) §.a121i:ldbn!t! Stratum (Plot Size: .\ 1. ---Pnwalence lndu ~Ht ~. ---Igtal ~Cover.of: MYJ.t!~ Ii!¥:· 3. --- --- OBlspecles x1= '! 4. ---FACW flP!!cieS x2= --- 5. -fl'I:. specie$ x3= = Total Cover FACU specie• x4= Herb~~P{Qt tize; l UPL Sf'Ocies x5• t. =-=--c! "5,v11 l:!J 1 .... -< :2: i ------COIUinn To!ais' {A) (B) z. \ ------ 3. ------Prevalence I~ oz: BIA= 4. lfydrophytic V~on lndlcatocs: ------ 5. ------_ Dom1nance T~t ta >50% 6. ------· _ Preva.ience Index Is .:l.O' 7. --- --- _ MO!plldogioal Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or ori a separate sheet) a. ------_ Wetlaod Non-Vascular Plants' 9. ---_ Probioinatic Hyd<Ophytk: Vegatatk>n' (Explain) 10. ------11ndi<:at0rl of hydrlc soil and wetland hydrology must 11. ---------be Pf«!Sent. unless dtsturbed or probtemauc. .. Total Cover Wood:i !t!as; stratum (Plot-: l 1. ---Hydrophytlc 2. . V419ec.._tion Vos r/ ------Pcaacmt? No =Total Cover -- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: A.5$"t.A./l?\eJ bAsed f » .(.1).,.,.....-...... ...J;, et tJ ej l/4! j t/.f fimie 1> d.:rfd. <!tt1 1e.:...11· _,,,...,; us Armv Corps Of Engineers-Western Mountains, Vatleys. and Coast-lnte-rim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Srt• &J,,rf.J.. Cree. k LL C ci1y1eoun1y: A,._{, u. r / sampljng0at"'-"> /1 '::/. f o Appican~r: '° • 1 Stole: {? A Sampling Point~ Investigator(•): A .:r 8 Section, Townshi!>, Renge: 3S I .}. :1 ,A.I l <{ e Landfonn (hillslope, le<race,.-}: l. "t.I Sf ftt/t""J -r..rr.t~l relief (concave.~· none): SIOpe (%~ a -.;2. SUbtegioll(L~R) Lat: 1.11 2e/J4.~t>l"1.ong}!.~f!lf('r.t; w Datum: .5'6 Soil Map Unit Name: , NW1 cla>slfioallon: -------- ""' dimatic I h)'!lrologic condificn• on the site lyplC$I for this lime of year? Yes / No __ (If no, e>plain in Remarla;.) /VeVegetation_ Soil __ ,orHydrology __ ~u,. dn.lwted? /Ve "Norrnal ctrcumstances•~ Yes.!L'._ No __ he VeUetetiori __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ natun!IBY. problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks,) SUMMARY QF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point (~lions, transects, important features, ate. Hyd-V-tionPntssnt? Yea~ No __ la the Sampled Area vea_k_ Hydrlo Soil f'r0oenl? Yes~ within a weuaitd? No_ w.tland Hy(U<>IOl!Y Present? Yes No __ . Remartc.s: VEGETATION -USfl sclantlfic names of plants. Absolute Dom1nant lndioator Dominance Teat~ T&StraftJm (PfO!alze: ) ~ $PM'!? .....§W!.!L Number.of Dominant~·• 1. ---That/VeOBL, FACW,orFAC: (A) . 2. ---TOtal Number Of Dominant 3. Spe{:iet; Ap'ossAll Strata: (B) 4. =TolOIC.- Pe...,nt of Dcminel\t Species gggl!mll§bmb Sttetum (Plot stte: \ Thai Ar;,-OBl FACW. or. FAC: (AIB) 1. Prevata·nce fndax Worbhnt 2. ---Ie.11!! 21 Cover Qt M!:!!:\ig!xla:: 3. CiBL apec;es x1= 4. ---· FACW apecies x2= 5. ---FAC•pecieo x3= ___ =T•Cover FACU Opecie> x4= Herbs~ er st<e: \ UPL ""°ciea x5;;:; 1. p= /'.111 II<! O!lr"°~ ;g ,..,,_!5' . COlurwin r otats: (A) (8) 2. ~ -- 3. -PfevaJence ln<ff#X =Bl~ s 4. ------Hydrophytlc llGMtalfon llldlcetora: 5. ------_ Dominailce Test Is >50% 6, -------~lndexis:S3.01 7. ---_ ~Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet} ------_ Wetland Non·Vaswlar Ptants'· 9. --- ---_ Pn>blemai;c fi>'<!rophyllcVegebltion' (Explain) 10. ------'Ind-ol l\ydriC toil and wetland hydrology l\\ust 11. ------be present, unless cflSturbed or pmbtemllllc. ---=Total Cover Woodv ~ine Str!!h!m (Plot slze: \ 1. ---HyQlophytlc 2. V-lion Yes i/ ------Present? No __ .. Total Cover % Boie Ground In Hem Stratum Remarks: A.5$t-fl11eJ bA5ed r,u .f',_r-_.....l...-~ ef tJ ej 114 j tf.f f<mie o d.:. f.4 c. a 1e.::.. Ir'-~...../ us Army Corps qf Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION OATA FORM-Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projec111me ,J,,r.f./.. Cree.k L l C cnvJCounty. A"-6,..r...-' sampfingDate ::l../J'~/;1 Appliaonuaw..:>; •• •I State: {j) A SamplifliPoint:~O 1•1Ves!igato<(s): A .I /3 s.ciion. Township, Ronge: 3~ I J:J #, v e Landform(hlllslope, tenace.ete.t z P(J$fllt!1fl:t =t'.trd~re!Jef(etmcaVe.""J"rX,ffDROt Slope(%):0 -.,2. Subregion(LRR): :1, Lat y1112p1J(,,. ~t>l"Long!IJ.:l Olf~ w Dlilum; !i6 SoilMapUnltName: J),, l 11"'-<i l·gf' -NWlclasslf;aillon: _______ _ Ale c:llmlllic/hydrologiccondi!lons on thesilofypicalforthis timeof ye11!'1 v... / No __ (ff ne, expl<lin in Remarb.) AreVegeta!jcn ~Soil __ • or Hydrolagy __ aignific;antly.dialurl>ed? Are "Normal Circu-· pr-17 Yes L No __ /Ve Vegetation __ • Soil __ • or Hydrology __ natwatly ~malic? (ff-. explain any onswera In Remaflcs.) SUMMARY 0.F FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. HydrOphyllo\/egetalion P....m? Yes...JL:_ No-V Is the Sarnj>led Area Noj:_ Hydllc Soil Pn!Senl? Yes __ No __ within a Wetland? v .. __ Wetland Hydro!Ogy P-? v .. __ No~· Remartcs: ' VEGETATION. -use scientific names of plliilt!I. Absolute Dominant Indicator Domlnanqe TUI ~heet: Traesn.m (Pfol.$ize: ) %Cover Ser:Jee? ...§U!WL Number of Dominon1 S!>eele& 1. ---That /Ve OBI., FACW. or FAC: (A) ' 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---SP<Cies AtrOS. All Strata: (B) 4. ---Pert:ent _of Dominant Species • Totaf Cover That Ale OsL. FACW. or FAC: (A/B) §eR!!!ul§b!:uh StraJs1m (Plat llizl!: ) 1. PNvalenee Index wa.rls&heet 2. ---Tolill % Caver Of; MWJimx~· 3. ---OBLapecies x1= 4. FACWspecies . x2= 5. fAC •peciOs li:3-= ---= TofQICover FACU species x4• Herb.rtum r •ize: I UPLspedes x5• ~: e.e. ~ .i..::115 ,1,...d~.S:-COiumn T otMs: (Al (8) --- ~-------P~arenoe lndel\'. =: BIA= 4. ---tfydrophyticV~n Indicators: 5. ---__; Dom1mtnce Test Is >50% 6. ------_ PreVillence Index ls S3:01 7. _ Morpl\OIOgtcal Adap!alions' (Provide supporting 8. data in ·Remark& or on a ~rate&heet) -_ WetlandNon-11.-Planta' 9. ---_ Problemotlc.Hyd<Opl\ylicVegetallon' (Explain) 10. ---'lndicat<><t of '1Ydric toil and Weuand hydR>kigy inust 11. ---be present. unless disturbed-or problernak. "" Total Cover WQQ!U Yi:oo Stratum (Plat size: I 1. ------Hydropnyttc 2. Vegetation Yao ,_/ ------Piasont? No __ = Total Cover % Bate Ground in H&rb sttati.lm Remarks: A.5S'"'m.ed bfJ.5ed .('AJ .(.,.,.."'"',_.~ el tJej tJ4 ~ If. f f <mi e o d,;:, f d c tR 1e c.-11' ·d _,. US Army CofP$ of Engineer& Weste.m Mountains, VaOey11. and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains; Valleys, and Coast Region Ptojeot/Site ,Jar./-1.. Cree.k LLc cilytcounty. A""6"'r""' sampfmgo.1.e,,;//1+.-/1/ Appllcanuawn:; <• r ( Slate: {j) A Sampling Point~ • lnvesllg1llor(s): A .r B Section, Townohip, Range: 3$ I J :J p J '{ e l.andlorm(hillslope.-.etc.~ Z #41$freiMh 1".l'rt1.tik..i-1c-""""r'J""· """")' Slope(ll;):O' -.2 Subtegron(LRR): Lst t.{ ?"2,;/Jt;.. ~Dl"l..Ong'.f lJ. 0K15= w Datum: !!f 6 SOii Map Untt Name: ,.. N_Wl classification: -------- Are climatic/ hydrologlc condilicns onlh& stte lypicolforttlis timuf yeor? Yes / No __ (lino, explain in Ramarl<s.) AfeV.-0~ Soil __ ., orHydrology __ olgnilicalllly.distull>e<I? Are"Normet Citeumstances• present? YssL No __ Ate Vegetation_, SoH --·.°' Hydrotogy __ naiW'&lly problematic? (If needed, explain any answera in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing 11ampli11g point l~tlons, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetallon Presenl'1 YssL No--;:T-Is the Sampled Atta I I Hydri<: Soll Presenf? Yes __ Ho:z. within a Wetland? Yes No_,. Welland Hydrology PreSent? Yes __ No · --- Remad<s: \. VEGETATION -USO! scientific names of Plants. Absolule Dominant Indicator Dominance Toal-: T!§.!Stmtypl (Plot size: ) ~ SpecjaR?~ Number of Dornln"'1l Species 1. ---That /W OBL FACW. er FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of OOmlnant 3. Species A<n>Ss All Strata: (8) 4. ---Perce.n~ of Dominant Species = Total Cmter Thal /W OBL FACW, or FAC: (A/B) §IRlifla/Shrub Sttarum (Plot size: ) 1. Prevalence lndax worksheet 2. ---!21111 ~ Cover·gt Ml!lfiR!.Y Rf: 3. ---0Blepeoie$ x1= 4. ---FACW-x2= 5. ---FAC spe<ieO x3= ---=Total Cover FACU species x-4 =: Hefti gm lfe-' ' UPlapGcie& J(5so 1. = :... e re, ..._ f) -COlunio iotals: CA) (8) I 2. ---· 3. ------~valence lnc!ex = BIA= 4. ------Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ Dominance Test ia >50% ------ 6. _·Prevalence Index ls :sa.o• --- 7. ------_ Morphological Ad-' (Pr<Mde supporting 8. data kfRemarks or On a separate sheet) ------_ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 9. ---_ Pto~nmtie Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. ---'ln<licat°" of hYdJie son and wetJond hydtology must 11. ---be.present, unles$ disturbed or probkmlaUc. = Total Cover Woodx Vine Sfralum (Pfotslze: ' '· ---Hyclrophytic 2. Vogetation i/ ---P"'"°"l? Yes No ---~Total Cover ---- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remart.e: A.5$'t<fl?led ~o.sed oA.J .(.,.r,.......--~ el tJ ej V4._J I/. .f ft mi e of de. f.a <! a 1e .::.-I 1 • ., ....,,.. us Army Corps Of Engineers western Mouritains. Vafiey&, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projeel/Site: JJ,, r .{.I. Cf e e. k L l C city/County A ,._ 6 tA. r ,-/ sempting oate: J., J tr/ J'f Applicant/o-:; .. • { State: tiJ A Sampling Point: fip -f').. lnveallgator(s): A .r 8 Section, Township.~·= 3.t: I J:; N, 9 e Landform(hlllstope,tenaoe,etecJ: Z P41$fret11A!J "te.rr•4£&1re1iet(concave.~.none): Slopa~): Cl -:L Subregion(LRR): Lat y7•2o136,. f.Dl"•.-JJ.~ "Kl!; W !>alum: !'f6 Soil Map Unlt Jjame: , NWl dassif;cation: -------- Ale climalio/ hyd!ologic conditions on Iha site typical for !his time Of year'/ Y8$ 7 No __ (If no, explain in RemaOO;.) Ase V-11on ~Soil __ • or Hydrology __ sigrilicanHydislul!Jed? Ase "No<marCltcumstanon• ple-11 y.,..JL_ No __ AseVtigelation --· Soil __ • e< Hyd.,.tagy __ nalurally probtemauc? (If needed. explain any...-.. m Renmb.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showl119 sampllng point locations, transects, important features, ·etc. Hydrophyllc Vligelallon Pr8senl'I Yea~ No--;;7'"" Is the SOmjlled Area No-'~ HydJic: Soil Present? Yea __ No~ within a Wdand1 v .. __ Wetland Hydrology Preseill? Y••--No_. __ · Romancs: VEGETATION~ Use sclelltlflt names of plants. ~-Dominant Indicator Domina~ Test WOlktlheet: TM&~ (Ptoula: l ~~ Slalus. Number of Domlnllllt Speoles 1. ------ThatAreOBt. Ff>£W.'lr FAC: (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ------Speofea AilrolsAJI Shala: (BJ 4. =Toti!fCover Percent of.Dominant Specie$ ~~~St~m (PlotGlze: ) ThatAreOBl, FACW, orFAC: (A/8) Pr$valenc• Index. wo_rkaheet 2. ---T Otal '-i! Cover gt:; Ml!!tiQl!flr; :3, ---OBlspecies x1= 4. ---FACW species x2~ 5. ------FNJ epodes X3-= ;ii Tota1 Cover FACU opecies X-4• lf!!ll §lralum (Plotsla: \ UPLepecies J!:6= 1. ------eotumn Toial~ {A) (B) 2. ------ 3. ---Prevalence I~ =BIA= --- 4. ------Hydrophytlc Vegalation 1nu.;.tora: 5. ------_ OominanceTeslls_>SO% 6. ---------_ Prewlenee Index ls '3.0' 7, ---------_ &Ac>rpll®glcalAdapiauon,' (Provide oupporting 8. data in Memarks:or on a separate sheet) ------_ Wetland Non-VUQJar Plants1 9. ------_ Prol!lematlc fiydrophytic Vegelatlon' (Explein) 10. ---'1n<1;_,. of ll)tdriO ...,, and wetland hydlology must 11. ---be present, unless disturbed or problematlC_ ·=Total Cover Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: \ 1. .------Hydrophytic 2. VogetoUon v ------P ........ ? Yas No =Total Cover ---- % Bare Ground in Heib Stratum Remarks: A5$'t<.mt.ed bo.seci f..v .f.,.r,....t....-.5t, el vej U~j tf, f f .-P'll e " d .::r f d. c tR 1e .::-Ir' d _, US Army Corps ~ Eng!neen> Westem Mou11tains. Valleys, and Coast-lnt&rim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projecl/Stte: Al.r.lt. C;ee.k L l C c;1y1eoun1v A,..6"'r/ Samp1ing0a1e..1 /J~1 ApplicanuO..O:: 1 • • 1 state: {j) A 5ampling Point~ / lnvestigalor(s): A .T 8 Section. Town011ip. Range: 3S 1 .J :J A/ . </ IE l.andfom> (hilllllopo, -· elo.): z l>(J SfreA •• ;r..r r114~1 relief (concave. ~nrx. none); , Slope (l>): a -.2. Subregion(LRR): .1 Lat c.{1 11241 36.. ~()/"Wt!;.11.:! "Kit; w Datum: S6 :;onMapUnttName: ;J • .r,.,,-A. /., ,• k£ , NWldassifieation: ______ _ Me di.-1 hydrologlc; conditlono on the site typic,11 fOI' lhl$ i;me of year? Y~ / No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Ate V<g.-0~ Soll __ • or Hydrology __ signilican\lyditltud>ed? /Ve "Normal Cllcumalanceg" pr-'? Yes.d._ No __ m vegetation __ • Soll_. Or Hydrology __ natutalty probtematic? (If needed, explaln any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF ANDINGS -A"9ch site map showing sampling point locatlons, tilmsec:ts, Important features, etc. Hydrophyllc VegetatiooJ're....rl Yes-.L Nor Is 111• Sliinpled Area Ho+ Hydric SQil Present? Yes __ l'lo? within a WeOand? v .. __ Wetland Hydrology'f'resent? Ves __ No · Rest11Tks; . VEGETATION -Use scienilfic 11;1rnes Of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Domtnanc;e Test wot'lcSheet: T~Stratum (PIO!a\it: l ~~er ~~ Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That /Ve OBL, FACW. or FAC; (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strala: (B) 4. ------Percent of Dominant Species = Totarcover That /Ve OBL, FACW. or ~AC: (AIB) &ie!lna/Shrub Stratum (Ploto\ze: ) 1. ---Prevalence ln<IQx. workahfft: 2. Total ~caver !i!f:: MultiDt:t:~: 3. OBLspecies x1:;: 4. FACWs~ x2= 5. ---FAC •i>ecleo x3= = Tcm,f Cover FACU"""""' x4=- U1!11"!'.: CP;tstze: ) uPL~es x5=- 1. t. C.t:t .&::_o. r ~ COiumn Totals: (A) (6) 2. --- 3. ---PrevaJe~ Index =-SIA= 4. ---H)'dropllytlc-Vegetotion lnclltators: 5. ------_ Dominance Test Is >50% 6. -Prevalence Index is S3;01 ------ 7. ---_ Morphological AdBplatio<1•' {Provide supporting a. Gata ill Remarks Of on a separate sheei) -------Wetland Non~Vascular Plants1 9. ------_ Pl<>biehlatic Hydrophytic.Vegetation' (ExPJain) 10. ------~lndicatora .of hYdric soil •nd wetland hydrology must 11. ------be present. unless disturbed or problematic. !::o Total Cover Wood¥ Vme Stratum {Plot size: ' 1. ------Hydrophytlc 2. Vogetation Yes ,,/ ---Prnent? No = Total Cover -- % Bare Ground in Herb strawm Remarks: t>..5$'u/1'1\ed hAt>ed f-v .('4-,.'"'' ..... ~ el i1ej v~ j if. I f;m, e o d I{;( ft:t. <!. " 1e c-I 1' ·4 ...v US Army C0rps Of Englneera Westem Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site ,.J,, r !-/.. c { e e. k L L c City/Count;: A "'6 "" r / Sampling Dale: ;!l /10.. I! I Applicant/OWner. ,. • / Stale: l? A SemptB1g Point~ lnvestigatoqs): A I f3 . SectiOn, Township, Range: 3$ 1 .J :1.V 1 </ E Landfoon (hilhllope. f8ml\le, "'"''' Z "t.! Sf re,,.. 1err.t~1 relief (conca'I&. ~· none): s1opo <1't. O .. .1 Subteg;on(LRR): lat I,/? 2.:/3(,.. t-D/"1..oog/J..:J. OOC/;= l.tJ Datum; !£6 SOii Map Untt Name: .... NWI dassific:ation: _______ _ Are c1;.-1 hydrologic condiiicns on the site fyplc•lfor this lime of year? Yes /' No __ (If no, el<plain In Remarf<o.) Aro Vegetation~ SOI~ or Hydrology __ significalltly d-? Aro "Normal c;,a,-· present? Yes../L__ No __ Are Vegetlilion ___;Soil--· or Hydrolcgy __ nawr811y problema1ic? (If-needed, ~xplaln any anawera in Remarks.} SUMMARY OF FINDING.S -Attach site map showing sarripling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. HydrQPhytic Vegellltion Pr8seill? v .. _L No Is the Sampled Area Nol~ Hydric SOil P!esont? v .. __ No --;:r- within a Wetland? Yes __ Wetland Hydrology Preoent? Yes __ No~· Remarl<s: VEGETATION -Use selentlfic names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worbbeet: Tree §lmt_ym (Plotolze: \ ~ ~ ...§!l!!!!!._ Nun)bet of Dominantspeqles '· ---niat Are OBL, FN;W, orFAC: (A) 2. ---T9181 Number of Oomlnant 3. ------Species AcroSs All Strata: (B) 4. ---Pe<tent or Dominant Speclea =Toter Cover That Are oat.. FAcW. Of FAC: (A/BJ ~limll§bwb §l[f.ll1:1m (Pfotslze: I 1. ------Prevlltn~ ln49x watbmnn; 2. ---Tgtal. ~ Caver .st Mllllillb:~ 3. ------OBLopecie• x1= 4. ------FACWspecies x2= 5. ------FAC •peclet x3= ---=Total Cover FActi species x4~ Hefb.S~um (Plot ske: \ UPLspecies x6=-~: ef),_ ~A.N ,,,,. 3 ------corumn Totals: (A) (B) ------ 3. -.-----Pie.valence l~dex ~BIA= 4. Hydtoplljltic·Ve-~on.lndlcalo<s: --- 5. _ Dominance Test ls .>50% ------ 6. _ Prevalenoe Index is :SS.O' --- 7. _ Molphological Adaplalions' (Provide supporting ---a. c1at11.1n·Remarks or on a sepanite sheet) ---_ Wetland NM-V.19Q.dar'Plants1 9. ---_ Prob!omatie HydrophytiG. VegelatiOn' (Explain) 10. 11. 'lndicoto<> of hydric toil and wellend hydrology must ---be present. unless disturbed or prob!emalic. e Total Cover Woodx YI!!! §i!llh!!!! (Plot size; \ 1. Hydrophytlc 2. Vegetallon Yeo ,/ ------Plasent? No __ = Tot!;ll Cover % Bare Ground in ·Herb Stratum Remarks: A.55'u.M1.eJ l.c..~ed f ,u .(.,,,......,. ....... ~ tf u ej (14 j 4,f f.-m.e " d,;::,fa ~d 1e.::-lf0 ·4...,/ US Army Corps of Engineers West.em Mountains. Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Reglo~ Projeci/IJ;te: ,J,, r .f.J. c { e e. k L L c c;1y1eounty: A 14.. 6 IA. r....... SamplingOate: ~ I " Applleanirown:; ,. • / State: (/) A Sampliig Point: ' -4 lnvesllgator(s): A.! B Seotion. TownshiP. Renge: 3& 1 ,} :JN 1 </ /! landlonn (hillslope, te-=. el<:.): z ""' Sf re,,., 1e.r r114fc;.i relief (concave, "'fl""· none): Slope(%): a -.2 Subrellion(LRR): .1 Lot: l,/1 112(!/16.. '6.f)/"1..ong;llJ. fl/~f5' W Datum: S6 SOllMapUni!Name; /J• I --1.. /(/;A , NWlct_: _______ _ Arec:limatic/hydrologlc conditions on U.. litelypical for this time of yea!'? Yos / No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Axe Vege!ation ~so;; __ . or Hydrology __ slgnlficanUy diO!uibed? Are "Nonna! Cin:umstan<el" present? Yea L No __ Are.Vegetation_, SOii __ , or Hydroragy __ naturally pioblemetio? (H needed, explam eny answers In Remalf<s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, tran~ects, important·fliatures, etc • ...--------------------...,---------------------~ Hydrophytic V-lon P""""1I? H)'dric SOil Preoenl'I Wetland H)l<lrofoily PreSent? Remaiks: Veo_L No Yes __ No -;r-- Yes __ . No~ Is lhe Sompted Area within a Wailai1d? Yu __ Ho_L . VEGETATION -use~lic names Of plantS. Absolute ·~ant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: !!It Stratum (Plot•I,_: l %CoVer -1 S~s Nu-of 0...in&nl Spodeo 1. ---------Tha!An>:OBL, FP£W. or FAC: (A) 2. ------T• Numbe.r of Dominant 3. ------$~ l\CfOSS All Strata: (B) 4. ---Peroent of Dominant Species =Total Cover Tha!Are OBl. FP£W. or Ff.£: (AIB) §!HllimllSbrub §!m!um (Plot size: \ 1. ------~r8yaleti~ lndax wurkBhHt: 2. ---Imai·% Coyar of· Multiply by: 3. ---0Blsp~$ x1• 4. FACW spe_cie$ x2• --- 5. ------fACspecieO x3= ___ =.Total Cover FACU Opecies x4= He~t:. (Pfol-; ' UPLspedes x5• ~:(,L,l Cp ¥"'=' .., ---COflJMl'f Totals: (Al (B) --------- 3. ------Prevalence Index e BIA = 4. ------llytlrophytic.\legetation lndlcaton: 5. ------_ Dominance Test 15 ))-50% 6. ----Preva~ lnde~ is S3:01 7. _ Morphologlell Adaptations' (Provide aupP0<1Jng 8. dala irl Remarks ot on a separate sheet} ---_ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 9. _ Pn>blematjeH)l<ltophyti<Veget.oon' (Explain) 10. 11. 1tndicGllOl'I of hydrie toil and wettand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or ~alk:. =Total Cover Woodi Y.i!!!! S!mlYm (Plot size: ' 1. Hydrophytlc 2. v;ueta,on Yes i/ Present? No --=Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: tJ..5$tA/1'1\gJ bASed {A.I .f'~r-··-~ fl tJ e.j ()4 j lf.f f.-mie o d"-fa Cd 1e.:;...l1'·4.../ us Nmy Corps Of Engineers Weatem Mouriteiris, Vafleys. and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Reglonmf Projeot/Site Al. r .f.t. cf e e. k L L c c;1yJCounty: A IA. 6 IA. r _./ Semplmg Date I 1 I Applicanu0wn:C 16 • / State: {i) A Sampling Point: • ' lnvesligatof(s): A.! B 5ection, Township, Range: 36' 1 J 2 .V 1 </ /!! l.andfonn (hlllslOJ18, tenace. elcc): z f) 41 Sf re,,., "t..r r.~. relief (concave, "'f'r'X· none): Slope(%): a -;J. Subregion (LRR): Lat I,/ 1112<"/ 36,. f.Dl"1.tmrr. I J.~ o g· f5" W oawm: 5 6 Soil Map Unit Name: ,.. NW! classification:-------- J\fe climalic l hydrologic con<f<lion$ on lhe siie typical for this time of.year? YO¥ / No __ (If no, explain in Remsd<s.) An: VegO!ation~ Soll~ or H)'drology· __ slOnifiCMUyd;litu11>ed? /Ve "NonnalCin:umslano85' pr_., v .. ..tL._ No __ J\fe v~ __ , Soll __ , er H)'drotovy __ natu!811y problematic? (tf l'leeded, explain anr answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations; transacts, Important features, etc. Hydruphytic Vllgelation Pmeni? Yea~ No-;:r-Is the Sampled Area No)~ Hydric Soll Pilisenl? Y8$ No Yes= Ho-V· within a W"'8nd? Yes WeUand Hydrology Preaenl? -- Remmks: VEGETATION -Usa scientific names of plaRt$. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test w T.tee Stnitum (PIOl.sla: ) ~~...§lml!L Number of Dominant Spok:ies 1. ---------ThatAre OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. ------T<>lal Hu_, of Dominant 3. ---------SpeciOs AcrossAll Sbala: (Bl 4. ---------Percorlt of Dominant Species = Total Cover ThatAie'OBL. FACW. orFAC: (NB) S.ll!lna/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. ------Pnwalenca lnd&Jf; wortshaet 2. T Ota! 'Mt Coyer bt Multiply by• --- 3. ------08tspeci8$ x1~ 4. ---FACW species x2= 5. ---FAC opooies x3= 1111. Total Cover FACU specie• x-4= ~!!!!Sit: (~siff: ' UPL species Jt5= ;: : :e_ c.~t!l~5 ------Coluinn Totals: (A) (8) 3. Prevalence Ind~ ~SIA= ------ 4. ------· Hydtophytk: Vogola1lon Indicators: 5. _ Domlnanoe Toot la >60% --- 6. _ Ptevatence lndex:Js ~3.0 1 ------ 7. _ Molphologi<af ~· (Provide supPortlng 8. data iD Remarks or on a separate sheet) ------_ Welland Non-V-Plants' 9. ---_ Prol>lemalic Hy-ytie Vegetatiof\' (Explain) 10. ------1inditatorJ of hydric: toil •nd W8Uand h.Ydrology muat 11.. ------be present, unless diatumed or problematic. "' Total Cover Woody: ~'1.l!i! Stratum (Plot size: \ 1. ------Hydrophytk: 2. Vtgtta~n Vos ,/ ---------Pl'Henl? No __ = T otel Cover % Bare Gtoumt in Hefb Stratum Remarks: A.$$'t1.-.ed ~Ased fAJ .("',.."'"'.-.... ~ el 11ej LI.II j tlf frmie " de:rf.d <!.a 1ee..-lr' . .,,_,.. us Army ecr.s of Engineer& Westem Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projeot/Srte: ,,J,, r .{./.. c re e. k L L c City/County;. A «. 6 "' r / Sampling Date -~? !1o.h I Appljcent/Owner. •• •I State: (j.J A Sampfmg Point~ kWesllgator\•): A .! 8 5ecfion, Town&llip. Range 34 1 .1 :J P 1 (/ E lafldlonn (hillslope, torrace,.ato.): z f>4! SfreiMfJ "te.r £•4~ relief (ooncave. "'?'11""· oone): SIOpe (%): CJ -.2. Subroglon(LRR): Lat: y1•2o'U •. ~t>f"1.ong/J.:J. ou;15-fJ Datum: !!£6 S<ill Map Unit Name: , ~ldassificallon: _______ _ Are climatic-I hydrolcgic oondi1ion• on the sire !jpic:ol for !his time oi yeor? Y.. / No __ (If no. explain in Remad!s.) Are Vegetation~ Soil_, orH~ __ Signfficanlly di91urt>ed7 /\re ·11onna1 Cit<umslllnce•" p1-YeoL No __ Are Vegetotion __ ,Soil--· or Hydrolag}' __ naturally prol>lemalk:? (If needed, explain ony onswen; in Remad<s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transect&, important featuliilS, etc. Hydrophytlc Vegetation Preseot? y .. L_No Is the Sampled Area No~ Hy<lri<: Soil Present? v.,. No -;;r- Wetland Hy<lrologyPteoenl? Yeo= No -;;:;r--within a Wetland? Yes~ Remarks: VEGETATION -use seientific names of plants. AbsolutB Dominant lndiCator Dominance TestwOlbheet: Tree1f;d;rm: • l ~ ~ .li!il!!!-Number of Dominant Species. ,_ .ue.r ---·------Th•t Are OBL. FAf;W. or FAC: (A) . 2. ------Total Number ol llomlnant 3. ---SpeciOs Atro .. All Strata: (8) 4. ----of Domlnont Species ___ =Total Cover That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: {A/B) Saoono1§flw12 Slr.llum (Plot size: ) 1. ---Prevalence·fn(Jex wurbhaet 2. ---Total % CcM!r gf; Multiply by; 3. ---OBL spec:los . x1= 4. FACW spec:los x2= s. FACspeciOJ X3= --- ~To~~ FACU opecloa x4• Herb~DJ (Plot si~: \ UPL species x5• ::-=Je.l C&f;</V3~f¥~ ------COiumn Totals: (A) (8) --- ~-Prevalent:e Index =BIA= ------ 4. ------Hydrophytto Vs(llllllon In-: 5. _ Dominance Test is >50% 6. ---_ Prevalonce Index ISS3.0' 7. ------_ M9fl'l\OIOglcal Adaplaliooo' (Provide supporting it data iP ·Remarb er on a separate shelt) ------_ Wetland Non-Vascular.Plants1 9. ---_ Ptobtematic HydtophyticVege1ation' (Explain) 10. ------'Indicators of hydriC ooit ond we11a11<1 hydrology rrnm 11. be present. unless disturbed or problematic. ·= Tottil Cover Woodx Vine straw.m (Plot size: \ 1. ~rophytlc 2. Vegetation YK V ---PntBent? No --= T otat Co11er % Bare Ground in Hefb stratum RG1narks: tA.5$tA.;n,eJ ifAsecl r,u .('.,..,.. ............... ~ ~ vej V4_j I{ f f<P11e o da fa ~ d 1e c-1 ,· _,,...,,, vs Annr Corp$ Of 5ngineera western Mountains, VaUeiya, and Coasl -Interim Version . WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Reg~lon PfQjecll$ite: ,Jli r ./-/... c { e e. k L L e Cily/Coun(y: A IA. 6 ,., r _./ Sampling Dote: I ApplicanvOW.:..: ,. • / state: f? A Sempting Poi • -T lnvesllgator(•): A .! /3 Section, Township, Renge: 315 1 J :l ..V 1 </ /! l.all<flonn (hiUsfope, lemiDe, etc.): z #&I Sf re,,,,., '"r.J'rot~1 relief (ooncave, "'!"Y"·· none): Slope (%): a -.2. SUbrf<glOn(LRR): Lat l,/1 112o13f •• ,Df"l."'1g.fJ.J. Otf't!; W Datum: }S6 SOll Map Unit Name: , NWI c:la_,,: -------- Are clima!ic I hy!frotoglc c:ondilion8 on the site lypk:et tor this time of year? Yes / No __ (If no. explain In Remalf<s.) Ne~ __ . $oi __ • or Hydrology __ significantly.disturbed? Are 'Normal Cin;umatancea' pr .... 11 Yeo L No __ Ne Veg-~ Soi __ , 0< Hydrology __ nalutally problematic? (If needed, e"l'faln any an8Wenl in Remarl<s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, lmporteilt features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegelafionf'reseot? Yes.,.£ No fs the Sampled Alft Not-Hydric SOll P,.....I? Yee __ No::;:;: wllhln•Walland? Vas __ Welland Hy<frolojjy Plesant? Yes No · Remarks: VEGETATION -·Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Oomlcam lndli:ator Damtnance Tut .. rree ftd (PloUlze:. ) ~~Status. Number of Dominant Spodes 1. .A lJ t-r ---·------ThetAre OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) . 2. ------TQlal Number of Dominant 3. ---------SoOoies Across All strata: (8) 4. ---------~ofDominant~ ' =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: (NB) §!!'11i!l'1!.§hrub Sl£!tym (Plot size: 1. Pnivalence lnf{n wmbheet --------- 2. ------Total tie Coye[ot. Mul~EU~: 3. ---OBLepecias x1= 4. --- --- FACW sp:icies. x2• 5. ------FACs-x3= =Total Cover FACU species x4 ... ~ ~·lllm <;r size: ' UPL species x6= 1. :'l!.e_ c ta..,.,,,,<A .1 :j ---------Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. --- --- 3. Prevalence Index =BIA= --- --- 4, -HY!k'Ophytic VagetaJion Indicators: --- ~· ------_ Damtnance Test la >50% 6. ---_ Prevalence Index Is ~.01 7. _ Morpl\ologieal Adaptations' (Provide supportlOg ------data-in Remarks or 6n a aseparate shfft) 8. ---------_ Wetland Non-Vasc:ularPlants1 9. ------_ Problematic H~ic ·Ve;etation1 (Explain) 10. ------1 l!ldieatol'5 of hydr.ic toll and wetland hydroldgy must 11. ------be present. unless disturbed or problematic. "" Total Cover Wood~ Vine §!{ltym {Plot size: ' 1. ---Hydrophytic ---Vegetation Yes i/ 2. ---------PntSBnt? No __ = Total Cover % Bate Gru~nd in Hetb Stratum Rematks: A5$t-,,..,.eel ~o.sed f..v .f'.,.I".-•-~ el 11ej V4j I{ f f 11111 e " d,:;, f.et <! t11 1e .::.-1 r' .,, .,.,,, US Army Corps bf Engineers We-stem Mountains. Vatteys, and Coast -Interim Veraion WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regl~n Projeci/Site: Ahr././... cf e e. k L L c City/County: A "-6 " r.,,,,.. Sampling Date AppljcanUo..n:r. ,. • ( S-: (i) A Sampling Point: • - lnves!Jgaton•J: A.! /3 Seotion, Township, Range: 3S 1 .l :J P 1 </ l! Landfonn (hiUslope, teaaoo. etc.): z "4! Sfre"AIJ =r..rrdtilJi. ielief (concaw:, ~ none): Slope(%): cJ -~ Subregion(LRRJ: lat 1,/1 112(/3(..f.t>l"U>ng;O.~ "OC'f5-W Datum: !!i6 Soil Map Unit Name: , NWI classification: _______ _ Are cllmali<I hydrologic conditioll$ on the siie lypicol f«this time of year? Yes / No __ (If no, e><plaln in Remarlo;.) NeVegelation~ SoU -or Hydrology __ aignlficantly d' .. IU!bed? Ne "Normal c ... -.· present? Ye& L No __ Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ nelurally ~matic? (tfneeded, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS·-Attach site map showing sampling l>i>lnt locations, transects, important featur&s, etc. Hydrophylic Vegelation Present? Yes ...JL::... No __ ls the Sampled Area Not-Hydlic Soil Present? v .. __ No __ Within a Weiland? Yea Watland HydrologyPreaent? Yes No -- Remarks: VEGETATION-Use seientlfic names Of Plants. l\bsolUle Dominant lndlCator oomtnance THt worUheet: ~ree-'lil!:T"'.a'zi ~ ,_ ) ~~~ Number of Do.rtdnant Species ---------Thi>lAreOBL. FACW. or FAC: (A) 2. ------Total Number of Dominal'lt 3. ---------Specifl, ACrQSs Alf Strata: (BJ 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species ' == T otar cover That Ne OBL. FACW. or FAC: (AIB) SaolinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. ------PrvYaten.ce Index warbheet 2. ---Total.% Coyer of: Multip1y :pv; '3. OBLspecies x1= --- 4. fN:;W sp~eies x2= ------ 5. --- --- FACspeeies X3= ___ -=-Tobd cover FACU •pecies x4=- Hill! Elol•lze: ) UPL species x5= ---------COiumn· Totais: (A) (B) 1. ~t: ~"'ff"' v.,, 2. '111,_r !1 ------I Prevalence lndt:i:x = BIA=-.3. --------- 4. llydrophytlc Vegew!on lndlcatoni: --------- s. ---------_ Dominance Test ia >50% 6, ---------_ Pcevatence Index~ s3.01 7. ---------_ ~Adaptation•' (Provide S\lpparting data in Remarks or Oil a separate sheet) B. ---------_ WelfandNon-VilscularPlanto1 9. ---_ Problemali< ffydfophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. ------11ndicatOrio of hydric soil a.nd wetland hydrofogy must 11. ---be _present. unless disturbed or problemric. ic Total Cover Woody Vme Strawm (Plot size: ' 1. ------Hydrophytlc 2. Vegetation Yes ,/ ---------Ptesent? No ---= Total Cover -- % 6~ Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: A.5~tA/1'1\9J . li{.t.sed f A) .f.,.r-...... •-~ !Sf ti ej ti~ j t{f frmie " dt:rf.d. <!tR 1ec.-l1'-d_,; US Army Corps of Engineer& westem Mountaim~, VaHeys. and Coast-Interim Version _ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Wutem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region~ PrOjecllSi!e: J,, r .f.J.. c { e e. k L L c City/County: A "'"6 (A. r / Sampling Oate: ApplicanVawn:;; t• • 1 Slate (/) A Sampling Point ~ -/ / lnve8llgator(s): A I 8 sectlon. Township, Range: 3~ 1 J :1 N 1 </ /! landfonn (hillslope, -·etc.): z #&! Sfrt1Af:i ..,.,,. r•~1-1 (concave,~· none): Slope(%): a -.2. Subleglcn(LRR): Lat (/711211!/36,. t.Dl"1.ong:flJ. 01~!5" w Datum; S6 Soil Map Unit Name: ,, NW! classffication: -------- Ne dimalio I hjdrologie conditioos on Ill& site fypical for this -of year? Yes / No __ (ff no, explain in Remarks.) tveVegelofion~Soil __ ,orH}'(fJl:>logy __ significanffy-. tve•NonnalC-•"pr....i? Ye•.JL..._ No __ Nev~ __ , SOil __ ,or Hydrology __ naluially prcblematk;? (If needed, explain any answers in Rematks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Altaeh site map showing sampling point locations, transects,.important features, etc. Hydtuphytie Vegetation Pmsenl? Yes.L_ NO ls the S8mp1ed Area No A Hydric Soil Piesenl? Vea __ No~ within a Wetland? Yes Wetland Hydrology Pment? ..... __ No __ --- Rem.ks: . VEGETATION-Use:sclentlfic names of plants. Absolute •Dominant laator Dominance .-est worbheet: Tree Stratum (Plot &lie: ) %eove·~--Number of Dominant Spocies 1. ------Thatl\reOBl. FACW. 0r FAC: {A) 2. ------T~tal Number or Dominan1 3. ------SpeclOs-All Slriiia: (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are oat. FACW, or FAC: (A/B) §a:DlinalShrub ~rgtym (Plot size: \ 1. UJ.•r,..v ------Prevalence-Index wOrksheet 2. ---Total· '9 Coyer ot . Mu!tiDly bv:. 3_ ML species ' x1= 4_ -Fl\CW species x2• ------ 5. ------FACepecie$ x3= a. Total Cover FACU &peciog x4= l:l!!tR Stratum (Plot size: • UPL opecies x5= 1. COlu'"" Totals: (A) (B) 2. ------ 3. ------Pll!V ... nc:e Ind~ =BIA= 4. f!Ydrophytlc Vegeliltion lnrllcalon: ------ 5. ---------_ Dominance Test ls >50% s. ---------_ Prevalenca Index i$ SS.Qt 7. ------_ M<Hpltologf<:Ol hfoptatlono' :(Provide aupJ)9rting data fn Remarks.or on Ei separate sheet) B. ---------_ Wetland'Non-VaswlarPlants.1 9. ---------_ Prob-cHydrophytk:Vegebotion1 (Explain) 10. ---------'indioatO\'s of hydric soil WKl welland hydRJlogymust 11. ---------be present, imlesa disturbed or problematic. = Total cover Woodi'. Vine S!r!!um (Plot size: \ '----Hydrophytlc 2. Vegetation i/ ---------Ptesent? Yes No = T otat Cover ---- 'Mi Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: A.5$1A.M\ed AfA.Sf2d f .cJ .f'.,.,,.,...., ...... -5;, tf "ej V•_j tf I f,-P'lle o d~ fa ca 1e .::.-1 ,· _,, ...v US Atmy COJPSOf Engineer!> western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Interim Version ATTACHMENT 2 RA TING FORMS Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed " -I 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points= S -I 00 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (I 70ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points= 4 -JOO m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial ohoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads ,paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES= 1 noint NO= 0 nnints Figure_ 2 I Total forpage j Wetland Rating Fenn-western Washington 15 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report htto:llwd(W. wa.gov/hah/ohslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (I OOrn) of the wetland 1U1it? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stamls.ofaspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (fa// descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. _Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-groW(b west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, fonning a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years ofage. <Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that I 00%; crown cover may be less that I 00"/o; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form ofa dry prairie or a wet prairie (fall descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearsbore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occuning cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas ofrock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this 7'. list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) U Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 16 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within Y, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within V. mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within V. mile. points=2 There are no wetlands within V. mile. points= 0 _J ___ H 2. TOTAL Score -opportnnity for providing habitat I b I Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 I I -----TOTAL forH l from page 14 --il-- Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H l, H 2 and record the result on 8 p. l Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 17 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria .that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the annro11riate criteria are·met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC I.I NO - SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Categorv I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undistwbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat.fl cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than I 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/JI). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undistwbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in detellnining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least% of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 18 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either higb quality undistwbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section!Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) SfTIR information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a higb quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES= Category I NO __ not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identifY if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - ~toQ3 ~-~toQ2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No_ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 19 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lf you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fanctions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height ( dbh) of 32 inches (8 l cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat.I NO _not a forested wetland with special characteristics YES ~ Category I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least% of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO= Category II Wetland Rating Fonn-western Washington 20 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat.Il Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." -I 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human nse) Points= S -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (I 70ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showinn buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 ls the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 300/o cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 nnint NO = 0 nnints Figure_ t Total for page.3__ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 15 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hablphslisthtm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (lOOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (fall descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. I 52). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (fall descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (fall descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. I 61). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These inclnde Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (foll descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talns: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 16 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within Y, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within Y, mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within Y, mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within y, mile. points= 0 .) -----H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat I 6 I Add the scores from H2. J,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 I I -----TOTAL forH I from page 14 ( -----Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on ;i ' p, I Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fanctions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I NO _not a forested wetland with special characteristics YES = Category I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a I 00 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than I/IO acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO =Category II Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. II ATTACHMENT 3 MITIGATION MONITORING FORM MONITORING FORM Sample plot#:------Date: _____ Completed by: ---------- 0 As-built a 30days 0 Early in first growing season 0 End of first growing season D Yr 2 Spring D Yr2 Fall 0 Yr3 TREES #PLANTED CONDmON %COVER %SURVIVAL SHRUBS . HERBS DESIRABLE VOLUNTEERS L'llV ASIVE EXOTICS %COVER METIIOD OF CONTROL SOILS II OHORIZON I A HORIZON BHORIZON Hydrology: --------------------------- Wildlife Observed: ------------------------- Comments: ---------------------------- ATIACHMENT 4 PHOTOS PHOTO 2 : Puddle ten feet from TH1 in PHOTO 1 PHOTO 3: TH 2, no water to 4 feet next to puddle r PHOTO 4 : TH2 no water to 4 feet next to puddle PHOTO 5: TH5 no water to 4 feet next to monitoring well -~ • I . • PHOTO 7 : TH 9 in Wetland A ATTACHMENT 5 ARMY CORPS MEMO US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Modifications and Clarifications SUBJECT: Qu es tion s & A n sw e rs on 19 87 M a nu a l l. In res ponse to que st io ns from th e fie ld, th e Qs & As o n th e 1987 Corp s o f En g ineers Wet land De lineati on Manual (1987 Manu a l) have be en further c lar ifi ed (in part icular, que sti ons #7 and #8). We c la rifi ed that for saturated-onl y systems , the s atu rat io n must be to the s ur fa ce fo r the a ppropr iate number of days du ri ng th e grow ing se aso n. Furthermore , we cl ar ified that th e number o f da ys fo r inund ati o n or s aturati on to th e s ur face are co nsec ut ive, not c umu lat ive . The enc losed Qs and As date d 7 October, 1991 s up erse de th ose prev io us ly di stributed und e r th e cove r memo randum of 16 Se ptemb e r, 199 1. 2. I wa nt to aga in emph as ize th at th e 1987 Manu a l stresses the nee d to ve rify th at a l I three param eters ex is t pri o r to ide nt ify in g and de linea t ing a n area as a wet land . Furth er, th e 19 87 Manu a l foc uses o n hydro logy (i.e ., inund ati on and /o r s aturat io n to th e s ur face ). In s itu a ti ons where hyd ro logy is qu esti o nab le, th e 1987 Manu a l require s stron ger ev idenc e regardin g th e hydro ph y tic nat u re o f th e vege tati o n. Th e 1987 Manua l a lso stresses th e nee d to use so und profess io nal judg ment , pro v id ing lat itud e to demon strate wheth er an area is a we t land o r not based on a ho li sti c and care fu l co ns id erati o n o f ev idence fo r al l three param eters . As indi cated in the 1987 Manu a l and th e att ac hed Qs and As, ca refu l pro fess ional j ud gment mu st be used in s ituati ons w here indi cators o f hydro logy are not clea r and the dominant vegetat io n is fa c ultati ve . JO HN F. ST UDT Chi e f, Regul ato ry Branch Operati o ns, Co nstru cti on and Rea din ess Di vis ion D irec torate of C ivil Wo rk s Octo be r 7 , 199 1 Q uestio ns and Answers o n 1987 C o r p s of E ng in eers Ma nu a l 1.Q . Wh at is the defi nit io n and pract ica l interpretati o n of the growing season w hi ch s ho uld be used in th e a pplicat ion of th e 1987 Manu a l? A. T he 1987 Ma nu a l defin es t he grow in g seaso n as "th e po rti on of th e yea r w hen s o il temp erat ures at 19.7 inches be low the so il s ur face are h ig her th an b io logica l zero (5 degrees C)". Thi s is the definiti on fo und in So il Taxonomy , and grow in g seaso n mo nt hs ca n be ass um ed based on te mp erature regimes (e .g ., mes ic: March-Octo ber). Th e 19 87 Manu a l fur ther s tates thi s peri od can be a pproxi mated by th e nu m ber o f fros t-fr ee days . The Wate rway ATIACHMENT6 COE MEMO MEMORANDUM FOR DECISION: FIELD REVIEW AND JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY ADD ENDUM , 16 APRIL 2009 APPLICANT: Glenmont Windward Marysville (Sod Farm) REFERENCE: NWS-2008-405-NO CONSUL TANT: AJ Bredberg and Asso ciates LOCATION: Marysville, Snohomish County, Washington BACKGROUND: By letter dated 16 March 2009, the owner requested reconsideration of the portion of Corps ' 9 February 2009 jurisdictional determ in at ion for the Sod Farm affected by sod farm in g practices. On 8 April 2009, to preserve his appeal rights, the owner filed an appeal with the Corps on the same issues. Our reconsideration is based on additional information incl udin g photographs collected by the Corps on 11 March 2009, and photographs taken by the applicant on 6 April 2009. It is also based on the sod farming practices described by the owne r in the request for reconsideration letter, and sod farming information subm itted by the owner in 2008. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONCLUSIONS: SW Quadrant (upl and): we observed extens ive pond i ng on 11 March 2009; ponding might have even started about a week earl ier because of frequent precipitation and cool conditions; we observed no (long duration) ponding on 6 April 2009 (27 -day interval) even considering the facts that precipitation had been 2.65 inches above normal in March 2009 and that soils had been compacted during the 2008-2009 season by sod fa rm ing harvesting activ ities. CONCLUSION: Our 2009 observations confirm ou r 2008 conclusion that long duration ponding is not likely in this area under ave rage precipitation conditions during the growing season. Therefore, the Corps ' o ri ginal de li neation of the southwest quadrant as upland stands unchanged. Our observation of short duration ponding in 2009, but not much in 2008 on this portion of the Sod Farm lends support to the owner's contention that sod farming practices affect surface ponding occurrences. SE Quadrant (wetland): On 11 March 2009, we did not observe any surface ponding . The area had been plowed probably i n the autumn of 2008, so the soils were much fluffier than they were at the time of our original observations in March -April 2008. Photographs provided by the owner, taken on 6 April 2009 also showed no ind i cators of surface water ponding. CONCLUSION: Adapting review steps in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual -Section F, Atypical Conditions , Subsection 4, Man-induced Wetlands, we concluded that hydrologic indicators are present in the southeast quadrant area only because of man-induced conditions (e.g . machine compacted soil) that wou ld cease to occur if the sod farming practices were to be permanently terminated. Therefore , the southeast qua d rant should not be considered a wetland. ATIACHMENT7 TREE THROW PAPER Tree Throws , Wetlands and Minimum Size Delineations Relevent to the Puget Sound Area A.J. Bredberg , R.C . Herriman , Steve Holzhey, Mon S . Yee (In Preparation) Tree throws or stump holes are small depress ional areas on a landscape . A tree throw is where a tree tips over and leaves a depression in the landscape and a stump hole is when a stump has been manually removed leaving a depression. Th e former i s naturally occurring the latter is man achieved. These depressions a re readily identifiab le and contain specific charact erist ics. Tree throws can sometimes meet technica l wetland criteria , but should not be regulated ; they are too small to regulate , not "normal circumstances", do not represent natural features , are inconsistent with the natural landscape , lack hydric soi ls , . Characterizing T ree Throws Tree throws are often generated in soi ls with a restrictive feature limiting rooting to the upper horizons . Sha ll ow soils are commonly found with approximately 18 to 24 inches of A and B horizon combined over a clay Bt or C horizon that can be firm to very firm compacted till or mud fl ow. Examples of this are the Buckley and Kapowsin soil series in Washington State , and the Dayton series in Oregon. The shallow so il s support a natura l veget ation community w ith large, sha ll ow-rooted trees . These large , sha llow-rooted trees can be subjected to tipovers that create tree throws , or durin g logging and land clearing when the stumps wou ld be removed through mechanical means, such as large machinery or blasting . The removal of the stumps leaves a hole that is eventually backfilled so that the land can be used for agricultural purposes. Over the decades the old stump holes experience subsidence of a few to several inches , and create a sma ll depression in the landscape . These sma ll depressions in the landscape tend to be wetter than the surrounding landscape, and w i ll have a tendency to support a community of hydrophytic vegetation . Contrasting the hydrophytic vegetation of the o ld stump holes with that of the surrounding area provides the impression that the old stump holes a re wetlands and meet the three-parameter criteria : vegetation , so il s and hydrology. Because the stump holes are a low spot in the landscape they have hydrophytic vegetation . As a low point in the landscape , they can collect water and have a water table within 12 inches of the surface , meeting wetland hydrology criteria into the growing season. Soil borings into the old stump holes find a mixture of soils in a mixture of colors that can be commonly referred to as mottling. The mottled soils are interpreted as hydric, and the stump holes are erroneously considered to be wetlands . The spatial distribution of trees in an old-growth setting generally correlate well to the spatial distribution of stump holes present in an old growth forest. Looking at an old-growth forest , the location of the stumps is in the same general distribution that we find stump holes in the field . The spatial distribution of the old stump holes that are considered wetlands can lead to a delineation of numerous areas of several hundred square feet individually . The stump holes can be found localized in such a manner that they can be connected under the application of the mosaic rule (DOE figure 4 ), and the areas will be over threshold determination square feet in toto , and thus regulated as a wetland (site a city code). These areas generally do not meet hydric soil criteria when the disturbance is understood . Tree throws not cons idered wetlands should be identified as a disturbed area in an upland landscape . Two general types of soil profiles are found depending on whether the area is a tree throw or stump hole. The stump hole normally has a 6 to 9 inch Ap horizon over horizon of mixed colors consisting of Ap , Bw, and C horizons along with charcoal , fired peds , and decomposed plant materials . These mixed colors include a combination of textures in separate particles. These features are easily misinterpreted as redoximorphic features ; they are not redoximorphic features. The stump holes may have hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology , but the soils lack hydric indicators. Often , remnants of a fragmented Bw horizon is present. When a large test hole is dug with a machine and examined the remnants of the Bw hor izon are visible . A large test pit makes th e above described pattern readily apparent and available for interpretation . To understand the stump holes are disturbances in a n upland landscape and should not be regulated as jurisdictional. A tree throw resulting from a tip over and not backfilled by mechanical means will generally have a soil profile matching the surrounding area , but lacking several inches of the surface horizon . The A or B horizon can be missing ; these areas are best referred to as truncated . Lateral tracing soil horizons from the surrounding area provides baseline data for determining the missing horizons . BC and C horizons of a tree throw will be nearly the same as those of the surrounding uplands, to confirm upland status and disturbance of the tree throw. If the BC and C horizon differ, commonly with lower chroma and/or a greater concentration of redoximorphic features , the chance that a jurisdictional wetland is present needs to be investigated . Tree Throws and Wetland Jurisdiction In 1972 the Federal Government instituted the Clean Water A ct. The Clean Water Act eventually led to the adoption and promulgation of laws regulating wetlands in the United States. From this , the State of Washington , its counties and municipal jurisdictions have enancted laws to regulate wetlands. Wetland regulation relies upon the accurate and correct delineation and determination of a jurisdictional wetland . The Federal Government prepared the 1987 Federal Wetland Delineation Manual that provides the official definition of a technical wetland . This Manual has been updated with the "Interim Original Supplement to the Corps Of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual : Western Mountains , Valleys, and Coast Region" (April 2008). Once an area is determined to be technically a wetland , which means meeting the three-parameter criteria of having hydrophytic vegetation , hydric soils and wetland hydrology , it is then up to interpretation as to whether the wetland is jurisdictional or not. Ju risdictional wetlands have a surficial area. Technically, wetlands of one-square-inch exist; however, it is impractical to attempt to regulate wetlands so small. The question arises as to the size of wetlands that are to be regulated . Washington State Ecology Publ ication #05-6 -008 , page 8-13 , discusses wetland size in qualitative terms of acreage but lists no specific area . The So il Survey Manual (1993 ) page 53 , addresses the issue of a m inimum s ize delineation in quantitative terms based on the sma llest map unit that can be fitted onto a map of a g iven scale. Precedent exists for minimum delineation sizes of 2 ,500 square feet using a base map of 50 scale. The history and justification of the 2 ,500 square feet minimum size delineations has its inception from t he High Intensity Soil Survey (HIS) mapping criteria as developed for the state of New Hampshire. In the late 1980's, soil scientists developed the HIS mapping standards under guidance of state soil scientist, Sid Pilgrim , who recommended that a minimum size delineation of 2 ,500 square feet be established . The basis of this area was that a standard site plan would be at 50-scale and a 1-inch by 1-inch or 50x50 foot area as depicted on the map , or 2 ,500 square feet, would be about as small an area that could be accurately shown on a map. This minimum size delineation concept was first codified in Washington State in 1990 in Pierce County where the author provided input for the Wetland Ordinance. Many jurisdictions have since establishes the minimum sizes of wetlands to be considered jurisdictional. The minimum size delineation concept is effective in facilitating the accurate and fair regulation and mapping of wetlands. When numerous small areas under the minimum size delineation are mapped in a general area , they can be considered a mosaic. A mosaic is an area of numerous small wetlands in close enough proximity that they can be combined and treated as a single unit because of their interaction with the environment. As such , a group of wetlands less than 2,500 square feet can be combined into one large area and thereby that area will be made jurisdictional. This has merit for environmental protection , but can lead to complications and misinterpretation and erroneously designate an upland area that is not a wetland to be a wetland . These areas designated as wetlands do not function as wetlands , and are a misappropriation of the resources for the protection of an area that does not function as a wetland. This paper sets forth a higher level of technical interpretation to ensure that our natural resources are protected properly by assigning the jurisdictional wetland designation to those areas that have the values and functions meant to be protected. ATTACHMENT 8 wsu TILLAGE/PLOW PAN INFORMATION Use of Tillage in Organic F arming Syste m s : The Bas ics -eXten s io n W\SHlNl;-10~ S l /\11 : r; LJNIVERSI I Y ¥ EXTfNSlOr-..: Use of Tillage in Organic Farming Systems: The Basics Last Updated: August :!9. :!011 eOrganic authors : J oel Gruver, Western Illino is University Mi che ll e Wander, Uni ve rs ity of Illinois Page I of 14 Thi s a rticl e includes information about the use of tillage in orga ni c farming systems. It provides an overview of h ow tillage fits within the o rga nic s tandards and o rga nic fa rming sys tems. It d efin es typ es of tillage, int roduces tillage equipment, pro vid es a s ummary of pros a nd co n s associate d with tillage practices, a nd gives examples of primary a nd seconda ry tillage and no -till applications. • I. Overview of Tillage and Organic Manage m ent • II. Organic Certification a nd Tillage • III. What is Tillage? • IV. Types of Mechanical Till age a nd Tools • V. Pros and Co n s of Till age • VI. Primary a nd Second a 1y Tillage and No-Till Opti o ns • VI I. Tillage Glossary • VIII. Tillage Resources • IX. Refe ren ces I. Overview of Tillage and Organic Management Heavy re li ance on tillage fo r weed control has b een cited as a weakness in organic system s . Howeve r, from a n o rga ni c m atter a nd so il s tru cture perspective, the re is pl e nty of evide nce that organic fa rming syst em s typica ll y p e rform as well or b e tte r th a n co nvent ional, herbicide-inte nsive sys t em s with less so il disturbance. Thi s is beca u se importatio n of o rga ni c inputs s uch as manures and compos t s, recycl in g of o n-farm orga nic matte r, a nd we ll -designed cro p ro tations (including cove r c rops and perenni al forages), t e nd to offset the negative influ e nces of tillage on soil structure and organic matter. Th ese negative co nsequences can incl ude loss o f o rgani c matter , increased soil strength, red uced infiltration rates, co mpaction, a nd increased erosion. Experienced organic farmers minimize the negative consequences of tillage through ca re ful con side ration of t he timing of t ill age, equipme nt ope ratio n , so il conditions, a nd the crop rotation in whi ch tillage practices a re applied. Ce rta in crops, li ke root vegetables, that invo lve inte ns ive soil disturbance during h a rves t and return little crop residue can b e rotated "vith crops that in volve less so il d isturbance and return m o re crop res idu e. Beg inning farmers have mu ch t o learn about the art and sc ience behind e ffe ctive tilla ge practices. Po li cy m akers n eed to appreciate when and where o rga nic farming can provide desired eco log ica l se1vices, in cluding carbon sequ estration, despite tillage intens ity that is oft e n hi g he r than in co nve ntional systems. Increased collaboration between agroecologists, agricultural e ng in eers, and experi en ced farmers "vi ii lead http://www.extension.org/pages/ 18 634/use-of-tillage-in-o rganic-farming-system s:-thc-basic s 12/9/20 I I Use of T illa ge in Organic Farming Systems : T he Basics -eX tension Page 2of 14 the way to better till age systems that allow more consistent benefit from stra tegic till age in the context of well-planned cropping systems while minimizing negative side effects. Three po ints to remember are: • Imple ment selection a nd setup have a sign ifi ca nt influence on s uccess. • Tractor siz e and speed influences tool performance. • Practitioner skill is a key ingredient to success! II. Organic Certification and Tillage The National Organic Program final rule (United States Deptartme nt of Agri culture [USDA], 2000) Certified o rga nic farmers must document the tillage practices and procedures perform ed as part of their Organic System Plans [NOP sectio n §205.201(a)(1)]. Hand weeding and mechanical cultiva tion a re among the a ll owed weed control measures [NOP section §205.206(c)l4)]. Farm records must document the frequency of tillage applications. T hi s can be d one in a number of ways; a n organi zed and easy-to-use system s hould be adopted by the producer for documenting till age, rotation, and amend men t hi sto ry (in additi on to other information required by the NOP s tandard) for each fie ld. When reviewing a producer's farm plan, the organic inspector will consider whether tillage practices are being used in ways tha t maintains or improves the physical, chemical, and b iological condition of th e soil and that minimize soil erosion [NOP section §205.203(a)]. III. What is Tillage? Tillage is mechanical modification of soil structure. Tillage tools modify soil structure through a wide range of soil-tool inte r ac tions, including: cutting, milling, c ru shing, beating, and rebound. http://www.ex tens ion.org/pages/ 18634/use-o f-ti I lage-i n-orga n ic-farm i ng-systems:-the-basics 12/9/20 I I Use o f Tillage in O rgani c Farming System s: The Bas ic s -eXtens io n Create a soil co ndition from which a seed b ed can be prepared using seco nd ary tillage imple me nts. Soil Primary till age disturbance is ge ne rally >6 inch es d eep . Primary ti ll age is necessary when ex is ting soil co nditions inhibit the effec tiveness of second ary tools. Secondary tillage Cu lti vat io n Seed bed preparation-may involve pulverizing, leveling, and/or residue sizing and burial. Soil preparation is traditionally full -fi eld but can be concentrated in row zo nes. Mechanical management of weeds a nd res idues . so il in a plow layer, resulting in the buria l of most c rop residues. Agg ress iv e tine tools-such as chisel plows, rippers, a nd subso il e rs- fra cture, but d o not invert soil and retain mo r e res idu e cover. Aggressive PTO -powered t ool s s uch as spad ers and rotary till ers ca n be used for primary tillage . An acceptable seed bed can sometimes be prepared in only one pass. Tillage t oo ls used for seed bed preparation are ge nerally r eferred to as harrows . Most h arrows are draft implements with gangs of tines, disks, rolling baskets, or combinatio ns . Powered harrows, s uch as rotovators, rod weeders, a nd reciprocating harrows, a re also used fo r seed bed preparation a nd can accomplish mor e in one pa ss than draft tools. Sweeps a re used to push residues as id e for conservation planting. Directed vs . blind cultivation eq uipment: Directed (row crop) cultivato rs are used to undercut o r dislodge weeds growing between crops planted on wide rows (generally >2 feet). Soil may be thrown into the row . Shi elds are sometimes used to prevent bu rial of the crop. Blind cultivation is mostly used preeme rgent or shortly after the emerge nce of wide row crops, but is Page 4 of 14 http://www.extensio n .org/pages/ 18634/use-of-ti llage-in -organic-farming-syste ms:-the -bas ics 12/9/20 I I Use of T il lage in O rgan ic Farming System s: The Basics -eXten s io n Land shaping Co n serva ti o n tillage Pl a nte rs / Tra n s pla nte rs To ols to manage s utfa ce res idue Important for vegetable production systems and field s using conservation practices. Conservati on tillage practices maintain a minimum of 30% of crop residue on th e soil s utface or at least 1,000 lb/a c (1,100 kg/ha) of small gra in resid u e on t h e s urface during the critical so il e ro s ion period. Open so il, in se1t seeds or set transplants, and fir m soil. Goal is to achieve good soil -seed or soil-root contact and d es ired d epth and spacing o f p lacement. A variety of t oo ls are u sed for res idu e manage m e n t , mulching, killing cover crops, and distributing materials on the soil s urfa ce . also some times used in narrow row or broadcast crops. Li s te rs/rid ge b uil ders come in a var ie ty of s h apes a nd sizes a n d bu il d beds (rows or ridges) 6 t o 10 inches hi gh, 30 or 40 inches apart, separated by a furrow (inte rrow). Bedshapers form vegetable b ed s, often 6 to 8 inches h igh, wi th pairs of heavy d iscs. Wide r and lowe r ( <6 inches) beds are oft en for m ed p ri o r to t h e pl a nting of vege tab le crops, especia ll y u n d er plasticul tu re . No-till , s trip-till , ridge-till , and mulch-till re ly on a combination of chi sels, strip tille rs, and s pecialized pl a nte rs . Pl anters are used t o pla n t wid e rows, us ua ll y 20 to 40 inch es (50 to 100 cm); seed is singulated. Drills a re u sed to plant rows tha t a re close together, usually 6 t o 10 in c hes apart (15 to 30 cm); seed fl ow rate is co ntrolled but seed is not s ing ulated . Transplanters are important for vege t a bl e production sys te m s. Ro ll er-crimpe rs and unde rcutters are impo rtant tools used to kill m a ture cover crops. Mowers and fla il choppers are used to control s tanding biomass by cuttin g it into pieces s mall e n o ugh to distribute as mulch o r inco rp o ra t e wi th primary tillage. Cha in harrows can b e used t o s pread Page 5 of 14 hltp ://www.extension.org/pages/ 186 34/u se-o f-ti llage-in-o rganic-farrning-system s:-the -basics 12 /9/2011 Use of Tillage in Organic Farming Systems: The Basics -eXtens io n Page 8of14 Figw·e cr edit: Saginaw Valley R esea rch Farm, Michigan State University. To ge t the mos t from any tillage operation, b e cl ear about the purpose . Before yo u till, make s ure to: • Ask yourself if tillage is needed and, if so, what is the b est imple m ent to achieve the purpose? • Avoid tillage when the soil is too wet or too dry (tillage over-pulverizes soil that is too dry). If using a moldboa rd plow or other invers ion implement, ma ke s ure not to bring s ubsoil to the s urface. • Va ry the d e pth and type of tillage to minimize h ardpan formation. Relieve hardpa n by us ing a chisel pl ow in future crop rows or beds, and plow when mode rately dry so th at the impl em e nt e ffectiv ely fractures the hard laye r. • Retain as much s urface res idue (cover crops, e tc.) as practical for the crop grown, exis ting weed press ure, and other conditions. • In gen era l, cultivate shallowly, no deeper than n eeded to control the weeds. VI. Primary and Secondary Tillage and No-Till Options Many organic farmers use more tillage op eratio n s than their conventiona l neighbors. This includes the number of trips across the fi eld and the dive rsity of tillage operations. Farme rs moving through a multicro p rotation wi ll u se different t echniqu es based on crop n eeds. Small direct -seed ed crops ca ll for more aggr ess ive secondary tillage a nd a fin e seedbed than do transplanted crops. Mu ltipl e cultivatio ns are d esirable b efo re planting broadcast o r blanket-seed ed crops that ca nnot b e m echanically weeded after crop e mergence, whereas crops seed ed in rows are amenable to postem e rge nce cu ltivation , mulching, and s trip till age . Typicall y, primary t ill age op eratio n s a re determined by the sequ en ce of crop s a nd desired crop planting dates . Befor e farmers prepare the seedbed t h ey must first kill o r incorporate a n y cove r crops, green manures, o r amendme nts. The timing a nd types of seco ndary tillage operatio n s u sed a re determined by weed pressure, climate conditio ns, fi e ld status, a nd crop ch a ra cteristics . Inte rest in co n servation practices that skip whole- field, preplant till age, a nd th at s ubs titute mulch or surface residues for weed control, is growing . Th ese techniques are best s uited for large-seeded and tra nsplanted crops. Moving fro m a mulched crop to one that http://www.extension.org/pages/ 18634/use-of-till age-in-o rga ni c-fa rming-sys te m s :-th e-bas ics 12/9/20 11 Use o f Tillage in Organi c Farm in g Sys tems : The Ba s ics -eXt ens ion Page 9 of 14 requires a cl ea n seedbed ca n be diffi cult in so me situatio ns. • Watch a video about incorporating cover crops and compost with a soil spader from Veg etable Farme rs and th e ir Sustainable Tillage Pra cti ces feat u ring Jean-Paul Cortens a nd Jody Bolluyt, Roxbu ry Farm, Ki nderh ook, NY. Thi s sel'ies of photographs was take n on a vegetable farm in Illinois after a heavy rain. (a) Bed s w e re p repa red w ith a spader. A sp ader ha d b ee n used one m o nth prio r t o incorporate a 1y e cove r c rop. A flam e r w ill be used 1 -2 weeks lat er befor e lettuce is transpla nted in to the bed (b). Hand weedin g m a y be called fo r before the crop s hades the bed (b, c) if weed pressure is hig h. If weed contro l is adequ ate, th e n lettu ce can be cut fo r ha rvest a nd a llowed to reg row fo r a second cuttin g (d). Fig ure credit : Michelle Wa nder, Un ivers ity of Illin o is . Orga ni c farme rs typica ll y use a va ri ety o f tillage tool s for s imili a r jobs beca use changes in weather and crop a nd /or weed g rowth rates can fo rce th e m to change s trategies with s hort notice . Owning o r having a ccess to multiple tracto rs and/or imple me nts th a t are easy to a tta ch a nd d etac h helps growers save need ed time. VII. Tillage Glossary • Bulk density-the mass o f dry soil divid e d by the b ulk vo lum e. Bulk d e ns ity is no t a n absolute indi ca tor o f compacti o n bec au se ro o t limiting d e ns i ty va r ies with texture. Root exte nsio n is gen eraJly limited by bulk de ns iti es > t. 6 g/cm3 in s ilt loam soil s; t.6 g/cm3 is unlikely to be limi ting in sandy so il s a nd is severely limiting in clayey s o il s . • Cultivation-shallow tillage inte nded to man age weeds. Can be blind (not g uid ed by crop pos itio n) o r di r ec ted (row cro p cultiva tion-d esigned to minimize dis ru ptio n of crop row s). Tra dition al cultivatio n equipme nt d oes not fun cti o n well with h igh r esidues but hi gh -residu e o ptio ns ex is t. Acti ons include und e rcutting, vibration, a nd rolling. Can be dra ft o r PTO powe re d. • Con serva tion tillage-a ny till age syste m tha t ma inta ins 30 percent o r more o f th e soil s urface cove red ivith pla nt residues a ft e r pl a nting. Whe re soil e rosio n by 'vind is the primary co n cern, any syste m tha t mainta in s at least l,ooo pounds pe r acre o f flat , s ma ll grain res id ue e quiva le nt on the stnface thro ugho ut th e c riti ca l ivind e rosio n pe riod. • Conventional tillage (inte ns iv e till age)-full width till age that dis turbs aJI o f the so il s urface a nd is performe d prior to and/or during planting . Less th a n 15 percent of th e so il is cove red with res idue afte r planting, o r less th a n 500 pounds pe r a cre o f s ma ll g rain residue equiva lent thro ug hout th e critical wind erosio n pe ri o d . Ge nera lly invol ves inve rs io n o f a plo w layer or multipl e fi eld o pe rati o ns wi th n on-inve rs io n tools . Weed co ntrol is acco m plis h ed with cr o p protec ti o n products a nd/or culti vatio n . • Critical erosion period-pe ri od o f th e year whe n most of the e rosion of unpro tec ted fi elds ca n be ex pected to occur. • C rus ting-surface co mpacti o n res ulting fr o m ra in d rop impact, pa rticle detachme nt, a nd s ize- sorting, leavi ng t he fin est soil pa rticles concentra ted a t the s urface. Imped es infi lt ra ti o n, gas excha nge, a nd seed ling eme rge nce. htt p://www.ex tens ion.o rg/pages/ 18634/use -of-til la ge-in-orga ni c-fa rmin g-sys tems:-th e-bas ics 12/9/20 I I Use o f Tillage in Organic Farming Syste ms: The Bas ics -eXtens io n Page 10of14 • Dead furrow-a narrow strip of soil (the width of a plow share) that has its pl ow la yer excavated in the process of mo ldbo ard plowi ng but do es not get fill ed in because it is o n the o ute r ed ge of a fi eld o r a "land". Secondary till age generally does not co mpletely fill in a d ead furro w, leaving a d epression a nd often a zone of low fertility beca use of topsoil removal. Crops tend to yiel d poorly wh en planted in a dead furrow. • Disks-rolling circular blades that have straight or flut ed edges and a re inte nded to c ut res idues, pulverize so il structure, a nd/or leve l the soi l s urface . Disks are often m o unte d in gro ups (gangs) of parall el blades. In a tandem dis k harrow, leading and followi ng d is k gan gs are mo unted with oppos ite angles s uch that so il is firs t moved out and the n back in . Th e a mount of soil movement caused by disks is relate d to the a ngle of the disks, the d own pressure o n the disks, the d es ign of the blade (straight or flute d), and the s peed at which the d isks are pulled. Single d isks (coulters) design ed to cut r es idues often preced e other grou nd engaging tools in equ ipme nt designed for high residue co nditions. Di sks are often arr anged and used to s hape bed s. • Draft-power requi red to pull a draft tillage tool s uch as a plow or disk a specifi ed dis ta nce . • Draft implement-an im plement that requires force to be dragged thro ugh the so il. • Inversion tillage-in co ntrast with no ninversion tilla ge, inversio n tillage flip s ove r a laye r (oft e n 6-12") of so il , bmying s urface residu es (and associate d weed seeds, spo res, and insect la rva and eggs) in the process . The res ult is a s urface with minimal residues that can b e easily managed using traditional secondary tillage equipment, b ut is s usceptible to erosio n. The moldboard plow is the s tandard inve rs ion tilla ge imple ment. Di sk plows also perform inversion tilla ge . • Lands-in th e co ntext of one way plowing, lands are rectangular sections of a larger field that are plowed one a t a time . To start out, a ridge is for med in the ce nter o f a la nd a nd the n plowing occurs a round and a r o und this ridge until the la nd is co mple te. The purpose of plowing in lands is to minimize running time, that is, time moving between areas to be plow ed. • Minimum t ill (reduced till)-tillage sys t em that d oes not invo lve soil inve rs ion and maintains a high level of s urface residue. • Moldboard plow-traditiona l primary tillage tool con s isting of the following key ground engaging parts: t he plow s hare (s li ces th e soil horizontally), the moldboard (lifts a nd rolls the soil , bringing abo ut inve rs ion), the la nds ide (transfers t he sideways thru st), and the co ulte r (slices the so il ve rtically). The co ulte r is essential if pl owing sod or so il with s igni fi ca nt residues . The m oldb oard plow is often the best tool fo r breaking sod. • Mulch till-ful!-.. vidth tillage involving one or more tilla ge trips that di s turbs all of the so il s urface, a nd is done prior to and/or during planting, but leaves residues co nce ntrated at the soil su rface. Tillage tool s s uch as chi sels, fie ld cultivators, di sks, swee ps, or blad es are used. Weed co ntrol is accomplished with crop protection products and/or cultivation. • No till (ze ro till age, direct drilling, or trans planting)-tillage sys te m t hat ma inta ins residues (even in row) and plants through th ese res idues using specia ll y designed equipment. • Plastic limit (PL)-the soil mois tu re conte nt where so il starts to ex hibit plastic behavior. As a gene ral rule, a soil is at its plastic limit when a 3 mm diameter soil worm/sausage ca n first be fo rmed. Soil s i n wh ich the plastic limit is drier than field capacity have a narrow window of wo rkabili ty. Soils in whi ch the plas ti c limit is wetter than field ca pa city have a broade r window of workab ili ty and are be tte r s uited for agricul tu re that invo lves tillage. • P low pan-compacted laye r immediat ely below the depth of reg ular tillage. Moldboard plows, disks, and rotary tillers are notorious for cr eating plow pans. • Point-the lea ding ed ge of a st iff tine. The shape of a point impacts its ability to penetrate and how much lifting a nd soil disturbance it causes. The fr ont of a plow share is also call ed a point. • Primary tillage-till age used to break or fracture soil for a depth of six or more inches. Primary tillage implements vary in their ability to penetra te hig h-strength so il s and cut through plant res idues. Examples include moldboard plows, heavy disks, spading machines, heavy rotary till ers, chisel plows, and subsoil ers. • PTO-powered tilla ge-in co ntrast with draft powered till age imple ments, s uch as the moldboard pl ow, and grou nd d riven rotary tillage , s uch as the rotary hoe , PTO -powered tilla ge im plements have a greate r capacity to pulve ri ze and mix soil stru cture in one pass because they rece ive rotary powe r from a tractor. Rotary till e rs, spading machi nes, rotary harrows , a nd rec iprocati ng harrows a re exa mples of PTO -powe red tillage. • Puddling-tillage designed to disrupt aggregates a nd d isperse clay, creating a n impermeable layer that wi ll perch water . Puddling is a till age objective in fl ooded ri ce systems, but is und esirable in other http://www.ex te ns io n.org/pages/l 86 34/use-of-ti llage-in -organ ic-farm in g -sys te ms :-the-basics 12/9/20 11 Use of T illage in Organic Farm in g Syste ms: The Bas ic s -eX te ns ion Page 11 of 14 production systems. • Ridge till-tillage syste m that uses c ultiv atio n to bu ild o r rebuild ridges during the earl y pa rt of the growi ng season, a nd then plants th e next crop o n ridges that have had the top sli ced off during the pl a nting process. • Rollers-rolling to ols th at press so il , increasing its density o r firmn ess (e.g., cul tipac ke r), or scarify th e soil surface (e.g., Lilli ston rollin g baskets used for culti va ti on). • Roller-crirnpers-rolling to ols used to kno ck down and -id eally-kill mature cove r crops. • Secondary tillage-tillage used (generally fo ll owin g primary tillage) to pulverize, le vel, and/or co nditio n soil l ess than s ix inch es deep to prepare o r "fit " a seed bed. • Spading machine-a PTO-powered rotary till age tool that has large flat blades (spades) arranged in se ts o f 3 on a rotor. Ro tary and recipricating s paders are d escribed above. For rotary versions, the spad es plunge into the soil , lift the dug soil and then tip to d rop off the soil. The syste m is effi cient in power use and ge ntle on soil s tructure but req uires a co mplex and thus expensive machine. Normal forwa rd operating speed s a re slow Oess th an LS mph). The d eg ree of soil pulveriza ti o n achi eved d e pe nds on the ratio o f ro tor s peed to forward s peed , th e magn itude of the speed s (rotor a nd forward), s ha pe a nd arrangeme nt of th e s pades, and th e pos itio nin g of the back fl ap (upon whi ch the soil will rebound). Spading ma chin es are primarily used in prepa ring so il for veget able pro du ctio n and are most widely used a nd ma nu factured in Europe. • S pring too th plow-acts a lo t like a chi sel plow but all ows s hanks to s pring bac k whe n s uffi cient resistance is m et (such as wh en s triking a rock). • Strip till/Zon e till-tillage syste m that maintains res idues between rows but re loca tes res idues o ut o f the planting row (up to 1/3 of the row spacing) and may involve deep loosening in the row. • Subsoiling-ti ll age designed to fracture deep, co mpac ted layers; may o r may not be in-row. • Sweeps-wings that ex tend o ut from tines on c ultivation equipment to unde rcut weeds a nd lift soil ca using rapid dessication. • Tilth-a hol istic te rm re fe rring to favorabl e so il ph ys ica l properties for agricultu re . Soil s with "good tilth" a re friabl e, ca n be till ed with less draft, a nd allow tilla ge o bj ectives to be easil y ac hieved. Similar terms incl ude d escribing the soil as "mellow", havin g good "co ndition '', o r "wo rks like a garde n". • T ines-straight o r curved, s tiff or flexibl e, a nd vary in g with respect to angle of so il co ntact, tines mo dify soil stru cture by a ra nge of processes, including, cutting, lifting, and vibratio n, that transfe r draft energy to th e soil thro ugh the tine . Stiff tines are o ft e n referred t o as shanks. Tines generally d o not c reate s ignifican t d ow n press ure and thus d o no t co mpact th e soil below the depth of tillage. Flex ibl e tines vibrate as they are pulled through soil and thi s vibration co ntributes to the shattering of soil structure . • Traction-r esistan ce to wheel or track slippage; all ows draft to be a pplied to a pu ll ed impl ement. • Vertical tillage-d ee p tilla ge designed to create vert ica l zones of fractured soil (ge ne ra lly in row) that promote mo re exte ns ive roo tin g. VIII. Tillage Resources The biol ogical farmer: A complete guide to the sustainabl e & profitabl e biological system of farming. G. Zimmer. 2000. Acres U.S.A., Austi n, TX . Very readable comprehe ns ive guide to ecological farming by a s uccessful organic farm e r, co ns ultant, and founder of Mid west BioAg . Chapter 17 di sc uss es tillage s pecificall y. Zi mmer recomme nd s the use o f rotary till e rs to s hallowly incorpo rate g ree n manures . Building soils for better c1·ops , 3rd ed. F. Magdoff a nd H. Van Es . 2009. Building so il s for better cro ps. 3rd ed . Sustai nable Agr ic ulture Network Handbook Series Book 2. National Agricu ltural Laboratory, Beltsvi ll e, MD. (Ava il able o nlin e a t: http://www.sare.o rg/publi catio ns/bsbc/bsbc.pdf) (ve rifi ed 10 March 20 10). This book provides a compre he ns ive discussion of sustain ab le soil management. http://www.extensio n .o rg/pa ges/ 18634/use -of-tillage-i n -orga ni c-farming-sys te ms:-th c-basics 12/9/20 I I Use o f Tillage in Orga ni c Farming Systems: The Bas ics -eX te ns io n Page 12of 14 Conservation technology information center [O nline]. Conservati o n Technology Inform ati o n Ce nter, West Lafayett e, IN. Ava il able at: http ://www.cons~atiQIJ.info r m~tio n .o rg/ (verified 16 Dec 2008). Th e CTIC webs ite provides access to Pa rt ne rs (a quarterly publication discussing co nservation till age) and results of the National Crop Res id ue Management Survey (a nnua l co u nty-by-cou n ty t ill age practi ce statistics). Conservation tillage systems and management: Crop r e sidue manageme nt with no-till, r idge- till, and mulch-till , 2nd ed. MidWest Pl a n Service. 2000. Iowa St at e Unive rs ity, Ames . Easy to read and h a ndy for r efe re nce, this book (the work of more than 60 un iversity and industry speciali sts) explains the major ben efits of conservation t ill age. S uppl eme nting descri ptions are 199 colo r d rawings a nd photograph s, plus 72 ta bl es with color hi ghl igh ts. Twenty-nine chapters cover a ll aspects of co nservation tillage. Appendices describe tillage i m pl ements and offer rai nfa ll a nd temperature data maps . From the s oil up. D. Sc h rieffer. 2000. Acres U.S.A., Austin, TX.; a nd Agriculture in trans ition. D. Sch r ieffer. 2000. Acres U.S.A., Austin, TX . "Eminently readable, still avail able, and still the best book relating tillage systems to the management of soil aeration, water and the decay of res id ues" -David Patri quin referring to From the Soil Up . Gr een fields fore ver: The conservation tillage revolution in Ame rica. C. E. Little. 1987. Island Press, Washington, DC. Very r eadable his to1y of conservatio n tillage thro ugh the m id-8os. Horse drawn tillag e tools. L. R. Mille r. 2003. Small Farmer's Journal, Sisters, OR. Comprehensive collection of i nformation on t he art of horse-powered tillage using plows, discs, harrows, harrow ca rts, rolle rs, cul ti-packe rs, single row cu ltivators, and straddle ro,..,, cultivators. 368 pages with over 1,000 illustrat io ns . The n ew American farmer: P rofile s of a gricultural innova tion, 2nd e d . V. Berton . (ed .) 2005. Sustainabl e Ag riculture Netwo rk, Bel tsvill e, MD. (Ava ilabe online at: http://wv.rw.sa re.org/publi catio ns/naf.htrn) (verified 16 Dec 2008). The NAF presents highly readable profiles of 60+ farmers/ranchers representing every state in the US and 2 territories. Lots of practical information about tillage systems can be found by searching the document for terms re lated to tillage. Resource managem e n t: Soil . Revised e d. B. Davies, D. Eagle, and B. Finney. 2ooi. Farming Press, Tonbridge, UK. This book is a practical guide to the principles and practices of good soil husbandry (with several ch apters on tillage) written by Bri tish authors with a wea l th of on-farm experience. Some content is specific to England but most is broadly relevant. http://www.extension.org/pages/l 8634/use-of-tillage-in-organ ic -fanning-systems:-the-basics 12/9/2011 Use of Till age in Organ ic Farm ing Systems: The Basics -eXtens io n The roller/crimper gallery [Online]. Rodale In stitu te, Kutztown, PA. Ava ila ble at: http://www.newfarm.org/depts/notill/rolle r_gall ery/ (verifi ed 16 Dec 2008). Page 13of 14 Soil dynamics in tillage and traction. W. R. Gill a nd G. E. V. Berg. 1967. Agricultu ral handbook No. 316. Agric ultural Research Service, USDA, Washington , DC. Classic d iscu ssio n of tillage from an ag e ngineering pe rspective. Fo cus is o n no-till a nd so il q uality b en e fits. Steel in the field: A farmers guide to weed management tools. G. Bowman. (ed.) 1997. Sustainable agric ulture n etwork h andbook series book 2. National Agric ultura l Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. (Avai lable online a t: http://www.sare.o rg/publi~a ti o n s/steel/index.h t m) (veri fied 11 Dec 2008). "Steel in the Fi eld " sh ows how today's implements and techniques ca n cont rol weeds while reducing or eliminating h erbicides . In practical language, Steel in the Field presents wh at farmers and resea rch e rs h ave learned in the last 20 years about cutti ng weed-co ntrol costs through improved cultivation tools, cover crops and new cropping rotations . Stubble over the soil: The vital role of plant residue in soil management to improve soil quality. C. Crovetto. 1996. Am erican Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.; and No tillage: The relationship between no tillage, crop residues, plants and soil nutrition. C. Crovetto. 2006. Conservation Tech nology Information Center, West Lafayette, IN. Pioneering no-till farm e r/agronomist in Chile describes his experiences with no-till in two books which are an inte resting mix of agrono mic sc ie n ce and practical observations. Tillage. F. Bu ckj ngham. 1993. Fundamentals of machine operation series. John Dee re Publi shin g, Davenport, IA. Very readable and highly illustrated presentation of practical information abo ut tillage practices us ed for agronomic crop production. Tillage equipment pocket identification guide. USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC . (Ava ilable on line at: http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/technicaljecs/agron/Tillage%2opocket%20guide ... ) (verified 16 Dec 2008). This graphics rich publicatio n is designed to help NRCS staff recogniz e ge n eral categories of tillage systems and the equi pment used for primary tillage, secondary tillage, manure/fertiliz er incorpora ti on and combination too ls . IX. References • Gajri , P. R., V. K. Arora, and S. S. Prihar. 1999. Tillage for sustainable cropp in g . Food Products Press, Bin ghampto n , NY. • Ontario Ministry of Agricu lture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2008. No-till: Making it work. Best Management Practices Series BMP11E. Government of Ontario, Canada. (Available on line at: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/no_till/intro.htm) (verified 14 Jan 2009). http://www.extension .o rg/pages/ 18634/use-of-t i ll age-in-organic-fann in g-syste ms:-the-bas ics 12/9/20 I I Use of Tillage in Organi c Fa rmin g Systems: The Bas ics -eXten s ion Page 14 o f 14 • Un ited States Department of Agric ulture . 2000. National o rga ni c program: Final rule . Codified at 7 C.F .R., part 205 . (Available o nlin e at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx? c=ecfr&s id =5a8d c602e6a7fa9 ... ) (verifi ed 21 J a n 2009). This is an eO rganic article and was reviewed for complian ce with National Organic Program regu la tions by members of the eO rganic community. Always ch eck with your organic certification agency before adopting new practices or using new materials. For more information, refer to eO rganic's articles on organic certification. cOrganic 2428 Browse related Articles by tag: organi(' production, eorganic This resource a rea was created by the: Organic Agriculture community These resources are brought to yo u by the Cooperative Extension System a nd your Loca l Ins titution. eX tens ion provides objective and research-based information and learn in g opportunities that help people improve t heir li ves . eXtension is an educational pa1tnership of 74 universities in the United States. © 2011 extens ion. All rights reserved . http://www.extens io n.o rg/pages/l 8634/use-of-till age-in-organ ic-farm in g-systems:-the-bas ics 12/9/20 11 TABLE 1 : WATER MONTORING DATA North Creek LLC, Auburn 27-Feb-08 -Mar-16-Mar-21-Mar-28-Mar-06-Apr-15-Apr-20-Ap r-26-Apr- 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 rrH 01 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY rrH 02 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 03 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 04 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 05 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 06 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 07 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 08 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY TH 09 2 3 6 5 * * * * * TH 10 8 12 14 14 14 12 15 15 14 THB1 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY THB2 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY THB 3 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY ITHB4 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY rrHB5 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY rrHB6 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY rrHB7 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY ITHB8 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY rrHB9 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY rrHB10 PONDED PONDED PONDED PONDED PONDED * * * * DRY= 19 INCHES+ (the Ap horizon may have been saturated but no water below) • Sampling terminated as wetland hydrology confirmed Soil Temperature reached growi ng Season on Marc h 8 when it was at 41 degrees F 2012.11.08 4548 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION MITIGATION MITIGATION STANDARDS GOALS PERFOMRANCE STANDARDS SIGNAGE FENCING MONITORING PROGRAM AND CONTINGENCY PLAN BOND ESTIMATE STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENTS MATERIALS PLANTING AND SEEDING MAINTENANCE LIMITS OF LIABILITY Table 1 PLANTS AND COSTS 2012.11.08 4548 Page 1 INTRODUCTION This report is prepared for the City of Auburn and provides information as required per 16.10.070 Critical area review process and application requirements of City code. City code is used as an outline and all required information is presented in this format. A conceptual mitigation plan was submitted in December 2011 and accepted. This is the final mitigation report with accompanying site plans per the approved conceptual mitigation plan. MITIGATION 16.10.100 Alteration or development of critical areas – Standards and criteria. Alteration of specific critical areas and/or their buffers may be allowed by the director subject to the criteria of this section. Alteration shall implement the mitigation standards as identified in ACC 16.10.110, and the performance standards of ACC 16.10.120 and the monitoring requirements of ACC 16.10.130. A. Wetlands. Category III and IV Wetlands. a. Alteration and mitigation shall comply with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations; b. Where enhancement, restoration or creation is proposed, replacement ratios shall comply with the requirements of these regulations; and c. No net loss of wetland functions and values may occur. MITIGATION STANDARDS 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements. A. Mitigation Standards. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated. Mitigation actions shall generally be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory mitigation shall demonstrate that: 1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations; 2012.11.08 4548 Page 2 Avoidance of the wetlands would not provide protection of the wetlands. The wetlands are a result of disturbance and lack of drainage maintenance. The project could not guarantee these wetlands would be sustained in perpetuity if left intact in their current location. The new wetland is next to Venture Ditch and will be maintained in perpetuity as hydrology is assured. The new wetland provides a great function than the existing wetlands for providing water quality benefits to the Venture Ditch Stream. 2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and The new wetland will be more viable and enduring with greater functional value than the existing wetlands. 3. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical functions. There will be no net loss of area or functions and values. B. Location and Timing of Mitigation. 1. Mitigation will be on-site and close to the existing wetlands. 2. Out of kind mitigation is provided as it will provide great value. Buffer enhancement at the required ratio will provide great environmental benefits. The stream and degraded wetland will have better protection than in kind replacement would provide. 3. The wetland mitigation permitted by these regulations is near the Venture Ditch which will ensure hydrology. 4. A phased or concurrent schedule assures completion of the new wetland prior to occupancy. C. Wetland Replacement Ratios. 3. Category IV wetlands can either be mitigated by either: (a) meeting one of the replacement ratios (*see following table); or (b) implementing mitigation which ensures no net loss of values and functions of the larger ecosystem in which the critical area is located. The wetlands will be mitigated by enhancement at a ratio of at the 2.5:1. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 3 Wetland Category Wetland Creation Ratio (Acres) Wetland Enhancement Ratio (Acres) (Acres Created or Enhanced: Acres Impacted) Category I 6:1 12:1 Category II Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category III Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category IV* 1.25:1* 2.5:1* MITIGATION The Mitigation section is taken directly from City Code. Wetland area B will not be filled, yet it will be mitigated by enhancement of Wetland Area A and the entire stream buffer to meet fill requirements under City Code so that it will not be regulated by the City. Wetland Area B is 2,203 sq. ft at a ratio of 2.5:1 requires enhancement of 5,508 sq. ft. The entire Wetland A area of 6,195 sq. ft and its buffer will be enhance with native plantings as well as the stream buffer for a total area of 33,586 sq. ft. The mitigation will include enhancement of the 25 foot stream buffer and wetland buffer. Some of the buffer is vegetated with desirable natives and planting will be made as appropriate and supervised by the biologist preparing the report. The as-built will provide planting details on numbers of plants used. Table 1 is a list of plants that provides 10095 coverage, actual plant numbers will be substantially less. It is likely that only 30% of the plants in Table 1 will be used. Plants should be on hold and only delivered as needed per the supervising biologist to get an appropriate density based on desirable natives existing. The accompanying plans detail the mitigation. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 4 GOALS Enhance 33,586 sq. ft of degraded wetland and stream buffer. Improve wildlife habitat. Enhance the buffer of Venture Ditch Enhance existing degraded Wetland A. Use native plants that improve the functions of the wetland Use plants along the Ditch to allow ditch maintenance Do not plant trees near the ditch that would tip over and block the ditch Intersperse plants with desirable native plants Suppress invasive exotics, such as reed canary grass and blackberries during the monitoring period so that the plantings will survive and over time shade out the undesirable exotics Avoid the use of potential danger trees such as black cottonwood and red alder PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Wetlands and Streams. 1. Use plants native to the Puget Lowlands or Pacific Northwest ecoregion; non- native, introduced plants or plants listed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds (Chapter 16-750 WAC) shall not be used; Table 1: Plants, sizes, spacing, numbers used and costs Common Name Scientific Name Size Spacing # Cost per plant Extend ed Total Used Trees Quaking Aspen (QA) Populus tremuloides 1 gal 10’ 46 2.75 126.50 Sitka Spruce (SI) Picea stichensis 1 gal 10’ 22 2.75 60.50 Western red cedar WR) Thuja plicata 1 gal 10’ 25 2.75 68.75 Saplings/Shrubs Pacific Willow (WI) Salix lasiandra whips 6’ 276 1.00 276.00 Redtwig Dogwood (RD) Cornus stolonifera whips 6’ 248 1.00 248.00 Salmonberry (SB) Rubus spectatiblis 1 gal. 6’ 53 2.75 145.75 Twinberry (TB) Lonicera involucrate 1 gal 6’ 82 2.75 225.50 TOTAL 1,151 Costs from Sno-Valley Farms price list, summer 2012, Snohomish, WA 425-508-7989 2. Use plants adapted to and appropriate for the proposed habitats and consider the ecological conditions known or expected to be present on the site. For example, plants assigned a facultative wetland (FACW) wetland indicator status should be used for sites with soils that are inundated or saturated for long periods during the growing season. Use nearby reference wetlands or aerial photos to identify plants suitable to the site 2012.11.08 4548 Page 5 conditions and hydrologic regimes planned for the mitigation site. Avoid planting significant areas of the site with species that have questionable potential for successful establishment, such as species with a narrow range of habitat tolerances; 3. Utilize plant species’ heterogeneity and structural diversity that emulates native plant communities described in “Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington” (Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness, 1988) or other regionally recognized publications on native landscapes; 4. Specify plants that are commercially available from native-plant nurseries or available from local sources. If collecting some or all native plants from donor sites, collect in accordance with ecologically accepted methods, such as those described in the “Washington Native Plant Society’s Policy on Collection and Sale of Native Plants,” that do not jeopardize the survival or integrity of donor plant populations; 5. Use perennial plants in preference to annual species; the use of annuals species should be limited to a temporary basis in order to provide erosion control, support the establishment of perennial plants, or if mitigation monitoring determines that native plants are not naturally colonizing the site or if species diversity is unacceptably low compared to approved performance standards; 6. Use plant species high in food and cover value for native fish and wildlife species that are known or likely to use the mitigation site (according to reference wetlands, published information, and professional judgment); 7. Install a temporary irrigation system and specify an irrigation schedule unless a sufficient naturally-occurring source of water is demonstrated; the plantings will be adjacent to Venture Ditch and sufficient moisture will be present throughout the year such that no irrigation is needed. The wetlands were saturated in August of 2011 in the late summer when we did the site visit with the City. 8. Identify methods of soil preparation. For stream substrate or wetland soils, at least one foot of clean inorganic and/or organic materials, such as cobble, gravel, sand, silt, clay, muck, soil, or peat, as appropriate, shall be ensured. The stream substrate or wetland soils shall be free from solid, dangerous, or hazardous substance as defined by Chapter 70.105 RCW and implementing rules; No new wetland will be created, existing buffer will be enhanced. Plantings will be made into the existing soils and per the accompanying plans. 9. Confine temporary stockpiling of soils to upland areas. There will be no stockpiling since this is an enhancement project.. 10. Show densities and placement of plants; these should be based on the ecological tolerances of species proposed for planting, as determined by a qualified consultant; the 2012.11.08 4548 Page 6 new wetland will be created by planting red dogwoods and willows on 6 foot centers. The buffer will be planted with trees and shrubs where lacking with shrubs on 6 foot centers and trees on 10 foot centers. The accompanying plans show approximate locations and numbers. The final numbers will be determined at time of planting as the wetland and buffer are restored. 11. Provide sufficient specifications and instructions to ensure proper placement and spacing of seeds, tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, springs, plugs and transplanted stock, and other habitat features, and to provide a high probability of success, and to reduce the likelihood of prolonged losses of wetland functions from proposed development; trees and shrubs will be used and planting supervised by the biologist preparing this study. The plans show planting details and locations. 12. Do not rely on fertilizers and herbicides to promote establishment of plantings; if fertilizers are used, they must be applied per manufacturer specifications to planting holes in organic or controlled release forms, and never broadcast on the ground surface; if herbicides are used to control invasive species or noxious weeds and to help achieve performance standards, only those approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department of Ecology shall be used; herbicides shall only be used in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations and be applied per manufacturer specifications by an applicator licensed in the state of Washington; and No fertilizers will be used. No fertilizers are recommended. Hand spot treatment with foliar activated herbicides is recommended for control of reed canarygrass. 13. Include the applicant’s mitigation plan consultant in the construction process to ensure the approved mitigation plan is completed as designed. At a minimum, the consultant’s participation will include site visits to inspect completed rough and final grading, installation of in-water or other habitat structures, and to verify the quality and quantity of native plant materials before and after installation; the consultant preparing this plan will be on-site to assist the plantings and installations. 14. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Streams Critical Areas. a. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the critical area or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur, and verified by the department prior to the commencement of authorized activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction, and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. b. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the department may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a critical area or buffer. Permanent signs shall be made of metal face 2012.11.08 4548 Page 7 and attached to a metal post, firmed anchored, or other materials of equal durability approved by the director. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: “Habitat Conservation Area” Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Auburn Planning Department regarding uses and restrictions The following sign is readily available and recommended for us as well as the proper installation when not attached to the fence. Signs will be attached to the fence when possible. c. Fencing. i. The director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter to require the application to install a permanent fence at the edge of the critical area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts on the critical area. ii. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the critical area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on-site. iii. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 8 B. Wetlands. Do not exceed a maximum water depth of 6.6 feet (two meters) at mean low water unless approved as part of a planned interspersion of wetland vegetation classes and deep-water habitats. Not applicable. 1. Do not exceed a slope of 25 percent (4H:1V) in the wetland unless it can be clearly demonstrated by supporting documentation that wetland hydrology and hydric soils capable of supporting hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation will be created on steeper slopes; Not applicable. 2. Do not exceed a slope of 25 percent (4H:1V) in the wetland buffer Not applicable. 3. Limit deep-water habitat (greater than 6.6 feet at mean low water) in compensatory wetland to no more than 60 percent of the total area, and approach this limit only when deep-water habitat is highly interspersed with wetland vegetation classes, including aquatic bed, emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested. Not applicable. MONITORING PROGRAM AND CONTINGENCY PLAN 16.10.130 Monitoring program and contingency plan. Monitoring program: September 2013 wetland earthwork completed during the dry season November 2013 wetland planting completed December 2013 as-built submitted June 2014 first report December 2014 second report June 2015 third report December 2015 fourth report June 2016 fifth report December 2016 final report B. A performance and maintenance security is required to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the terms of the approved mitigation plan. The amount of the performance security shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period; the director may agree to reduce the security in proportion to work successfully completed over the period of the security. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 9 BOND ESTIMATE Performance Plant Cost $ 1,151 Installation Cost (2 x planting cost) $ 2,302 Mulch installation ($3/yd) $ 400 Planting Supervision $ 1,200 Sub Total $ 5,053 Performance Bond Amount (125%) $6,316 The performance bond will be adjusted to match the actual plant numbers and plant costs once the as-built report is submitted. Monitoring Year 1 $ 1,200 Year 2 $ 900 Year 3 $ 900 Final $ 1,200 Subtotal $ 4,200 Monitoring Bond (125%) $ 5,250 C. Incorporate the following into monitoring programs prepared to comply with this chapter: 1. Appropriate, accepted, and unbiased qualitative or precise and accurate quantitative sampling methods to evaluate the success or failure of the project compared to performance standards approved by the city; The planting will flag all the plants with ribbons such that a total plant count of planted plants can be made. The long narrow buffer will be visually inspected for invasives and per coverage. 2. Quantitative sampling methods that include permanent photo points installed at the completion of construction and maintained throughout the monitoring period and shall also include permanent transects, sampling points (e.g., quadrants or water quality or quantity monitoring stations), and wildlife monitoring stations; The as-built report will establish the 3 sampling plots with two photo points at each. 3. Clearly stipulated qualitative and quantitative sampling methods that are approved by the city before implementation by the project proponent; Attachment 3 is the form used for sampling. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 10 4. Appropriate qualitative and/or quantitative performance standards that will be used to measure the success or failure of the mitigation. For wetlands, streams and habitat areas these will include, at a minimum, standards for plant survival and diversity, including structural diversity, the extent of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and habitat types and requirements as appropriate; all proposed standards are subject to review and approval by the city or the consultant selected by the city to review the monitoring plan; Performance standards: Less than 20% coverage of undesirable exotic invasives in the mitigation area such as reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. A total of 80% survival of planted plants and favorable native volunteer plants at the end of the monitoring period. 80% overall cumulative coverage of the buffer by the final monitoring report. 5. A three year monitoring program as detailed above is sufficient on this type of enhancement/creation project. Hydrology is assured and the narrow wetland planting will use plant stock from on-site for the wetland planting and purchased materials for the buffer enhancement; The program is detailed above. 6. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director by December 1st of the year in which monitoring is conducted. The reports are to be prepared by a qualified consultant and must contain all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data, photographs, and an evaluation of each of the applicable performance standards. If performance standards are not being met, appropriate corrective or contingency measures must be identified and communicated to the director and upon concurrence, implemented to ensure that performance standards will be met; 7. Provision for the extension of the monitoring period beyond the minimum timeframe if performance standards are not being met at the end of the initial three-year period; and provision for additional financial securities or bonding to ensure that any additional monitoring and contingencies are completed to ensure the success of the mitigation. Three years is recommended as this is an enhancement plan and not a wetland creation. The plants will be established within the three year time frame and once they are established will survive. If the contingency plan calls for substantial replanting or there is a failure in the enhancement the monitoring can be extended. Failure would be not meeting the performance standards. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 11 STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 1. Sedimentation control measures will be instituted prior to, during and after construction to prevent erosion or sediment problems. 2. Native species will be used for all new plantings. 3. An As-Built report will be prepared after the planting has been completed to verify that it has been done according to plans. MATERIALS 1. Plants shall be free of disease, insects, insect eggs, larvae, weeds, weed seed and other pests. 2. Plants shall be first quality with normal roots, trunks, limbs, stems and shape, and labeled with genus, species and variety. The owners' representative has the right to reject non-conforming plants. 3. The transplanted materials will be maintained and monitored. 4. Suitable substitutions may be made due to availability, price and condition of the plants only with county approval. PLANTING AND SEEDING 1. Plants will be pruned to remove dead and diseased branches prior to planting. 2. The choice of plants should provide a combination of benefits to the wildlife habitat and add benefits to the urban landscape environment. 3. The plantings should be made between November and March. 4. Plantings should be made following standard practices. 5. Plants are to be placed in a natural orientation per the planting plan after major site work has been completed. 6. When all work has been completed, the owner's representative will inspect the work and grant acceptance. The plant warranty will become effective at this time for a period of one year. The contractor will be responsible for maintaining the area by weeding, watering and replacing unhealthy plants. 7. This plan is to be used in conjunction with the report by B&A, Inc. Liability of B&A, Inc. is limited to payment received for preparing the final mitigation plan. 8. The plantings will be performed by a firm or individual experienced with nursery and/or landscape work, and all stock will be from approved sources. 9. Plants shall be bare root, gallon container, or other available media matching specified size. See Table 1 for species, spacing, and sizes. 10. Mulch shall be placed around each of the plantings 2” deep over an area about 2-3 feet in diameter. MAINTENANCE 1. No broadcast fertilizer, pesticides, or herbicides will be used. 2. The success rate for the overall plantings will be monitored, and replanting performed if necessary. 2012.11.08 4548 Page 12 3. Supplemental water may need to be applied during the first year. 4. Exotic or invasive undesirable vegetation such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, and Scot's broom shall be removed from the above referenced planting area. 5. Maintenance recommendations will be determined at the monitoring site visits. LIMITATIONS OF THE PLAN B&A, Inc.’s liability under the Mitigation Plan (the plan) is limited to the amount of compensation received for preparing the plan as it relates to the planting plan, and shall only apply up to the scope of work described in the plan. Any liability to B&A, Inc. is contingent to the degree of B&A, Inc.’s involvement and oversight of the plan work, and B&A, Inc. must be allowed to inspect and verify adherence to this plan at predetermined steps. If discrepancies between actual, shown, or proposed conditions occur, it is the responsibility of the owner or the contractor to notify B&A, Inc. before proceeding. 2013.06.25 Response to City Request Page 1 June 25, 2013 Northcreek c/o Kyle Fry 1433 Valentine Ave. SE #102 Pacific, WA 98047 RE: Addendum to Northcreek Mitigation Project and Response to City Wetland Comments Dear Roger: Please find responses to the City comments. This letter is an addendum to the original mitigation report and supplemental report of for the off-site wetland both dated November 7, 2012. Sheet 1 and 2 of 2 of the wetland mitigation planting plan has been revised to match this addendum. The comments are all justified and easily answered. However, some of the answers are technical in terms of soils and morphology. If additional explanation is needed I would be happy to meet with the city and outline in person why the paradigms as set forth in our reports are valid. Supplemental Wetland and Stream Report Comments by City followed by the response. A. The report states that the area located off-site to the west of the North Creek Corporate Campus project site meets the three parameter criteria for a regulated wetland. The report goes on to state that the wetland was purposefully created from an upland area and is therefore not a regulated wetland, per ACC 16.10.080. The affidavit clearly explains that the wetland area to the west was excavated for use as a livestock watering pond. However, the historical aerial photos do not appear to definitively demonstrate that the wetland area was created from an upland area. Wetlands A and B are regulated wetlands that have been identified on the North Creek project site that do not show up on the historical photos, so it would seem that the use of the historical black and white aerial photos could not be used to definitely demonstrate that the off- site wetland area to the west was created out of an upland area. Please provide additional information to demonstrate that this area was created from an upland area. RESPONSE: This is a good and valid question and has a two part answer, but first and most important: The area is treated as if it is regulated as a Category 3 (Attachment 4) wetland with a 50 foot buffer. Per the plan a 50 foot buffer is maintained to protect anything that could be 2013.06.25 Response to City Request Page 2 a wetland off-site. The wetland off-site rates a Category 3 and the 50 foot buffer is shown. Specific to the City comment the first part answer is, the two areas regulated as Wetlands A and B had the same original soils and same upland conditions as the constructed pond as seen in the historic air photos. The original soils of entire area were not hydric based on soil morphology from the extensive test pit data. Wetlands A and B became wetlands unintentionally and are considered regulated by code. The off- site pond was an intentionally constructed farm pond and is not regulated by code. Second, the area around the off-site non-regulated wetland consists of uniform soils. We know the entire area was originally upland because the extensive test pitting shows the soils to be uniformly not hydric or wetland. Wetlands A and B have been saturated long enough to form hydric indicators. Once a soil has hydric indicators they generally do not go away. The soils around the constructed pond do not show hydric indicators per the test pit data. The Attachment 1: Off-Site Cross Sections of the soil profiles diagrams the existing soils in the non-colored cross-sections and shows how the natural soils occurred in red on the following cross sections. The pond was excavated and the brown Bw horizon removed. The Bw horizon is the brown layer that confirms the soils are not hydric. The pond was excavated and the area around it farmed, which gives us the Ap or plow horizon in all the soil pits. Areas of the constructed pond have been graded and give mixed soil colors in some of the pits. Because we have uniform soil colors and horizons around the pond and we know it was excavated, we can extrapolate that the same soil was present before excavation. The red lines on the two cross sections show original soil surface and soil conditions. Thus, we know by horizonating the soils across the disturbed area we can connect the original soil lines. Everything in every pit matches the model as proposed. We can go to the field and dig more test pits and do as many cross sections as needed to prove the fact that the soils are uniform in the area and the model will hold that upland soils were excavated from the pond. The test holes shown on Figure 7 are representative of the site, at least another ten holes were dug throughout the area to confirm these holes are accurate. B. The Corps Wetland Determination Forms for data sites C1 and C3 are incomplete and missing the first page of the data sheet that includes information about the project area and vegetation. Please include the entire Wetland Determination Forms for each individual data site. RESPONSE: The missing Data Sheets are included (Attachment 2). 2013.06.25 Response to City Request Page 3 C. The summary on the last page of the report states that the off-site wetland to the west meets the three parameter wetland criteria, but it should not be jurisdictional because it was created from upland. In addition, the hydrology section of the report states that the wet area was inundated as it was dug for a livestock pond and had wetland hydrology. Neither of these statements is consistent with data sites C1 or C2 that indicate that neither wetland hydrology or hydric soils are present within the off-site wetland area. Please correct this inconsistency in the report. City access to visit the site is required to assess the off-site area in order to verify conditions. RESPONSE This is a very good observation and true. The data sheets show the area did not meet wetland criteria. However, the area looks like a wetland and since it is not regulated there is no reason to argue the issue. To definitively defend the area not being a wetland it would take extensive writing. It is easiest to call it wet and not regulate it. We know there is a wetland in near proximity, finding the exact boundary is the tough part. The data sheets are assuming a wetland to avoid controversy on defending the area as an upland. The City comments are correct in that the boundary needs to be moved to exclude the areas of these data sheets as they do not meet the three parameter criteria. I commend staff for catching this as it is a rare pleasure to have someone actually read the data sheet and even more rare to make a detailed proper determination. We feel comfortable making the wetland larger than it really is at this time to protect any resource that may be there. Future projects may take a more in depth look at the boundary and this issue will be clarified at that time. At this time a buffer is being placed on this wetland for the proposed project as if it is being regulated with the boundaries as shown. The precise boundary can be addressed in the future if needed. The main thing is to get the entire wetland included and be on the safe side so that there is no controversy regarding resource protection. I recommend going with the current boundary with the above discussion on the record to protect all parties, even the current landowner, because it leaves it open to adjust the boundary in the future. E. The project area is described as being located in relation to the intersection of S. 207th Street and West Valley Highway numerous times in the report. The correct location of the project area would be in relation to S. 287th Street and West Valley Highway. RESPONSE Thank you for the correction, the site plan has the correct street name and that is what is used by the contractors The revised site plan has a fresh date and all the details and revisions per the comments.: 2013.06.25 Response to City Request Page 4 H. There is no distinction made between Wetland A and the associated buffer. Please clearly and accurately depict the boundary for Wetland A and the associated buffer in order to clearly demonstrate that the minimum 25-foot wetland buffer is being provided. RESPONSE The revised wetland map Sheet 1 of 2 shows Wetland A and the 25 foot buffer. The buffer will be temporarily impacted by the detention pond construction and then replanted. Currently the area to be disturbed is farmland that is mown. No trees or shrubs will be disturbed in the buffer other than to place the silt fence. The part of the buffer not showing new plantings is already well vegetated with native species. I. The extent of the riparian buffer is unclear on the Mitigation Map. Please clearly and accurately depict the OHWM of Tributary 053 and the extent of the associated buffer on the Mitigation Plan map. RESPONSE The OHW is shown on both sides of the tributary and the area in between is hatched on Sheet 1 of 2. J. Please show the split rail fence location and sign locations along the extent of the riparian and wetland buffer areas. RESPONSE Split rail fence begin/end is shown on the map at the edge of the grading and/or buffer, the final project will install fencing around the east detention pond so no fence is put in that area. Sign location is spaced the same as the catch basins. K. The Mitigation plan proposes a 3 year monitoring period. A five year monitoring period for wetland mitigation is required, per ACC 16.10.130(C)(5). Please revise to reflect the required 5 year monitoring period. RESPONSE Five year monitoring is shown on the monitoring and bonding sections. L. Based on past projects approved in the City, the labor costs to install the mitigation plantings seems to be a low estimate. Please revise the bond estimate to 2013.06.25 Response to City Request Page 5 reflect a more realistic number for labor costs or provide a cost estimate from a contractor to implement the mitigation plan. The bond estimate also needs to reflect the cost associated with the required five year monitoring period. RESPONSE The bond estimate has been increased substantially and includes the split rail fence and is shown on Sheet 1 of 2. M. The monitoring details indicate that 80% aerial coverage of the buffer area by the final monitoring report. This performance standard should be clear in stating that the 80% aerial coverage standard does not include aerial coverage of invasive species. RESPONSE This has been changed on Sheet 2 of 2. O. Sheet T3 needs to accurately depict the boundary for Wetland A and the associated buffer to demonstrate that the minimum 25-foot buffer is being provided. RESPONSE The engineers will have added this to the plan. This concludes the responses to the City Comments. All comments have been complied with and changes made on Sheets 1 and 2 of the 2 sheet set of mitigation plans. If additional information is needed please contact me. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 OFF-SITE CROSS SECTIONS ATTACHMENT 2 Data Sheets Page 1 for C1 and C2 ATTACHMENT 3 Off-Wetland Rating Form Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known):Off-Site Date of site visit: May 2012 Rated by:AJB Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training:Nov 08 SEC: TOWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 12 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 14 Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions 12 Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions 38 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) III Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. _____ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ... points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) .. points = 1 Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”)Provide photo or drawing Figure 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area .......................................... points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ............................................ points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area .......................................... points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area ............................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 3 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure 2 Total for D 1 Add the p oints in the boxes above 6 D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 2 TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 12 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet .... points = 2 Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Unit has an unconstricted, or slig htly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 1 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet .................. points = 7 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland ............................................................................. points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................... points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ................................. points = 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water . points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft .................................................................................... points = 0 3 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit............................................... points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ............................................ points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit ..................................... points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class .................................................................................... points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 2 TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 14 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. ...................................................... points = 2 No depressions present ................................................................................................... points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit .............................................................................. points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland ........................................................................ points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit ............................................................... points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit ................................................................ points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit .............................................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R1 by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 .............................................................................................. points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 – 20 ......................................................................................... points = 6 If the ratio is 5- <10 ........................................................................................................ points = 4 If the ratio is 1- <5 .......................................................................................................... points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 ............................................................................................................. points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as “forest or shrub”. Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area ....................................... points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area ..................................... points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria .......................................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 L Lake-fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide ...................................................................... points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft ....................................................... points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft ........................................................ points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide..................................................................................... points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area .............................................. points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit ............... points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area ...................................... points = 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit ......................................................... points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide ............................................ points = 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. ............................................... points = 4 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. ........................................... points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................. points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) .............................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 7 of 12 S Slope Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) (see p.64) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 ft. vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) .... points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% ............................................................................................................ points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5%. ........................................................................................................... points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% ................................................................................................. points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area ...................................... points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area .......................................................... points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area. .......................................................................... points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area .......................................................... points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation .................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland .......................... points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland........................................................ points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area. ....................................................................... points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid........................ points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the boxes above S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures .............. points = 2 2 structures ....................points = 1 1 structure ............... points = 0 Figure 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ..................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............. = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure 1 H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 1 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure 1 H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. 2 H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above 6 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .......................................... points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer .................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure 2 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) 0 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .... points = 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................................... points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ...................................................................................................................... points = 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .............................................................................................................. points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ..................................................................... points = 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................ points = 0 3 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 6 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 6 Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 12 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of 12 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland Cat I SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 of 12 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: APPENDIX C Wetland Delineation Forms for Wetlands P1-P8, E1, F1 (Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Agrostis sp. 60 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ranunculus repens 40 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Juncus effusus 20 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phalaris arundinacea 15 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 67.5, 20% = 27 135 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: approximately 40% of the plot had dead matted vegetation and live algal mat Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #101 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located near NW corner of site, in the area adjacent to the south side of S 287th Street, in an area where we had observed ponding on 9 Dec 2014 and on 2 March 2015. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #101 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 85 7.5YR 3/4 15 C PL, M sandy loam Prominent redoxymorphic features 8-13 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 3/4 5 C PL,M sandy loam Distinct redoxymorphic features 13-20 10YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 3/4 15 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 11 inches** Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Oxidized rhizospheres present to at least 13 inches ** when hole first dug, ground water was at approximately 2 feet, after 15 minutes, water was at 11 inches Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Ranunculus repens 40 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Agrostis sp. 30 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Elymus repens 10 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phalaris arundinacea 10 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Juncus effusus <5 no FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #102 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located near east corner of large, previously ponded area located south of S. 287th St. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #102 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 85 7.5YR 3/4 15 C M sandy loam Prominent redoxymorphic features 8-13 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 3/4 5 C M sandy loam Distinct redoxymorphic features 13-20 10YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 3/4 15 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12 inches** Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ** when hole first dug, ground water was at approximately 26 inces feet, after 15 minutes, water was at 12 inches Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Agrostis sp. 50 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ranunculus repens 30 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Juncus effusus 20 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phalaris arundinacea 5 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Elymus repens 5 no FAC 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 55, 20% = 22 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: i Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #104 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located near the excavated pond US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #104 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 sandy loam 8-10 10YR 4/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 40 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 10-16 10YR 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 16 inches** Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: **at first, saturation appeared to be only in the upper layer; after 10-15 minutes,there was standing water at 16 inches Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 7 ft by 30 ft) 1. Salix sp. 100 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Spiraea douglasii 40 yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 70, 20% = 28 140 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 7 ft by 30 ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Juncus effusus <5 no FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = N/A = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Sample plot was a rectangle to include only the depression/swale/excavated area Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #108 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located in the E-W depression inlcuding the excavated area US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #108 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 3/4 5 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 10 inches Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: water standing at 10 inches and coming in Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Ranunculus repens 50 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Juncus effusus 20 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Elymus repens 15 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 42.5, 20% = 17 85 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: approximately 40% of the plot had dead matted vegetation and some algal mats Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #110 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located in area where ponding was observed in Dec 2014 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #110 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 3/4 5 C M sandy loam Prominent redoxymorphic features 8-13 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 3/4 20 C M sandy loam Distinct redoxymorphic features 13-20 10YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 3/4 15 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 17 inches Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 40 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 50% = 20, 20% = 8 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20 feet diameter) 1. Spiraea douglasii 5 yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 5 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Poa annua 25 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Scirpus microcarpus <5 no OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Agrostis sp. TR no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phalaris arundinacea TR no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Juncus effusus TR no FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 15, 20% = 6 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Remarks: Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #111 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located in alder grove at SE corner of west parcel US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #111 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 3/1 100 loam 5-10 10YR 3/1 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M loam Prominent redoxymorphic features 10-15 10YR 4/1 50 7.5YR 4/6 50 C M sandy loam Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 28 inches Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: algal mats especially on leaf debris; the area had standing water in December 2014 (during the growing season) Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Ranunculus repens 25 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Juncus effusus 20 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Agrostis sp 10 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Elymus repens <5 no FAC 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 30, 20% = 12 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30-40 Remarks: i Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #113 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample plot located north of the willow grove along the Venture Ditch US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #113 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 sandy loam 8-10 10YR 4/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 40 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 10-16 10YR 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 13 inches Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet diameter) UPL species x5 = 1. Juncus effusus 20 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Poa annua 20 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Ranunculus repens 15 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Agrostis sp 10 no FAC 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Elymus repens <5 no FAC 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 35, 20% = 14 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: matted dead vegetation approximately 30% Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- City/County: Auburn/King Sampling Date: 13 March 2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: Corps #114 Investigator(s): T. Tong and S. Anderson Section, Township, Range: S 35, T 22N, R 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.34418 Long: -122.25244 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Corps #114 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-17 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 2 C PL, M sandy loam Prominent redoxymorphic features 17-20 10YR 3/1 90 7.5YR 3/4 10 C M loamy sand Prominent redoxymorphic features 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 20 inches Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site: NWS-2014-928 SVF South 287th Auburn LLC- APPENDIX D Wetland Rating Forms for Wetlands P1-P8, E1, F1 (Prepared by WRA) APPENDIX E Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form and Map (Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) APPENDIX F Supplemental Wetland and Stream Report (Prepared by A.J. Bredburg) 4548 Supplement CITY OF AUBURN SUPPLEMENTAL WETLAND AND STREAM REPORT Off Site Wetland to the West and Northwest Corner and Roadside Ditch S. 207th St. and West Valley Highway Prepared for: Northcreek Capital, LLC 1307 West Valley Highway North Suite 107 AUBURN, WA 98001 Prepared by: AJ Bredberg B&A Inc. 3303 43rd St. NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 253-858-7055 Fax 253-858-2534 ajb@wa.net January 7, 2013 4548 Supplement TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY Off-Site West Parcel SITE DESCRIPTION VEGETATION SOILS HYDROLOGY WETLANDS STREAMS CLASSIFICATION BUFFERS MITIGATION Northwest Corner of S. 207th St. and West Valley Highway SITE DESCRIPTION VEGETATION SOILS HYDROLOGY WETLANDS STREAMS SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 1936 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 2 1946 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 3 1960 AIR PHOTO FIGURE 4 SOIL MAP FIGURE 5 LOCATION MAP FIGURE 6 DITCH MAP NW CORNER INTERSECTION FIGURE 7 OFF-SITE WETLAND ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 AFFIDAVIT ATTACHMENT 2 DATA SHEETS ATTACHMENT 3 WETLAND RATING FORM 4548 Supplement i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is a supplemental report to the original approved report for the 15 acres southwest of the intersection S. 207th St. and West Valley Highway. A wetland off-site to the west has been flagged, surveyed and evaluated. It is a Category 3 wetland that would require a 50 foot buffer if it is regulated- It is off- site on the neighbors property and per the affidavit it is a constructed wetland from an upland. It should not be regulated, but that is not at issue as the current project meets all buffer requirements. The northwest corner of the intersection S. 287th St. and West Valley Highway was evaluated to determine if the roadside ditch is either a stream or a wetland. The evaluation is valid for the ditch all the way north for one quarter mile. This confirms the drainage ditch is a ditch and not a stream and it confirms the ditch is not regulated as a wetland. While the bottom of the ditch meets technical wetland criteria, it is exempt from regulation as it is a ditch constructed from uplands. The ditch does not meet stream criteria as no natural stream ran through this area. The regulated stream is on the other side, east side, of West Valley Highway. The subject ditch only carries water during storms and begins at the culvert at that intersection. 4548 Supplement 1 INTRODUCTION This supplemental report is prepared for the City of Auburn and provides information as required per 16.10.070 Critical area review process and application requirements of City code. City code is used as an outline and all required information is presented in this format. METHODOLOGY The 2010 Federal Manual was used for the delineation; it relies on the 1987 Federal Manual. The 1997 DOE Manual was also used as it contains information after the production of the 1987 Manual. The USDA Soil Survey, National Wetland Inventory Map, air photos, information from other approved projects in the area and over 20 year of technical knowledge of the area were all accessed for this report. Interviews with numerous neighbors and review of the SAMP were all helpful in generating the wetland report. Test holes were dug to confirm the wetland boundary and upland conditions of the undisturbed areas. Off-Site West Parcel SITE DESCRIPTION The site is comprised of a single 5 acre parcel (Figure 5) and only the wet area nearest the subject project was evaluated to determine jurisdictional status. To the north is South 287th St. with single family homes and farmland north of 287th St. To the east is the subject 15 acre project site. To the south is Venture Creek Ditch and undeveloped land south of the ditch. To the west is former ag land that was cut, filled, ditched and now in grass, shrubs and woods as well as single family homes. The wetland was flagged in the spring of 2012 and flag locations surveyed (Figure 7). The area meets the three parameter wetland criteria. The wetland is rated a Category 3 wetland and maximum 50 foot buffer is required per code. This maximum buffer is shown on the site plans a copy is included (Figure 7). The issue of whether the wetland is regulated may be addressed in the future. The rationale for the wetland not being regulated is presented here for the record to protect the off-site property owner. The entire site is historic farmland per the numerous air photos back to 1936 (Figures 1, 2 and 3). The fields grew a variety of commodity crops, vegetables, 4548 Supplement 2 fruit and forage crops over the decades. Numerous buildings, abandoned and occupied, are on the parcel. Attachment 1 is an affidavit attesting to site history and construction of the wetland. Based on this affidavit and supporting documentation, the wetland should not be regulated as it was constructed on purpose from an upland. The older air photos show no wetland patterns. The fields have uniform cropping and color patterns. The 1946 air photo has a smudge in the northwest corner of the parcel from a raindrop hitting the original photo at a site visit. Just across the street is an orchard of 21 trees on that photo. The 1936 photo shows the same orchard with 22 small trees. The 1960 photo shows the same orchard with 17 trees remaining. The Affidavit confirms the wetland was constructed from uplands on purpose. Per the following section of code documentation with air photos and statements proves the area was created from uplands. This is supported by data sheets confirming upland status around the constructed wetland (Attachment 2) 16.10.080 Classification and rating of critical areas. 5. “Artificially created wetlands” are purposefully created landscape features, ponds and storm water detention or retention facilities. Artificially created wetlands do not include wetlands created as mitigation, and wetlands modified for approved land use activities. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated to the director through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other evidence. Artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites are excluded from regulation under this section. VEGETATION Vegetation is comprised of willow, red alder, black cottonwood, spirea, salmonberry and reed canarygrass. SOILS The Soil Survey (Figure 4) shows the site mapped as the same soils as found on the site to the east. Test holes show the soils do not match the mapped units. The soils of the undisturbed areas do not meet hydric criteria as shown on the data sheets. Soil data shows the area surrounding the wet area is not hydric or wetland and that the pond was dug from uplands and not regulated. HYDROLOGY Hydrology of the area is altered by the pond construction. The excavated hole fills with water. The surrounding upland area lacks wetland hydrology. The area was visited in the spring of 2012 with the same results as found on the site to the 4548 Supplement 3 east. The monitoring form the previous year on the site to the east is accurate for the subject area as well. No water table or saturation within 12 inches of the surface for 2 weeks that would qualify as wetland criteria was present in the undisturbed areas when the site was observed in the spring of 2012. The wet area was inundated as it was dug for a livestock pond and had wetland hydrology, but it is not regulated. WETLANDS The wetland is buffered as if it is regulated and the issue of being regulated may be addressed in the future. STREAMS The Venture Ditch on the south property line is being regulated as a stream off- site just as it is on-site. CLASSIFICATION Venture Ditch Stream is a Class 4 stream as approved on the project to the east. BUFFERS A 25 foot buffer is provided on the Venture Ditch Stream. MITIGATION No mitigation is needed. Northwest Corner of S. 207th St. and West Valley Highway SITE DESCRIPTION The site at the corner and the lots to the north along the ditch are comprised of single family lots. The area impacted by the road widening is part of the historic farm yard around the house and buildings on the corner lot Figure 6). The remainder of the ditch to the north has the same conditions. Which is the ditch is between the road and development. West Valley Highway is to the east of the ditch and to the west are large lots with houses and lawns up to the edge of the ditch. 4548 Supplement 4 VEGETATION Vegetation consists of domestic pasture grasses, ornamental plants and weeds that grow along the street. SOILS The Soil Survey shows the site mapped as the Puyallup and Oridia series (Figure 3). The Puyallup series is a well drained soil not on the hydric soils list or considered a wetland soil. The data sheets show the soils do not match the Puyallup series description. The soils more closely match the somewhat poorly drained Oridia series. In this case it is a moderately well drained soil that does not meet hydric criteria. We have found the soils of the valley do not have a moderately well drained member of the catena that contains the Oridia series, thus the better drained soils, moderately well drained, were included in the somewhat poorly drained map units. The ditch bottom would meet hydric criteria, but is excavated from an upland and not regulated as defined in code above. HYDROLOGY Hydrology of the upland next to the ditch does not meet wetland criteria. The ditch bottom obviously meets wetland criteria as do most roadside ditches. This ditch is not regulated as a wetland. WETLANDS The ditch bottom meets wetland criteria but is not regulated as it was intentionally created from an upland. STREAMS The ditch is not a stream as it is a drainage ditch. The ditch does not meet stream criteria as no natural stream ran through this area. The regulated stream is on the other side, east side, of West Valley Highway. The subject ditch only carries water during storms and begins at the culvert at that intersection. 4548 Supplement 1 SUMMARY This report addresses two areas. One is the constructed pond off-site to the west and the other is the northwest corner of the intersection of S. 207th St. and West Valley Highway. The offsite wetland to the west was delineated and the delineation is consistent with the 15 acre subject site report. The property owner was interviewed and while the wetland meets the three parameter criteria it should not be jurisdictional as it was created from uplands as a livestock pond and later modified into a landscape/wildlife amenity. However, a 50 foot maximum buffer is being maintained from the property line of the subject project. This makes it unnecessary at this time to address the issue of regulating the off-site wetland. No wetland or stream is present on northwest corner of the intersection S. 207th St. and West Valley Highway or on the west side of West Valley Highway for the length of the review undertaken. While the bottom of the ditch meets technical wetland criteria, it is exempt from regulation as it is a ditch constructed from uplands. The ditch does not meet stream criteria as no natural stream ran through this area. FIGURE 1 : 1936 AIR PHOTO SITE ORCHARD FIGURE 2: 1946 AIR PHOTO SITE RAINDROP SMUDGE FIGURE 3: 1960 AIR PHOTO SITE FIGURE 4: SOIL MAP SITE Os Pu No Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington Symbol Map Unit Name AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep No Norma sandy loam Os Oridia silt loam Pu Puget silty clay loam Sm Shalcar muck Wo Woodinville silt loam FIGURE 5: LOCATION MAP SITE Figure 6 Ditch at Northwest corner 207th and West Valley (scale approcimate) 51235630.1 ATTACHMENT 1 AFFIDAVIT ATTACHMENT 2 DATA SHEETS ATTACHMENT 3 WETLAND RATING FORM Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 1 of 12 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known):Off-site to west wetland Date of site visit: 5-22-12 Rated by:AJB Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training:11-09 SEC: 35 TOWNSHP: 22N RNGE: 4E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Map of wetland unit: Figure 7 Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 12 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 14 Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions 15 Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions 41 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) 41 Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 2 of 12 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. _____ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 3 of 12 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ... points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) .. points = 1 Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanentlyflowing treat unit as “intermittentlyflowing ”)Provide photo or drawing Figure 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area .......................................... points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ............................................ points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area .......................................... points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area ............................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 3 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland ..................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydrop eriods Figure 2 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 2 TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 12 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ...................................... points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet .... points = 2 Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch ...................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) ....... points = 0 1 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet .................. points = 7 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland ............................................................................. points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................... points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ................................. points = 3 Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water . points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft .................................................................................... points = 0 3 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: E stimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit............................................... points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ............................................ points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit ..................................... points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class .................................................................................... points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 4 of 12 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier 2 TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 14 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 5 of 12 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland ......................................................................... points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. ...................................................... points = 2 No depressions present ................................................................................................... points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit .............................................................................. points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland ........................................................................ points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit ............................................................... points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit ................................................................ points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit .............................................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map showingpolygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R1 by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 .............................................................................................. points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 – 20 ......................................................................................... points = 6 If the ratio is 5- <10 ........................................................................................................ points = 4 If the ratio is 1- <5 .......................................................................................................... points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 ............................................................................................................. points = 1 Aerial p hoto or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as “forest or shrub”. Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area ....................................... points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area ..................................... points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria .......................................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map showingpolygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 6 of 12 L Lake-fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide ...................................................................... points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft ....................................................... points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft ........................................................ points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide..................................................................................... points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area .............................................. points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area ................................................ points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit ............... points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area ...................................... points = 1 Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit ......................................................... points = 0 Map with p olygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake.Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide ............................................ points = 6 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. ............................................... points = 4 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. ........................................... points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) ................................. points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) .............................. points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 7 of 12 S Slope Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) (see p.64)S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 ft. vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) .... points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% ............................................................................................................ points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5%. ........................................................................................................... points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% ................................................................................................. points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 p oints NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area ...................................... points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area .......................................................... points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area. .......................................................................... points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area .......................................................... points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation .................................................... points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland .......................... points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland........................................................ points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area. ....................................................................... points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid........................ points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the boxes above S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 8 of 12 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures .............. points = 2 2 structures ....................points = 1 1 structure ............... points = 0 Figure 2 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ..................... = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ............. = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure 2 H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 1 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure 2 H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. 2 H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above 9 Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 9 of 12 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ...........points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference ....................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .......................................... points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ............................................................................ points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer .................................................................................................... points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .................................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure 2 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points 1 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 10 of 12 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves:A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) 0 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape:Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .... points = 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................................... points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ...................................................................................................................... points = 3 The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .............................................................................................................. points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ..................................................................... points = 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile ............................................................................ points = 0 3 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 6 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 9 Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 15 Comments: Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 11 of 12 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type –Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands?(see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland Cat I SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Wetland name or number _______________________ Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (7/06), updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Page 12 of 12 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: APPENDIX G King County Mitigation Reserves Program Instrument and Technical Appendices (Prepared by the King County Mitigation Reserves Program) Available online at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/water-and-land/ wetlands/mitigation-credit-program.aspx#docs APPENDIX H In Lieu Fee Use Plan and Site Specific Wetland Scoring Analysis (Prepared by WRA) North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-1 PART 12. IN-LIEU FEE USE PLAN This In-Lieu Fee Use Plan has been developed in support of the JARPA materials prepared for the proposed North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Project located in Auburn, King County, Washington. The project includes unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources on the site, and the Applicant has proposed to purchase in-lieu fee credits to compensate for the loss of Waters of the United States. The following information is has been prepared according to the guidance paper issued by the Washington State Interagency Review Team in October 2012. Part A: Impact Project Description 1. Project Description The project area is zoned for light industrial use and the applicant proposes the development of the property for commercial purposes. The applicant proposes the construction of a light industrial development including warehouse, office space, truck yard, and parking areas. The project will include approximately 259,213 square feet of industrial warehouse use and accessory office in one tilt-up building. The building will be front loaded with a loading dock and parking stalls surrounding the building. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of on-site excavation and embankment will be completed to rough grade the site and prepare the building pad areas for development. In total, approximately 70,000 cubic yards of imported fill material (soil) will be placed and compacted for the building pad and to raise the existing ground to pavement subgrade elevation. As part of the project, the City of Auburn is requiring road and frontage improvements, including installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. These improvements require that an existing culvert consisting of two 24-inch pipes running under West Valley Highway be modified to support a widened roadway. Rather than modify the existing culvert system, the project proponent has proposed to replace the entire culvert with a larger culvert suitable for fish passage. As part of this process, the project proponent has worked closely with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to develop an appropriate culvert design based on the specific site conditions. Installation of the new culvert will result in temporary impacts to the stream and adjacent vegetation; however, these impacts will be temporary and the work is expected to be self-mitigating. It is expected that the new culvert will result in an overall improvement in the functions and values of the stream, most notably in terms of fish passage. Standard construction best management practices will be implemented throughout construction, including implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan approved by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (see the Construction Stormwater General Permit and other stormwater documents in Part 7 of the JARPA application package). Vegetation clearing; grading; construction of the building pad; installation of utilities; construction of the building, parking, and attendant features, and replacement of the culvert will occur using standard equipment and methods. See the project plans in Part 3 of the JARPA permit application package for more details. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-2 2. Existing Conditions of Aquatic Resources The project area consists of an agricultural field with a combination of grassland, which is mowed annually, and small patches of red alder woodland which has developed in portions of the site that are not actively mowed. Grassland portions of the site are dominated by reed canarygrass and contain scattered, shallow depressions which pond water following storms. Shallow depressions within the woodland portions of the site also pond water following storms. Although these shallow depressions meet the technical criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, they are of marginal quality, with a low level of functions and values. An excavated pond occurs in the northwestern corner of the site and maintains water for a longer period; although the pond retains water longer than the shallow depressions at the site, it is located in a mowed field and does not provide a high level of functions or values. Venture Ditch occurs along the southern boundary of the site. Venture Ditch is a linear drainage ditch constructed as part of the local stormwater system. Currently, the ditch feeds into two 24- inch pipes that convey the water under West Valley Highway where the feed into a 36-inch pipe running along the right-of-way along the east side of West Valley Highway. The 36-inch pipe runs north along West Valley Highway for approximately 60 feet where it empties into an open ditch. A summary of the wetland and stream resources on the site is included in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The wetland and stream resources are shown on Figure 3 in Part 2 of the JARPA package. Representative photographs of the onsite wetlands and Venture Ditch are provided in Part 4 of the JARPA package. The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the site is included in Part 9 of the JARPA package. Wetland scoring forms for each wetland are provided in Part 10 of the JARPA package. The applicant believes that the wetland scores for the majority of the wetlands on the site (with the exception of Wetland A) do not take into account a number of site-specific factors which serve to reduce the functions and values of those wetlands. The rationale for applying lower scores to the wetlands is outlined in the supplemental document included with this In-Lieu Fee Use Plan. The debit worksheets included in this In-Lieu Fee Use Plan are based on the modified scores recommended in the supplemental document. The debit worksheet for Wetland A is based on the actual scores calculated for that wetland. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-3 Table 1. Summary of Wetland Resources on the Development Site Wetland Name Area (acres) Buffer Area (acres)1 Ecology Rating Cowardin Classification HGM Classification E1 0.020 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional F1 0.120 n/a IV PFO1E Depressional A 0.145 0.226 acre IV PEM2E Depressional B 0.050 n/a IV PFO1E Depressional P1 0.037 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P2 0.021 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P3 0.009 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P4 0.005 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P5 0.004 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P6 0.062 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P7 0.042 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional P8 0.007 n/a IV PEM2E Depressional Table 2. Summary of Stream Resources on the Development Site Stream Name Length (linear feet) Buffer Area (acres) Classification System Water Type Venture Ditch (Tributary 053) 1,304 0.742 WDNR Fish 3. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Aquatic Resources Impacts to, and avoidance of, aquatic features within the development site are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, below, and shown on Figures 7-9 in Part 2 of the JARPA package. The project includes permanent fill of wetlands P1-P8, F1, E1, and B, totaling 0.377 acre. Due to the nature of the project (i.e., commercial warehouse facilities) and the distribution of wetlands on the site, it is not possible to avoid these wetlands while still achieving the project purpose. Because these wetlands will be filled, avoidance and minimization measures are not applicable. No permanent fill is proposed to Wetland A; however, the project will permanently encroach on approximately 0.067 acre of the City-approved buffer for Wetland A and Venture Ditch. Enhancement within the approved buffers for those two features is to be provided per the onsite wetland and stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the City of Auburn (see Part 11 of 1 Buffer areas were not calculated for wetlands which will be filled in their entirety. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-4 the JAPRA package). Standard best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to these aquatic resources and their buffers (see project plans in Part 3 of JARPA package, Stormwater Site Plan in Part 7, stream and fish protection measures in Part 8). Although no direct (temporary or permanent) impacts are expected to Wetland A, indirect impacts will occur due primarily to the encroachment of the City-required road improvements into the City-approved buffer for Wetland A. To reduce this impact, the project engineer requested a variance from the City to install a more narrow sidewalk in this area. The berm for the proposed onsite stormwater basins at the eastern edge of the site also overlaps with the buffer for Wetland A and was included in the calculation of indirect impacts even though the berm will be vegetated and will provide some level of buffer functions. Based on the Corps methodology for calculating indirect impacts, it was determined that approximately 0.025 acre of Wetland A will be indirectly impacted (see Figure 8 in Part 2 of the JARPA package). Mitigation for indirect and permanent impacts to wetlands on the site will occur via payment of an in-lieu fee to the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. The project includes replacement of the culvert that conveys Venture Ditch under West Valley Highway; although replacement of the culvert will result in a net improvement in the functions and values of the stream, the work will entail temporary impacts to the stream. To meet the standards of the culvert design recommended by the WDFW, the slope upstream from the culvert must be increased slightly to maintain appropriate flow characteristics. This will required minor excavation, grading, and placement of streambed gravel within a 60-foot reach extending upstream from the culvert inlet. The culvert itself will have a substrate composed of well-sorted streambed gravel and cobbles and will have scour aprons of the same material. Approximately 0.039 acre of Venture Ditch will be temporarily impacted by the excavation, grading, and fill related to the culvert replacement (see Figure 9 in Part 2 of the JARPA package). Temporary impacts to Venture Ditch will be self-mitigating as the new culvert will be approximately 20 feet shorter than the existing set of pipes and the new culvert will have increased capacity for passing large storm flows and will have greatly improved fish passage. See Part 8 of the JARPA package for details on the culvert replacement. Example BMPs to be used throughout the project include erosion control measures such as silt fencing and straw wattles (see the Stormwater Control Plan included in Part 7 of the JARPA application package), contractor training on the sensitive natural resources found on the site, and a prohibition on personnel or equipment within the City-approved buffers during construction. In addition, the post-construction development will make use of on-site water treatment facilities including both detention and water quality basins and other low-impact development measures (see project plans in Part 3 and stormwater documents in Part 7 of the JARPA package for additional details). North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-5 Table 3. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Wetlands on the Development Site Feature Name Wetland Area (acres) Permanent Impact Area (acres) Temporary Impact Area (acres) Indirect Impact Area (acres) Buffer Area (acres) Permanent Buffer Impacts (acres) Temporary Buffer Impacts (acres) Avoidance and Minimization Measures E1 0.020 0.020 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a F1 0.120 0.120 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a A 0.145 0 0 0.025 0.226 0.067 0 Reduction in width of sidewalk to minimize impacts to buffer Avoidance of wetland Standard BMPs to avoid indirect impacts Implementation of on- site buffer enhancement plan to improve quality of buffer B 0.050 0.050 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P1 0.037 0.037 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P2 0.021 0.021 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P3 0.009 0.009 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P4 0.005 0.005 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P5 0.004 0.004 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P6 0.062 0.062 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P7 0.042 0.042 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a P8 0.007 0.007 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-6 Table 4. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Streams on the Development Site Feature Name Stream Length (Linear Feet) Permanent Impact Area (acres) Temporary Impact Area (acres) Buffer Area (acres) Permanent Buffer Impacts Temporary Buffer Impacts Avoidance and Minimization Measures Venture Ditch 1,304 ft 0 0.039 0.742 0 0 Work during dry season Minimize in-water work for culvert replacement Use suitable streambed materials where appropriate Minimize dewatering time Implementation of on-site buffer enhancement plan to improve quality of buffer North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-7 4. Impacts to Aquatic Resource Functions The impacted wetlands were determined to be of relatively low-quality (Ecology rating IV), with low levels of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions (see wetland scoring forms in Part 10 of the JARPA package and the rationale for reduced wetland scores attached at the end of this In-Lieu Fee Use Plan). These wetlands primarily receive stormwater runoff, and any water quality functions provided by these shallow depressions will be compensated by the stormwater basins to be constructed as part of the project. The stormwater system has been designed to match pre-project hydrologic conditions and to improve water quality prior to being discharged into the local stormwater system. As indicated on the wetland assessment forms, the impacted wetlands provide little habitat value and the onsite stormwater basins will replace at least some of this habitat value. In addition to the replacement of wetland functions and values to be provided by the on-site stormwater facilities, the functions and values of the permanently and indirectly impacted wetlands will be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee to the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. The in-lieu fee will provide support for the preservation and enhancement of existing wetland habitat or the creation of new wetland habitat; the end result of this financial support will be the development of wetlands with relatively higher water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions and values. In addition to payment to the in-lieu fee program for impacts to wetlands, the applicant will implement an on-site wetland and stream buffer enhancement plan to improve the quality of the buffers to be preserved around Wetland A and Venture Ditch. The buffer enhancement plan includes the removal of non-native weeds and planting of appropriate native vegetation followed by success monitoring. Enhancement of these buffers will increase the water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions and values of both the buffers and the aquatic features themselves. The debit worksheets completed for the project are included on the following pages. Based on the low quality of the wetlands as described in the attached document, the applicant is requesting that wetland scores be reduced based on an analysis of site-specific factors which are not accounted for as part of the normal wetland rating process. The recommended wetland scores are outlined in the attached document; these wetland scores were used to prepare the debit worksheets on the following pages. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-16 Part B: Justification for Using an In-Lieu Fee Program 1. Description of Compensatory Mitigation Options Considered The project does not occur within the service area of an approved mitigation bank, and therefore, this option was not pursued. The project does occur within the service area of the King County Mitigation Reserves Program, an approved in-lieu fee program. Use of an in-lieu fee program is preferred over permittee-responsible mitigation, and therefore permittee- responsible mitigation options were not pursued. 2. In-Lieu Fee Program Selection Rationale The applicant proposes payment of an in-lieu fee to the King County Mitigation Reserves Program, which is one of only three such programs approved in Washington State. Given the general lack of in-lieu fee programs available in the State, the King County program is the only viable option for the project. The project is located within the service area of the in-lieu fee program (see Figure 10 in Part 2 of the JARPA package). The program has confirmed that credits are available for sale (see the attached email from Michael Murphy, the King County Mitigation Reserves Program Manager). Use of an in-lieu fee is preferable over permittee-responsible mitigation due to the poor track record of permittee-responsible mitigation efforts across the country and the ability for the in-lieu fee program to leverage additional funds to undertake larger and more effective mitigation projects than would be possible with individual permittee-responsible mitigation projects. The program also allows mitigation efforts to be concentrated in areas where they will provide the most public and ecological benefit whereas permittee responsible mitigation often results in the development of small, isolated mitigation wetlands scattered among developed sites where they provide relatively lesser value. 3. Proposed Use of In-Lieu Fee Credits Based on the total debits calculated on the attached debit worksheets, the applicant proposes the purchase of 12.91 acre-point credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. The program manager, Michael Murphy, has confirmed that the program has sufficient credits available for purchase (see the attached email). 4. Credit Purchase or Transfer Timing Credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program will be purchased following issuance of regulatory permits and prior to impacting resources. Evidence of credit purchase will be provided to the regulatory agencies upon purchase. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-17 NORTH AUBURN LOGISTICS SITE-SPECIFIC WETLAND SCORING ANALYSIS This document provides an analysis of the wetland functions and values at the proposed North Auburn Logistics Commercial Facility (Project) located in Auburn, King County, Washington. The Project proposes to fill 0.377 acre of seasonal wetlands. These wetlands are of marginal quality and provide minimal water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions based on site- specific factors that are not reflected in the Scoring Form used to calculate mitigation debits in Western Washington. The following site-specific information is provided to supplement the District’s evaluation in determining the appropriate level of mitigation for this site. The site- specific information takes into consideration information that cannot be captured using the Scoring Form, including the functions and values added by the proposed onsite stormwater facilities and the proposed onsite buffer enhancement plan. Existing Conditions Wetlands mapped by the Seattle District of the Army Corps of Engineers are shown on Figure 3 in Part 2 of the JARPA package. Whereas Wetland A and Venture Ditch will be avoided by the Project, the remaining wetlands will be filled to accomplish the Project purpose of constructing commercial warehouse facilities. The filled wetlands consist of shallow depressions in a field that has been mowed annually for hay production; most of these depressions (Wetlands P1-P5, P7-P8) are the result of past and current agricultural practices. Some depressions on the site (Wetlands F1 and B) have not been mowed regularly and woody vegetation has established over time; this woody vegetation is dominated primarily by red alder. In one case (Wetland E1/P6), the wetland represents a manmade excavation created for private use as an off-road vehicle course and which has subsequently developed woody vegetation dominated by willows. Water Quality Functions A summary of the wetland scores for improving water quality functions is provided below in Table 1. Due to site-specific factors not accounted for in the Scoring Form, the applicant is requesting modified scores for this function, as summarized in Table 1. The rationale for requesting modified scores for this wetland function is provided in the following paragraphs. With the exception of Wetland E1/P6, which was originally excavated as part of a private off- road vehicle course, the wetlands on the site (Wetlands P1-P5, P7-P8, B, F1) comprise a series of small, shallow depressions that are dominated by non-persistent, emergent vegetation (Wetlands P1-P5, P7-P8) or that have an overstory canopy of red alders with an understory of non-persistent, emergent vegetation (Wetlands B and F1). These depressions pond several inches of water following major rain events. One of the features (Wetland P7) has formed adjacent to S. 287th Street due to clogging of a culvert beneath the street that normally drains this area. Wetland P8 is a trench that is excavated and has no outlet. The other features are assumed to have formed due to mowing or other heavy agricultural equipment used on the land. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-18 The shallow depth and short duration of ponding reduces the volume of water that can be stored and treated by these features. The dominance of non-persistent vegetation within Wetlands P1- P5 and P7-P8 further serves to reduce the water quality functions of those wetlands. The landscape position of these depressional wetlands also reduces their potential for treating water. The site contains stormwater drainage ditches on its east, west, and south sides. As such, all stormwater from the east, west, and south of the site is intercepted by the drainage ditches and does not flow onto the site. Although there is not a drainage ditch to intercept stormwater flows along the northern edge of the site, the site generally slopes to the north, and therefore, stormwater runoff is generally expected to flow to the north, off of the site. Due to these conditions, the wetlands on the site are not expected to receive stormwater runoff from offsite, and therefore, any water quality functions provided by these wetlands is limited to treatment of direct precipitation onto the site which is not expected to contain pollutants. Therefore, the wetlands on the site have both reduced ability and reduced potential to improve water quality. As a result, all features on the site should have a lower water quality score than is reflected by the credit/debit Scoring Form. Although Wetland E1 has a greater depth and duration of inundation than the other wetlands on the site, which increases its potential ability to improve water quality, the lack of landscape potential (i.e., the lack of polluted water entering the site) reduces the ability of the wetland to improve water quality, and therefore, Wetland E1 should also have a lower water quality score than is reflected by the credit/debit scoring form. Because the wetland Scoring Form does not include these site-specific factors, the landscape potential is over-rated. The inflated scores for landscape position are primarily due to the fact that the site is considered agricultural. The agricultural designation implies the presence of agricultural pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc.), which would increase the potential water quality functions of these wetlands. However, agricultural activities at the site over the last decade or longer have been limited to passive hay production, without chemical inputs. Given the lack of pollutant-generating activities on the site and the fact that stormwater from adjacent properties is either intercepted by drainage ditches or flows away from the site, the wetlands on the site are expected to provide negligible water quality functions and should receive a lower water quality score. In addition to these factors, the Scoring Form also does not take into consideration the replacement of water quality functions provided by the proposed on-site stormwater facilities (see project plans in Part 3 and stormwater documents in Part 7 of the JARPA package). The stormwater system includes a detention pond and stormwater wetland at the eastern end of the site to retain and treat stormwater runoff from the paved areas around the building. The western end of the site will contain a detention pond to retain stormwater runoff from the roof of the building, which is not expected to contain pollutants. Together, these basins and the treatment wetland will provide complete replacement of the water quality functions of the wetlands to be filled. These features may in fact provide an increased level of water quality function relative to the existing wetlands. North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-19 Based on the site-specific factors not captured by the Scoring Form and the replacement of water quality functions by the onsite stormwater facilities (which is in addition to the replacement of functions to be achieved through the offsite mitigation), the applicant requests that the water quality scores for wetlands E1/P6, F1/B, P1-P5, and P7-P8 be reduced by two points each, as reflected in Table 1 (see “Modified Water Quality Score” column). Table 1. Original and Modified Water Quality Scores Wetland Original Water Quality Score Modified Water Quality Score E1/P6 6 4 F1/B 5 3 P1-P5, P7-P8 5 3 Hydrologic Functions Given the shallow nature of the depressions and the fact that they only pond water that falls on the site from direct precipitation, their hydrologic function is minimal. However, the Scoring Form only considers whether they are located within 100 feet of agricultural, residential, or commercial land uses and occur within a basin with greater than 25 percent intensive land uses. The land uses listed in D5.2 on the Scoring Form include almost all potential land uses other than open space or similar uses, and therefore, would apply to nearly any site within King County. Similarly, nearly all of King County falls within a basin or sub-basin with greater than 25 percent intensive land uses. As such, nearly any wetland within King County would score an “M” for hydrologic function, regardless of the site-specific hydrologic function. However, the wetlands within the Project Area only intercept stormwater from within the site itself, and given their small size and shallow depth, they have limited ability to store floodwaters relative to normal storm events that would generate a discharge to downstream waters. As noted above, the Scoring Form does not take into account the replacement of functions to be replaced by the onsite stormwater facilities. These facilities will replace the hydrologic functions provided by the wetlands to be filled, and in fact may provide an increased level of hydrologic function relative to existing conditions at the site. Given their limited ability to store floodwater, both based on site potential and landscape potential, and the replacement hydrologic functions provided by the onsite stormwater facilities, , the wetlands to be filled have minimal hydrologic function and warrant a lower hydrologic score that reflected by the Scoring Form. The applicant requests that the hydrologic scores for wetlands E1/P6, F1/B, P1-P5, and P7-P8 be reduced by one point each, as reflected in Table 2 (see “Modified Hydrologic Score” column). North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-20 Table 2. Original and Modified Hydrologic Scores Wetland Original Hydrologic Score Modified Hydrologic Score E1/P6 5 4 F1/B 4 3 P1-P5, P7-P8 4 3 Habitat Functions The depressions on the site are relatively small, manmade, isolated features with a high perimeter to area ratio. The small size of the depressions and high perimeter to area ratio, combined with the shallow depth and correspondingly short duration of ponding, greatly reduces the value of these wetlands for wetland-adapted wildlife species. The high perimeter to area ratio of the wetlands on the site is not captured by the Scoring Form. In addition to their high perimeter to area ratio, Wetlands P1-P5 and P7-P8 are dominated by non-native, non-persistent grasses and other weedy herbaceous vegetation. These depressions have historically been mowed for hay production on an annual basis; this regular mowing and removal of plant material from the site prevents the development of any vegetation structure which might provide habitat for wildlife species. Aerial photography dating back to the 1930s shows that this area has been in agricultural production for at least 85 years. The lack of persistent vegetation and annual mowing, combined with their high perimeter to arear ratio, reduces the potential habitat value of these wetlands in ways which are not captured by the Scoring Form. As such, the applicant is requesting that the habitat score for Wetlands P1-P5 and P7-P8 be reduced by 1 point as shown on Table 3. Wetland unit E1/P6 has a short-statured woody canopy, which may provide some habitat value for birds and other species that prefer the structure and/or cover provided by this woody vegetation. However, the high perimeter to area ratio of this wetland unit, combined with the regular mowing and corresponding lack of vegetation structure within the P6 portion of this wetland unit, reduces its value to wildlife species. These site-specific factors are not captured by the Scoring Form, and therefore, the applicant is requesting that the habitat score for wetland unit E1/P6 be reduced by 1 point as shown on Table 3. Table 3. Original and Modified Habitat Scores Wetland Original Habitat Score Modified Habitat Score E1/P6 3 2 F1/B 3 3 P1-P5, P7-P8 3 2 North Auburn Logistics Commercial Development Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Package 12-21 Conclusion This assessment demonstrates the low-level of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions provided by the wetlands to be filled based on site-specific factors not captured by the Scoring Form. In addition, the Scoring Form does not take into consideration the replacement of water quality and hydrologic functions of the onsite stormwater facilities that will be constructed or the enhancement of buffer functions in the onsite wetlands and stream to be avoided by the project. Based on these factors which are not captured by the Scoring Form, the applicant believes that the wetlands to be filled warrant lower ratings and is requesting that the scores for these features be adjusted according to the “Modified” score column in Tables 1-3. APPENDIX I Debit Worksheets for Determining ILF Program Mitigation Requirements (Prepared by WRA) See Appendix H APPENDIX J Example Terms of Sale Agreement (Prepared by the King County Mitigation Reserves Program) Mitigation Terms of Sale – [Permittee] – DRAFT Page 1 TERMS OF SALE AGREEMENT Mitigation for [PERMITTEE]’s [PROJECT NAME] Project in the [BASIN NAME] Basin, King County, Washington Using King County’s Mitigation Reserves Program This Agreement is made and entered into by and between [Full Permittee Name] (“[SHORT CITE PERMITTEE NAME]”) and King County, 201 S. Jackson St. Rm. 600, Seattle, WA 98104-3855, ("COUNTY"). The COUNTY and [PERMITTEE] are referred hereinafter as the “PARTIES.” WHEREAS, [PERMITTEE] has proposed [very brief description of impact project] in the [general location of impact project] of [Jurisdiction], known as the [Project Name] project (the “Impact Project”); and WHEREAS, the King County Council in 2004 established the County’s Mitigation Reserves Program (“KC MRP”), which is currently implemented through an in lieu fee (“ILF”) program, as approved by the King County Council in 2012, and as administered by the Water and Land Resources Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks; and WHEREAS, the KC MRP has been acknowledged by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Washington State Department of Ecology as meeting federal and state programmatic requirements for operating an ILF program, as evidenced by their execution of the King County Mitigation Reserves Program Final Program Instrument (“Program Instrument”), dated March 12, 2012; and WHEREAS, the KC MRP provides a means for [PERMITTEE] to pay a mitigation fee to the COUNTY and fully and irrevocably transfer [PERMITTEE]’s mitigation obligations associated with the unavoidable impacts at the Impact Project, as identified by the permitting agenc y to the COUNTY; and Mitigation Terms of Sale – [Permittee] – DRAFT Page 2 WHEREAS, [PERMITTEE] agrees to pay a mitigation fee to the COUNTY in lieu of the obligations to perform mitigation as a result of impacts to [aquatic/wetland] resources at the Impact Project, as identified by the permitting agency; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY will accept through its MRP a mitigation fee from [PERMITTEE] to satisfy the mitigation obligations related to the Impact Project, as identified by the permitting agency; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY shall apply the [PERMITTEE] mitigation fee to implement a Mitigation Project in accordance with the terms of the KC MRP Instrument, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I. The above recitals are a material part hereof and are incorporated herein by this reference. II. Applicant, and Impact Project Details A. APPLICANT The APPLICANT is: [Full Permittee Name] ATTN: [Contact Person] [Mailing Address] [City, State Zip] Tel: [XXX-XXX-XXXX] B. Impact Project Description The Impact Project is known as the [Project Name] Project and is located at the [description of location] in the [Jurisdiction]. The Impact Project will [basic description of impact project]. Mitigation Terms of Sale – [Permittee] – DRAFT Page 3 C. [Wetland or Aquatic] Impacts from Impact Project The Impact Project will [require or result in brief description of impacts]. Additional details about the [Wetland and/or Aquatic] impacts are provided in an In-Lieu Fee Use Plan that was submitted to the Corps on [Month XX, XXXX] (“ILF Use Plan”). [ADD ADDITIONAL SECTION(S) HERE IF IMPACT PROJECT WILL RESULT IN MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT] D. Impact Project Permit(s) The permit that has requirements directed toward the [aquatic and/or wetland] impacts from the Impact Project is the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit [NWS-XXXX-XXX] This permit contains a special condition requiring [PERMITTEE] to purchase [XX.XX] In-Lieu Fee Credits ([XX.XX] Water Quality Credits, [XX.XX] Hydrology Credits, and [XX.XX] Habitat Credits) from the KC MRP to meet the mitigation requirements for the [aquatic and/or wetland] impacts resulting from the [Project Name]. III. Transfer of Permit Mitigation Responsibility A. Upon acceptance of mitigation fees from [PERMITTEE], the COUNTY agrees to accept full legal responsibility and obligation for satisfying all of the [aquatic and/or wetland] impact mitigation requirements for the permit[s] identified in Section II.E. above in accordance with the terms of the Program Instrument. By this Agreement, [PERMITTEE] transfers to the COUNTY full legal responsibility and obligation for satisfying all of the [aquatic and/or wetland] impact mitigation requirements for the permit identified in [Section II.D.] above. IV. Payment and Records A. [PERMITTEE] hereby agrees to pay a mitigation fee to the COUNTY for KC’s MRP in the amount of [Written Amount] Dollars ($XXX,XXX). Mitigation Terms of Sale – [Permittee] – DRAFT Page 4 B. Within Fifteen (15) calendar days after the execution of this Agreement, the COUNTY will provide an invoice to [PERMITTEE] for the mitigation fee. Upon payment of the mitigation fee, the COUNTY acknowledges and agrees that [PERMITTEE] shall have no further monetary or mitigation obligations for the Mitigation Project or the Mitigation Site, and all obligations for implementing and completing the Mitigation Project shall be the COUNTY’s responsibility. The COUNTY shall send its invoice to [PERMITTEE]. C. Within Fifteen (15) days of receiving the payment from [PERMITTEE], the COUNTY shall provide [PERMITTEE] with a signed and dated Statement of Sale which will identify the Applicant, the Impact Project, the Impact Project impacts and the applicable permits for which required mitigation responsibility is being transferred from the Applicant to the County. A copy of the form of the Statement of Sale is attached hereto as Attachment A. This Statement of Sale is also intended to confirm and provide the official record of the sale of mitigation credits to [PERMITTEE]. This Statement of Sale does not constitute a permit or permission to proceed with any proposed action. [PERMITTEE] is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits to construct the Impact Project. V. Dispute Resolution A. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved between the Parties, the dispute shall be resolved in the following manner: Each Party shall appoint a member to a dispute board. The members so appointed shall jointly appoint a third member to the dispute board who is not employed by or affiliated in any way with the two Parties. The three-member board shall conduct a dispute resolution hearing that shall be informal and unrecorded. A written recommendation shall be made by the dispute board to the Parties. An attempt at such dispute resolution in compliance with this process shall be a prerequisite to the filing of any litigation concerning the dispute. The Parties shall equally share in the cost of the third dispute board member; however, each Party shall be responsible for its own costs and fees. VI. Legal Relations Mitigation Terms of Sale – [Permittee] – DRAFT Page 5 A. The COUNTY shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless [PERMITTEE], its officers, officials, employees, and agents, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages, both to persons and property, arising out of, or in any way resulting from, the COUNTY's own negligent acts or omissions, or the negligent acts or omissions of the COUNTY's officials, officers, or employees, in carrying out the County’s obligations under the terms of this Agreement. [PERMITTEE] shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers, officials, employees, and agents, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages, both to persons and property, arising out of, or in any way resulting from [PERMITTEE]’s own negligent acts or omissions, or the negligent acts or omissions of [PERMITTEE] officials, officers, or employees, in carrying out [PERMITTEE]’s obligations under the terms of this Agreement. Where such claims, suits, or actions result from concurrent negligence of the Parties, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Party’s own negligence. Each Party agrees that its obligations under this Section extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each Party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Party only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. This indemnification provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement. B. In the event that either Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties hereto agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in King County, Washington. Further, each Party shall be liable for its own litigation costs and attorney’s fees. VII. Term of Agreement and Modification Mitigation Terms of Sale – [Permittee] – DRAFT Page 6 A. This Agreement shall become effective as of the Party’s signature date last written below and shall remain in effect until the end of the monitoring and maintenance period for the Mitigation Project, as provided for in the Program Instrument. Regardless of the monitoring period requirements, [PERMITTEE] shall have no further mitigation and/or monetary obligation related to the Mitigation Project and Mitigation Site. This section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. B. No modification of this Agreement is valid unless evidenced in writing and signed by both Parties. No verbal agreement may supersede, replace or amend this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed the Agreement as of the Party’s date signed last below. KING COUNTY [Full Permittee Name] By By Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM Name: Joseph B. Rochelle Name: Title: Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Title: Date: Date: 14423.038.doc WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: NorthCreek Corporate Campus North Auburn Logistics (NAL) 2. Name of applicant: Craft Architects on behalf of NorthCreek Capital LLC Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of SVF South 287th Auburn, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Kathy Craft-Reich c/o Craft Architects, PLLC 2505 Third Avenue, Suite 324 Seattle, WA 98121 Jason G. Hubbell c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Contact: Jason G. Hubbell (425) 251-6222 Email: jhubbell@barghausen.com TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2 4. Date checklist prepared: 06/27/2011 - Revised 12/02/2011; Revised March 17, 2016; Revised April 13, 2016 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Fall 2011 - Demolition of existing structure - Completed. Spring 2012 – Clearing and grading - East half completed. New construction dependent on tenant Spring 2016 – Payment to In Lieu Fee Program for off-site wetland mitigation (no work occurs before mitigation payment is made) Spring-Summer 2016 - Clear and Grade West Half Summer-Fall 2016 - Building and Utility Construction, South 287th Improvements Summer 2016 - West Valley Highway Culvert Replacement Summer/Fall 2016 - Wetland Mitigation Planting Summer/Fall 2016 - West Valley Highway Improvements 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future additions or expansions beyond the scope of work anticipated in this proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Traffic Impact Analysis Geotechnical Report Critical Areas and Wetland Identification and Delineation Report Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis Floodplain Habitat Assessment Groundwater Monitoring Report Critical Areas Mitigation Report USACE Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Traffic Impact Analysis: Transportation Impact Analysis, by Heffron Transportation Inc., dated September 25, 2009 Left Turn Lane Technical Memo, by Heffron Transportation Inc., dated February 18, 2010 Trip Generation Letter, by Heffron Transportation Inc., dated June 23, 2011 Site Access and Improvements Technical Memo, by Heffron Transportation Inc., dated October 12, 2011 West Valley Highway Taper Letter, by TENW, dated August 11, 2014 Assessment Comparison Memo, by TENW, dated March 16, 2016 SEPA Addendum Response to comments, by TENW, dated April 7, 2016 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3 Geotechnical Reports: Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Earth Solutions, dated July 22, 2009 Static High Groundwater Letter, by Earth Solutions, dated May 30, 2012 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Earth Solutions, dated February 17, 2014 Reliance Letter, by Earth Solutions, dated February 27, 2014 Pavement Widening Recommendations Letter, by Earth Solutions, dated July 30, 2014 Groundwater Conditions Letter, by Earth Solutions, dated August 12, 2014 Geotechnical Recommendations Groundwater Conditions Memo, By Earth Solutions, dated August 28, 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Plan, by Earth Solutions, dated September 15, 2014 Temporary Dewatering Plan, by Earth Solutions, dated September 15, 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Data, by Earth Solutions, dated March 15, 2016 Detention Pond Liner Recommendations, by Earth Solutions, dated April 4, 2016 Critical Areas and Wetland Identification and Delineation Report, by SNR Company, dated December 30, 2008 Stream Reconnaissance Report, by SNR Company, dated October 7, 2009 Salmonid Issues Letter, by J & J Bio-Logical, dated July 2, 2013 Floodplain Habitat Assessment, by J & J Bio-Logical, dated August 26, 2013 Wetland and Stream Mitigation Report, by B&A Inc., dated April 30, 2014 Culvert Replacement S 287th St letter, by B&A Inc., dated July 9, 2014 Ordinary High Water Mark letter, by B&A Inc., dated August 15, 2014 Floodplain Development Permit letter, by B&A Inc., dated August 18, 2014 Culvert Replacement West Valley Highway letter, by B&A Inc., dated August 18, 2014 Tributary 45 Culvert Crossing Mitigation letter, by B&A Inc., dated September 2, 2014 United States Army Corps of Engineers Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination dated June 25, 2015 Winterization Plan, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated March 1, 2016 Cultural Resources Investigation, by Cardno, dated March 9, 2016 Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Data Sheets, by WRA, dated March 15, 2016 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated March 16, 2016 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Contingency Plan, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated March 16, 2016 Stormwater Site Plan, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 4, 2016 Level 2 Off-Site Drainage Analysis, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 4, 2016 Dewatering Plan, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 4, 2016 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 4, 2016 Floodplain Habitat Assessment, by WRA, dated April 13, 2016 Critical Areas Mitigation Report, by WRA, dated April 13, 2016 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. There are no known other applications pending for governmental approvals directly affecting this property. An FAC submittal was provided to the City of Auburn on December 1, 2015 A Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) was submitted to the USACE, DOE, and WDFW on November 30, 2015 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4 A WDFW HPAs was were issued on August 15, 2014 (for culvert replacement under 287th Street., WDFW permit no. 2014-4-84+02) and December 17, 2015 (for culvert replacement under West Valley Highway, WDFW permit no. 2015-4-971+01) CWA Section 404 (Corps file no. NWS-2014-928) and Section 401 (no file number yet) permits are pending Boundary Line Adjustment pending - submitted on April 1, 2016 for City review 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1. NPDES Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit - obtained for entire project, Permit No. WAR-126994 dated July 18, 2014 2. City of Auburn Building, Plumbing, Demolition and Mechanical Permits 3. City of Auburn Building, FAC and Grading Permit 4. JARPA – HPA obtained for two culvert crossings: West Valley Highway - Permit No. 2015-4-971+01, issued December 17, 2015 South 287th - Permit No. 2014-4-84+02, issued August 15, 2014, Amended September 18, 2014 5. CWA Section 404 – Pending - Application done 6. CWA Section 401 - Pending - Application done 7. Boundary Line Adjustment - Pending, submitted April 1, 2016 8. Floodplain Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The project will include approximately 244,154 259,213 s.f. of industrial warehouse use and accessory office in one tilt-up building; the building will be front loaded with a loading dock and approximately 156 201 parking stalls will surround the building. South 287th Street will be improved to private standards to allow for truck traffic. Street frontage improvements to West Valley Highway, including a new culvert crossing are proposed. Onsite mitigation will include buffer enhancement (weed removal and planting of native trees and shrubs) within the buffers for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, and the Western Offsite Wetland. Offsite mitigation will include purchase of credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. Credits will be purchased prior to any work being conducted. Details are provided in the City of Auburn Critical Areas Mitigation Report prepared by WRA, Inc. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site is located at 28721 West Valley Highway South at the Southwest corner of the intersection of South 287th Street and West Valley Highway. More specifically the project parcel numbers are 3522049026, -9024, -9016 and are located within the Southeast quarter of section 35, township 22 North, range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other . . . . . . b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 50 percent in small isolated areas at drainage ditches but the site is flat. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on-site are generally alluvial sand and silty sand with minor layers of organic-rich soils. King County USDA Soil Classification Survey indicates the native soils are predominately Norma sandy loam (No) with an isolated area of Puget silty clay loam (Pu) in the northeast corner. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications or history of unstable soils are present on the site. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of on-site excavation and embankment will be completed to rough grade the site and prepare the building pad areas for development. Approximately 70,000 cubic yards of imported fill material will be placed and compacted for the building pad and to raise the existing ground to pavement subgrade elevation. The source of imported fill is not known at this time but will be from an approved source. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of cut and fill earthwork has been done on the site, and approximately 50,000 cubic yards of fill has been imported and compacted on site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Limited erosion could occur as a result of this project because of grading and backfilling activities associated with the building foundation, installation of utilities/storm drainage. Typical temporary measures may include, but not be limited to, placement of riprap and use of silt fences and siltation/detention ponds to control runoff. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 61% 66% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6 A temporary erosion & sedimentation control (TESC) plan will be has been developed in compliance with City of Auburn standards. Typical items that may be included in the TESC plan are temporary erosion control measures such as filter fabric fencing, temporary siltation ponds, mulching, matting, hydro-seeding and other BMP’s. In addition, this project will comply with the Ecology NPDES Permit for construction activities. The project will have a Certified Erosion and Sedimentation Control lead sampling storm water from the site in accordance with the Department of Ecology monitoring requirements. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, it is anticipated that there will be air emissions from trucks and earth moving machinery for the duration of excavating and re-grading activities. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Odors from vehicle emissions during construction will be controlled by muffler systems on the vehicles. Dust from construction activities will be controlled by the use of water applied to exposed soils. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Venture Ditch runs along the South property line and is regulated as a Cat III stream with a 25 foot enhanced minimum buffer. There will be no work in the stream. The wetland mitigation will involve enhancement of the buffer along Venture Ditch and Wetland A. The Venture Ditch flows East under the West Valley Highway and to the roadside ditch on the East side of the West Valley Highway. That ditch flows to the North and eventually into Mill Creek after additional culverts and changing ditches. There are two numerous 12 onsite and 2 offsite wetlands within the vicinity of the site (see Table 1, below). Wetland "A" is a dominantly Palustrine emergent wetland with some Scrub/Shrub in the western part, it is less than 6,195 square feet. It is caused by the high water in the ditch to the south. Wetland "B" is a Scrub/Shrub wetland less than 2,303 square feet fed by precipitation and potentially high water in the ditch to the south. No other natural water bodies or streams are on the property that are regulated or close enough to the site to encumber the site with a buffer. There are ten other small Section 404 (non-Section 10) wetlands on site, ranging in size from 0.004 acres to TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 7 0.12 acres. Wetlands mapped at the site were approved by the USACE in a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on June 25, 2015. Two offsite wetlands occur adjacent to the project site, one to the west of the site, and one to the east of West Valley Highway. Table 1. Wetland and stream sizes, rating, and minimum buffer widths for onsite and offsite wetlands and streams Wetland Name Size Rating Minimum Buffer Width A 0.145 ac Category III 25 ft B 0.050 ac Category III 25 ft E1 0.020 ac Category III 25 ft F1 0.120 ac Category III 25 ft P1 0.037 ac Category III 25 ft P2 0.021 ac Category III 25 ft P3 0.009 ac Category III 25 ft P4 0.005 ac Category III 25 ft P5 0.004 ac Category III 25 ft P6 0.062 ac Category III 25 ft P7 0.042 ac Category III 25 ft P8 0.007 ac Category III 25 ft Western Offsite Wetland 0.789 ac Category III 25 ft Eastern Offsite Wetland unknown unknown unknown** Venture Ditch 1,200 lf* Class III 25 ft Tributary 053 450 lf* Class II 75 ft *Approximate lengths (linear feet) within (Venture Ditch) or immediately adjacent to (Tributary 053) the Project Area. **The buffer for the eastern offsite wetland overlaps with the buffer for Tributary 053, therefore any impacts to the buffer for the eastern offsite wetland will be accounted for by addressing the impacts to the buffer for Tributary 053. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, Wetland B and the ten small wetlands will be filled. Wetland A is to remain. Replacement of a culvert under West Valley Highway will require work within and adjacent to Venture Ditch and the adjoining downstream ditch (Tributary 053) along the east side of West Valley Highway. Vehicular access for the culvert replacement will result in minor temporary impacts to the buffer for Tributary 053 and the buffer Eastern Offsite Wetland. Replacement of the culvert TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8 crossing S. 287th Street will require work within and adjacent to the Tributary 45 ditch. Grading for the building pad will require minor fill within the buffer for Venture Ditch. A portion of the buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland will be impacted by frontage improvements along S. 287th St. Impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers, streams, and stream buffers will be mitigated per the revised mitigation report, including a combination of onsite buffer enhancement and purchase of mitigation credits from the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Wetland fill- No wetland will be filled Wetland B will be mitigated for future full at a 2.5:1 ratio of the 2,203 sq. ft area through enhancement to remove the buffer requirements. When the wetland is filled proper permitting will be performed. Approximately 70,000 cubic yards of soil will be placed on the site, filling all onsite wetlands except for Wetland A. The total volume of fill in the wetlands will be approximately 2700 cubic yards. The total acreage of wetlands to be filled is 0.377 acre. The source of imported fill is not known at this time but will be from an approved source. Replacement of the Venture Ditch culvert will entail minor impacts to Venture Ditch and the adjacent buffer areas. Impacts to the ditch will be self-mitigating due to the improved conditions created by the larger culvert (i.e., improved fish passage, improved storm flows, reduced debris blockages). Impacts to the buffer for Venture Ditch (west of West Valley Highway) will be mitigated through the proposed buffer enhancement activities (weed removal and planting of native species). Impacts to the buffer for Tributary 53/Eastern Offsite Wetland will be minimal in nature (primarily disturbance from vehicular access) and the area will be restored to pre-project conditions following installation of the culvert. A portion of the buffer for the Western Offsite Wetland will be impacted by frontage improvements on S. 287th Street. These impacts will be mitigated by buffer enhancement activities (weed removal and planting of native species) within the portion of the buffer to be retain on the project site. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. There will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. Diversions will be necessary for the West Valley Highway culvert for Venture Ditch. Approximate diversion period is 4 to 6 weeks. Downstream flows will be maintained at all times. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, based on the approved FEMA flood insurance rate map (FIRM) and King County iMAP, the subject property is not located in a 100 year floodplain. Some off-site improvements (West Valley road widening) occur in the floodplain limits and will require a Floodplain Permit. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This proposal does not involve discharges or of waste materials to surface waters; the property is served by public sewer and water systems. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. It is anticipated that there will be no ground water withdrawn and no water will be discharged to ground water as part of this project. Groundwater is elevated at this project site. Therefore, dewatering during construction will be necessary. Withdrawal and discharge will only occur during construction. Dewatering will occur with the use of some point wells and pumps around the perimeter of the area to be excavated. A dewatering plan has been submitted to the City for review. The proposed detention ponds will be lined to prevent groundwater entering the storm system after construction is complete. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. It is anticipated that no waste material will be discharged into the ground water from septic tanks or other sources since the City of Auburn has indicated that this site will be served by public sewer and water systems. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See Preliminary Storm Drainage Report provided by Barghausen Engineers. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Surface water could be contaminated by runoff containing oil and gasoline from parked cars in the parking lot and streets servicing the project. However, surface water runoff will be directed to the onsite water quality facility prior to its release from the site to the downstream drainage course to minimize surface water contamination. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 10 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The new onsite stormwater management system will consist of a detention pond over a constructed stormwater wetland for water quality treatment for the eastern basin. For the western basin a detention only pond will be utilized to control roof drainage. Each detention pond will release stormwater through a flow control device to reduce stormwater impacts downstream. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? It is anticipated that most of the site will be grubbed and graded All vegetation will be removed from the site with the exception of the two wetland areas A and its buffer, as well as the buffer for Venture Ditch and a portion of the buffer from an offsite wetland to the west. Invasive species will be removed by hand within the wetland and buffers. The most dominant vegetation on the site is reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Himalayan blackberries (Rubus armeniacus) are also abundant and red alder (Alnus rubra), is the most dominant tree. There are a limited number of conifers located on the site, primarily in the northeastern corner. Approximately 5.5 acres of forest vegetation will be removed and approximately 7.75 acres of grassland vegetation will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Mill Creek is known habitat for several listed fish species: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Venture Ditch is tributary to Mill Creek has potential to host those listed fishes at specific times of year. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11 The proposal includes the planting of native plants & low shrubs in parking lot landscaped areas & adjacent to the building to meet City of Auburn standards. Buffer enhancement activities (preservation of native vegetation, removal of invasive species, and planting of native shrubs) is proposed within the buffers for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, and the offsite wetland to the west of the site. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: There is evidence that deer, coyotes, opossum, raccoon, and hawks occasionally visit the site. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Mill Creek is known habitat for several listed fish species: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Venture Ditch is tributary to Mill Creek has potential to host those listed fishes at specific times of year. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, various birds are known to migrate through the Auburn Valley. The site is not known to represent a significant site for migrating birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No measures will be taken. Native landscaping will be provided. within the developed site. The wetland and stream buffers will be planted with native shrubs with wildlife value as part of the proposed mitigation. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used in the building operations. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. It is not anticipated that this project will affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12 The building will be designed in accordance with Washington State Energy Code. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. It is anticipated that construction related to this proposal will generate only routine potential for environmental hazards associated with construction such as vehicle fueling and exhaust emissions and exposure to common building products such as paint and adhesives. Best Management Practices will be employed throughout construction to mitigate these risks. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. There are no anticipated special emergency services anticipated for this project. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Best Management Practices will be employed throughout construction to mitigate risk of environmental health hazards. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ? No noise is known to exist that may affect this project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. In the short term there will be general site development and building construction noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The project will comply with the City of Auburn’s Noise Control Regulations (AMC- 8.28) 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant land and older residences is the current use. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site has been used historically for agricultural purposes. The site has been hayed and mown over the last several years. The pasture was renovated by tilling and reseeding in 2010. The eastern side has been cleared and graded for development. c. Describe any structures on the site. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 13 There are currently a few residential houses, sheds, barns and other accessory structures on the site. The existing buildings on site have been demolished. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all existing structures, building & utilities located on the site will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M-1 (Light Industrial) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, the City of Auburn crucial critical areas map and comprehensive plan maps suggest that wetland areas may be present on the site; the site contains areas of hydric soils per the USDA Soil Survey and the NWI map indicates wetlands on-site. The USACE confirmed the extent of wetlands subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA in a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination issued on June 25, 2015. Venture Ditch, a class III regulated stream with a 25-ft. min. buffer occurs along the southern boundary of the project area. Venture Ditch crosses under West Valley Highway where it joins Tributary 053, a class II regulated stream with a 75-ft. min. buffer. Two offsite wetlands occur adjacent to the Project Area, the Western Offsite Wetland (Category III, 25-ft. min. buffer, project will provide 50-ft. buffer) and the Eastern Offsite Wetland (Category unknown, size unknown, 25-ft. min. buffer assumed). The site also occurs in Ground Water Protection Zone 4. A portion of the offsite frontage improvements will occur in the Special Floodplain Hazard Zone and associated Riparian Habitat Zone. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Actual number of people working in the completed project is TBD. Occupant load based on warehouse use is 586 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 14 The completed project would displace up to (2) families. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project is consistent with zoning for the City of Auburn. In addition, this project is in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county standards applicable to this site. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. No housing will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Approximately (2) private residences will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The approximate tallest height of the proposed structure is 38’-0”. Painted tilt-up concrete will be the exterior building material. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No territorial views will be obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Design will be reviewed and approved by the City of Auburn Planning Department. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The parking lots and roadways will have lights with downward directed fixtures to reduce glare beyond the perimeter of the project site. The building will have perimeter security lighting. A tenant has not yet been identified to determine hours of operation. We are assuming distribution operations. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15 Light and glare from the finished project will be designed to not interfere with other adjacent facilities. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no existing off-site sources of light or glare that are anticipated to affect this proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The exterior lighting will be directed downward to minimize any glare to nearby property owners. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? No designated and informal recreational opportunities are known. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposed project will not displace any existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site. This was confirmed in a cultural resources records search and site survey conducted at the site by a registered archaeologist. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is located in the City of Auburn directly south of S 287th Street, which intersects West Valley Highway at the eastern edge of the site. West Valley Highway is a two- to three-lane minor arterial in the vicinity of the TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 16 project. Access would be through the intersection of S 287th Street/West Valley Highway. West Valley Highway connects to the regional roadway system at the SR 167/ S 277th Street interchange, located approximately 0.6 miles north of the site access and to the SR 167/15th Street NW interchange, approximately 1.6 miles to the south of the site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site vicinity is served by only one bus route. King County Metro Route 152 operates along W Valley Highway in the site vicinity. The closest stops, ¼-mile south of the site and ½-mile north of the site, provide access to the peak hour bus runs. This route operates northbound in the morning, connecting the Auburn Commuter Rail Station in downtown Auburn with downtown Seattle. Seven buses operate between 5:30 and 8:15 a.m.; seven buses then operate southbound on W Valley Highway in the afternoon, stopping at S 272nd Street between 4:10 and 6:30 p.m. Commuters can make several transit connections, including commuter rail at the Auburn Commuter Rail Station, located approximately 3-½ miles to the southeast in Auburn, and at the Kent Commuter Rail Station, 3-½ miles to the northeast in Kent. Route 152 does connect with the Auburn Commuter Rail Station. There is no direct transit service in the site vicinity. There are multiple Sound Transit and King County Metro bus and rail lines located approximately 3-½ miles to the southeast in Auburn, and 3-½ miles to the northeast in Kent. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would include 156 201 surface, passenger vehicle parking stalls, as well as 44 39 dock loading positions for trucks. There is parking for the existing SFR structure and the parking would be eliminated when the home is demolished. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The existing S 287th Street (Private Street) will be improved as required to meet City of Auburn standards along the site frontage. The project would also improve the frontage along West Valley Highway as required. This would include adding a center turn lane northbound left turn pocket on West Valley Highway along the site frontage, which would taper away north of S 287th Street. to South 287th Street. West Valley will be widened slightly north of South 287th Street for a required taper. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 17 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached letter dated 6/23/11 from Heffron Transportation, Inc.; table 1 for proposal project trip estimates and revised data prepared 10/21/11. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See attached transportation impact analysis (TIA) provided by Heffron Transportation dated 9/25/09. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No increased needs for public services are anticipated for this project. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The proposed project will include fire sprinkler systems with monitoring systems. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. The eastern parcel on West Valley Highway North is reported by King County to have public water and sewer access, however, it is unknown if actual connections exist. There is no indication that any of the parcels have connectivity to natural gas, but all of the parcels are reported to have electrical connections to the local electric utility. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The proposed utilities include: Electricity - Provided by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Water - Provided by City of Auburn Telephone - Provided by TBD Sanitary sewer - Provided by City of Auburn Natural Gas - Provided by PSE Garbage service - Provided by Waste Management Extension of these services to serve the site will be in accordance with the construction guidelines of these utility providers. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 18 SIGNATURE I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the information furnished in this Checklist is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am the owner of the premises where the work is to be performed or am acting as the owner’s authorized agent. I further 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. I further agree that the City of Auburn staff may enter upon the subject property (ies) at any reasonable time to consider the merits of the application, to take photographs and to post public notices. OWNER/AGENT PRINTED NAME: Jason Hubbell, P.E., Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE: _________________________________________________ DATE SUBMITTED: April 14, 2016 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 19 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 20 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. REQUEST TO PUBLISH ___________________________________________________________________________ ATTN: Legal Notice Account Representative Please publish in the Seattle Times on October 14, 2016. Send the bill for the cost of publishing to: City of Auburn City Clerk’s Office 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Please publish below this line only. City of Auburn Notice of Application & Public Hearing, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit November 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM , City Hall Annex Room 2 File No: SHL16-0003, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, related environmental checklist application; SEP09-0033. Applicant: Albert Pura, SVF South 287th Auburn LLC, American Realty Advisors, 801 North Brand Blvd. Suite 800, Glendale, CA 91203. Agent: Jason G. Hubbell, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032. Proposal: Shoreline permit for approx. 340 feet of roadway widening on the west side of W . Valley Highway, north of S 287th ST as outlet from the eastern on-site stormwater pond associated with site preparation and construction of an approx. 259,213 sq. ft. industrial warehouse/distribution use and accessory office in a single tilt-up building, with loading docks and approx. 201 parking stalls. Project requires S. 287th Street (private) will be improved to approximate public standards to allow for truck traffic. Street frontage improvements to W . Valley Highway (Public), including a new culvert crossing are proposed (Tributary 0053 to Mill Creek). Outlet from the western stormwater pond will be via Tributary 0045 (Mullen Slough). On-site wetland mitigation will include buffer enhancement (for Venture Ditch, Wetland A, & Western Off-site Wetland. Off-site wetland mitigation is proposed to include purchase of credits from the King Co. Mitigation Reserves Program. Location: 6600 & 6603 S 287th ST & 28721 W. Valley Highway N., at the SW corner of S 287th ST and W. Valley Highway N., Parcel Nos. 352204-9016, 352204-9024 & 352204-9026 within the SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. You are invited to express written comments up until and at the public hearing on November 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, City Hall Annex Room 2, 2nd floor, 1 East Main St, Auburn, WA 98001. Verbal comments are accepted at the Hearing. Written comments may be subm itted to Jeff Dixon, Planning Srvs. Mgr., Comm. Dev. & Public Works, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 or via email at jdixon@auburnwa.gov. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. Published in the Seattle Times on October 14, 2016. .