HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2020 Hearing Examiner Agenda
HEARING EXAMINER
April 15, 2020
5:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
25 West Main Street
I. Case No: PLT18-0005
Applicant(s): Wayne Jones
Lakeridge Development 1 LLC
PO BOX 146
Renton, WA 98057
Applicant Rep: Hans Krove
DMP Inc.
726 Auburn Way N
Auburn, WA 98002
Request: Preliminary Plat application to subdivide
approximately 15.53 acres into 56 single-family
residential lots in the R-5, Residentail Zoning District.
Project Location: The site is located near the intersection of SE 304th St
and 124th Ave SE; The project consists of two
portions separated by the east-west public street of SE
304th St.
Division 1 – (South) 12511 SE 304th St, 12505 SE 304th
St, and 30528 124th Ave SE
Division 2 – (North) 12530 SE 304th St;
Parcel Number(s): King County Assessor Parcel No. ; King County Parcel
Number(s) 092105-9079, 092105-9075, & 092105-9074;
NE ¼, Section 9, Township 21, Range 5; King County
Parcel Number 042105-9044; SE ¼, Section 4,
Township 21, Range 5
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
HEARING EXAMINER
Agenda Subject/Title:
PLT18-0005, The Alicias
Preliminary Plat
Date:
April 15, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
DESCRIPTION:
Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 14.53 acres into 56 single-family
residential lots in the R-5, Residential Zoning District.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the preliminary plat of the Alicias
with 24 conditions and the associated the Plat Modification Request and the Engineering
Deviation Request.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Preliminary Plat of “the Alicias”, a 56-lot subdivision for the future construction of 55 single-
family residences and associated site development activities. An existing residence, located on
proposed Lot 20, Division I, is to remain. The project also involves the filling of two Category IV
wetlands and mitigation in the form of wetland creation and enhancement of a Category III
wetland, all located on the project site. The project will be divided into two phases, with Phase I
(Division I, 25 lots) being south of SE 304th St and Phase II (Division II, 31 lots) being north of
SE 304th St. As part of the Preliminary Plat, the applicant, has submitted a deviation request to
the City’s minimum stopping sight distance (reduce sag vertical curve length) requirement for
both of the roads that tie into SE 304th St. Additionally, a Plat Modification is sought to allow two
small pocket parks to serve each phase of the development in lieu of the dedication of land for
park purposes.
LOCATION:
The site is located near the intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE; The project consists
of two portions separated by the east-west public street of SE 304th St.
Division 1 – (South) 12511 SE 304th St, 12505 SE 304th St, and 30528 124th Ave SE; King
County Parcel Number(s) 092105-9079, 092105-9075, & 092105-9074; NE ¼, Section 9,
Township 21, Range 5
Division 2 – (North) 12530 SE 304th St; King County Parcel Number 042105-9044; SE ¼,
Section 4, Township 21, Range 5
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER:
Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development 1 LLC, P.O. Box 146, Renton, WA 98057
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE:
Hans Korve, DMP Inc, 726 Auburn Way N, Auburn, WA 98002
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 2 of 23
Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning
Classification and Current Land Use:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use
Project
Site
Single Family &
Residential Transition
Overlay
R-5 Residential Zone* Single-Family Residences
North Single Family R-5 Residential Zone* Single-Family Residences
South Single Family &
Institutional R-5 Residential Zone* Vacant / Open Space
East Single Family &
Institutional R-5 Residential Zone* Single-Family Residences
West
Single Family &
Residential Transition
Overlay
R-5 Residential Zone* &
P-1 Public Use District*
Single-Family Residences
& Community Club
*This area is also located within the Lea Hill Overlay, which was established as part of Lea Hill
annexation in 2007, effective 2008.
Excerpted Zoning Map:
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 3 of 23
SEPA STATUS:
A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP18-0018 on
March 5, 2020, see Exhibit 4. The comment period ended March 20, 2020 and the appeal
period ended April 3, 2020. The City received five comment letters/e-mails in response to the
comment period. The comment(s) received along with the City responses are included as
Exhibit 5. No appeal of the SEPA decision was received.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Preliminary Plat Findings
1. Hans Korve, DMP Inc., Planner on behalf of Wayne Jones, Property Owner, submitted a
Preliminary Plat application and associated SEPA application on August 13, 2018 to
subdivide approximately 14.53 acres (referred to in this Staff Report as the “Site”) into 56
single-family residential lots, three private access tracts, two recreation tracts, one critical
area tract, and one stormwater pond tract. An existing single-family residence located on
proposed Lot 20, Division I, is proposed to remain. Please see Exhibit 6 for a copy of the
preliminary plat and civil engineering plans.
2. Within Division I, the site contains two Category IV Wetlands and one Category III Wetland.
The Category IV Wetlands are located within the north and central portion of the site, while
the Category III Wetland is located within the southeastern portion of the site. Both
Category IV Wetlands are proposed to be filled, one of which is 994 square feet of area and
the other is 7,712 square feet in area. To mitigate for the loss of these Wetlands, the
applicant will be creating 13,059 square feet of additional wetland area and enhancing
19,237 square feet of the existing Category III Wetland. A copy of the applicant’s Critical
Area Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan, both prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, are
included as Exhibits 7 and 8, respectively.
3. The Site consists of four parcels located near the intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave
SE and is located in the Lea Hill portion of the City. The Site is located within the City of
Auburn’s corporate limits and referenced by King County Tax Assessor Parcel No. 042105-
9044, 092105-9079, 092105-9075, & 092105-9074.
4. The Site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family Residential” with parcel
092105-9079 also having a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Residential Transition
Overlay”. The entire site is currently zoned R-5, Residential, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre,
which has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is
approximately 14.53 acres, which would require between 58 and 73 lots. However, in
accordance with the density calculation requirements specified in ACC 18.02.065(A)(5), the
applicant seeks to have a lesser minimum density due to the critical area (Category III
Wetland) located on the southern portion of Division I of the project.
5. The Project is subject to the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district in
effect at the time the Project application was deemed “Complete” (i.e. vested). Per ACC
18.07.030 the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district include:
Minimum lot area: 4,500 square feet
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 4 of 23
Minimum lot width: 50 feet
Lot cot coverage: 40%
Impervious surface: 65%
Maximum building height: 35 feet
Minimum yard setbacks:
o Front: 10 feet
o Side, interior: 5 feet
o Side, street: 10 feet
o Rear: 20 feet
6. Per ACC 18.52.020 two off-street parking spaces are required to be provided per future
single family residence.
7. The Site currently has three single-family residences with associated outbuildings. The
home located on parcel number 092105-9079, proposed Lot 20, Division I, is to remain; the
others are to be removed.
8. The Site is divided into two separate sections, each of which will be its own respective
phase of the development. Division I consists of three parcels located southeast of the
intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE. The site is generally rectangular. Division II
includes a parcel located northeast of the intersection of SE 304th and 124th Ave SE, directly
to the east of the “Alicia Glen” plat. See Exhibit 6 for a copy of plans, which includes an
existing conditions survey.
9. Division I is bordered by a “Minor Arterial” classified street (124th Ave. SE) to the west and a
“Minor Arterial” classified street (SE 304th St) to the north. Division II is bordered by a “Minor
Arterial” classified street (SE 304th St) to the south. Both portions of the project will have a
new public road constructed and dedicated (126th Ave SE) that will access SE 304th St.
Additionally, Division II will also connect into SE 302nd Place, a public road that was
developed as part of the “Alicia Glen” subdivision located to the west. In addition to the
public roads that will serve each portion of the project, Division I will contain two access
tracts to serve Lots 3-8 and Lots 11-12 and Division II will contain one access tract to serve
Lots 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. See Exhibit 6 for a copy of the plans, which includes the
proposed road layout for the project.
10. The Site is located within the utility service areas of, and will be served by, City of Auburn for
public water and sewer. City public water will be extended from both SE 304th St and SE
302nd Pl. Sewer services will be extended from SE 302nd Pl serve a portion of Division II
while new sewer service lines will be created to serve a portion of Division II and all of
Division I that will directly tie into existing sewer located within 124th Ave SE. See Exhibit 6
for a copy of the conceptual utility plan for the project.
11. Overall, the project slopes gradually from east to west. While there are no known
Geologically Hazardous Areas on the property, the Applicant has provided the City with a
Geotechnical Report with adequate information to show that the project will be in
conformance with the City’s Engineering Design Standards. See Exhibit 9 for a copy of the
Geotechnical Report provided by the applicant.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 5 of 23
12. The Site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification.
Therefore no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to comply with the code. As recommended in the Stormwater Site Plan
Report (Exhibit 10), stormwater runoff from the Project will be evaluated, treated, and
detained in a stormwater detention facility (‘stormwater pond’) located in Tract D, per the
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMM)
and Auburn Supplements.
13. The Washington State Department of Archeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive
model data, Washington Information System for Architectural & Archaeological Records
Data (WISAARD) (https://dahp.wa.gov/wisaard), a portion of the site is located in a “High
Risk” area for archaeological resources and denotes that a cultural resources survey is
“highly advised”. As such, the applicant provided a Cultural Resources Investigation,
prepared by Caldara Archaeology. The project is conditioned such that prior approval of the
construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC), the cultural resources
investigation report will need to be acceptable to the City of Auburn Community
Development Dept. and DAHP. A copy of the Cultural Resources Investigation is included
as Exhibit 15.
14. Half-street improvements will be required along SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE, where not
previously completed. This includes any needed right-of-way dedications, curb, gutter,
sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips to meet the City’s
“Minor Arterial” standard.
15. In addition to sidewalks being provided abutting the project site and throughout all of its
newly created streets, a five-foot walkway will be required along the east side of 124th Ave
SE from the project site to Lea Hill Elementary to the south.
16. Both Division I and II will be developed with individual recreation spaces. Division I will
contain a 15,072 square foot tract with benches, a sport court, and an adult fitness course.
Division II will contain a 8,201 square foot tract with benches and a play structure. A copy of
the plans, including additional information regarding the recreation spaces proposed for the
development, are included within Exhibit 6.
17. According to the City of Auburn’s Parks Planning & Development Manager, the current
standard for park dedication is 6.03 acres of parkland per 1,000 residences. In this instance,
.9 acres of parkland dedication would be required. While the applicant is only proposing a
total area of 0.53 of recreation space, said spaces will be developed with amenities and be
owned and managed by a private Homeowners Association. Further, the project will still be
required to pay City of Auburn Park Impact Fees at the time of each building permit. These
fees that will go directly towards future park improvements within the City. As such, the City
finds that the proposed recreation tracts will satisfy the park dedication requirement, as
conditioned.
18. To mitigate increased demand for parks created by the Project, the current park impact fee
shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.08
ACC ‘Parks Impact Fees’.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 6 of 23
19. To mitigate increased demand for schools created by the Project, the current school impact
fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter
19.02 ACC ‘School Impact Fees’.
20. To mitigate increased demand for fire/emergency services generated by the Project,
payment of the fire impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is required in
accordance with Chapter 19.06 ACC ‘Fire Impact Fees’.
21. To mitigate increased PM peak hour trips generated by the Project, a traffic impact fee in
accordance with the City of Auburn Traffic Impact Fee Schedule shall be assessed at
building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.04 ACC ‘Transportation Impact
Fees’.
22. A combined Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing, and Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS), was issued on March 5, 2020 (Exhibit 4). The notices were posted at
the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle
Times newspaper.
23. In response to the public notice, the City received five comment letters as of April 1, 2020
(the date this Staff Report was prepared) on the project. What follows is Staff’s abbreviated
summary of the comment(s) received along with a short summary of the City’s response, if
one was necessitated. The full set of comments and any response from the City are marked
as Exhibit 5.
a. Tracey Nishikawa (Backup SEPA Coordinator, Washington Department of Ecology):
commented that the project will need to obtain the necessary State and/or Federal
permits in order to fill the proposed wetlands on site.
City Response: The applicant has submitted a completed Joint Aquatic Resource Permit
Application (JARPA) to the Army Corp of Engineers for review. The project will be
required to meet all State and Federal requirements related to the filling of any wetlands
on the property in which other agencies have jurisdiction.
b. Crystal Hanisch (30509 127th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092): commented that the public
hearing for this matter should be postponed in light of the recent national emergency and
that there are various concerns that were previously raised by the neighborhood at the
previous public meeting conducted by the applicant.
City Response: As of the date of the preparation this staff report, the City intends to hold
the public hearing for this matter as originally scheduled. Additional information
regarding video conferencing options or the possibility the hearing is rescheduled will be
provided to the neighborhood and any commenting parties.
c. Rick Ishii-Huffer (12436 SE 302nd Pl, Auburn, WA 98092): commented that some of the
drawings contained on the City’s webpage for the project were not correct. Additionally,
Mr. Ishii-Huffer expressed concerns regarding the layout of the plat and allowing lots to
access privately owned road tracts, as allowing these private road tracts may present
safety concerns for fire and EMS access as well as the overall aesthetics with having
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 7 of 23
such a layout. It was recommended by Mr. Ishii-Huffer that the developer try to eliminate
these sort of private roads and modify the layout of the project.
City Response: The images on the City’s website were updated immediately upon
notification from Mr. Ishii-Huffer that some of it may have been for other projects.
Further, all agency’s on the City’s mailing list that received the application materials were
notified of the changes on the website. Regarding the layout of the plat and private road
tracts, the City’s Traffic Engineer provided a response noting that the road tract design
meets City Engineering Design Standards and is acceptable to Valley Regional Fire
Authority (VRFA) and that the City’s Police Department has the ability to enforce on
vehicles that park in the tracts that are also designated fire lanes. Additionally, staff
noted the difficulties associated with having a project meet its minimum density
requirements while also eliminating the flexibility offered by having private road tracts.
Staff noted that they could look into amending the code to prohibit or make it more
difficult to establish private tracts on a development, but such changes would be difficult
to make.
d. Craig Hoksbergen & Marilyn Hoksbergen (12627 SE 304th Auburn, WA 98092):
commented raising a concern about traffic, the impact to their property values,
stormwater drainage, and any potential impacts that could result to their on-site private
well. Additionally, they expressed concerns regarding their property having to connect to
City water service as a result of this development.
City Response: Regarding transportation concerns, the City’s Traffic Engineer noted that
additional clarification of the nature of their traffic concern is needed and that Lea Hill
Elementary will establish a 20 MPH school zone as part of the redevelopment of said
school. Regarding concerns related to utility hookups and private wells, staff noted that
the developer will be required to survey nearby well protection areas (100-foot radius
around wells) and that additional analysis will be required should any structures be
located within any well covenant areas. Regarding drainage concerns, staff noted that
onsite drainage flows to the southwest of the site and flows into the existing wetland.
Drainage will be managed in accordance with the City’s stormwater management
manual. In this instance, drainage will be managed in a large detention pond located
within the southwest corner of Division I of the project. Regarding wetland concerns,
staff noted that the newly created wetland and buffer will not result in any new buffer that
will extend onto the neighboring property.
e. Craig Hoksbergen & Marilyn Hoksbergen (Hazelwood Community Club): commented
raising concerns about traffic, a property line encroachment, the impact to their property
values, stormwater drainage and any impacts that could result to their onsite private
well. Additionally, they expressed concerns regarding their property having to connect to
City water service as a result of this development
City Response: Regarding transportation concerns, the City’s Traffic Engineer noted that
additional clarification of the nature of their traffic concern is needed and that Lea Hill
Elementary will establish a 20 MPH school zone as part of the redevelopment of said
school. Regarding concerns related to utility hookups and private wells, staff noted that
the developer will be required to survey nearby well protection areas and that additional
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 8 of 23
analysis will be required should any future structures be located within any well covenant
areas. Regarding drainage concerns, staff noted that onsite drainage flows to the
southwest of the site and flows into the existing wetland. Drainage will be managed in
accordance with the City’s stormwater management manual. In this instance, said
drainage will be managed in a large detention pond located within the southwest corner
of Division I of the project. Regarding wetland concerns, staff noted that the newly
created wetland and buffer will not result in any new buffer that will extend onto the
neighboring property.
24. In accordance with ACC 18.02.130, the applicant conducted a Neighborhood Review
Meeting on May 3, 2018 to discuss the project. According to the summary provided by the
applicant, the neighbors raised concerns related to drainage to the east of Division II, park
impacts, and vehicular parking. The applicant noted that an additional park would be
provided within the project and that all City standards related to parking and drainage would
be met. The comments and public meeting materials are included as Exhibit 14.
25. There are various elements of the proposed development that do not meet the City of
Auburn Engineering Design Standards, Standard Details and Stormwater Management
Manual. The major elements that potentially impact the overall plat layout have been
addressed with the Preliminary Plat approval however, many elements were requested to be
deferred until the civil site improvement submittal. The future civil site improvement submittal
will be required to conform to all requirements in the City of Auburn Engineering Design
Standards, Code, Standard Details and Surface Water Management Manual.
Plat Modification Findings
1. In accordance with the subdivision code section ACC 17.14.100, ‘Parks and Playgrounds’ it
is the regulation of the City to require parkland dedication for subdivisions with 50 or more
residential units. The project proposes slightly more units.
2. As part of the proposal, the applicant has proposed to provide two separate recreation tracts
to serve each phase of the plat in lieu of dedicating parkland to the City. The size, location,
and the amenities provided within each tract are included within the preliminary plat plans
for the project, Exhibit 6.
3. The City’s Parks Planning and Development Manager reviewed the plat modification and is
supportive of the request, subject to conditions of approval.
4. Per ACC 17.18 ‘Modifications for Formal Subdivisions’, the Hearing Examiner may approve
a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14
ACC ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’. See ‘Plat Modifications Conclusions’,
below.
Engineering Deviation Findings
1. The applicant submitted a request for a “deviation” from the City of Auburn Engineering and
Design Standards (COADS) to reduce the stopping sight distance (reduce sag vertical curve
length) on the newly created road that will serve both Divisions of the development from the
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 9 of 23
standard of 265 feet to 50 feet for Division I and from 328 feet to 75 feet for Division II (City
File No. DEV19-0047, Exhibit 13).
2. Deviations from the COADS are subject to approval of the Hearing Examiner per ACC
17.18.010(A) and COADS 1.04 which state (emphasis added):
“ACC 17.18.010(A). The hearing examiner may approve a modification of any standard
or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC or established or
referenced in the city’s design standards or construction standards, upon making the
findings of fact in ACC 17.18.030; provided, that the hearing examiner shall obtain the
concurrence of the city engineer for any requests to modify any city of Auburn design or
construction standard.”
“COADS 1.04. For deviation applications that are associated with a preliminary plat
application submitted in compliance with Chapter 17.10 ACC, the deviation application
and a recommendation from the City Engineer must accompany the preliminary plat to
the hearing examiner.”
3. The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation request and conditionally recommends
approval, under ‘Recommended Conditions of Approval’, below.
CONCLUSIONS:
Preliminary Plat Conclusions
Per ACC 14.03.030, a preliminary plat is a Type III Decision which are quasi-judicial final
decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.070 ‘Findings of Fact’ lists the approval
criteria for a preliminary plat. A comparison of the project’s relationship to subdivision approval
criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis:
A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds and schools;
Staff Analysis: No adverse impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare are
anticipated from the proposed subdivision. Staff offers the following analysis of each of
subcategory listed in this criterion:
Open Spaces: The Project is required to dedicate parkland, in accordance with Title 17
‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’. While parkland is not being dedicated, two separate
recreation tracts will be provided to serve the development. This will allow for immediate
recreation opportunities to the new residences while reducing any potential impacts to the
existing park facilities serving the Alicia Glen plat, directly to the west. Additionally, the
private recreation tracts will be managed by the future HOA, lowering the City’s maintenance
responsibility in the area. The analysis regarding the park dedication requirement is
included under the Plat Modification Conclusions section of this report.
Drainage Ways: Through the civil plan review process, the stormwater runoff from the
Project will be evaluated, treated, and detained in a stormwater pond located in Tract D,
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 10 of 23
Division I, per the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (SWMM) and Auburn Supplements. Additionally, hydrology to the existing
Wetland will be maintained.
Streets, Alleys, other Public Ways: The Project will be required to construct streets per ACC,
Chapter 12.64A ACC ‘Required Public Improvements’, the City’s Engineering Design
Standards, and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. With the extension of 126th Ave
SE, and the half-street improvements to SE 304th St and the sidewalk connection proposed
along the east side of 124th Ave SE, the City’s Transportation Division finds that there will be
no decrease in the road network level of service (LOS) standard. Additionally, the Traffic
Impact Fee in place will be paid for each building permit issuance. More specifically,
roadways will be constructed concurrent with the plat as follows:
1. Half-street improvements in accordance with ACC 12.64A to the Site’s frontage on
124th Ave SE and SE 304th St.
2. 126th Ave SE will be constructed, north-south, from SE 304th St. Within Division I, the
extended road will terminate with a roundabout. Within Division II, the newly
constructed 126th Ave SE will terminate at the intersection with SE 302nd Place. Full
street improvements to the city’s “Local Residential” standard will be required,
including a full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting,
stormwater controls, and landscape strips.
3. Within Division I, SE 305th St will be constructed east-west and connect to the
roundabout where 126th Ave SE will terminate. Full street improvements to the city’s
“Local Residential” standard will be required, including a full-width paved roadway (28
ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips.
4. Within Division II, SE 302nd Place will be extended from the adjacent Alicia Glen plat
directly to the west and connect to 126 Ave SE to form a new intersection. Continuing
from this intersection, SE 302nd Place will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Full street
improvements to the city’s “Local Residential” standard will be required, including a
full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater
controls, and landscape strips.
5. Tract A (Division I) is a private access tract featuring a paved width of 20 feet (tract is
26 ft. in width) with five foot sidewalk located on one side. Tract A (Division I) will tie
into the roundabout intersection formed by 126th Ave SE and SE 305th St. Six lots
(Division I Lots No. 3 through 8) will take access from this private access tract. Tract A
will be owned and maintained by Division I Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8.
6. Tract B (Division I) is a private access tract featuring a paved width of 20 feet (tract is
25 ft. in width). Two lots (Division I Lots No. 11 and 12) will take access from this
private access tract. Tract B will be owned and maintained by Division I Lots 11 and
12.
7. Tract B (Division II) is a private access tract featuring a paved width of 20 feet (tract is
26 ft. in width) with five foot sidewalk located on one side The legs of the tract will not
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 11 of 23
have sidewalk. Tract B (Division II) will tie into 126th Ave SE. Five lots (Division II Lots
14, 15, 18, 19, & 20) will take access from this private access tract. Tract B will be
owned and maintained by Division II Lots 14, 15, 18, 19, & 20.
Based on the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Functional Roadway Classification
Map, the creation of 126th Ave SE will be a “Local Residential” street.
Public Water: The Site is located in the City’s water service area. Adequate water service
will be provided for the Project. Water will be extended from the existing water main in SE
304th St and SE 302nd Pl to serve the project.
Public Sanitary Sewer: The Site is located in the City’s sewer service area. Adequate
sanitary sewer service will be provided for the Project. Sanitary sewer service will be
extended through the plat from SE 302nd Pl to serve the north portion of Division II. New
sewer services will be constructed and tie into the existing sewer within 124th Ave SE.
Parks, Playgrounds: Two recreation tracts are proposed to serve the development. Tract C,
Division I, will be developed with adult fitness equipment, benches and a sport court. Tract
A, Division II, will be developed with play equipment and benches. Park Impact Fees will be
paid at the time of building permit issuance. The closest park is “Auburndale 2” (located
north of the intersection of 118th Ave. SE and SE 304th St.). Auburndale 2 is approximately
9.34 acres in size, features a walking trail, and is 0.86 miles away from the Site.
Schools: The Site is located within the Auburn School District (ASD) boundary. Per the
Applicant, students within the Project will attend: 1) Arthur Jacobson Elementary School; 2)
Rainier Middle School, and 3) Auburn Mountainview High School. Elementary Students will
be bussed from a bus stop located near the intersection of 124th Ave. SE and SE 302nd Pl.
Further, a new five-foot wide sidewalk will be constructed along the east portion of 124th Ave
SE abutting the project site to Lea Hill Elementary to the south. A safe walking route to the
bus stop will be provided via the installation of sidewalk along the frontage of the Project as
part of required half-street improvements, and existing sidewalk that was constructed with
the plat directly to the north and west of the Site. High School and Middle School students
will be bussed from the bus stop located near the intersection of SE 304th St and 127th Pl
SE. See Exhibit 12 for the applicants school walking and bussing analysis.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff Analysis: The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the
City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for
single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the Site as ‘Single Family
Residential’, with a portion also included as ‘Residential Transition Overlay’. The Project will
subdivide 14.53 acres into 56 lots for single-family dwellings. Therefore this Project meets
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single-family dwellings. Additionally,
adequate City services and facilities can be provided to serve the plat. City of Auburn public
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 12 of 23
utilities, such as sewer and water will be extended to serve the proposed Project. The
Project will also provide adequate facilities for stormwater; all stormwater will be directed to
the stormwater detention facility (‘stormwater pond’) pond located in the southwestern
portion of the Site (Division I, Tract D). The stormwater pond will be required to meet
applicable code and engineering design standards, as conditioned below. 126th Ave SE, a
new “Local Residential” public street will be constructed, along with private access tracts
and other public street extensions, to serve the proposed Project. Sidewalks will be
constructed on both sides of the extended road. Additionally, a new sidewalk will be
constructed along the east half of 124th Ave SE from the project site to Lea Hill Elementary
to the south. Public services such as the Auburn Police Department, Valley Regional Fire
Authority, and the Auburn School District will also serve the proposed Project. Finally, traffic,
fire, parks, and school impact fees will mitigate respective impacts generated by the Project.
The Project is also consistent with or implements the specific following goals, objectives,
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
Land Use
Policies:
“LU-5 New residential development should contribute to the creation, enhancement and
improvement of the transportation system, health and human services, emergency
services, school system, and park system. This may be accomplished through the
development of level of service standards, mitigation fees, impact fees, or construction
contributions.”
Capital Facilities
“Objective 1.1. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to
provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development
to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by
encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they
require.”
Policies:
“CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public
facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with
development.”
“CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient
manner.”
“CF-4 If adequate facilities are currently unavailable and public funds are not committed to
provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own expense in
order to develop.”
“CF-7 The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public
services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education,
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 13 of 23
parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental
services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to
project occupancy or use.”
Transportation Plan
“Connect-01: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over
a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while
preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should
exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will
continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to
provide efficient service to the community.”
“Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation
infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.”
“Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of
the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development
is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may
choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent
developments.”
“Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their
needs.”
“ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of
maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of-
way include:
Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development;
Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and
Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.”
“Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development
and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.”
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan
“PR-8 Park impact fees should be established that help fund the future development of
new parks, park facilities, trails, and acquisition of open space that meet the needs of an
increasing population.”
C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council;
Staff Analysis: The preceding analysis for Criterion B demonstrates the Project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plans adopted
by the City. The project is generally consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan
including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 14 of 23
the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as
enumerated in ACC 17.02.030;
Staff Analysis: The proposed subdivision meets the general purposes of Title 17 ACC
‘Land Adjustments and Subdivisions’. The Alicias Preliminary Plat is a 56-lot subdivision that
is consistent with the R-5 zoning district. Adequate provisions for water, sewer, storm
drainage, roads, and safe walking conditions will be provided with this Project. The plat has
been processed and reviewed for conformity with the regulations for the Auburn City Code,
city plans and policies, and engineering design standards.
Below is a comparison of the Project’s consistency with ACC 17.02.030 and the specific
purpose statements of the subdivision code (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis for each
item.
“The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within the corporate limits
of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and prevent or
abate public nuisances in accordance with standards established by the state and the
city, and to:
A. Prevent the overcrowding of land;
Staff Analysis: The Project meets the minimum and base density of the R-5 zoning
district. As provided under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 4, the R-5 zoning district has a density
range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. As the site is approximately 14.53
acres, which based on the density calculation requires between 58 and 73 lots. As
proposed, the Project will contain 56 lots, 2 lots less than the minimum density for the R-
5 zoning district. Per ACC 18.02.065(A)(5), projects that cannot meet the minimum
density requirement of their respective zone due to the presence of a critical area may
deviate from the minimum density requirement. Staff finds that in this instance, the
applicant has maximized the development potential of the property while providing the
necessary infrastructure improvements and critical area protections required by other
City codes and policies. Additionally, the Project will not create an overcrowding of the
land. Therefore, the request to deviate from the minimum density requirement of 58 units
to 56 units is appropriate in this instance.
B. Promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways;
Staff Analysis: The Project is constructing new roads and constructing a new pedestrian
access along the east side of 124th Ave SE and therefore will provide a means of safe
and convenient travel via public routes.
C. Promote the effective use of land;
Staff Analysis: The Project is effectively developing the Site by maximizing the number
of residential units that are allowed for the R-5 zoning district while preserving existing
onsite critical areas and providing mitigation.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 15 of 23
D. Provide for adequate light and air;
Staff Analysis: The Project will provide adequate light and air through the applicable
setback and lot coverage development standards.
E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and
recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements;
Staff Analysis: The Finding of Facts, and preceding analysis for Criteria A and B
demonstrates the Project is providing adequate provisions for water supplies, sanitary
wastes, drainage, roads, and other public requirements such as public health, safety,
parks, and schools.
F. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of
reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing
the use of storm water low impact development techniques;
Staff Analysis: The Site gently slopes from east to west. With the exception of the
Wetland located on the southern portion of Division I, the Site will be cleared of
vegetation and graded in preparation of the placement of site improvements such as the
development of new roads, creation of a stormwater detention facility, home sites, and
the installation of utilities. Per the applicant’s Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), infiltration
will not be feasible for this site. As a result, there are limited opportunities to manage
stormwater on site through infiltration and other low impact development techniques.
However, preservation and the creation of additional wetland area along the southern
portion of Division I will help contribute towards preservation of existing native vegetation
and soils. Finally, as required by the R-5 zoning district, the subsequent development of
each lot will be held to a maximum of 40% lot coverage and 65% impervious surface
coverage.
G. Provide for proper ingress and egress;
Staff Analysis: As demonstrated in the analysis for Criterion A, the Project will provide
proper ingress and egress for each individual future home.
H. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions which
comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies and land
use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW;
Staff Analysis: Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a timely and
comprehensive review of the Project.
I. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state
and city;
Staff Analysis: The Project will eventually provide for 55 new single-family residences to
serve future residents. An existing single-family residence will remain.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 16 of 23
J. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal
description;
Staff Analysis: Upon final plat map review, the Project will be required to meet all
applicable survey requirements.
K. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.”
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criterion B, the Project successfully implements the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other
applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or
as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD;
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in the ‘Preliminary Plat Findings’, above, the Project is able to
meet applicable zoning and engineering standards, with the exception of the plat
modification (park land dedication) and engineering deviation (minimum stopping sight
distance), which are discussed under ‘Plat Modification Conclusions Related to park land
Dedication and ‘Engineering Deviation Conclusions’ provided below.
The placement of homes will be required to meet the zoning development standards for the
R-5 zoning district to which the Project is vested.
Staff therefore finds that the Project is able to meet this criterion, as conditioned
herein.
F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the
preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment;
Staff Analysis: Per the Critical Area Report (Exhibit 7), the site contains two Category IV
Wetlands and one Category III Wetland identified on the Site. As identified on the applicant’s
Wetland Mitigation Plan (Exhibit 8), the two Category IV Wetlands will be filled while
additional wetland area will be add to and buffer restoration will occur to the Category III
Wetland, in accordance with the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance (ACC 16.10) that was in
effect at the time of complete application for the project.
The applicant also provided a Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), confirming that there are no
geologic hazardous areas within the project site. The site will be required to meet any
applicable building, engineering, and any other local, state, or federal standard that relating
to grading, erosion control, and slope stability.
The Site is also located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, which is the least stringent
classification. With the utilization of Best Management Practices, it is anticipated that
potential impacts to groundwater can be mitigated.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 17 of 23
A DNS was issued on March 5, 2020 for this Project. Compliance with the recommended
conditions of approval, city code, and engineering design standards will ensure that the
Project will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
During civil plan review process, the Project will be reviewed in accordance with applicable
local, state, and federal standards to ensure no unacceptable adverse impacts to the
environment occur.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances;
Staff Analysis: Adequate provisions are made, and will be made through the subsequent
civil plan review process, so the proposed Project will prevent or abate public nuisances. As
the Site is mainly undeveloped, there are no active code violation cases for the site and no
known public nuisances.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
H. Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a
manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native soils and/or vegetation that are
integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm
water management manual.
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria A, B, and D above, the Project has been designed
such that it will be consistent with the City’s Engineering Design Standards and the
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMM)
and Auburn Supplements.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
Plat Modification Conclusions Related to Parkland Dedication
Per ACC 17.18 ‘Modifications for Formal Subdivisions’, the Hearing Examiner may approve a
modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC
‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’.
Per ACC 17.14.100, ‘Parks and Playgrounds’, park land dedication is generally required for a
development of more than 50 lots. In lieu of dedicating park land to the City, the applicant is
proposing providing one recreation tract for Division I with a sport court and adult fitness area
and one recreation tract for Division II with a play structure. The tracts will have a total combined
area of 24,038 square feet.
ACC 17.18.030 lists the findings that the Hearing Examiner must make for approval of a plat
modification; the criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by Staff analysis:
A. Such modification is necessary because of special circumstances related to the size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide the owner with
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 18 of 23
development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the
zoning district in which the subject property is located;
Staff Analysis: Approving this plat modification request would allow the applicant the ability
to maximize the density of the project while also preserving and enhancing an existing
Category III Wetland. Due to many of the constraints associated with this site, the applicant
is already providing less lots (56) than the 58 required for the R-5 Residential Zone.
Further, the recreation tracts provided will be developed with amenities, including adult
fitness equipment, sport court, and play structure. This will allow residents immediate
access to the recreation amenities as opposed to raw land dedication that may not have
usable recreation opportunities available upon completion of the plat.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
B. That, because of such special circumstances, the development of the property in strict
conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of
the property;
Staff Analysis: The requested plat modification will allow for a similar development
configuration as the recently platted properties in the surrounding area. Strict application the
park dedication standard would result in larger recreation tracts, but further reduce the lot
size and possibly result in the loss of lots within the development. Further, a larger park
land dedication could potentially limit the amount of wetland enhancement area proposed for
the existing Category III Wetland on the property. The project also is divided into two
divisions and as such, any park land dedication would likely be divided between the two
divisions of the plat.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
C. That the modification, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be
detrimental to surrounding properties in which the property is located;
Staff Analysis: The requested modification will have an increasing suburbanization effect
on the character of the neighborhood that is consistent with the City’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
D. Such modification will not be materially detrimental to the implementation of the policies and
objectives of the comprehensive land use, transportation and utility comprehensive plans of
the city;
Staff Analysis: Approval of the plat modification request will not have any detrimental
effects on any of the City’s comprehensive plans, as analyzed under ‘Preliminary Plat
Conclusions’, above.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 19 of 23
E. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district;
Staff Analysis: Properties with similar characteristics, including the presence of wetlands,
could expect similar relief. Therefore, granting the modification will provide the owner with
development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
F. The approval of the modification will be consistent with the purpose of this title;
Staff Analysis: The purpose of Title 17 ACC ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’ is shown and
analyzed in Criterion D, above, under ‘Preliminary Plat Conclusions’. The overall Project
layout and approval of this plat modification request is found to be consistent with the
purposes of this title.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
G. The modification cannot lessen the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Any such
modification must be processed as a variance pursuant to ACC 18.70.010.
Staff Analysis: The plat modification request is not modifying any requirements of Title 18
ACC, ‘Zoning’.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
Engineering Deviation Conclusions
Per ACC 17.18 ‘Modifications of Standards and Specifications’, the Hearing Examiner may
approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter
17.14 ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’, or referenced in the city’s design standards
or construction standards. Further, the City Engineer shall make a recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner on any modifications requested from the City of Auburn Engineering Design
Standards (COADS). This process is referred to as a “Deviation” per Section 1.04 of the
COADS.
One Deviation was requested:
1. Provide a Stopping Sight Distance (reduce sag vertical curve length) of 50 feet on 126th
Ave SE (Division I) and 75 feet on 126th Ave SE (Division II) instead of the required 265
feet (Division I) and 328 feet (Division II). See Exhibit 13 for a copy of the deviation
request.
The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation request and conditionally recommends approval
to the Hearing Examiner, provided that long as fixed/additional lighting is provided at the
intersection of 126th Ave SE and SE 304th St; see Condition no. 3 under ‘Recommended
Conditions of Approval’, below.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 20 of 23
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Alicias Preliminary Plat, the Plat Modification request and the
Engineering Deviation request, subject to the information contained in this Staff Report, the
attached exhibits, and the 24 recommended conditions of approval below.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The proposed recreation tracts shall be developed substantially consistent with the
“Preliminary Plat & Civil Plans”, DMP Inc., dated January 22, 2020. The recreation tracts
shall be owned and managed by the Alicias Homeowners Association and be available for
public use.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary local, state, and federal permits to allow for the
existing Category IV Wetlands to be filled. The City may require proof that these permits
have been secured or are not necessary prior to authorizing any site disturbing activities
associated with the project.
3. The application for a deviation from the City Engineering Design Standards (COADS
10.02.5), to reduce the stopping sight distance (sag vertical curve length) from 328-feet to
75-feet and 260-feet to 50-feet is approved. Fixed/additional lighting shall be provided at the
intersection of 126th Ave SE and SE 304th St.
4. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement
(FAC), the plans shall show that appropriate portions of public streets shall be posted no
parking on the appropriate portions of the streets due to its road width. Also, the cul-de-sacs
shall be posted “No Parking” around their entire perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance
with ACC and City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
5. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement
(FAC), provide documentation of application to the Washington State Department of
Ecology (WSDOE) for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in
size.
6. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that The Alicias Plat Homeowner’s
Association and its heirs and successors shall maintain those portions of the publicly-
dedicated tracts containing the stormwater pond and specifically the portions located outside
the fenced pond boundaries, or if no fence is provided, outside the 10-year stormwater
surface elevation, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to be reviewed by the City shall also address this
maintenance responsibility.
7. The project proposes excavated storm ponds in an area that could be susceptible to high
ground water. The applicant is proposing a 2-foot thick low permeability soil liner per the
Geotechnical Report prepared by Robinson Noble, dated July 24, 2019 to reduce
groundwater seepage potential into the proposed detention pond. If groundwater is
encountered during construction in the proposed detention pond that the low permeability
soil liner that does not mitigate, the City of Auburn will stop construction and require
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 21 of 23
redesign of the facility as necessary to account for observed groundwater. Depending on the
groundwater seepage rates encountered, elevation observed, the time of year or other
possible factors involved, construction may not commence again until an updated pond
design is approved by the City of Auburn.
8. A proposed landscaping plan meeting City of Auburn Stormwater Management Manual,
Engineering Design Standards, and City of Auburn code must be provided with the future
civil site improvement submittal/Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC).
9. There are some existing storm structures on the southern portion of 124th that will likely
need to be removed or relocated. The disposition of these will be identified with the future
civil site improvement/Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC) submittal.
10. The walkway proposed along 124th Ave SE shall be required with Phase 1 (Division I) of the
plat.
11. The project is proposed to be split into two phases, Division I and Division II. Each one of
the two phase must have its own civil site improvement submittal showing the required
improvements to construct and close out the phase alone. Each phase must be have the
ability to be independent. Should the applicant wish to construct the civil improvements and
complete the Final Plat as a single project, one civil site improvement submittal will be
acceptable.
12. Vehicles are required to be able to enter/exit without driving beyond the limits of the
proposed private access/utility tracts. The applicant/engineer shall provide an adequate turn
around area or turning templates to show how this is achieved for proposed Lots 5, 6, 14,
and 19 (Lot numbering based on preliminary plat) with the future civil site improvement
submittal.
13. When designing the detention pond with the future civil site improvement/Facilities
Extension Agreement (FAC) submittal the applicant/engineer shall model the proposed lots
with an impervious area of 65% to be consistent with the maximum allowable impervious
area allowed by the zoning development standards for R-5 residential zone.
14. To be consistent with the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (SWMM) and Auburn Supplements, Stormwater Minimum
Requirement #5 for low impact development shall be evaluated per the City’s current
Surface Stormwater Management Manual for the entire plat including the buildings lots with
the future civil site improvement submittal for the proposed plat.
15. To protect and avoid adverse impacts and to ensure adequate maintenance of hydrologic
support to existing off-site and on-site wetlands and proposed mitigation wetlands, as part of
the civil site improvement /Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC) submittal eh Applicant shall
properly evaluate per Volume I, Appendix I-D of the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in 2014). This means protecting
them and ensuring hydrologic functions of the wetland are maintained or improved. City
approval of the analysis is required prior to approval of civil plans.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 22 of 23
16. The applicant shall provide confirmation to the City prior to FAC approval that all future
structures proposed for the development will be located outside any 100-foot radius Well
protection zone Covenants associated with any existing private wells near the site that are
proposed to remain in use.
17. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the existing water well(s) shall be
abandoned in accordance the Washington State and the King County Health Department
requirements and the applicant shall execute with the City of Auburn a service agreement
prohibiting the installation of irrigation wells(s) and other requirements, pursuant to ACC
13.06.150, “Required connections– Existing wells”.
18. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC or other approvals authorizing
earthwork or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall provide the archaeological
investigation associated with the project to the City of Auburn and DAHP for review. The
report shall assess the likelihood of the presence of culturally significant resources and
identify the recommended mitigation measures to be implemented if resources are
discovered. The Applicant shall then implement these recommendations and, if any cultural
resources are discovered during construction activities, shall immediately halt all
construction activities in the vicinity and notify the City of Auburn, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,
and DAHP. Treatment and preservation of any cultural resources shall then be coordinated
with these agencies.
19. The Site is in the City’s identified Groundwater Protection Zone 4. All approvals and permits
related to the Project and issued by the City shall be consistent with best management
practices (BMPs) per ACC 16.10.120(E)(2).
20. As proposed, Division I Tracts A and B are private access tracts and will be owned and
maintained by Lots 3-8 and Lots 11 and 12, respectively. Division I Tract C is a private
access and recreation space tract which will be owned and maintained by the HOA, but
made available for public use.
21. As proposed Division I Tract D is a public storm drainage tract which shall be dedicated and
conveyed to the City of Auburn. The Alicias Homeowner’s Association shall be responsible
for maintaining that portion of the tract laying outside of the fence storm pond area. The
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) shall address this responsibility and shall
be reviewed by the City.
22. Division I Tract E is a sensitive area tract which shall be owned and managed by the future
HOA. Tract E shall be protected with a conservation easement or similar protection method
acceptable to the City in accordance with ACC 16.10.
23. As proposed Division II Tracts A is a private recreation space tract that will be owned and
maintained by the HOA, but made available for public use.
24. Division II Tract B is a private access tract and will be owned and maintained by Lots 14, 15,
18, 19, and 20.
Staff Member: Dustin Lawrence
Date: April 15, 2020
Page 23 of 23
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and
information raised subsequent to the writing of this report
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1. Staff Report
Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Forms, prepared by Lakeridge
Development I, LLC, dated July 5, 2018
Exhibit 4. Combined Notice of Application, Determination of Non-Significance, and Notice
of Public Hearing. Includes the Final Staff Evaluation & Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 5. Five Written Public Comment(s) Received and City Response(s)
Exhibit 6. Preliminary Plat and Civil Plans, Daley-Morrow-Poblete (DMP), Inc., dated
January 22, 2020
Exhibit 7. Critical Area Report, Sewall Wetland Consulting, dated July 25, 2017
Exhibit 8. Wetland Mitigation Plan, Sewall Wetland Consulting, dated September 24, 2019
Exhibit 9. Geotechnical Report, Robinson Noble, dated July 24, 2019
Exhibit 10. Stormwater Site Plan, DMP, Inc., dated October 16, 2019
Exhibit 11. Traffic Impact Analysis, Heath & Associates, Inc., dated January 8, 2020
Exhibit 12. School Walkway Analysis, DMP Inc., undated
Exhibit 13. Engineering Deviation Request, DMP Inc., dated October 17, 2019
Exhibit 14. Neighborhood Meeting Materials, Lakeridge Development I, dated May 3, 2018
Exhibit 15. Cultural Resources Investigation, Caldera Archaeology, dated September 14,
2018
Prepared by Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM
1,333.3
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet1,333.3666.70
eGIS CDPW 3/30/2020Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH), NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
The Alicia’s – 56 Lot Preliminary Plat
PLT18-0005 & SEP18-0018
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing (NOH), Notice of Application (NOA) and
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The permit applications
and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at One E
Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001.
Proposal: Preliminary Plat of “the Alicia’s”, a 56-lot subdivision for the future construction of 55
single-family residences and associated site development activities. An existing residence, located
on proposed Lot 20, is to remain. The project also involves the filling of two Category IV wetlands
and wetland creation and enhancement of a Category III wetland, all located on the project site. The
project will be divided into two phases, with Phase I being south of SE 304th St and Phase II being
north of SE 304th St.
Location: The site is located at the intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE at 12530 SE
304th St, 12511 SE 304th St, 12505 SE 304th St, and 30528 124th Ave SE.
Notice of Application: March 5, 2020
Application Complete: September 12, 2018
Permit Application: August 13, 2018
File Nos. SEP18-0018
PLT18-0005
Applicant: Lakeridge Development LLC
Attn: Wayne Jones
P.O. Box 146
Renton, WA 98057
Property Owner: Lakeridge Development LLC
Attn: Wayne Jones
P.O. Box 146
Renton, WA 98057
Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:
Critical Area Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 25, 2017
Wetland Mitigation Plan, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 6, 2018
Geotechnical Report, prepared by Robinson Noble, dated July 24, 2019
Stormwater Site Plan Report, prepared by DMP, Inc., dated October 16, 2019
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Heath & Associates, Inc., dated January 8, 2020
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Grading Permit
Facility Extension Agreement (FAC)
Building & Demolition Permit
Final Plat
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, NOTICE OF APPLICATION, and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP18-0018 & PLT18-0005 (Continued)
Page 2 of 3
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is
subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public
Works Design and Construction Standards.
Lead Agency: City of Auburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and
other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under
WAC 197-11-355; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued
below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 pm on March 20, 2020 to the mailing
address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing
to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and
participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25
West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001- 4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by
5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2020.
For questions regarding this project, please contact Dustin Lawrence, AICP, Senior Planner, at
planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3092.
Public Hearing: April 15, 2020 – 5:30 PM
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate
POSITION/TITLE: Director, Department of Community Development
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001
253-931-3090
DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: _________________________
Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can
only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is
required to meet all applicable regulations.
March 5, 2020
FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (SEP18-0018)
Date: March 2, 2020
Project: The Alicia’s Preliminary Plat
Applicant: Lakeridge Development LLC
Attn: Wayne Jones
P.O. Box 146
Renton, WA 98057
Property Owner(s) Lakeridge Development LLC
Attn: Wayne Jones
P.O. Box 146
Renton, WA 98057
Location: The site is located at the intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE at
12530 SE 304th St, 12511 SE 304th St, 12505 SE 304th St, and 30528
124th Ave SE.
Parcel No. King Co. Parcel No. 042105-9044, 092105-9079, 092105-9075, &
092105-9074
Project Size: 14.53 acres
Proposal: Preliminary Plat of “the Alicia’s”, a 56-lot subdivision for the future
construction of 55 single-family residences and associated site
development activities. An existing residence, located on proposed Lot
20, is to remain. The project also involves the filling of two Category IV
wetlands and wetland creation and enhancement of a Category III
wetland, all located on the project site. The project will be divided into two
phases, with Phase I being south of SE 304th St and Phase II being north
of SE 304th St.
Existing Zoning: R-5, Residential Zone – Five Dwelling Units per Acre
Existing
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Single-Family & Neighborhood Commercial Overlay
A. BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-355, the City of Auburn is required to send any Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) which may result from this environmental review, along with the
checklist, to agencies with jurisdiction, the Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY),
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist – SEP18-0018 (Continued)
Page 2 of 5
affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would
be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal. Therefore, the City will not act on
this proposal for fifteen days after the issuance of the DNS.
1. Other Environmental Information:
Critical Area Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 25, 2017
Wetland Mitigation Plan, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 6, 2018
Geotechnical Report, prepared by Robinson Noble, dated July 24, 2019
Stormwater Site Plan Report, prepared by DMP, Inc., dated October 16, 2019
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Heath & Associates, Inc., dated January 8, 2020
2. Other Approvals/Permits Needed:
Grading Permit
Facility Extension Agreement (FAC)
Building Permit
Demolition Permit
Final Plat
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. Earth: Concur with checklist.
The overall site slopes from the northeast to the southwest, at a slope of roughly 8 to 15
percent. City records indicate that this site is not located within a land slide or erosion prone
area. Any impacts associated with these areas will be managed through the City’s grading
permit review process.
2. Air: Concur with checklist.
Short term impacts on air quality, such as an increase in local suspended particulate levels,
would occur during any future construction activity associated with the project. To minimize
short term impacts to air quality, contract specifications will require the development and
implementation of dust and emission control measures such as watering and sweeping and
turning off equipment and vehicles when not in use, as consistent with the City’s
Construction Standards.
3. Water:
A. Surface: Concur with checklist.
The site contains two Category IV wetlands and one Category III wetland. The Critical
Area Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., confirmed the presence of
these critical areas. Both Category IV wetlands will be filled in accordance with local,
state, and federal requirements while additional wetland area, along with enhancement,
is proposed for the Category III wetland. The applicant provided a Wetland Mitigation
Plan, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., that details the wetland fill, creation,
and enhancement proposed for the project. Provided that the project is developed in
accordance with the proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan and the requirements of ACC
16.10 that were in place at the time of complete application, and all necessary state and
federal permits are obtained to allow for the fill of the existing onsite Category IV
wetlands, the impacts to surface water resulting from the project will be mitigated.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist – SEP18-0018 (Continued)
Page 3 of 5
B. Ground: Concur with checklist.
Stormwater will be managed on-site via a detention facility, consistent with applicable
adopted state and local regulations and standards. The project is located within Ground
Water Protection Zone 4 and will be subject to ACC 16.10.120(E) during any future
construction.
C. Runoff/Storm water: Concur with checklist.
Stormwater will be managed on-site via a detention facility, release of which will be into
the existing City stormwater system within 124th Ave SE, consistent with applicable state
and local standards.
D. Proposed Measures to Reduce or Control Surface, Ground, and Runoff Water
Impacts: Concur with checklist.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed during and after construction to
control any impacts to ground/surface/storm water. The project is located within the
critical area known as Ground Water Protection Zone 4, which will require the
implementation of best management practices for water resource protection per ACC
16.10.120(E).
4. Plants: Concur with checklist.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. Future
development of the site will be completed in accordance with the City’s Critical Areas
Ordinance (ACC 16.10) and Landscaping requirements (ACC 18.50), if applicable.
5. Animals: Concur with checklist.
No impacts to threatened or protected species and associated habitat is anticipated. While
the existing Category IV Wetlands on the site are proposed to be filled, the loss of such
wetlands will be mitigated by the creation of additional wetland area and enhancement of
the existing Category III wetland, providing additional habitat area.
6. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist.
No Impacts to energy and natural resources would occur as part of the proposal. Any future
construction will need to comply with applicable building and energy codes.
7. Environmental Health: Concur with checklist.
No environmental health hazards above normal construction activities are expected and risk
reduction measures consistent with the City’s Construction Standards will be implemented
and followed.
8. Noise: Concur with checklist.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist – SEP18-0018 (Continued)
Page 4 of 5
Any noise impacts that could potentially result from the proposal will be reviewed as part of
any future building, grading, or construction permit review. Future development must
adhere to ACC Chapter 8.28 and 18.31.
9. Land and Shoreline Use: Concur with checklist.
The site is currently zoned R-5 Residential Zone, Five Dwelling Units per Acre and Lea Hill
Overlay, with a Single-Family and Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Comprehensive Plan
designation.
10. Housing: Concur with checklist.
Two existing single-family residences would be removed and one existing single-family
residence will remain as part of the proposal. 55 new single-family residences will be
constructed. The construction of new housing will replace the housing units that will initially
be removed as part of the proposal. As such, no impacts to housing will occur.
11. Aesthetics: Concur with checklist.
Any impacts related to aesthetics will be reviewed and analyzed as part of the future
building, grading, and construction permits for the site.
12. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist.
Any impacts related to light and glare will be reviewed and analyzed as part of the future
building, grading, and construction permits for the site and will need to meet the
requirements of ACC 18.31.180.
13. Recreation: Concur with checklist.
No existing recreation facilities will be impacted as part of the proposal. Each phase of the
development will include the creation of recreation space, including outdoor play structure,
sport court, and benches.
14. Historic and Cultural Preservation: Concur with checklist, with following note:
According to the Washington Information System for Architectural & Archaeological Records
Data (WISAARD), the site is located in an area where an Archaeological survey would be
highly advised. As such, any future construction or future development may be required to
address any impacts that could result to historic and cultural preservation, including the
preparation of an archaeological investigation.
15. Transportation: Concur with checklist.
The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by Heath and Associates,
dated January 8, 2020. The project will be required to meet all requirements pertaining to
transportation, including the Auburn City Code and the Public Works Design Manual, if
applicable. The TIA indicated that the project would not result in any intersections in the
immediate area being brought to a level of service standard lower than what is currently
required by the City. Additionally, the TIA indicated that potential transportation impacts
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist – SEP18-0018 (Continued)
Page 5 of 5
could be mitigated by paying into the City’s required traffic impact fees, which are calculated
per dwelling unit constructed.
Regarding pedestrian improvements, the developer will be providing sidewalks abutting the
project site and internal to it along all of the newly created public roads. Additionally, a five
foot public sidewalk will be provided along the east side of 124th Ave SE from the project site
to Lea Hill Elementary to the south.
16. Public Services: Concur with checklist.
Public services will be able to serve the site. No significant impacts to public services, such
as police, fire, EMS, and public transit were identified as part of the proposal. The developer
will be required to pay for all applicable impact fees, including those pertaining to parks,
schools, and fire service as part of the proposal.
17. Utilities: Concur with checklist.
All necessary utilities will be provided to the project site and system engineers have
determined there is adequate water, sewer, and storm after reviewing utility plans for the
area. Specifically, Phase I of the project will connect directly into the existing sewer and
water services within SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE. Phase II of the project will connect into
the existing sewer and water services within SE 306th Pl. Stormwater will be conveyed to a
newly proposed detention pond within the southwest portion of Phase I.
C. CONCLUSIONS:
The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment.
The City reserves the right to review any future revision or alterations to the site or to the
proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non-significance of the project
at that point in time.
Prepared by: Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner, AICP, Department of Community
Development, City of Auburn
COMMENT LETTER 1
Marilyn Hoksbergen
12627 SE 304th St.
Comment – Drainage Related
Both the properties below me, 12511 SE 304 and 30528 124th Ave SE, could affect the natural drainage
that may come from properties above us and from our property. How can we be guaranteed this will not
happen?
City Response: Currently drainage sheet flows to the southwest along the property line of 12627 SE
304th St to an existing wetland. The developed plat will maintain existing drainage patterns as required
by the Washington State Department of Ecology and City standards. Stormwater will either continue to
sheet flow to the southwest to the existing wetland or be collected in a series of catch basins and pipes
in the proposed streets and directed to a detention pond. The detention pond will provide water quality
treatment and discharge stormwater at a reduced rate as required by State and City standards to an
existing wetland.
Comment – Private Well Related
I also have a well that has supplied us for years and afraid that work done on this development could
affect it. I am seriously worried of having any negative effects on my well would push a necessity to
move to city water hook up which I do not feel I could afford the thousands of dollars for that would cost
me. I need some type of assurance this cannot happen.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your
well and any well covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will
require the Developer to show the location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the
project drawings. If any new structures are proposed to be located within the well covenant, the
developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed by a hydrogeologist
licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
COMMENT LETTER 2
Hazelwood Community Club
Craig Hoksbergen, President of Hazelwood Community Club
12627 SE 304th ST
Comment – Private Well Related
The Hazelwood Community Club on the west corner of development on the downhill side with a well for
drinking water at only 40 feet deep. I know of a few other developments that have been stopped by
impacts on a well. The clubs well is only 15 feet to the property on one side and only 8 feet on the other
next to the development.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your
well and any well covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will
require the Developer to show the location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the
project drawings. If any new structures are proposed to be located within the well covenant, the
developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed by a hydrogeologist
licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Traffic Related
The other problem is traffic with the dip in the road up the hill where Vintage Hills exits will be a problem
which lowering the speed limit to 25 might help with new school at the top of the hill.
City Response: This City is not aware of any issues associated with the vertical roadway alignment. Can
you please provide some more specific information related to this comment so we can evaluate? As part
of the school project a 20mph school zone will be created. This will be consistent with other school in
the City and will be in operation during the start and end times for the school. Reducing the speed limit
along the roadway is not proposed. For speeding concerns please contact Cecile Malik, Senior
Transportation Planner for the City for information about the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
COMMENT LETTER 3
Craig Hoksbergen
12627 SE 304th ST
Comment – Private Well Related
We are on a well, that we would like to keep due to cost, for our drinking water at about 100 feet that
could be harmed by this construction. I know of a few other developments that have been stopped by
impacts on a well.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your
well and any well covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will
require the Developer to show the location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the
project drawings. If any new structures are proposed to be located within the well covenant, the
developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed by a hydrogeologist
licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Private Well Related
The other concern is for our Hazelwood Community Club run by members on 30400 124th Ave SE,
Auburn, Wa 98092, on the other corner of development, on the downhill side is well for drinking water at
only 40 feet deep. The club would like to keep well because the cost is so much cheaper so far. The
clubs well is only approximately 15 feet from the property line on one side and only 8 feet on the other
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your
well and any well covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will
require the Developer to show the location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the
project drawings. If any new structures are proposed to be located within the well covenant, the
developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed by a hydrogeologist
licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Wetlands
The other problem I have is with moving the wetlands they will impact the use of our property by it being
too close to our property causing loss of value by not being able to use that part or sell the property
without the new wetland causing more setback issues for us. All three properties being developed we
ran cattle on them at different times and there are springs all over the place. On all 3 properties, the test
perks and all the other tests were done in the driest fall that we have had in years making the tests not
showing the normal drainage.
City Response:
Comment – Transportation Related
The other problem is traffic with the dip in the road up the hill where Vintage Hills exits will be a problem
which lowering the speed limit to 25 might help with new school at the top of the hill.
City Response: This City is not aware of any issues associated with the vertical roadway alignment. Can
you please provide some more specific information related to this comment so we can evaluate? As part
of the school project a 20mph school zone will be created. This will be consistent with other school in
the City and will be in operation during the start and end times for the school. Reducing the speed limit
along the roadway is not proposed. For speeding concerns please contact Cecile Malik, Senior
Transportation Planner for the City for information about the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
COMMENT LETTER 4
Hazelwood Community Club, Marilyn J. Hoksbergen, Sec/Tres.
12627 SE 304th St
Comment – Private Well Related
We are seriously worried the impact this development will have on our utilities referring to our well being
close to border lines of this development and our septic system
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your
well and any well covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will
require the Developer to show the location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the
project drawings. If any new structures are proposed to be located within the well covenant, the
developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed by a hydrogeologist
licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Drainage Related
We also deal with drainage issues at times
City response: Currently drainage sheet flows to the southwest along the property line of 12627 SE 304th
St to an existing wetland. The developed plat will maintain existing drainage patterns as required by the
Washington State Department of Ecology and City standards. Stormwater will either continue to sheet
flow to the southwest to the existing wetland or be collected in a series of catch basins and pipes in the
proposed streets and directed to a detention pond. The detention pond will provide water quality
treatment and discharge stormwater at a reduced rate as required by State and City standards to an
existing wetland.
Comment – General Utility Hookup Concerns
Our treasury would not be able to afford to hook up to city water so we need assurance this development
will not affect our utilities as we now have.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your
well and any well covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will
require the Developer to show the location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the
project drawings. If any new structures are proposed to be located within the well covenant, the
developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed by a hydrogeologist
licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
COMMENT LETTER 5
Rick Ishii-Huffer
12346 SE 302nd Pl
Comment – Transportation Related
My only real concern, and yes its been allowed elsewhere in Auburn, is the abundance of the "not a
street but still a street" access paths paved in asphalt to allow access to homes being built in what
amounts to what should have been a backyard.
These could be reduced from the current 5 in the plan to zero or maybe 1 while only reducing the number
of lots by a handful.
From personal experience these fake streets designed to just make extra money for developers has a
substantial negative impact on homeowners, residents, the community, and perhaps most importantly to
you, the safety and resources of the City of Auburn.
Firstly, these access areas become illegal parking 100% of the time. They prevent the access of all
emergency vehicles because homeowners and residents treat them as driveways and parking lots. The
city of Auburn and Auburn PD can do nothing about this because they are zoned as "Private Driveways"
and sole property of the HOA. HOA's attitude tends to be indifference about it, or even in some cases,
outright hostility toward people who object to these no parking zones being used for parking. This results
in hundreds to extra calls a year to Auburn PD and to Parking enforcement and they actively generate an
unsightly city while providing a real danger to public safety. I've witnessed first hand fire trucks and
ambulances being blocked by these alleys that are always full of cars.
Secondly, these are a shortcut by developers who only want to make a dollar and move on. I was born
and raised in a city of 100,000 people with a robust and visionary public planning department that did
the rulemaking, not letting developers call the shots by jerrymandering extra houses into spaces. I have
been relatively disappointed for the last five years as a resident of Auburn because of how many of these
shortcuts to profit have been allowed in the city (and in neighboring Kent I might add).
I certainly understand, and quite frankly encourage growth and development and I'm by no means
someone who likes the "NIMBY - Not In My Backyard" approach, but I do believe that the City should be
proactive in making their neighborhoods the best places to live they can be, and not just a pile of houses
placed haphazardly to best make a profit. Speaking of backyard, the development immediately behind
me that has already broken ground is overall great plan wise, and the developer even agreed to leave in
a few old growth trees that were slated for removal but could remain without altering the plat maps and
development plans and sites. I really hope this projects' developer can be as open to making the houses
they build an improvement and not just a dollar sign.
I ask that the plan be approved with changes that substantially reduce to eliminate these unsightly and
dangerous side alleys. I am no engineer, but I think it could be done by reducing the Lot Count from 55 to
about 48-50.
More specifically, Lots 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 North of 304th Pl are a perfect example of what good community
planning looks like. 15, 18, 20 North of 304th are honestly an affront to good planning, common sense,
and public safety. To the South of 304th Lots 4,5,6,7, 11, and 12 are equally egregious, especially 11 and
12.
City Response: Private access tracts/shared driveways (serving up to 6 lots) are allowed per the
Engineering Design Standards. As such, the access tracts have been designed and approved to meet
current City standards. VRFA have been involved in the development of these standards, and with the
review and approval of the plat. These access tracts are private and are the responsibility of the home
owners/HOA to maintain. They are required by City code to be marked as fire lanes. Auburn PD and the
parking control officers have the ability to enforce fire lanes even if they are located on private property.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 (425) 649-7000
711 for Washington Relay Service Persons with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341
March 19, 2020
Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Re: The Alicias Project, Project #PLT18-0005, SEP18-0018, Ecology SEPA #202001251
Dear Dustin Lawrence:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Alicias Project. Based on review of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist associated with this Project, the Department of Ecology
(Ecology) has the following comments:
Based on the information provided in the SEPA checklist, wetlands are present within the project area,
impacts to wetlands are proposed, and a plan to mitigate for these impacts has been prepared.
The wetlands delineated within the project area would be considered waters of the state subject to the
applicable requirements of state law (see RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.201A). Because direct wetland
impacts are proposed, the applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations prior to
beginning any ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal.
To initiate the review process for state authorization, submit a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application
(JARPA) for wetland impacts to Ecology at ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov. The JARPA can also be
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any required federal permits for the wetland impacts.
For more information about SEPA and Ecology, please visit https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-
permits/SEPA-environmental-review.
Thank you for considering these comments from Ecology. If you have any questions or would like to
respond to these comments, please contact Neil Molstad from the Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Program at (425) 649-7007 or by email at neil.molstad@ecy.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Tracy Nishikawa
Backup SEPA Coordinator
Sent by email: Dustin Lawrence, planning@auburnwa.gov
ecc: Neil Molstand, Ecology
1
Dustin Lawrence
From:Rick Ishii-Huffer <thousandoaksguy@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:44 PM
To:Planning-1
Subject:Attn: Dustin Lawrence - PLT18-0005 The Alicias
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and
attachments
Hello Mr. Lawrence,
I live at 12436 SE 302nd Pl, a property immediately impacted by this proposed project. Firstly, overall the
project in its current form is not all that bad. Perhaps more importantly however, most of the links at the below
website link to maps and reports for different projects and not this project. I would hope that is not in violation
of proper disclosure procedures as I had to find alternative means to get the real maps of this intended project.
My only real concern, and yes its been allowed elsewhere in Auburn, is the abundance of the "not a street but
still a street" access paths paved in asphalt to allow access to homes being built in what amounts to what should
have been a backyard.
These could be reduced from the current 5 in the plan to zero or maybe 1 while only reducing the number of lots
by a handful.
From personal experience these fake streets designed to just make extra money for developers has a substantial
negative impact on homeowners, residents, the community, and perhaps most importan tly to you, the safety and
resources of the City of Auburn.
Firstly, these access areas become illegal parking 100% of the time. They prevent the access of all emergency
vehicles because homeowners and residents treat them as driveways and parking lots. The city of Auburn and
Auburn PD can do nothing about this because they are zoned as "Private Driveways" and sole property of the
HOA. HOA's attitude tends to be indifference about it, or even in some cases, outright hostility toward people
who object to these no parking zones being used for parking. This results in hundreds to extra calls a year to
Auburn PD and to Parking enforcement and they actively generate an unsightly city while providing a real
danger to public safety. I've witnessed first hand fire trucks and ambulances being blocked by these alleys that
are always full of cars.
Secondly, these are a shortcut by developers who only want to make a dollar and move on. I was born and
raised in a city of 100,000 people with a robust and visionary public planning department that did the
rulemaking, not letting developers call the shots by jerrymandering extra houses into spaces. I have been
relatively disappointed for the last five years as a resident of Auburn because of how many of these shortcuts to
profit have been allowed in the city (and in neighboring Kent I might add).
I certainly understand, and quite frankly encourage growth and development and I'm by no means someone who
likes the "NIMBY - Not In My Backyard" approach, but I do believe that the City should be proactive in
2
making their neighborhoods the best places to live they can be, and not just a pile of houses placed haphazardly
to best make a profit. Speaking of backyard, the development immediately behind me that has already broken
ground is overall great plan wise, and the developer even agreed to leave in a few old growth trees that were
slated for removal but could remain without altering the plat maps and development plans and sites. I really
hope this projects' developer can be as open to making the houses they build an improvement and not just a
dollar sign.
I ask that the plan be approved with changes that substantially reduce to eliminate these unsightly and
dangerous side alleys. I am no engineer, but I think it could be don e by reducing the Lot Count from 55 to about
48-50.
More specifically, Lots 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 North of 304th Pl are a perfect example of what good community
planning looks like. 15, 18, 20 North of 304th are honestly an affront to good planning, common sense, and
public safety. To the South of 304th Lots 4,5,6,7, 11, and 12 are equally egregious, especially 11 and 12.
I look forward to a few changes being made to improve the livability, safety, and community cohesion of this
upcoming development.
Rick Ishii-Huffer
12346 SE 302nd Pl
Auburn, WA 98092
805-807-2917
3/19/2020
Marilyn Hoksbergen, wife of Allen D. Hoksbergen
12627 SE 304th St.
Auburn WA 98092
City of Auburn, Planning Dept.
Subject: “the Alicia’s” Development Public Comment
Attention Dustin Lawrence:
I am the property owner of the property adjacent to this development. I have concerns how work being
done on these properties may affect the drainage, the value, and impact on my well.
My husband and I bought this property in 1974 with the intention of letting the value of this property be
a part of our retirement package because at that time, my husband was self employed and I was the
homemaker. Unfortunately, things changed. My husband passed away in 2010 and I have had to make
sure I could maintain as much of livelihood as possible. With my son Craig’s help and my job, we have
been able to maintain the property and keep up with expense living frugally.
I am now at retirement age and luckily maintaining my health and the ability to keep working. I need to
know that my property does not lose value or is negatively affected by our new neighboring
development. Both the properties below me, 12511 SE 304 and 30528 124th Ave SE, could affect the
natural drainage that may come from properties above us and from our property. How can we be
guaranteed this will not happen? I also have a well that has supplied us for years and afraid that work
done on this development could affect it. I am seriously worried of having any negative effects on my
well would push a necessity to move to city water hook up which I do not feel I could afford the
thousands of dollars for that would cost me. I need some type of assurance this cannot happen.
Please keep me apprised of upcoming hearings and a voice in protecting my retirement as much as
possible.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. Hoksbergen
Attention: Dustin Lawrence , senior planner and Jeff Tate, Director, Department of Community
Development
Comments on Application # PLT18-0005 and SEP18-0018
City of Auburn
To: Whom Concerned,
The Alicia’s 56 lot division has brought up a few questions and concerns about the development for
Hazelwood Community Club on the property next to it, 30400 124th AVE SE, Auburn, Wa 98092. The
Hazelwood Community Club on the west corner of development on the downhill side with a well for
drinking water at only 40 feet deep. I know of a few other developments that have been stopped by
impacts on a well. The clubs well is only 15 feet to the property on one side and only 8 feet on the
other next to the development. The property lines are disputed on the east side we had the last owner
before the developer sign a letter on that where they put the fence was not the true property line. The
other problem is traffic with the dip in the road up the hill where Vintage Hills exits will be a problem
which lowering the speed limit to 25 might help with new school at the top of the hill. I wish to receive
the notice and participated in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decision made.
Hazelwood Community Club
Craig Hoksbergen, President of Hazelwood Community Club
12627 SE 304th ST.
Auburn, Wa 98092
e-mail: hoks126@gmail.com
Sincerely
Craig Hoksbergen, President
3/19/20
Hazelwood Community Club, Marilyn J. Hoksbergen, Sec/Tres.
12627 SE 304th St
Auburn WA 98092
Subject: the Alicia’s development public comments
Attention Dustin Lawrence:
I am the Secretary/Treasurer of the Hazelwood Community Club and our building at the corner of 304th
and 124th is directly impacted by any changes with this development.
My family and I have been involved with this community club since we bought our property in this
neighborhood in 1974. We have seen this building and membership has been important for our
community having activities and a meeting place for neighborhood concerns.
We are a organization with a small treasury that we work hard to keep the building maintenance and
upkeep by volunteer work of our membership. We are seriously worried the impact this development
will have on our utilities referring to our well being close to border lines of this development and our
septic system. We also deal with drainage issues at times. The properties adjacent to this property lines
are 12511 SE 304th and 12505 SE 304th. The fence installed on the 12505 was put in by the previous
owner however is not on the property line of that home. It needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
Our treasury would not be able to afford to hook up to city water so we need assurance this
development will not affect our utilities as we now have.
Please keep us apprised of hearings and decisions made on this development.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Hoksbergen, Sec/Tres.
1
Dustin Lawrence
From:Dustin Lawrence
Sent:Friday, March 27, 2020 10:27 AM
To:'Brianna'
Subject:RE: Application PLT 18-005
Good morning Crystal,
I wanted to let you know that we have investigated postponing the Public Hearing for the Alicia’s project in which you
provided comments.
At this time, the Hearing is still scheduled for April 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM. There may be the ability to deliver public
testimony electronically via video conferencing such as Zoom or Skype if that option is available to you. Alternatively,
you will still have the ability to visit the City Council Chambers and be present at the hearing.
Should anything change, including the postponement of the Hearing or other methods for witnessing the hearing and
providing public testimony, a new notice will be sent out to the neighborhood and I will inform all commenting parties.
Please be aware that this is an evolving situation and things can change rather quickly.
Should I have any more information regarding this matter, I will provide it to you as soon as it is available.
Thank you,
Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM
Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3092 | dlawrence@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps
From: Brianna <pezrus@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:33 PM
To: planning@auburnwa.gov
Subject: Application PLT 18-005
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and
attachments
2
Public comment attached.
1
Dustin Lawrence
From:Dustin Lawrence
Sent:Friday, March 27, 2020 12:09 PM
To:'Rick Ishii-Huffer'
Subject:RE: Attn: Dustin Lawrence - PLT18-0005 The Alicias
Hi Rick,
I wanted to get back to you and respond to your comments that you raised. Something else I want you to be aware of is
that, as of today, the Public Hearing is still scheduled for April 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM. Should anything change, including
the ability to have this hearing broadcast electronically through a system such as Zoom or Skype, I will inform you and
re-notice the neighborhood. This also includes if the hearing is postponed.
Regarding your comments, there are two divisions with responsibility in responding:
Transportation Response – James Webb, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer:
Private access tracts/shared driveways (serving up to 6 lots) are allowed per the Engineering Design Standards. As such,
the access tracts have been designed and approved to meet current City standards. VRFA have been involved in the
development of these standards, and with the review and approval of the plat. These access tracts are private and are
the responsibility of the home owners/HOA to maintain. They are required by City code to be marked as fire lanes.
Auburn PD and the parking control officers have the ability to enforce fire lanes even if they are located on private
property.
Planning Response – Dustin Lawrence, AICP, Senior Planner
I appreciate the feedback and understand your concerns related to the aesthetics and overall layout of the
development. There are a number of challenges we have in ensuring that new development within the City meets our
zoning regulations, which includes minimum density requirements, as well as all of the engineering and environmental
protection standards that are required at the local, state, and federal levels. This development in particular is designed
in a way that will ensure that the project meets its minimum density requirement, as well as all local engineering and
fire department standards that pertain to access. The result are a couple of lots that end up being served by a private
access tract and appear in the backyards of some of the houses, as you noted.
The City can look into crafting regulations that could potentially make it more difficult to have these sorts of
configurations or prohibit them entirely. By doing this however, it may make it far more difficult to meet the minimum
density requirements that we are obligated to meet, as said requirement ensures that we meet our housing and growth
management goals outlined in our Comprehensive Plan and ensure maximum use of the limited land that we have left
within our municipal boundary.
Your concerns have been shared with the developer and will be provided to the hearing examiner. Should any changes
result in the project layout in response to your concerns, you’ll be provided a copy of the decision document from the
hearing examiner to review.
Thank you,
Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM
Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
2
253.931.3092 | dlawrence@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps
From: Dustin Lawrence <dlawrence@auburnwa.gov>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 3:09 PM
To: 'Rick Ishii-Huffer' <thousandoaksguy@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Attn: Dustin Lawrence - PLT18-0005 The Alicias
Hi Rick,
Thank you for your comments and you phone discussion today. The links to the website have been updated. Be sure to
refresh your browser before viewing them.
https://www.auburnwa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=11470638&pageId=16508473
I plan on having a response to your comments prepared prior to the public hearing. If you think of anything else after
reviewing the application materials, please provide follow-up comments to planning@auburnwa.gov.
Thank you,
Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM
Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3092 | dlawrence@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps
Effective March 3, 2020, Mayor Nancy Backus has declared a proclamation of local emergency for Auburn,
Washington, due to the growing public health impacts of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus).
In an effort to take proactive measures to protect the health and safety of the Auburn community, the Department of
Community Development is implementing safety protocols and modifying our services. As a result, we are requesting
that our customers limit their in-person interactions as much as possible. If you are able to conduct business with the
City remotely by phone (253-931-3090) or email (planning@auburnwa.gov), we would urge you to do so.
This practice is intended to help protect our customers and staff from potential exposure to the virus.
Thank you for your understanding and apologies for any inconvenience.
From: Rick Ishii-Huffer <thousandoaksguy@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:44 PM
To: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov>
Subject: Attn: Dustin Lawrence - PLT18-0005 The Alicias
3
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and
attachments
Hello Mr. Lawrence,
I live at 12436 SE 302nd Pl, a property immediately impacted by this proposed project. Firstly, overall the
project in its current form is not all that bad. Perhaps more importantly however, most of the links at the below
website link to maps and reports for different projects and not this project. I would hope that is not in violation
of proper disclosure procedures as I had to find alternative means to get the real maps of this intended project.
My only real concern, and yes its been allowed elsewhere in Auburn, is the abundance of the "not a street but
still a street" access paths paved in asphalt to allow access to homes being built in what amounts to what should
have been a backyard.
These could be reduced from the current 5 in the plan to zero or maybe 1 while only reducing the number of lots
by a handful.
From personal experience these fake streets designed to just make extra money for developers has a substantial
negative impact on homeowners, residents, the community, and perhaps most importantly to you, the safety and
resources of the City of Auburn.
Firstly, these access areas become illegal parking 100% of the time. They prevent the access of all emergency
vehicles because homeowners and residents treat them as driveways and parking lots. The city of Auburn and
Auburn PD can do nothing about this because they are zoned as "Private Driveways" and sole property of the
HOA. HOA's attitude tends to be indifference about it, or even in some cases, outright hostility toward people
who object to these no parking zones being used for parking. This results in hundreds to extra calls a year to
Auburn PD and to Parking enforcement and they actively generate an unsightly city while providing a real
danger to public safety. I've witnessed first hand fire trucks and ambulances being blocked by these alleys that
are always full of cars.
Secondly, these are a shortcut by developers who only want to make a dollar and move on. I was born and
raised in a city of 100,000 people with a robust and visionary public planning department that did the
rulemaking, not letting developers call the shots by jerrymandering extra houses into spaces. I have been
relatively disappointed for the last five years as a resident of Auburn because of how many of these shortcuts to
profit have been allowed in the city (and in neighboring Kent I might add).
I certainly understand, and quite frankly encourage growth and development and I'm by no mean s someone who
likes the "NIMBY - Not In My Backyard" approach, but I do believe that the City should be proactive in
making their neighborhoods the best places to live they can be, and not just a pile of houses placed haphazardly
to best make a profit. Speaking of backyard, the development immediately behind me that has already broken
ground is overall great plan wise, and the developer even agreed to leave in a few old growth trees that were
slated for removal but could remain without altering the plat maps and development plans and sites. I really
hope this projects' developer can be as open to making the houses they build an improvement and not just a
dollar sign.
4
I ask that the plan be approved with changes that substantially reduce to eliminate these unsightly and
dangerous side alleys. I am no engineer, but I think it could be done by reducing the Lot Count from 55 to about
48-50.
More specifically, Lots 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 North of 304th Pl are a perfect example of what good community
planning looks like. 15, 18, 20 North of 304th are honestly an affront to good planning, common sense, and
public safety. To the South of 304th Lots 4,5,6,7, 11, and 12 are equally egregious, especially 11 and 12.
I look forward to a few changes being made to improve the livability, safety, and community cohesion of this
upcoming development.
Rick Ishii-Huffer
12346 SE 302nd Pl
Auburn, WA 98092
805-807-2917
This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the
sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else.
Following the recommendations of Public Health – Seattle & King County, the Washington State Department
of Health and the Center for Disease Control, the City of Auburn is implementing safety protocols and
modifying our services to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
As a result, we are requesting that our customers limit their in-person interactions as much as possible. This
practice is intended to help protect our customers and staff from potential exposure to the virus. If you are able
to conduct business with the City remotely by phone or email, we would urge you to do so. A directory of City
contacts can be found at auburnwa.gov/city_hall/contact_us.
1
Dustin Lawrence
From:Dustin Lawrence
Sent:Friday, March 27, 2020 1:11 PM
To:'Hoksbergen, Marilyn'; hoks126@gmail.com
Subject:City Response to Public Comments - The Alicias
Hi Greg and Marilyn,
I wanted to let you both know that we have compiled a list of responses to your comments that you and the Hazelwood
Community Club provided the city. Please note that the Hearing Examiner and the Developer may provide additional
responses, all of which could be presented at the public hearing or outlined in the final decision from the Hearing
Examiner.
Please be advised that as of today, the public hearing is still scheduled for April 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM. Please note that
this could be subject to change given the current COVID-19 emergency. It is also possible that we may conduct the
meeting electronically via a service such as Skype or Zoom. Should anything change, you will be notified, along with the
rest of the neighborhood.
Regarding your comments, please find the City’s responses:
COMMENT LETTER 1
Marilyn Hoksbergen
12627 SE 304th St.
Comment – Drainage Related
Both the properties below me, 12511 SE 304 and 30528 124th Ave SE, could affect the natural drainage that may come
from properties above us and from our property. How can we be guaranteed this will not happen?
City Response: Currently drainage sheet flows to the southwest along the property line of 12627 SE 304 th St to an
existing wetland. The developed plat will maintain existing drainage patterns as required by the Washington State
Department of Ecology and City standards. Stormwater will either continue to sheet flow to the southwest to the
existing wetland or be collected in a series of catch basins and pipes in the proposed streets and directed to a detention
pond. The detention pond will provide water quality treatment and discharge stormwater at a reduced rate as required
by State and City standards to an existing wetland.
Comment – Private Well Related
I also have a well that has supplied us for years and afraid that work done on this development could affect it. I am
seriously worried of having any negative effects on my well would push a necessity to move to city water hook up which I
do not feel I could afford the thousands of dollars for that would cost me. I need some type of assurance this cannot
happen.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your well and any well
covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will require the Developer to show the
location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the project drawings. If any new structures are proposed
to be located within the well covenant, the developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed
by a hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
2
COMMENT LETTER 2
Hazelwood Community Club
Craig Hoksbergen, President of Hazelwood Community Club
12627 SE 304th ST
Comment – Private Well Related
The Hazelwood Community Club on the west corner of development on the downhill side with a well for drinking water at
only 40 feet deep. I know of a few other developments that have been stopped by impacts on a well. The clubs well is
only 15 feet to the property on one side and only 8 feet on the other next to the development.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your well and any well
covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will require the Developer to show the
location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the project drawings. If any new structures are proposed
to be located within the well covenant, the developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed
by a hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Traffic Related
The other problem is traffic with the dip in the road up the hill where Vintage Hills exits will be a problem which lowering
the speed limit to 25 might help with new school at the top of the hill.
City Response: This City is not aware of any issues associated with the vertical roadway alignment. Can you please
provide some more specific information related to this comment so we can evaluate? As part of the school project a
20mph school zone will be created. This will be consistent with other school in the City and will be in operation during
the start and end times for the school. Reducing the speed limit along the roadway is not proposed. For speeding
concerns please contact Cecile Malik, Senior Transportation Planner for the City for information about the City’s Traffic
Calming Program.
NOTE – We can answer this better with further clarification, as noted above.
COMMENT LETTER 3
Craig Hoksbergen
12627 SE 304th ST
Comment – Private Well Related
We are on a well, that we would like to keep due to cost, for our drinking water at about 100 feet that could be harmed
by this construction. I know of a few other developments that have been stopped by impacts on a well.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your well and any well
covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will require the Developer to show the
location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the project drawings. If any new structures are proposed
to be located within the well covenant, the developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed
by a hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Private Well Related
The other concern is for our Hazelwood Community Club run by members on 30400 124th Ave SE, Auburn, Wa 98092, on
the other corner of development, on the downhill side is well for drinking water at only 40 feet deep. The club would
3
like to keep well because the cost is so much cheaper so far. The clubs well is only approximately 15 feet from the
property line on one side and only 8 feet on the other
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your well and any well
covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will require the Developer to show the
location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the project drawings. If any new structures are proposed
to be located within the well covenant, the developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed
by a hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Comment – Wetlands
The other problem I have is with moving the wetlands they will impact the use of our property by it being too close to our
property causing loss of value by not being able to use that part or sell the property without the new wetland causing
more setback issues for us. All three properties being developed we ran cattle on them at different times and there are
springs all over the place. On all 3 properties, the test perks and all the other tests were done in the driest fall that we
have had in years making the tests not showing the normal drainage.
City Response: According the wetland report provided with the application, it appears that the existing wetland system
on the southern portion of the property currently extends onto the southern portion of your property. The enhanced
wetland buffer and area, while close to your property line, would not result in any new buffer extending onto your
property given the likely location of the existing wetland on the southern portion of your site.
Comment – Transportation Related
The other problem is traffic with the dip in the road up the hill where Vintage Hills exits will be a problem which lowering
the speed limit to 25 might help with new school at the top of the hill.
City Response: This City is not aware of any issues associated with the vertical roadway alignment. Can you please
provide some more specific information related to this comment so we can evaluate? As part of the school project a
20mph school zone will be created. This will be consistent with other school in the City and will be in operation during
the start and end times for the school. Reducing the speed limit along the roadway is not proposed. For speeding
concerns please contact Cecile Malik, Senior Transportation Planner for the City for information about the City’s Traffic
Calming Program.
COMMENT LETTER 4
Hazelwood Community Club, Marilyn J. Hoksbergen, Sec/Tres.
12627 SE 304th St
Comment – Private Well Related
We are seriously worried the impact this development will have on our utilities referring to our well being close to border
lines of this development and our septic system
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your well and any well
covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will require the Developer to show the
location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the project drawings. If any new structures are proposed
to be located within the well covenant, the developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed
by a hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
4
Comment – Drainage Related
We also deal with drainage issues at times
City response: Currently drainage sheet flows to the southwest along the property line of 12627 SE 304 th St to an existing
wetland. The developed plat will maintain existing drainage patterns as required by the Washington State Department
of Ecology and City standards. Stormwater will either continue to sheet flow to the southwest to the existing wetland or
be collected in a series of catch basins and pipes in the proposed streets and directed to a detention pond. The
detention pond will provide water quality treatment and discharge stormwater at a reduced rate as required by State
and City standards to an existing wetland.
Comment – General Utility Hookup Concerns
Our treasury would not be able to afford to hook up to city water so we need assurance this development will not affect
our utilities as we now have.
City Response: The City will require the developer to contact you to survey the actual location of your well and any well
covenant (typically 100-foot radius) recorded against your property. The City will require the Developer to show the
location of the well and the covenant (actual or proposed) on the project drawings. If any new structures are proposed
to be located within the well covenant, the developer will be required to have a hydrogeological investigation performed
by a hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess any potential impacts on the well.
Dustin Lawrence, AICP, CFM
Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3092 | dlawrence@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps
July 25, 2017
Wayne Jones
Lakeridge Development, LLC
PO Box 146
Renton, Washington 98057
RE: Critical Area Report – Alicia Preliminary Plat
City of Auburn, Washington
SWC Job #17-209
Dear Wayne,
This report describes our observations of jurisdictional wetlands, streams
and buffers on or within 200’ of Parcels# 0921059079, 0921059075,
0921059074 & 0421059044 located on the north and south sides of SE
304th Street and east of 124th Avenue SE in the City of Auburn,
Washington (the “site”).
The site consists of an irregular shaped group of 4 parcels with a total
area of 14.68 acres located within Sections 4& 9, Township 21 North,
Range 5 East of the W.M.
METHODOLOGY
Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site on
January 1 & 15 and March 27, 2018. The site was reviewed using
methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains,
Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0) dated June 24, 2010,
as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers and City of Auburn. Soil
colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the
Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990).
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 880 Phone: 253-859-0515
Fall City, WA 98024
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 2
Above: Vicinity Map of the site.
OBSERVATIONS
Existing Site Documentation.
Prior to visiting the site, a review of several natural resource inventory
maps was conducted. Resources reviewed included the National Wetland
Inventory Map and the NRCS Soil Survey online mapping and Data and
the King County iMap website with wetland and stream layers activated.
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 3
Soil Survey
According to data on file with the NRCS Soil Survey, the majority of the
site is mapped as moderately well-drained Alderwood soils of various
slopes. There is one area of the site along the southwest corner mapped
as poorly drained Norma soils. Norma soils are considered “hydric” or
wetland soils.
Above: USDA Soil Survey Map of the site
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 4
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
According to the NWI map for the site, there is a large emergent wetland
along the south edge of the site.
Above: National Wetlands Inventory Map of the site.
WADNR Fpars Stream Mapping
According the WDNR Fpars stream mapping of the site, there are no
streams on or near the site.
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 5
Above: WDNR Fpars stream mapping.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats Da ta
Search
According to the WDFW Priority Habitat Website with Public access
layers activated, a wetland (purple shading) identical to that mapped by
the NWI map is located on the south edge of the site.
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 6
Field observations
Uplands
The northern parcel (#0421059044), is a rolling south facing hillside with
one single family home and associated gravel driveway. Portions of this
parcel are uncut grass fields and the north end a deciduous forest. The
forested area has a mix of cedar, big leaf maple, Himalayan blackberry,
indian plum and some sword fern. This area appears to have been
grazed in the past. The northeast side of this parcel appears to have
been historically graded and scraped and soils are highly disturbed. A
small patch of sitka willow was note don the northeast corner but no
wetland soils or hydrology was present in the wet season and this was
found not to be wetland.
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 7
The pasture is primarily vegetated with a mix of orchard grass, fescue,
and some bentgrass.
Soil pits excavated within the upland areas generally revealed gravelly
loam as well as a gravelly fill material soils in disturbed areas with colors
of 10YR 3/3-3/4.
The portion of the site south of SE 304th Street site is mostly rolling
pasture grazed by cattle, with a single family home and outbuilding on
the north, and the ruins of a burned home on the southwest. Large
amounts of trash and debris are located along the burned home
foundation. A small amount of deciduous forest is found on the south
end of the site as well as a few scattered big leaf maple and douglas firs
around the existing home as well as numerous landscape and garden
areas.
The pasture is vegetated primarily with tall fescue, some orchard grass
and bentgrass.
Soil pits excavated within the upland areas generally revealed gravelly
loam as well as a gravelly fill material soils in disturbed areas with colors
of 10YR 3/3-3/4.
Wetlands
A total of 3 wetlands were found on the site. The following is a
description of these wetlands;
Wetland A
Wetland A is a small emergent wetland that was delineated along the
north edge of the site with flags A1-A6. Roof drains from the home as
well as possibly water from the septic field provide hydrology to this small
depression. Water that does collect in the wetland drains out into the
storm drainage system under SE 304th Street in a small culvert.
Vegetation in this wetland consists of tall fescue and bentgrass which is
grazed.
Soil pits excavated within the wetland revealed a mix of mottled gravelly
sandy loam which was saturated to the surface during our site visit.
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 8
Using the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification Method (Cowardin
et al. 1979), Wetland A would be classified PEM1C (palustrine, emergent,
persistent, seasonally flooded).
Using the WADOE Wetland Rating system and rating the wetland as a
depressional type wetland, this wetland scored a total of 19 points with 7
for habitat. This indicates a Category IV wetland. A Category IV wetland
with <20 habitat points in the City of Auburn (AMC 16.10.090.E.1) have
a 25’ buffer measured from the wetland edge.
Wetland B
Wetland B is a depression located within the middle of a grazed pasture
that was flagged with flagging labeled B-1 through B-14. Wetland B has
an intermittent swale that drains to the west and appears to infiltrate
into the pasture downslope,
As with Wetland A, this wetland is grazed and consists of a mix of tall
fescue and soft rush.
Soil pits excavated within the wetland revealed a 16-inch layer of silt
loam with color or 10YR 3/2 and common, medium distinct
redoximorphic concentrations. Soils within the wetland were saturated
to the surface during our site visit in January.
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 9
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
wetland classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), Wetland B would
contains areas that would be classified as PEM1C (palustrine, emergent,
persistent, seasonally flooded).
Using the WADOE Wetland Rating system and rating the wetland as a
depressional type wetland, this wetland scored a total of 19 points with 8
for habitat. This indicates a Category IV wetland. A Category IV wetland
with <20 habitat points in the City of Auburn (AMC 16.10.090.E.1) have
a 25’ buffer measured from the wetland edge).
Wetland C
Wetland C is an emergent and forested wetland that extends off-site to
the south. This wetland was flagged with flags C1-C10 and CC1-CC7.
This wetland drains to the southwest where it enters a culvert and
passes under 124th Street draining to the west.
The emergent portion of the wetland is grazed and consists of bentgrass
and creeping buttercup. The forested portion contains black cottonwood
and red alder with salmonberry, slough sedge, creeping buttercup and
some lady fern in the understory
Soil pits excavated within the wetland revealed a gravelly loam loam with
color or 10YR 3/2 and common, medium distinct redoximorphic
concentrations. Soils within the wetland were saturated to the surface
during our site visit in January.
According to the United States Fish an d Wildlife Service (USFWS)
wetland classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), Wetland C would
contains areas that would be classified as PEM1C (palustrine, emergent,
persistent, seasonally flooded) and PFO1C (palustrine, forested, broad
leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded).
Using the WADOE Wetland Rating system and rating the wetland as a
depressional type wetland, this wetland scored a total of 32 points with
12 for habitat. This indicates a Category III wetland. A Category III
wetland with <20 habitat points in the City of Auburn (AMC
16.10.090.E.1) have a 25’ buffer measured from the wetland edge).
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 10
Proposed Project
The proposed project is a residential plat with associated infrastructure.
As part of the proposed plat, we are proposing to fill two small category
IV wetlands (Wetland A 994sf, & Wetland B, 7712sf). This will result in a
total fil of 8,706sf of wetland.
Under Auburn Municipal Code Chapter 16.10.110;
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;
Response: The fill of these small isolated wetland swill allow the site to
be developed to its potential and the proposed mitigation will result in
greater wetland function than these grazed disturbed wetlands.
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
Response: The proposed wetland creation and buffer enhancement will
be monitored and placed in a tract insuring its ongoing existence and
functions as 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.
Response: No net loss of area or function will occur. The fill of the
Category IV wetland swill be mitigated with a larger area of higher
classification (Category III) wetland, fully mitigating their loss.
Proposed Mitigation
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 11
The proposed mitigation is to create wetland at a 1:1.3 ratio , which
exceeds the 1:1.25 required by Code for Category IV wetland creation.
The prosed creation area will result in 11,393sf of additional Category III
wetland to be created along the north side of Wetland C. This area will
be excavated out to elevations of the abutting wetlands and replanted
with a mix of native wetland vegetation (see Wetland Mitigation Plan,
Sewall Wetland consulting, Inc.).
In addition, 19,471sf of existing pasture buffer will be enhanced with
native trees and shrubs. This area will be monitored for 5 years as
required by Code.
If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional
information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at
esewall@sewallwc.com .
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212
Attached: Wetland Map
Data sheets
Rating Forms
Lakeridge Alicia/#17-209
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
July 25, 2018
Page 12
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79-31, Washington, D. C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Muller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of
Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, New York.
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen
Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the
United States. USDA Misc. Publ. No. 1491.
Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in
Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that
occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol.
Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988.
USDA NRCS & National Technical Committee for Hydri c Soils, September
1995. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - Version 2.1
WETLAND DETERMINATION OATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region /)"ll t* I *>• City/County: A^>~""^ Sampling Date: ^ ^ Appecant/Ownar: State- W^^S Sampling Point: 9^ \ Project/Site:. ,gV S-C M Landform (hiHstope. terrace, etc ):, Subregion (LRR) Soil Map Unit Name , . Section. Township. Range: „ Local relief (concave convex, none).. . Long: NW1 classification: Are climatic / hydrologtc conditions on the sit* typical for Hits ttme of year? Yes Are Veg«ation --rSott „r, • or Hydrology <" significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation . So« . or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If no, explain m Remarks.) Are •Normal Circumstances' present? Ye* ; (tf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) .... . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yet No Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No Wetland HyoVobgy Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Ye* No /""^ Remark* » t fU-r~«V s«Tt ^'«=j>-*.-r 'tv-J -t-^iftiv^j VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot si*»:. Absolute % Cover Dominant indicator Species? Statue SaoijnoShrubStratum (Plotsice:. 1. 2 5San! (Plots Woody Vine fflratum (Plot size:. 1. 2 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum „ Rernarksv ~~ T0 « Totai Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OSL. FACW. or FAC; Totaf Number of Dominant Species Across AH Strata: Percent of Dominant Specie* That Are OBL, FACW. or f AC: (A) (B) (ArBt Prevalence lnd«x worksheet: Total % Cover of. Prevalence Index * B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Oomlnenoe Teat is »50% Prevalence Index is £3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate street) Wetland Nonvascular Plant*1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes US Army Corp* of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point:. Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.} Depth (inches) Matnx Color imotsl) ..Color (moist) Sim.- _lss_ Texture , Remarks,, 'Type. Cj^Concejitratfon. .ENDeeletign, .RMfBlN-M^- M.*1"x,. CS* Covered or Coated Sand Grains ?Locattw:_PtgPore Lrntnfl M^Matri; Hydric Soit Indicator*: (Applicable to all Histosol(At) Hiattc Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Alt) ni Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4j LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox (SB) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MUtA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix <F3) Redox Oark Surface (F6) Deptetad Dark Surface (F7) Redox DepresstonB (F6) Indicators tor Problematic Hydric Soiat9: „ 2cmMuck<A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) "indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer {if present): Type; , , Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary irftfosators frrunirnum of one requtfedf .Cjhecft ail that apply) Surface Water (A i) High Water Table (A2) , Saturation (A3) Water Marks (61) Sediment Deposits <B2) Drat Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Iron Deposits <B5) Surface Sod Cracks (B8) inundation Vrwbte on Aanat Imagery (87) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except ML.RA 1, 2.4A, and 48) Salt Crust (B11) „ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Hydrogen Suttee Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhirospheres along Living Roots (C3) Gecrnorphic Position (02) Presence of Reduced iron (C4) Shallow Aqurtard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6) FAC-Neulrai Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secqrxfary Indicators (2 or rnpre rep^irey Water-Stained Leaves (98) fWtRA 1,2, 4A. and 48} Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation visible oil Aerial Imagery (C9) ..... Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes„ Ye*-. Yes_ . No L^pMn {inches):. ™^«P^C«whe8):. „ Depth (Inches);. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ Describe Recorded Data (stream gaufie. monitoring wed, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast Region /Hi £ I ON/Cotirttv: A w S«rnpk«g Date __________ AppiwertrOwner: _____ _,.„,,, , State: ,..S/**^ Sampling Point: _ . Section Township. Range'. Unciform (hifetope. terrace, etc ): Subregion (LRR) Soil Map Unit Name „ „ Local relief (concave, convex, none). _ . .,, , Long: . NWt ciassrfcatJon:, _ S*ope <%): _ , Datum;, , Are climate / hydrotogk cor«Jibons on the stta typical for mis ttne of year? Yes _______ No (W no, explain in Remark*,) Are Vegetation Sea . or Hydrology sigr_ftcan_y cteturbfid? Are "|v*ofmal C^mstancss* present? Yes _______ No Are Vegetation . Sort . or Hydrology naturaNy probtamafe? (tf needed, explain any answers m Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach stto map^bovring sampling point kx-rtfona, transects, important features, ate Hydrophyte Vsgetstmn Present? ¥w "^/jta Hydric Soil Present? Ve»__/No WB»lr_My_t»ogyPre_Mlt? Yee___ No ta the Sampted Area witMnavVrtand? Yes No f_~,-- eV *vVc w/oj-a "X '1^ -f-_| .fJwJ VEGETATION - Use sctenttfle names of plants. Absolute Drjmrnam Indicator JiSsm. £_8KS2 _____ (Plot I j_________y_ (dote 1 2. 1 4 5. (Plot si . £S>. __ , » Total Cover z__; Woodv V>ne Stratum (Ptotsoa.. % Bare Ground tn Kerb Stratum _. Dominance Test worksheet: fJumber of Dornirwrt Species That Are OSL, FACW. or FAC: Total Number of f>3tr_n_-X Species Across AH Strata Percent of Dominam Species That Are OSL, FACW. or FAC: -7 (B) (A/8) TtM^ftmref. MvJlalvftv; OBt spades FACWspeclee . FAC specie* FACU species . UPLspecles Coiumn Totals: , x1» X2« _ . x3*. X4* _ . x5«_ . (A> . Prevalence Index • fcVA » . Dominanee Test Is >90% , Prevalence Index is S3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide aupportino data in Remarks or on a separate attest) Wetland ftavhVaaeulerPtertts' PraktsmMIc Hydrophyte VegetalBon1 (Explain) 'mdkaiors of hydric soil end wettartd hyoyotogy must be present unlese o—turbed or prcblamaiic. HydrophySe Vegetation US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountaina. VeHeya. and Coast - interim Version SOIL Sampling Point:. Profile Oeecftffltoff: (Describe to the depSt needed to document the Indicator or confirm the sbeence of indicator*.! 7 /o*it*-~}IZ-Remarks 'Type: Cgr^nceritrebon. D"Dapletian. RM-R»duced Matrix. CS*Cova—d or Coated Sand Qrains. 'location: Pi«Pore Lewnfl, M»Marnx, Hydric Son tndlceters: (AppSc-bl* to elt LRfH, unless otherwise noted.) fltstosot (A1) Sandy Redox <B5) _ Hle_Eplpedon(A.) _ Stripped Matrix (S«) B_exH~4c(A3) Loa^M~ityMine_l(F1)(exi_ptla_BA1) _ Hydrogen Su»tle(A4) Loamy Stayed Matrix <F2) Depleted BetewDark Surface (A1f) Depleted Matrix (FJ) Trot* Dark Surface (A12) _^_dox 0«* Surface IF8) Sarxly Mucky Mineral |81) Depleted Dark Surface <F7) Saw^Gleved Matrix (84) _ Redox Depreaelons{F8) Restrictive Layer ^"jknmmt): Type: mtScatore for Pre Me matte Hydric So*': _ IcmMuektAW) _ Redf^rertMa_dat(TF2l Other (Explain in Remarks) *\ttfKOban of hydropnytic vegetation and waasnd hyilrctogy must be present, unless disturbed or pn_ktfnetJC. Depth (incties):. Hydric Sdl Present? Yea _ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology rMfoMem: tttomXHlGOfn firW-iirn gf <m fwtiwl. ctiecf # lfi«t,»i|Ptyl., Surfe»V»ater(An _Hiifftiater Tatte (A!) ^^atutaticin (A: _TSWurefBri (A3) _ Watoi Marks (Bit Sedimonl Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (S3) Alg«IMattirCrg_(S4) lronO*f»erla(B6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) ImiraulOT Vision Aerial Imagery (BT) Spw^Vecetla^Cttncave Surface (B8) Sun__Wfa«TlVe»erit7 Yea No. Water Table Present? fee. SottiratJon Present? («Wude» oanMarv frinae) . Waler^amed Leaves (B6) (except MLFtA 1.2,4A,and*B) . Salt Crust (B11) . Ao^a_!rtv_!tet)rBtea(fi'l3) . Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _ Oxidized Rhi_ep»eres along Living Roots (C3) . Presence of Reduced iron (C4) . IWem Iron Reduction hi TSed 3c*i (C«) . Stunted or SSessed Piano (D1) (UUtA) . Otrw(Ext^inR«ii_*s) Ssco~tery IftfcatPfS „ Bt TO o. reouraj) Water^Usned Leaves (SSI IMLRA t, i, 4A, and 4B) Drainage Patlema (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) „ Saturation Visible on AsnaftntagaryfCS) Geomorphic Pc_4jon (D2) Shako- Aquitard (03) _ FAC-Ne(ilr_Te„<05) _ Raised Ant Mpunds CDS) (LRR A) _ Frc«M4eav« Humrnoeks (DT) Depth (inchse):. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes. Describe Recorded Date (trtream gauge. rnorr_iring wen, serial photos, previous inspections), if avaHebte: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, VaSeys. and Coast - tnterim Version
Investigaton,'.)- _ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region i-M^forrn (hi«Wop»s, fcsrrsc*. etc):„ Subregton (LRR) . SOU Map Unit Name: f i^-o+c} . Section Tovmship. Range , _ Loc_J rs_«f (concave. ooiw*x, none). _ Long: ________ . NWt cUmifiC-tBon:, Are c-fmabc / hy_«ro4ogk; corditon* on the MB typical for this ttme of year? Yes _______ No (If no, twrjfcwnin Remarks.) AwVeo-taaon —rSoa* -- . Hydrology wgnifkanfly i*_4ut*d? Are "Normal Cirr_gn_,tancaa* prs-em? Ye»_____No Am Vegetartlon . So* , or Hydrology r__turatty prabtarnjtfic? (tf neatded, explain any answers in Remark*,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach sits map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important faaturaa, ate Hydrophytic Veneration Present? Hydric Sea Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? —| Yes .y^No YesTT^Hfj Yes / No Is the Sampled Ares w«imo Wetland? Yes <• ^ Mo Remarks Sv\t. -_,-_. ,l_. i-^.j-J^ VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size:. Absolute Dominant trvix_tor •XSaw j__r_a2 ^__s_ ?WHHIr^nn7aretV- (Plotsize:. Iters-return (Put size: t. /^»/f<j 7^7w 52 -^L_______ « Total Cover 7Sf 1 2. % Bare Oraund m Herb Stratum „ Dcmrnancs Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Specie* That Are OBt. FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Spades Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Spades That Are OBI, FACW. or FAC: 2_ P rev tie nee tno)ex worksheet: T«W»Oomof; MtfliPlybv; OBL species FACW S| FAC s; FACU» UPLn Column Totals: x2"_ . Xj«. X4-. . »>• . .(A) . Prevalence Index *8fA» . (8) Hydrepbytfc Vegetatton mdicatora: "~ ^SomlrianeeTest Is >50% Prevalerice Index ra -5.0' Morphok>stcaJ Adaptations' (Provide supporllng data in ftamarka or on a separate sheet) _ Wetlandl_n-Vasc_er Plerse* Prc«_»msl_Hydn»Blv/ticVeg 'lr——i tors rrfhydrtc aoiJ and vre_tr_ hydrofpr^ must be present unless disturbed or prrAlerrretic, Hydrophytic US Army Corps ot Engineers Western Mr_ntains, VeReys. end Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicator*.) .Metis,,,,, . Rf^-fastlTM--RtfflttlH. *Typg C<Ioricentrabon. DaQspletion, RM«Rerjucod Matrix, CS»Covor*d or Coated Sand Grains. *Lrxatjon: PL"Pore IJraryj. MfSiatrsi. Hydric So* Indicators: (Appacabie to ah" t-RRs, unless otherwies noted.) Itistosol (At) Hlst_Ec«>edon(A2) f*e_Mis_;(A3) Hydrogen SuOxJe(M) !3epl*tMBelwDMStirtace(A1t) Thick Darn Surface (A12) 8»ndyMue>ryf*nei_tS1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox <BS) _ Stripped IMrixCSS) Loamy Mucky Mineral <F1) (except MtRAt) Loamy OieyedMalr»(F2) _ OppfSlea Mairix (F3) _^^K_fox Dark &trface (FB) Deplettd DarK Surface (F7) , Reo_sDepreasrons{Fll) Indicators for ProMemetlc Hydric Sons': 2cm Muck (A10) RedPawtf t***rW<TF2) Other (Explain tn Remark*) 'tmi—ears of hyraxiphyttc vegetation end watfarKt try—rotogy must be present, unless drsturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If present):' Type Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yea _ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology rndfeetors: &fiW'll*»TI»" WnllT^ Surface Water (All _HI(tfVva_r Table <A2) -^Saturation (A3) _ WaterMan_(B1) Seamen! Deposits (B2) Drtfl Deposits (B3) Aksilf-slorCnistffM) Iron Deposits (BIS) _ SurfawSoilCracks(BS) Inundation Vistfte on Aertai kaagery (B?) Sc_^*tyVeras_tedCprK_veSur_3e(BB} Water-Stamod Leaves IBS) (except MUtA 1.2,4A, and 48) Sett Crust (Btt) Aoual_mver^brates(613} Hydrogen Sua—> Odor (CD Oxidized Rl_sepheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence ot Reduced Hon (C4) f_<_«lrrwl__ar_OTmTi*W Slurtrt or Stressed Worro(D1) (LRR A) CihertSxplammlwnwyks) Seoonnerv Indrceiprs (2 or mora rerunedl Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA1,1, 4A, and 4B) . aafrwge Patterns (BIO) _ Dry-Season Water Table lC2) _ SaturaHOT Virion Aerial Imagery (C8) f^t-rrorphic F_irjon (D2> SraSow Aou*ird (D3) _ FA&NxiUtr»irast(05) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (J.RR A) _ Froet4feav« Humrnock* (07) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Presenf? («K_)doa___wltinge> Yea Yea Tei/_ . Der^(Inches):. . Depth fsichea):. . Depth (sicba*);. -r.•>' Wetlend ftyr*xxogy Preaent? Yea. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, rwmltoring vnt. serial rjhotos, prevetus inspections) rf rivaiiable: RerrMrks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mrjuntarris, Vafteys. and Coast - Interim Vsrsrcn
if* T C App4k—mA>Mw:. Investigators) _ WETLAND DETERMIMATlOfi DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region A'll'tl '->• OrvCrxiritv: Auhv^ BameknoDMa ^"/^ Stele: L<W^ Ssmptmu Point: _> P ***f Unciform 0_*lope. tsrraoa, etc }: Svtt-glon (LRR) Soil Map Unit fume _ , Section Tcvmship. Rang* , , , Long: An» climafcc / hydroiogk: aM\drteorrs on me sria rypaca* tor mis ttme of year? Ye* _______ No (K no, exptain in Remarks.) Are Veoatation —rSc-1 . or rrvdrotoav fj_niflc-rttlv dJrturbBd? Are ^Normal C^rt^taocss' presem? Ye* ______ No_ Are Vegetation Soil _______ or Hydrology , naturally probfematic? (K needed, explain any anawera in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hy-«>phytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soti Present? Wettand Hvdroiogy Present? Is the Sampisd Area wMMneW-tiand? Rantarks VEGETATION - Us* sctentmc names of plants. Absoftfte Ooinirieflt IndKator Dominance Teat worksheet: Number ot Dominant Species That Are OSL. FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Oorranenl SpecJes Aeroae Ail Strata: Percent of Dominant Speoiaa That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: TreeSttatum (Plot sin: l i f.y^l^J. a. ___ <Ploterie:_ 'Total Cover Hem Stratum (PtDtsiz 1t . Woody Vina Stratum (Plotsiaa:. 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum „ -3 W (B) (AlB) FACU UPLapeclea Column Totals: Prevalence h Hyd><pi4t^ VassUtfon Indicators! —— _t*Dc<r*ienoe Test Is »50» PrevarJance Index is S3.0! facrptxjtagicatAdajAstw (Provide supparang data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) WeflandNor^VwKailar Plans' PrcbkmlaticHydrophyecVr^ (fixptailt) indicators of hydric soH and wetland hydrology must be present unless diaturbed or problematic Hydtephytlc VeseMkai Preeenf? US Army Corps of engineers Western tnountalne. VaSeys. and Coast - Interim Version SOH. Sampling Point. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicator*.) Rer^xFastjretl. -Rfmatto 'Type: C^rreantration. t>fjetfet^ . location: PL"Pcre Lirano. MaaAafnx. Hydric Sol) Indfcators: (Appacabte to an LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) . Hlatosot(At) . Hlet~Epipeda»(A2) . Black Hrstc (A3) . Hydrogen Sulfide <A4) . DerAtod Below Dart Surface (At t) . Thick OettfiuffacelAIZ) . S»™>y Mucky Mineral |S1> . Sandy Gajyed Matrix (84) Sandy Redox (85) _ Stripped Matrix (B9) Loamy MudiyM™ral(F1)(excoptf>tLRA1) LotJtryOlejed Matrix <F2) Daja»llors»*«x (FJ) _^ft*dox Oar* Surface (FS) Depleted Dark Surface |F7) Redox Oerx*4*rons(FB) Indtcstors for Probfe—etlc Hydric Soils1: _ 2cmMuck(A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Olfrarf&tptainmReinark*) ^rKBCatersc^hydrophytic verjetatronand vaetaod tryrtrology rnust t» preaarrt, unless rjtslurbed or pfobtemarjc. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): _ Hydric Soil Present? Yea. HYDROLOGY lum r* one raou«ed. check all Irtai aooty) . Surface Water (At) . High Water Table (A2) . Saturation I A3) . Water Marks (Bl) . Sedtmenl Deposes (62) . DrWfM>c«aa(B3) . Aloal Mat or Crust (B4) . lrr»f>posit*(B6) . Surtaco Soil Cracks (BO) . IrrurKlalicn VrsraewiAerral Imagery 1B7) . Spey^etyVerjetavsdCrjricaue^ . Water-Stained leaves (BS) (except MtLRA 1,2,4A,and4B) . Salt Crust (Bit) . Aquatic Invertebrates (613) . Hydros^ SuftJe Odor (CI) . Owo_KlRhiaxwp»aree along Living Roots (C3) „ Presence otf™dur_d lion (C4) . l_fi*rtlfonf^ucfionmTlt^ . Sluntrt or Stressed ^rasfDIMUW A) . Other (Explain in Remarks) 8«gr|P^lrrt|ive1OT»gfm^ _ Water-Statned Leaves (B9) fatLRA 1,2, 4A,end4B) Drainage Pasams (BIO) _ Ory-Seeeon Water Table (C2) __ SaturaOon visible on Aerial imag«y(C8l Geornoqahic Fwaion (02) Sheaow Aqutard (03) _ FAthki_r»ITest(05) _ JUiserJ Ant Mounds (D«) (LRR A) __ Fros^HesveHurrirriod(afD7) Field observations: Surface Water Pteeent? Water Tat* Present' Saatratiofl Present? (vWuoer, capilarv fringe) Yas Yea Yi . f__^Der*(lrrchee): . Depth frehes): . Depth (inches): Wetland h^rdrotogy Present? Yes_ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, rrxxilbxing wen aerial photos, premut Inspections). * avaitaole: Remarks US Army Coma of Engineera Western sexsitarns. Vafieys. and Coast - Interim Vsrsion
Wetland name or number 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): LA^-"/~' Rated by_ SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes Date of site visit: Trained by Ecology? Yes_No Date of training_ No Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II m noNS BTO rv y Category I = Score >=70 Category IT = Score 51-69 Category HI = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions c5" 7^ Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) JX Wetland I nit Iras Special Cbaracterfctlo WeiUndHGMCtaN •sed (or Raffou • Estuarine Depressional y Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal i None of the above / Check if unit has multiple HOM classes present Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 1 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit 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 May Need Additional Protection (in addition lo the proU'ctioti reMaintf tided for its cateRt»r>) YES NO SPl. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Feder _ 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 I 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. y To complete the next vart of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdroeeomorvhic Class of the wetland beine rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into 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 Rating Form - western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington IT the hvUrulugic criteria Inted in tit.li qunrbva do mil n|>pl> in the entire unit helm; rated, yim pi nhabh bate a unit » Ufa multiple HGM classes In this t««e, identify whhii hydruriifdc mtei la IU qtmriiras 1-"* nppt}. and go to Qtmllnn 8 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ^alrx^ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe Fyes, 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 Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called 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 the only source (>90%) of water to it. Grourjdwalefand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ^-NO"-gotj>£ 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 unit 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) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; . - -AtJeast 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? /NO - go tp«T YES - The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the" entire wetland unit 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 type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually - ^ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5^ YES - The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 3 vereion 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number . Does the entire wetland unit 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 - goito£> YES - The wetland class is Riverine . Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This meatis that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland . NO - go to 7 ,-^YES - The wetland class is Depressional j . Is the entire wetland unit located 111 a vu j' flu! mm inilli nuTJbvious 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 clases. 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 »Uhm the Zetland unit being rated M '\t • last in i w m Rbtmg 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 if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW deflations Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number D Dcprcvaional and Flats Wetlands UrAlFRQI Al,n> FLECTIONS l.tdh«w<. 'hal the witl uA •» t iu-ciiom id .ripu-.i" *ain uu ilin Poind loni> i scare pa bus) D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water aualitv? (wp3B) D 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 Figure D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ^oratsj^A** Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) pomts = 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 2 D S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES DMtrt-s^ NO (points^ y D 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 pwritr^o5*^ Map of Cowardin vegetsttorrclasses Figure D D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit 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 JOyrs. Area seasonally ponded is > Vi total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 'A total area of wetland joints = 2^ Area seasonally ponded is < V* total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the oDDortunitv to imnrove water aualitv? 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 ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sourcesstiut any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilledfields or orchards within 150 ftof 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 (see p. 44) multiplier YES "ntSuftfplier fs> NO multiplier is 1 (see p. 44) multiplier D TOTAL - Water Oualitv Functions Multiolv the score from Dl bv D2 Add score to table on p. 1 5-Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number fh D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYl)R.ur,CX3IC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to lcdlU-C 'Whilst JIBl •rill-am Jcgl.i.HfUh Points fonty 1 sanre pebox) D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D D 3.1 Characteri sties 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 pointa_=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 notpermanentlyflowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of 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 Unit 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 Q.5ft 0&rtelaj= D 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.;i The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit rSSufcLzJ? The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? 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 mat 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 Ott)fir__ YES ! multiplier is. NO multiplier is 1 D Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HUM cia.\\es. HAI'liAI IT'M HOSTS Ind i.al.'1-irmi in ' Iiiin lo pn* I Je ilirv lam hiibita. Point* tUHh laeore pa (Mi) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for manv species? H 1.1 Vesetation structure (see p. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size thresholdfor each class is V* 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 structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation olasses 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 Figure G> H 1.2. Hvdroneriods (see D. 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 'A 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 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 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 6 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 List species below if you want to: 5-19 species r^oints.,^,1 < 5 species pomtsj^fl O Total for page Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Usa map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 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 (>4in. 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 (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous wrtti the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least Vt 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. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from Hl.l, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 14 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. SO) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer ofwetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed " —• 100 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 = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 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. r PoWts_=T^> Aerial photo showing buffers — Figure ( 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) mat is at least 150ft 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 222, H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and^nbraken-vegetaled 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? f ~}\ YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NOsH«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 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? <7Er^IjBriir- NO = 0 points Total for page ^— Wetland Rating Form - 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 thePHSreport http://wdfw.wa.vov/hab/phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are wimin 330ft (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: f 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 (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 eittter take Ihe form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Inst ream: 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. Tains: 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 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004
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 Vi mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore whh 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 V4 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Vi mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed C"points = J> 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 lA mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/i mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1.H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 *r ! TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P.l Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 17 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 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 Check off any criteria that apply to the -wetland Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0 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. I 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 — 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 the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/IT). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least Vt 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 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 18 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number SC 2.0 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 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 WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site J_ 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 undisturbadweuand or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? >^ YES = Category I NO _ fnot a Heritage Wetland Cat. I 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. 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 the soil profile? (See Appendix-B-fer-a-field kcy^o^identify organic soils)? Yes -go to Q. 3 ^^o_jpJoQj^> 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? C?j Yes - go to Q. 3 \o - Is not a bog for puirjose^ftaiing 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover 6^Tnosss»«t^roimorievel, 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. 1. 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 f> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat I Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 19 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 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 functions. — 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 (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. ^^^^ YES = Category I NO not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat I SC 5.0 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 mapAhe 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 'A 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 Cat. I Cat. II Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO _5"hot 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 once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO-go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category m Cat II Cat III CaleRun nf wetland hatted mi Special C haratttrlsf u s Choose the "htgluisi' rating if wetlandfulls mtc several categories, and record on It11'lian-wcel MMi I ill hpt.-1Met 'Nut \jvluahlc un p ' Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number 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): _ Rated by SEC: Date of site visit: '•^ Trained by Ecology? Yes_No Date of training^ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No TWNSHP: RNGE: _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland i n m rv Category I = Score >=70 Category H = Score 51-69 Category m = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Sub-category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) ~\^J-~-Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Spatial , CJbaisiUerbtH* Witland HGM Claw DMtd Ail Rating Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal s None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 1 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit 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, I ist for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection (in addition In the protection recommended for itv cnteftoo) YLS 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 I 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 comvlete 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 into 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 Rating Form - western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If thi hjili IIIUBU criteria Itstid in nib question do not apph tn thr entire unit being rated jnuiirobabh ha\ sunn with multiple HGM rlRuev lnlhivcaw, identify wait b htdrnlntdc nttem in questions 1-'' applt, anil go to Question 8 1 Am ihe \raterte>+'K in IIK mure unit ii>nally controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? QjfO-joJo5^ 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 Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called 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 the only source (>90%) of water to it. ^Qfoundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. I NO-go\ 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 unit meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water Iwithout any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO - gqjo 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit 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 type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3fi diameter and less than 1 foot deep). /SO - gajo 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit 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 during 4h»year. This^meansAat-mijiOutlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the^wettahd. J NO - go tor-—-.XgS^The wetland class is Deprfesional 7. Is the entire wetland unit 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 clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine fioodplain, 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 TN 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 Chases within the wetland mat 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 if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number D D Dcpresuonal and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? 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 ouuef~"points_^Il Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) poults = 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 Points only i ware ptftKH' fv« ;• I'll Figure D D D D S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points NO qsoiiits D1.3 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. D D D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit 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 Wyrs. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland 'g^mfs'£X--^ Area seasonally ponded is<^ total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure _ Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? 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 ofpollutants. 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 w~fed4$y groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen (see p. 44) YES multiplier is NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL :~vValer~ Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 multiplier z Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 IS Wetland name or number D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYI)ROL(X)lC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation Points (mlv | bare D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce floodinc and erosion'.' (see p. 46) D D3.1 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 intermittenuy flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet 'jjoints 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 (// ditch is not permanentlyflowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water ppints-sj^ Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft pxants^fl-^ o D 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 me unit fiSnts = 3jS> 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 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3~ l D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunitv to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where Ihe 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 -i=r"Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems (see p. 49) — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other YE$ multiplier isZ^ NO multiplier is 1 1L. D ^ TOTAIT^Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number Ihiisc questuim apply to wetlands of aO HGM ctVmiA. MAKUM '1 Nl 'KAS Iidio«jJ-railimiiliUitiiiin.sl['prii\iJei'''p(in.iiit1icili'Ui Points (only I score' per ban H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for manv species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is V* 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 structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure CpointsT^JL-^-Figure H 1.2. Hvdrooeriods (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 lA acre to count, (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Pennafiently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 Saturated only 1 type present points 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 a? H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 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 List species below if you want to: 5-19 species rx>ints^l_. < 5 species poBSjSt**)"* Total for page Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersioni of habitats (seep 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 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 (>4in. 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 (lm) 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 (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least V* 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. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from Hl.l, HI.2, H1.3, H1.4, HIS j Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 14 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer ofwetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed " — 100 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 - 5 — 100 m (3 30 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m(170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference,. Points 313 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open waleribf-%-_ 50% circumference. -J^>tats==y^ 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 showing buffers Figure H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see a 81i 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) tNejTjpSH=E2>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—ffJS.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 1 mi pXaJake greater than 20 acres? YES"= tjxflrrt NO = 0 points \ i j Total for page ^ Wetland Rating Form - 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 bv WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdtw.wa,eov/hab/vhslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (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. Oid-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 (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). Inst ream: 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 axurring 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) Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 16 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
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 lA 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 'A mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 'A mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed Cpoints=i3S> The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within 'A mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within lA mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within 'A mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1.H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 7 j TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 O Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P-l 7^ Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 17 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 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 Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category 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. K^-^^ YES = Goto 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 I 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 — 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 the 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 I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least VA 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 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 18 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number SCZO Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 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 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 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 or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant speciesl1 YES = Category I MT not a Heritage Wetland Cat. I 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. 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 the soil profile? (SeeAppendixB fc^trfietdkej^o-identify organic soils)? Yes -go to Q. 3 No^~sotofj>** 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—x volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake orjjond?" ~~~y Yes - go to Q. 3 Mo - Is not a bog for purrjosg^fating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at^rpiaidTevel, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog"^eT3ieTlTsted 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. 1. 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 Cat I Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 19 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 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 functions. — 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 (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%;d«cay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed majerfal is generally less than that found in old-growth. ^/^^ YES = Category I NO not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat I SC S.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 mos^ofthe year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measuredoear 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 Vt 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 H Cat. I Cat. II Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit 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 once acre or larger? YES = Category n NO - go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category HI Cat II Cat in Category of wetland based t» Special C^aTiKB^tks Titxae OH 'higm v ruiuif. it wetland tallt otto * wal c atra ru i tutd retard m If \,«juai-.weii-".i()toral1 rvpninter 'NW \pphcahle i»np 1 tvn Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Date of site visit: A/5" Rated by SEC: TWNSHP: _ Trained by Ecology? Yes_No Date of training^ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Estimated size RNGE: _ Map of wetland unit: Figure SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II YL\V IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category HI = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions 33 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply * Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Wetland tnit has Sptxial Chat at UrnMU-o r—' Wetland HC M Claw useil fin 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 Wetland Rating Fotm - western Washington 1 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit 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 Iliat May Need Additional Protection On addition to the protection i ccinrnnendcd for iuv catcfiorv) YfcS NO SPl. 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 I 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 comvlete 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 into 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 Rating Form - western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington lithe httlnilogk criteria listed In eath question du not applj to the entire unil bring rated >»u prabMhh hate a unit with multiple Ht.M ilmses. In this ia«, tdrnnr} which hydrokigjc criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go tu Qui*.tion 8 cl^ 111 llit. «.tin-e unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe Tyes, 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 Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called 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 the only source (>90%) of water to it. GraundwaTejitnd surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO - .go-ttH 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 unit 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) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? YES - The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. BoesThelefitire wetland unit 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 sheetfiow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually 'fJaTarhyter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 ^YES - The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit 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 tiotflgoamg. NQ^o_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 during the year. This means thaTany~outkt, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland^- —^ \ NO - go to 7 Y%S - The wetland class is Depressional ) 7. Is the entire wetland unitlbcated in a very flat arf wiih^rrrhc^nc 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 clases. 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. // i'f< Lis.\e< Hithm the ntUmdunit fvmfratiJ IK. \fi km I' I »• mHMMM 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 if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number D Depressional and Flat* Wetlands WATER QI.'ALn> FUMTIO.NS I louauvh riiit iK witlnnd .uul functions:>< improve water quality Points (cnh> t seen per tac> D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water aualitv? (seep 38) D 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 intetmittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet (joints ~ 2^ „ Figure • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet {permanently flawing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on keyX 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 D S 1.2 The soil 2 inches belowthe surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (useNRCS definitions) YES /_point& =_4_ _ NO Vjx>ints iO— o D D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area paints = 3^ J> 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 s D D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit 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 lOyrs. Area seasonally ponded is > V4 total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland P3JS3-ZJBW~ Area seasonally ponded is < V4 total area of wetland (fjpornts^J)^ Map of Hvare^eTiods Figure D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above "~"m<~'m~ I D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the oonortunitv to imorove water aualitv? 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 ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. —^tjrazing 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 mVltipIier isT? NO multiplier is 1 (seep. 44) multiplier D 2. Does the wetland unit have the oonortunitv to imorove water aualitv? 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 ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. —^tjrazing 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 mVltipIier isT? NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAl, -"Water Oualitv Functions Multinlv the score from Dl bv D2 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number D Depressional and Flats W ct lands HYDRO!.CXilC 1"! JNCTIONS - Indicator, that the wetland unit functions lo ieduce flooding and stream degradation Points [<ftly 1 score parliuv D D D D D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce floodins and erosion? (see p. 46) D D D D 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 jpa&3ir=\j Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in die Flats class, with permanent surface uuinuUTand no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 D D D D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (if dry), Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of 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 Unit 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 t-r^irits = fT\ D D D D 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 *^piintejii^ 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 D D D D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above (see p. 49) multiplier C. — • D D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunitv to reduce floodins and erosion? 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^-^nultiplierTs^ NO multiplier is 1 (see p. 49) multiplier C. — • D D VrOXAC^Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I /£2 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number Ihese questums apply to wetlands of all Hti W classes. HABITAT lr UNCI IONS - Indicators that unit functions lo provide important habitat Points (ofuvl soere perbOK, H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for manv species? H 1.1 Veeetation structure (see n. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is 'A acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed .^•Efiiergent plants Serub/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 structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2^ 2 structures r. joints -J •> 1 structure points = 0 Figure t H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seen 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 JA 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 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present faiinisJr-J 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 \ H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 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 ^joints^--2. List species below if you want to: 5-19 species C points.g«jr < 5 species points = 0 ; i" Total for page Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points . tow - ljxjint-— Moderate = 2 points \ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes :igure \ H 1.5. SDecial Habitat Features: (seea. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland The number ofchecks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. 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 (lm) 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 (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least lA 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. f H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from HI. 1, HI.2, H1.3, H1.4, HI.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 14 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see p. SO) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer ofwetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed " — 100 ra (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 = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 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 photo showing buffers Figure 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 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 22.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbrokco-vegclaled 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? t~ —_ YES - 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO- H^2^ 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 1 mi.af-alakfegreater than 20 acres? <YfiS = 1 point NO = 0 points i 1 Total for page <_ Wetland Rating Form - 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 bv WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfiv.wa.sov/hab/phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (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. J52). 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; wilh 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 (full descriptions in WDFW PHS sfeportp. J58). -^Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. West side 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. CUffs: 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 > 2m (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 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number 5"~ 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 % 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 M mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within H mile, BUT the connections between thejjLare—^,^ disturbed (jxnnts = 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 1 wetland within !4 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within V4 mile. points = 0 3 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1.H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 —^sw-«=> Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P1 13 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 17 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 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. Cheek off any criteria that apply to the wetland Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category 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 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 I 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 — 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 the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (LTI). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least VA 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 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 18 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number SC2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 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 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 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 or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species?/ YES = Category I NO -^not a Heritage Wetland Cat I 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. 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 the soil profile? (See AppendixB fc^sJEwW-keytteidentify organic soils)? Yes -go to Q. 3 (No - gotojjrz 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 orjjand? ""^"^^N* Yes - go to Q. 3 rlvfo - Is not a bog for purpose ofptfing 3. Does the unit have more than 70% coverof mosses at groundJaveT^AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listedln 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. 1. 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 Cat. I Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 19 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 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 functions. — 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 (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. YES = Category I NO not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat I SC 5.0 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 opUhe year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured neca^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 H Cat I Cat II Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
Wetland name or number _____ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called theyjfestern 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-Copali s- 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 once acre or larger? YES = Category H NO - go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES - Category HI Cat. II Cat. Ill f atcignn tifweriandhH^uaSpeiialf harttrewtks Choose the higlieu rating tfwetland falls into werul categories and record on If you answered NO for all types eater "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004
3 9 8'
3 9 6'
406'
408'
410'
412'
414'
416'
402'408'406'404'404'404'NO DATE NOTESDATE:
JOB NUMBER:
SITE &
WETLAND
CREATION PLANS
SHEET:
1 OF 2
07/06/2018
17‐209Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.PO Box 880 ‐ Fall City, Washington 98024 Phone: 253‐859‐0515PROJECT:WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN ‐ ALICIA PRELIMINARY PLAT ‐WETLAND
WETLAND ‐ TO BE FILLED (8,706 SF)
WETLAND CREATION (13,059 SF)SITE ADDRESS:CLIENT:12505 SE 304TH STREET ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC12511 SE 304TH STREET ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON PO BOX 14612530 SE 304TH STREET ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057TAX PARCEL NO. 0921059079, ‐9075, & ‐9074DRAWING NOTES:
1. THE SURVEY AND SITE PLAN USED TO PREPARE THIS PLAN
WAS PROVIDED BY DMP, INCORPORATED (726 AUBURN WAY
NORTH ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002). SOURCE DRAWINGS
HAVE BEEN MODIFIED FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT.
SITE PLAN LEGEND:
SITE PLAN1
1
N
SCALE IN FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2 FEET
80400
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO ALL CITY OF AUBURN CODES,
ORDINANCES, AND REGULATIONS.
2. BEFORE THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, A PRE‐CONSTRUCTION
MEETING MUST BE HELD BETWEEN CITY OF AUBURN, THE OWNER, AND
THE PLAN DESIGNER.
3. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED DRAWINGS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE
WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.
4. SITE CONDITIONS MAY VARY BASED ON SEASON AND/OR TIME OF YEAR.
THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCOMMODATE REALIZED AND
ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS WHEN COMPLETING THE WORK SHOWN
ON THESE DRAWINGS.
5. THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE
EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS TO PROTECT
THE LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TO PROTECT
PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK
SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. ANY WORK WITHIN THE TRAVELED
RIGHT‐OF‐WAY THAT MAY INTERRUPT NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW SHALL
REQUIRE TRAFFIC CONTROL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY AND ALL CITY OF
AUBURN STANDARDS.
6. THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (TESC) MEASURES
SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS, IF ANY, ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.
ADJUST, AMEND, AND/OR ADD TO THE TESC MEASURES SHOWN TO
ACCOMMODATE SITE AND WEATHER CONDITIONS AND/OR AS
OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY OWNER OR PER CITY OF AUBURN.
RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
1. FLAG WORK AREA LIMITS.
2. EXCAVATE AND GRADE WETLAND CREATION AREAS.
3. AMEND SOILS WITHIN WETLAND CREATION AREAS.
4. CONTROL NOXIOUS WEEDS WITHIN PLANTING AREA.
5. INSTALL NATIVE PLANTS.
6. INSTALL MULCH.
7. INSTALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
8. INSTALL CRITICAL AREA FENCE AND SIGNAGE.
9. CLEAN‐UP AND DEMOBILIZE FROM SITE.
10. REQUEST FROM AND ATTEND INSPECTION WITH OWNER.
11. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 1 YEAR OF MAINTENANCE UNDER
DIRECTION OF OWNER.
12. OWNER TO COMPLETE 5 YEARS OF MONITORING.
WETLAND CREATION PLANS, PROFILES & NOTES2
1
RECORD DRAWING CERTIFICATION
THESE DRAWINGS CONFORM TO THE
CONTRACTOR'S CONSTRUCTION RECORDS.
BY DATE
TITLE/POSITION
CONFIRMED BY CITY DATE
PROJECT REF:
THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH
THE CITY OF AUBURN'S CRITICAL AREA REQUIREMENTS.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED:
WETLAND CREATION NOTES:
1. FURNISH ALL NECESSARY LABOR AND MATERIALS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO EQUIPMENT,
ATTACHMENTS, DEVICES, AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY TO EXCAVATE, REMOVE, AMEND, AND DISPOSE
OF SOILS FROM OR WITHIN CREATED WETLAND AREA AND RE‐COUNTOURED WETLAND BUFFER.
2. PLAN DESIGNER MUST BE ON‐SITE DURING ALL CLEARING AND GRADING WORK.
3. SOIL EXCAVATION AND GRADING SHALL NOT OCCUR DURING FREEZING WEATHER OR WHEN SOIL IS
FROZEN OR EXCESSIVELY WET.
4. PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION:
EXCAVATE AND REMOVE EXISTING SOIL TO A DEPTH NECESSARY TO EXPAND EXISTING WETLAND BY
NOT LESS 13,059 SF AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.
PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION TO, FROM, AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS.
DISPOSE OF EXCAVATED SOIL IN AN UPLAND AREA LOCATED OUTSIDE OF BUFFER AREAS (IF ON‐SITE
DISPOSAL IS USED) OR AT A LEGAL OFF‐SITE DISPOSAL SITE.
AMEND ALL GRADED SOILS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED ON THIS SHEET.
RAKE ALL FINAL SURFACES TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM APPEARANCE.
APPLY MULCH TO ALL GRADED AREAS FOR EROSION CONTROL.
SOIL DECOMPACTION NOTES:
PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION, DECOMPACT AND AMEND SOILS WITHIN GRADED WETLAND AND BUFFER
AREAS PER THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS:
MECHANICALLY DECOMPACT SOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES.
APPLY 4 INCHES OF ORGANIC COMPOST COMPRISING CEDAR GROVE COMPOST
(WWW.CEDAR‐GROVE.COM; 1‐877‐SOILS4U) OR EQUAL TO THE GRADED AREA.
UNIFORMLY TILL IN COMPOST TO ACHIEVE A UNIFORM MIXTURE OF EXISTING SOIL AND COMPOST
WITHIN THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE DECOMPACTED SOIL.
RAKE FINAL SURFACE TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM APPEARANCE.
SOIL DECOMPACTION AND AMENDMENT SHALL NOT OCCUR DURING FREEZING WEATHER OR WHEN SOIL IS
FROZEN OR EXCESSIVELY WET.
LONG TERM PROTECTION NOTICE:
LONG TERM PROTECTION OF WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFERS WILL BE
PROVIDED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THESE AREAS AS A SEPARATE TRACT ON
WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED, AND PROTECTED BY EXECUTION OF AN
EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN. THE EASEMENT GRANTS THE
CITY OF AUBURN ACCESS TO THE ON‐SITE WETLANDS AND BUFFERS FOR
PURPOSES OF MONITORING, MAINTAINING, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING
THE ON‐SITE WETLAND AND ASSOCIATED BUFFER AREAS. THE LOCATION AND
LIMITATIONS OF ASSOCIATED WITH THE WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS
SHALL BE SHOWN ON HE FACE OF THE DEED OR PLAT APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY AND SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE KING COUNTY RECORDING
DEPARTMENT.
NEW WETLAND
LIMITS
EXISTING
AMEND SOILS
WITHIN GRADED
AREAS
PROPOSED
EXISTING WETLAND
LIMITS
406'
404'
402'
400'
398'
396'
394'
LIMITS OF
GRADING
PROTECT AND RETAIN EXISTING
TREES WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO
GRADED AREAS ‐ TYP
WETLAND CREATION AREA #1 ‐ PLAN & PROFILE
E X I S T I N G
AMEND SOILS WITHIN
GRADED AREAS
PROPOSED
418'
416'
414'
412'
410'
408'
406'
WETLAND CREATION AREA #2 ‐ PLAN
WETLAND CREATION AREA #2 ‐ PROFILE
EXISTING WETLAND
LIMITS
NEW WETLAND
LIMITS
404'
402'
400'
PROTECT AND RETAIN
EXISTING TREES WITHIN AND
ADJACENT TO GRADED AREAS
‐ TYP
LIMITS OF
GRADING
Know what's
R
WETLAND A
CATEGORY IV WETLAND
TO BE FILLED (994 SF)
WETLAND B
CATEGORY IV WETLAND
TO BE FILLED (7,712 SF)
INSTALL CRITICAL
FENCE AND
SIGNAGE AT
BUFFER LIMITS
(792 LF; 8 SIGNS)
WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
(19,237 SF)
420'1 07/25/18 REVISED BUFFER LIMITS2 04/11/19 REVISED SITE PLAN3 09/24/19 REVISED WETLAND CREATION
NO DATE NOTESDATE:
JOB NUMBER:
SITE & WETLAND
CREATION
GRADING PLANS
SHEET:
2 OF 2
07/06/2018
17‐209Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.PO Box 880 ‐ Fall City, Washington 98024 Phone: 253‐859‐0515PROJECT:WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN ‐ ALICIA PRELIMINARY PLAT ‐SITE ADDRESS:CLIENT:12505 SE 304TH STREET ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC12511 SE 304TH STREET ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON PO BOX 14612530 SE 304TH STREET ‐ AUBURN, WASHINGTON RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057TAX PARCEL NO. 0921059079, ‐9075, & ‐9074RECORD DRAWING CERTIFICATION
THESE DRAWINGS CONFORM TO THE
CONTRACTOR'S CONSTRUCTION RECORDS.
BY DATE
TITLE/POSITION
CONFIRMED BY CITY DATE
PROJECT REF:
THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH
THE CITY OF AUBURN'S CRITICAL AREA REQUIREMENTS.
APPROVED BY:
DATE APPROVED:
CUT CIRCLING ROOTS
AND SPREAD OR
"BUTTERFLY"
ROOTBALL.
MULCH (6" MINIMUM
THICKNESS) AT BASE OF
PLANT IN WETLAND;
THROUGHOUT PLANTING
AREA IN BUFFERS.
NATIVE SOIL
BACKFILL WITH NATIVE
SOIL. COMPACT BY
HAND.
MIN. 1.5 TIMES THE
WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL
PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS
NO SCALE
1
2
PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND SUCCESS STANDARDS ARE OUTLINED IN THE TABLE
(BELOW). THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS PLAN ARE CONSIDERED ACHIEVED
WHEN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE SATISFIED.
MONITORING PLAN
AS‐BUILT
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, A QUALIFIED
PROFESSIONAL SHALL PREPARE AN AS‐BUILT OF THE COMPLETED WORK. THE
AS‐BUILT SHALL SUMMARIZE THE COMPLETED WORK AS WELL AS ANY DEVIATIONS
FROM THE APPROVED VERSION OF THIS PLAN.
IN ADDITION, PERMANENT PHOTO POINTS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TO
PHOTOGRAPHICALLY DOCUMENT REPRESENTATIVE CONDITIONS WITHIN EACH
MITIGATION AREA. PERMANENT MONITORING PLOTS OR TRANSECTS SHALL ALSO
BE ESTABLISHED TO DOCUMENT VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN EACH
MITIGATION AREA. MONITORING PLOTS AND TRANSECTS SHALL BE SCALED
APPROPRIATELY TO ACCURATELY SAMPLE THE FOLLOWING: NATIVE WOODY PLANT
SPECIES (TREES AND SHRUBS) AND NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES.
BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHALL BE COLLECTED USING THE ESTABLISHED
SAMPLE PLOTS OR TRANSECTS AND SUBMITTED WITH THE AS‐BUILT FOR THE
COMPLETED WORK (SEE "ANNUAL COMPLIANCE MONITORING" FOR FIELD DATA
COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS). THE AS‐BUILT AND BASELINE MONITORING DATA
SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS FROM THE
DATE THAT THE WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
HYDROLOGY MONITORING
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WETLAND
HYDROLOGY MONITORING WELLS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN EXISTING AND
CREATED WETLAND AREAS. WELL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE
STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN "INSTALLING MONITORING WELLS/PIEZOMETERS IN
WETLANDS" ‐ WETLAND REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (WRAP) TECHNICAL
DOCUMENT ERDC TN‐WRAP‐00‐02 (JUNE 2000) OR SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS.
WETLAND HYDROLOGY SHALL BE MONITORED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS.
ANNUAL MONITORING
FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE AS‐BUILT BY THE CITY OF AUBURN, ANNUAL
MONITORING SHALL BE COMPLETED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS. ANNUAL
MONITORING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL AND SHALL
COMPRISE A SITE INVESTIGATION IN THE EARLY GROWING SEASON (MARCH/APRIL)
AND THE LATE GROWING SEASON (AUGUST/SEPTEMBER) WITH REPORTING TO THE
CITY OF AUBURN NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING EACH MONITORING.
FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE AS‐BUILT BY THE CITY OF AUBURN, ANNUAL
COMPLIANCE MONITORING SHALL BE COMPLETED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS.
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE MONITORING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A QUALIFIED
PROFESSIONAL AND SHALL COMPRISE SITE INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTING PER
THE FOLLOWING INTERVAL:
SITE INVESTIGATIONS ‐ IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER OF THE FIRST THROUGH FIFTH
YEARS (YEAR 1 THROUGH YEAR 5) FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE AS‐BUILT.
REPORTING ‐ NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 1 OF EACH MONITORING YEAR.
ANNUAL MONITORING SHALL COMPRISE A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF
CONDITIONS WITHIN EACH PLANTING AREA FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE
CURRENT YEAR'S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. AT THE TIME OF EACH MONITORING
ASSESSMENT, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHALL BE COLLECTED AND ASSESSED
RELATIVE TO THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT:
THE CONDITION OF INSTALLED PLANT STOCK INCLUDING SURVIVORSHIP,
HEALTH, AND VIGOR. THE RATIONALE FOR POOR CONDITIONS, IF PRESENT, WILL
BE DETERMINED.
MONITORING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY:
A DIRECT COUNT INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF ALL INSTALLED PLANT STOCK
SHALL BE USED TO EVALUATE PLANT CONDITIONS.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF EACH PLANTING AREA SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE
PERMANENT PHOTO POINTS ESTABLISHED DURING THE AS‐BUILT.
THE RESULTS OF EACH MONITORING ASSESSMENT SHALL BE SUMMARIZED IN A
WRITTEN REPORT AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN NO LATER THAN
OCTOBER 31 OF THE RESPECTIVE MONITORING YEAR.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
SHOULD ANY MONITORING ASSESSMENT REVEAL THAT THE SUCCESS
STANDARDS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEAR ARE NOT SATISFIED, THE PERMITTEE
SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN TO DEVELOP A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO
ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCY(IES). CONTINGENCY PLANS CAN INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
1. ADDITIONAL PLANT INSTALLATION;
2. EROSION CONTROL;
3. HERBIVORY PROTECTION;
4. MODIFICATION TO THE IRRIGATION REGIME; AND/OR
5. PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS OF TYPE, SIZE, QUANTITY, AND LOCATION.
IF SUFFICIENT WETLAND HYDROLOGY IS NOT PRESENT AT THE END OF TWO YEAR
MONITORING, THE PERMITTEE SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN TO
DEVELOP A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCY(IES). WETLAND
HYDROLOGY CONTINGENCY PLANS CAN INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE
FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
1. EXTENDING THE MONITORING PERIOD;
2. ADJUSTMENT OF GRADES AND CONTOURS; AND/OR
3. PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROLOGY
ANY CONTINGENCY PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN BY
JANUARY 31 OF ANY YEAR WHEN DEFICIENCIES ARE DISCOVERED. UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUBURN, ACTIONS SPECIFIED ON AN
APPROVED CONTINGENCY PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS. IF THE
FAILURE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE CITY OF AUBURN MAY EXTEND THE COMPLIANCE
MONITORING PERIOD FOR THE ENHANCEMENT WORK.
MAINTENANCE PLAN
THIS SECTION PROVIDES A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PLAN ARE
ACHIEVED.
NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL
FOLLOWING PLANT INSTALLATION AND AT REGULAR INTERVALS DURING THE
MONITORING PERIOD, NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL SHALL OCCUR ON A SPOT
TREATMENT BASIS WITHIN EACH MITIGATION AREA.
TARGET NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: ALL CLASS "A",
"B", AND "C" NOXIOUS WEEDS (INCLUDING NON‐REGULATED "B" AND "C" NOXIOUS
WEEDS) IDENTIFIED ON THE LATEST KING COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST.
NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL WORK SHALL CONSIST OF THE CUTTING AND REMOVAL
FROM THE SITE OF ALL NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES STEMS, CANES, RUNNERS, SHOOTS,
SEED PODS, FRUITING BODIES, AND LEAVES PER THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
1. HAND PULLING.
2. MANUALLY CUTTING USING MACHETES, LOPPERS, AND/OR CLIPPERS.
SPOT TREATMENT SHALL OCCUR MONTHLY AND/OR AT A GREATER FREQUENCY, IF
NECESSARY, TO CONTROL NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN (10)
PERCENT OR LESS COVERAGE WITHIN EACH MITIGATION AREA.
DURING ALL NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL WORK, EXISTING OR PLANTING NATIVE
VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE.
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
EACH MITIGATION AREA SHALL BE MAINTAINED TWICE PER YEAR DURING THE
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PERIOD TO PROMOTE THE SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT
AND VIGOROUS GROWTH OF THE INSTALLED PLANT STOCK.
GENERAL MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE:
1. WEEDING THE MITIGATION AREA.
2. RE‐APPLYING BARK MULCH TO MAINTAIN A 6" MINIMUM APPLIED
THICKNESS ‐ YEAR 1 ONLY.
3. THE PRUNING OF INSTALLED PLANTS TO REMOVE DEAD WOOD AND
PROMOTE VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH AND PROPER FORM.
4. THE REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS THAT APPEAR TO BE IN DISTRESS AND/OR
DISEASED.
5. THE REMOVAL OF TRASH, LITTER, AND/OR OTHER NON‐DECOMPOSING
DEBRIS.
GENERAL MAINTENANCE WORK SHALL OCCUR MONTHLY DURING THE GROWING
SEASON AND/OR AT A FREQUENCY OTHERWISE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE
SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT AND VIGOROUS GROWTH OF THE INSTALLED PLANTS
AND/OR THE CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS.
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR TWO (2) GROWING SEASONS
FOLLOWING PLANT INSTALLATION. IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY AN ABOVE
GROUND AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER OR AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION AND SHALL
PROVIDE A MINIMUM RAINFALL EQUIVALENT OF 1 INCH PER WEEK FROM JUNE 15
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15. IRRIGATION SHALL BE APPLIED IN A MANNER THAT
MAINTAINS PLANT HEALTH, PREVENTS WILTING, AND PROMOTES DEEP PLANT ROOT
SYSTEMS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION TERM, ALL
IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM EACH PLANTING
AREA.
MONITORING PLAN & MAINTENANCE PLAN
TABLE 5‐1: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, MONITORING SCHEDULE, & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
GOAL
TO SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISH A
NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY WITHIN
ON‐SITE WETLAND AND WETLAND
BUFFER.
TO CREATE ADDITIONAL WETLAND
ON‐SITE.
TO LIMIT NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES
WITHIN MTIITGATION AREAS.
OBJECTIVE
INSTALL AND SUCCESSFULLY
ESTABLISH DENSE NATIVE TREES
AND SHRUBS WITHIN EACH
PLANTING AREA.
GRADE ON‐SITE AREAS AS
NECESSARY TO EXPAND WETLAND
BY 13,059 SF.
TO PROVIDE FULL INITIAL
CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEED
SPECIES AND THEN TO MINIMIZE
THE GENERAL PRESENCE OF
NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
100% SURVIVAL BY INSTALLED PLANT STOCK AFTER THE FIRST
GROWING SEASON.
85% SURVIVAL BY INSTALLED PLANT STOCK AFTER THE FIFTH
GROWING SEASON.
60% AVERAGE COVERAGE BY NATIVE WOODY PLANT SPECIES
AFTER THE FIFTH GROWING SEASON. UP TO 20% OF THE
NATIVE WOODY PLANT SPECIES COVERAGE MAY BE
COMPRISED OF DESIRABLE NATIVE COLONIZING SPECIES.
SOILS WITHIN CREATED WETLAND AREAS SHALL BE SATURATED
TO THE SOIL SURFACE, HAVE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
PRESENT WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE SOIL SURFACE, AND/OR
HAVE SURFACE PONDING PRESENT FOR AT LEAST FOUR (4)
CONSECUTIVE WEEKS DURING THE GROWING SEASON WHEN
RAINFALL IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE MEAN FOR THE
PERIOD OF AVAILABLE RECORD.
CONDUCT WETLAND DELINEATION AT THE END OF THE FIFTH
GROWING SEASON TO CONFIRM ON‐SITE WETLAND AREA.
PERFORMANCE STANDARD IS SATISFIED IF TOTAL WETLAND
CREATION AREA IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 11,393 SF.
LESS THAN 10% COVERAGE BY ALL CLASS "A", "B", AND "C"
NOXIOUS WEEDS (INCLUDING NON‐REGULATED "B" AND "C"
NOXIOUS WEEDS) IDENTIFIED ON THE LATEST KING COUNTY
NOXIOUS WEED LIST.
SCHEDULE
YEARS 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5
YEARS 1 & 2
(HYDROLOGY ONLY)
YEAR 5
(WETLAND DELINEATION)
YEARS 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5
CONCRETE
MOUND TO
DRAIN AWAY
FROM POST 6" MIN. DIA. SQUARE OR
ROUND ROUGH CUT WOOD
POST ‐ UNTREATED (TYP)
5" MIN. DIA. ROUGH
CUT WOOD RAIL ‐
UNTREATED (TYP)10' MAX
3' MIN.
12" ‐ 18"
2' MIN.
CRITICAL AREA SIGN
PER CITY OF AUBURN
STANDARDS. 1 SIGN
PER 100 FT OR 1 PER
LOT, WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.
PLANT SCHEDULE
TYPICAL TOTAL
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE/FORM SPACING QTY
BIGLEAF MAPLE ACER MACROPHYLLUM 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 9' O.C. 47
DOUGLAS‐FIR PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 9' O.C 100
SITKA SPRUCE PICEA SITCHENSIS 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 9' O.C. 57
WESTERN REDCEDAR THUJA PLICATA 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 9' O.C. 149
REDOSIER DOGWOOD CORNUS SERICEA 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 185
OCEANSPRAY HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 100
TWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLE LONICERA INVOLUCRATA 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 142
REDFLOWER CURRANT RIBES SANGUINEUM 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 77
BALDHIP ROSE ROSA GYMNOCARPA 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 131
SALMONBERRY RUBUS SPECTABILIS 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 86
SITKA WILLOW SALIX SITCHENSIS 4' LIVE STAKE 4' O.C. 164
COMMON SNOWBERRY SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 6' O.C. 231
TOTAL = 1,469
PLANT MATERIAL SOURCE AND SPECIFICATIONS:
1. PLANTS SHALL BE DERIVED FROM STOCK ACCLIMATED TO WESTERN WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
2. PLANTS SHALL BE NATIVE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, PREFERABLY THE PUGET SOUND REGION OF WASHINGTON
STATE. PLANTS SHALL BE PROPAGATED FROM NATIVE STOCK; NO CULTIVARS OR HORTICULTURAL VARIETIES ARE
ALLOWED. SALVAGED PLANTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
3. PLANTS SHALL BE NORMAL IN PATTERN OF GROWTH, HEALTHY, WELL‐BRANCHED AND HAVE ALL LEADERS AND BUDS
INTACT. TREES SHALL NOT HAVE SUNSCALDS, DISFIGURING KNOTS, FRESH CUTS OF LIMBS, DAMAGED LEADERS,
AND/OR DEFORMED TRUNKS.
4. CONTAINERIZED PLANT STOCK SHALL BE GROWN IN A CONTAINER LONG ENOUGH TO DEVELOP A ROOT SYSTEM
THAT REACHES THE EDGES OF THE CONTAINER IN WHICH IT HAS GROWN. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE WELL
ROOTED AND SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT ROOT MASS TO HOLD TOGETHER THE SOIL, IN WHICH PLANT IS GROWING,
WHEN REMOVED FROM THE POT.
WETLAND PLANTING SCHEMATIC #1 NOTES:
1. THIS PLANTING SCHEMATIC REPRESENTS 2,500 SF OF PLANTING AREA.
2. THIS PLANTING SCHEMATIC SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE WETLAND CREATION AREAS SHOWN ON DETAIL 1‐1.
3. PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION, CONTROL NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES PER THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET.
4. PLANT MATERIAL QUALITY AND LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY PLAN DESIGNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
5. PLANT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. ADJUST PLANT LOCATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE SITE CONDITIONS, TO
PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION, AND/OR PER PLAN DESIGNER AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
6. SEE PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET.
7. FOLLOWING PLANT INSTALLATION, INSTALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM PER THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THIS
SHEET.
NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL
PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION, CONTROL NOXIOUS WEEDS WITHIN EACH PLANTING AREA. TARGET NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES SHALL
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: ALL CLASS "A", "B", AND "C" NOXIOUS WEEDS (INCLUDING NON‐REGULATED "B" AND "C" NOXIOUS
WEEDS AND "WEEDS OF CONCERN") IDENTIFIED ON THE LATEST KING COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST. DURING NOXIOUS WEED
CONTROL WORK, EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE. ALL NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL CUTTINGS AND
DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. ACCEPTABLE CONTROL METHODS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. REDUCE TOP GROWTH OF NOXIOUS WEEDS. ACCEPTABLE METHODS INCLUDE: WALK BEHIND OR TRACTOR MOUNTED MOWER,
EXCAVATOR WITH BUCKET AND THUMB, POWER SAW, BRUSH HOG, LINE TRIMMER, LOPPERS, CLIPPERS, HAND PULLING, OR
APPROVED EQUAL.
2. GRUB OUT LARGE ROOT CROWNS AND MAJOR ROOTS BY HAND USING CLAW MATTOCK, PULASKI, OR APPROVED EQUAL.
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS:
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR TWO (2) GROWING SEASONS FOLLOWING PLANT INSTALLATION. IRRIGATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED BY AN ABOVE GROUND AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER OR AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION AND SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM
RAINFALL EQUIVALENT OF 1 INCH PER WEEK FROM JUNE 15 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15. IRRIGATION SHALL BE APPLIED IN A MANNER
THAT MAINTAINS PLANT HEALTH, PREVENTS WILTING, AND PROMOTES DEEP PLANT ROOT SYSTEMS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION TERM, ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM EACH PLANTING AREA.
WETLAND BUFFER PLANTING SCHEMATIC #2 NOTES:
1. THIS PLANTING SCHEMATIC REPRESENTS 2,500 SF OF PLANTING AREA.
2. THIS PLANTING SCHEMATIC SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE BUFFER AREAS SHOWN ON DETAIL 1‐1.
3. PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION, CONTROL NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES PER THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET.
4. PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION THIN ALDER TREES TO 9 FT ON‐CENTER SPACING.
5. PLANT MATERIAL QUALITY AND LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY PLAN DESIGNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
6. PLANT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. ADJUST PLANT LOCATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE SITE CONDITIONS, TO PRESERVE
AND PROTECT EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION, AND/OR PER PLAN DESIGNER AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
7. SEE PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET.
MULCH SPECIFICATION:
MULCH SHALL BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE "DOT WOODCHIP MULCH"
(WWW.PACIFICTOPSOILS.COM; 425‐337‐2700), ARBORIST CHIPS, OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MULCH SHALL NOT CONTAIN RESIN, TANNIN, OR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN QUANTITIES THAT
WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PLANT LIFE. MULCH SHALL NOT BE DERIVED FROM STUMP
GRINDINGS AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN SOIL. HOG FUEL OR EQUAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE PLAN DESIGNER, LOCAL ARBORIST AND/OR COMMERCIAL TREE
TRIMMING COMPANIES MAY BE ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL SOURCES
(WWW.DROPCHIP.IN).
WETLAND CREATION PLANTING SCHEMATIC WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING SCHEMATIC
TWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLE
(LONICERA INVOLUCRATA)
WESTERN REDCEDAR
(THUJA PLICATA)
REDOSIER DOGWOOD
(CORNUS SERICEA)
SITKA SPRUCE
(PICEA SITCHENSIS)
OCEANSPRAY
(HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR)
WESTERN REDCEDAR
(THUJA PLICATA)
REDFLOWER CURRANT
(RIBES SANGUINEUM)
BALDHIP ROSE
(ROSA GYMNOCARPA)
BIGLEAF MAPLE
(ACER MACROPHYLLUM)
COMMON SNOWBERRY
(SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS)
DOUGLAS‐FIR
(PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII)
SALMONBERRY
(RUBUS SPECTABILIS)
SITKA WILLOW
(SALIX SITCHENSIS)
NOTES:
1. FENCE SHALL BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE POST AND
RAIL SYSTEM PER THE ABOVE MIN. SPECIFICATIONS.
2. WOOD SHALL BE WESTERN REDCEDAR OR EQUAL.
Critical Area
Help protect and care for these special natural areas.
Please contact King County at 206-296-6660 with questions or concerns.
CRITICAL AREA FENCE & SIGNAGE DETAIL
NO SCALE
2
2
Critical Area
Help protect and care for these special natural areas.
Please contact King County at 206-296-6660 with questions or concerns.
CRITICAL AREA SIGN NOTES:
1. SIGN CONTENT SHOWN IS REPRESENTATIVE IN NATURE.
FINAL SIGN CONTENT, COLOR, AND MATERIAL SHALL
CONFORM TO CITY OF AUBURN STANDARDS.
2. SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE
CRITICAL AREA (WETLAND OR STREAM) BUFFER FACING
AWAY FROM THE CRITICAL AREA.
ATTACH SIGN TO FENCE USING 5/16" DIA. GALVANIZED LAG BOLT.1 07/25/18 REVISED BUFFER LIMITS2 04/11/19 REVISED SITE PLAN3 09/24/19 REVISED WETLAND CREATION
2105 South C Street 17625 130th Avenue NE, Suite 102
Tacoma, Washington 98402 www.robinson-noble.com Woodinville, Washington 98072
P: 253.475.7711 | F: 253.472.5846 P: 425.488.0599 | F: 425.488.2330
July 24, 2019
Mr. Wayne Jones
Lakeridge Development
PO Box 146
Renton, Washington 98057
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
RN File No. 2605-018A
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter serves as a transmittal for our report for the Alicia SE Plat project, located at 12530
SE 304th Street (King County Parcel 0421059044), 12505 SE 304th Street (Parcel 0921059079),
12511 SE 304th Street (Parcel 0921059075) and 30528 124th Avenue SE (Parcel 0921059074) in
Auburn, Washington. Development plans consist of constructing fifty-six single family
residential lots, access roads and a stormwater detention pond.
The subsurface soils encountered are capable of providing support for the planned
improvements. Some overexcavation and aggregate backfill may be required for foundation
support of the residential structures in the southern parcels of the project due to soft fine grain
soils located near surface elevations.
We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal Engineer
JRW:RBP:am
Robinson Noble, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Surface Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 1
Geology .................................................................................................................................................... 2
Explorations ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 3
Hydrologic Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 5
General ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Geologic Hazards ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Erosion Hazard ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Seismic Hazard ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Site Preparation and Grading ................................................................................................................. 7
Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................................ 7
General .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Materials ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Fill Placement ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Temporary and Permanent Slopes ........................................................................................................ 8
Foundations ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Lateral Loads ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Slabs-On-Grade ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Drainage ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Detention Pond ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Stormwater Management ..................................................................................................................... 11
Utilities .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Pavement Subgrade .............................................................................................................................. 13
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ............................................................................................................ 15
USE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................................... 15
Attachments
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Unified Soil Classification System
Figure 4 through 6 Test Pit Logs
Appendix A USGS Design Maps Summary Report
Robinson Noble, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation at your proposed
single-family residential project, Alicia SE, in the Auburn area of King County, Washington. The
site is located on King County Parcels 0421059044, 0921059075, 0921059079, and
0921059074, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1.
You have requested that we complete this report to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide
recommendations for site development. For our use in preparing this report, we have been
provided with an undated, untitled plan sheet with lot and access drive location layout and “The
Alicias, Conceptual Utility Plan – Storm” dated July 24, 2018 by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc.
showing the cross-sectional and plan views of the detention pond planned at the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The development will consist of a total of fifty-six single-family residences. We have not been
provided with a grading plan, but we expect that site grading will include minor to moderate
cuts in the northern and eastern regions of the site and fills in the western and southern
regions of the parcels. A stormwater detention facility is planned to be located in the southwest
corner of the site. Three existing residential structures within the project area will be removed.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the
following:
1. Review of soils and geologic maps of the area.
2. Observe test pit excavations within the site.
3. Log the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.
4. Provide structural fill and grading recommendations.
5. Provide recommendations for foundation support.
6. Provide geotechnical recommendations for use in design of the detention facility.
7. Provide general surface drainage recommendations.
8. Prepare a geotechnical report summarizing our conclusions and recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The roughly L-shaped project site is about 15 acres in size and has maximum dimensions of
approximately 800 feet in the east-west direction and 1,300 feet in the north-south direction.
Access to the site is provided by SE 304th Street, bisecting the northern and southern parcels.
The site is also bordered by existing residential developments in portions to the north, east
west, and south, and 124th Avenue SE to the west. A layout of the site is shown on the Site
Plan in Figure 2.
The ground surface within the site is generally gently to moderately sloping down to the west
and southwest. Three single-family residences with outbuildings currently sit within the parcels.
The site is vegetated mostly with grassy pasture, with landscaped areas surrounding the
existing residences, and contains a few small- to- medium sized trees. A wooded area with
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 2
Robinson Noble, Inc.
brush and deciduous and evergreen trees lies at the northwestern portion of the 12530 304th
Street Parcel. Wetlands, identified by others, exist in the southern portion of the 30528 124th
Avenue parcel.
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The
last period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ended approximately 14,000
years ago. Many of the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding
by glacial ice. During the Vashon Stade, areas of the Puget Sound region were overridden by up
to approximately 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice sheet were compacted to a
much greater extent than those that were not. Part of a typical glacial sequence within the area
of the site includes the following soil deposits from newest to oldest:
Artificial Fill (af) – Fill material is often locally placed by human activities, consistency
will depend on the source of the fill. The thickness and expanse of this material will be
dependent on the extent of fill required to grade land to the desired elevations. Density
of the fill will depend on earthwork activities and compaction efforts made during the
placement of the material.
Lacustrine Deposits (Qlc) – Lacustrine deposits (Ql) consist of organic and mineral
sediments deposited mostly in closed depressions within water bodies. Most deposits
formed continuously from late glacial times to present. The Qlc soils are composed
chiefly of fine grain mineral soils consisting of silt and clay. These deposits may not be
consolidated by the weight of the glaciers.
Vashon Till (Qgt) – The till is a non-sorted mixture of clay, sand, pebbles, cobbles and
boulders, all in variable amounts. The till was deposited directly by the ice as it advanced
over and eroded irregular surfaces of previously deposited formations and sediments.
The till was well compacted by the advancing glacier and exhibits high strength and
stability. Drainage is considered very poor in the till.
The geologic units for this area are mapped on the Geologic Map of the Auburn Quadrangle,
King and Pierce Counties, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (U.S. Geological Survey, 1965). The
site is mapped as being underlain by a deposit of glacial till with lacustrine deposits mapped
nearby. Our site explorations encountered glacial till and lacustrine deposits.
Explorations
We explored subsurface conditions at the site on January 17, 2018, by excavating seven test
pits with a backhoe. The test pits were excavated to depths of 3.3 to 8.6 feet below the ground
surface. Two additional explorations were performed on November 12, 2018 for the purpose of
evaluating infiltration characteristics for the planned detention pond located in the southwest
region of the site. The explorations were located in the field by a representative from this firm
who also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the
test pits. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The
soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 3
Robinson Noble, Inc.
copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 4
through 6.
Subsurface Conditions
A brief description of the conditions encountered in our explorations is included below. For a
more detailed description of the soils encountered, review the Test Pit Logs in Figures 4
through 6.
Our explorations generally encountered a surficial layer of topsoil that averaged less than 1 foot
in thickness. The topsoil consisted of loose, dark brown to black silty sand with roots and
organics.
Test Pits 1 through 4 were excavated on the parcel north of 304th Street. These test pits
encountered soils consistent with glacial till. Underlying the topsoil in this area Test Pit 1
encountered material that was interpreted to be either fill or weathered till and consisted of
brown to dark brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand with gravel and was observed from
1.2 to 2.8 feet. Underlying this fill/weathered material in Test Pit 1 and under the topsoil in Test
Pits 2 through 4, medium dense to dense weathered to partially weathered till soils were
observed from depths of 0.3 to 5.3 feet. This material was observed to the depths explored in
Test Pit 1 at 5.3 feet and Test Pit 4 at 4.8 feet. Test Pits 2 and 3 were completed in dense to
very dense, unweathered till observed from 2.9 to 3.3 feet.
Test Pits 5 through 9 were excavated on the south side of 304th Street and encountered
lacustrine deposits below the topsoil, extending to the depths explored in Test Pits 5 through 7.
Test Pits 5 and 7 encountered loose to medium dense, weathered brown, silty sand with gravel
from 0.5 to 2.5 feet. Fine grain silt soils were observed beneath this material and the topsoil in
Test Pit 6. The silt soils were soft to medium stiff in Test Pit 6 from 0.8 to 1.9 feet. Medium
stiff to stiff silt soils were observed at depths ranging from 1.8 to 8.6 feet in Test Pits 5 through
7. Test Pits 8 and 9 encountered approximately 1 foot of topsoil. Below the topsoil, soft to
medium stiff silt soils were observed to 7.5 feet in Test Pit 8. Below the silt soils in this test pit
dense to very dense silty sand with gravel till soils were observed to the depth explored of
approximately 18.0 feet. Test Pit 9 encountered medium dense sand to silty sand with
intermittent silt seams to a depth of 15 feet. Test Pit 9 was completed in very dense silty sand
till soils at 19.0 feet.
Hydrologic Conditions
Shallow groundwater seepage was encountered in most of the test pits. Within Test Pits 1
through 4 moderate to heavy seepage was observed from approximately 1.0 to 1.8 feet. We
understand that the heavy seepage in Test Pit 4 at 1 foot may be associated with a septic
system for the existing residential structure nearby, which is planned to be removed at the time
of development. Test Pits 5 through 7 encountered slight to heavy seepage ranging in depth
from 1.8 to 7.0 feet. We did not encounter seepage in Test Pits 8 and 9.
We consider this water to be perched. The dense to very dense till interpreted to underlie the
site and fine grain lacustrine soils observed in the southern region of the project are considered
poorly draining. During the wetter times of the year, we expect perched water conditions will
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 4
Robinson Noble, Inc.
occur as pockets of water on top of the near impervious layers. Perched water does not
represent a regional groundwater “table” within the upper soil horizons. Volumes of perched
groundwater vary depending upon the time of year and the upslope recharge conditions.
We have completed a quick rough evaluation of the amount of perched groundwater flow that
may seep into the planned detention pond, if a low permeable liner is not used to control flow
into the pond. Low permeable liners are discussed further in the Detention Pond subsection
of this report. This rough simplistic evaluation is completed by taking the length of the pond,
the inclination of the existing water level and an estimate of the area that the seepage will flow
through. Therefore the equation is as follows:
Q (cfs) = KiA
Q = Amount of flow into the pond area
K = Permeability of the soil (ft/day) – Estimated to be 25.9_ft/day
i = Gradient of the water level = 2% based on elevation change between seepage
observed in test pits.
Area = Length and depth of the soil profile which water will pass through to encounter
the pond = 276 square feet, based on two 2-inch sand seams around the perimeter of
the pond
We have calculated the flow into the pond to be approximately 1.65 x 10-3 cubic feet per
second.
Infiltration Testing
Infiltration testing was performed to evaluate the potential of constructing a stormwater
infiltration pond. The infiltration rates were measured for the site by conducting three Pilot
Infiltration Tests (PIT’s). The approximate locations of these tests are shown on the Site Plan.
The tests were completed in general accordance with Volume III, Section 3.3.6, of the
Department of Ecology 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE
Manual) using the methods described in the Small Pilot Infiltration Test (Small PIT).
PIT-1 was excavated in the western region of the planned detention pond, and was performed
at a depth of approximately 7 feet below existing grade. PIT-2 was completed in the south-
central region of the pond, and was performed at approximately 12 feet below existing grade.
PIT 1 and 2 were performed at the bottom elevation of the live storage area of the pond (~ El.
393-395). PIT-3 was performed in the northeastern region of the pond, and was performed at
approximately 13 feet below existing grade. PIT-3 was performed at the approximate bottom
of dead storage elevation (~El. 390). The base of the PIT’s were excavated wide enough to
meet minimum 12 square foot surface areas.
Seepage was observed in PIT-3 during excavation for the test. The seepage was observed
approximately two feet above test elevation and approximately five inches of standing water
was observed in the PIT the following testing day. This seepage appeared to be occurring
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 5
Robinson Noble, Inc.
below the planned water quality storage elevation (El. 395.60). Infiltration testing in PIT 3 was
performed to determine if horizontal infiltration would occur.
The PIT excavations were then saturated for a minimum of 6 hours and long enough to
observed stable steady-state infiltration rates. Once saturation was complete, we confirmed
that steady state infiltration rates were occurring by maintaining a 12 inch head of water and
observing volume flow rates into the PIT’s for an additional hour. Once the steady state period
of the infiltration evaluation was complete, a falling head evaluation was performed to confirm
the results of the infiltration rates obtained from the steady state analysis. The falling head test
included measuring the rate of fall of water from the 12 inch head. Table 1 provides final
infiltration results obtained during our field infiltration testing:
Table 1. Measured Infiltration Rates
Infiltration Test PIT-1 PIT-2 PIT-3
Test Depth 7 ft 12 ft 13 ft
Steady State 0.3 in/hr 1.23 in/hr 0 in/hr
We have not performed infiltration testing in the northern region of the site. We anticipate
based on subsurface soil conditions, perched water conditions and experience with glacial till,
that infiltration will not be feasible. Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage was observed in
this area as shallow as 1.0 feet below grade. This shallow groundwater seepage is an
indication of the lack of permeability of the underlying till soils. The shallow perched water will
also cause separation issues from the base of the gallery at shallow depths.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the site is compatible with the planned development. The underlying
medium dense to very dense glacial till deposits located in the northern parcel of the project are
capable of supporting the planned structures and pavements. We recommend that the
foundations for the structures extend through any fill, topsoil, loose, or disturbed soils, and bear
on the underlying medium dense or firmer, native soils, or on structural fill extending to these
soils. Based on our site explorations in the northern parcel, we anticipate these soils will
generally be encountered at typical footing depths.
Some foundation improvements may be needed in the southern parcels, south of 304th Street.
Test pits performed in this region indicated that medium stiff or “non-consolidated” lacustrine
deposits may be encountered in this region. Based on geologic maps we expect that a majority
of the less firm soils may be focused in the western region of the southern parcels.
In the area of planned residential structures in the southern parcels some overexcavation of
foundation subgrade may be needed and backfill with granular material at existing grades. We
expect that a maximum of 2 feet of overexcavation could be needed, but would need to be
evaluated at the time of foundation excavations. During mass grading, the subgrade stripped of
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 6
Robinson Noble, Inc.
organics should be evaluated prior to placement of structural fill. Additional gravel for subbase
of planned roadways may help provide a more stable subgrade in this region.
It is our opinion that infiltration is not feasible for the site. The glacial soils, lacustrine soils, and
high groundwater elevations encountered throughout the site reduces the potential for
infiltration of stormwater. We have completed Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT’s) in the area of the
proposed pond in the southwest region of the site to evaluate infiltration potential. Measured
infiltration rates, as discussed above, were evaluated as being below typical infiltration
feasibility rates. Dispersion could potentially be implemented. Dispersion will more than likely
require lot dimensions larger than typical for this area.
Geologic Hazards
Erosion Hazard: The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes
soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity
is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are
related to the underlying geologic soil units. We reviewed the Web Soil Survey by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to determine the erosion hazard of the on-site soils.
The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (Unit Agc). The corresponding geologic unit for these soils
is glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits, which is in general
agreement with the soils encountered in our site explorations. The erosion hazard for the soil is
listed as being slight for the gently sloping conditions at the site. Some moderate slopes exist
within the property exceeding 15 percent. We would expect the erosion hazard to be moderate
for these areas when stripped of vegetation. It is our opinion that typical construction BMP’s
will be adequate for the project. The project area is not adjacent to water bodies and does not
contain steep slopes where erosion would be more severe.
Seismic Hazard: It is our opinion based on our subsurface explorations that the Soil Profile in
accordance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) is Site Class D with Seismic Design
Category D We used the US Geological Survey program “U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web
Application.” The design maps summary reports for the 2012/15 IBC is included in this report
as Appendix A.
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high
groundwater table. The underlying dense till soils are considered to have a very low potential
for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion and seismically induced lateral spread. The
silt soils located south of 304th Street could be susceptible to liquefaction. We expect that
dense till soils exist under the silt at relatively shallow depths based on review of geologic
maps. We estimate the liquefaction potential is low. However, deeper explorations would be
needed to more accurately evaluate this risk.
The project is mapped on Faults and Earthquakes in Washington State (Jessica L. Czajkowski
and Jeffrey D. Bowman, USGS OFR 2014-05) as located approximately 3 miles northeast of the
northern extent of the Tacoma Fault Zone (Fault 581). We have reviewed the USGS Earthquake
Hazards Program, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States for considerations
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 7
Robinson Noble, Inc.
with this fault. This is a class A fault. The reliability of the fault location is considered good. The
slip-rate category is defined as 0.2 to 1.0 mm per year. The age of last suspected deformation
is recorded as less than 15,000 years ago. Evidence exists that indicates the last suspected
deformation occurred approximately 1,000 years ago and may coincide with the last
deformation event on the Seattle Fault Zone approximately 1,100 years ago. We consider the
site to have a low potential for surface displacement due to the proximity of the site to the
nearest known fault.
Site Preparation and Grading
The first step of site preparation should be to strip the vegetation, topsoil, or loose soils to
expose medium dense or firmer native soils in pavement and building areas. The excavated
material should be removed from the site, or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The
resulting subgrade should be compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Areas observed to
pump or yield should be repaired prior to placing hard surfaces.
The on-site glacial till and lacustrine deposits likely to be exposed during construction are
considered highly moisture sensitive, and the surface will disturb easily when wet. We expect
these soils would be difficult, if not impossible, to compact to structural fill specifications in wet
weather. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the drier months. Additional
expenses of wet weather or winter construction could include extra excavation and use of
imported fill or rock spalls. During wet weather, alternative site preparation methods may be
necessary. These methods may include utilizing a smooth-bucket trackhoe to complete site
stripping and diverting construction traffic around prepared subgrades. Disturbance to the
prepared subgrade may be minimized by placing a blanket of rock spalls or imported sand and
gravel in traffic and roadway areas. Cutoff drains or ditches can also be helpful in reducing
grading costs during the wet season. These methods can be evaluated at the time of
construction.
Structural Fill
General: All fill placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features
should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with
prescribed methods and standards, and is observed by an experienced geotechnical
professional or soils technician. Field observation procedures would include the performance of
a representative number of in-place density tests to document the attainment of the desired
degree of relative compaction.
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free-draining granular soil,
free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about
3 inches. Imported, all-weather structural fill should contain no more than 5 percent fines (soil
finer than a Standard U.S. No. 200 sieve), based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve.
The use of on-site soil as structural fill will be dependent on moisture content control. Some
drying of the native soils may be necessary in order to achieve compaction. During warm,
sunny days this could be accomplished by spreading the material in thin lifts and compacting.
Some aeration and/or addition of moisture may also be necessary. We expect that compaction
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 8
Robinson Noble, Inc.
of the native soils to structural fill specifications would be difficult, if not impossible, during wet
weather.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed.
Fill should be placed in 8- to 10-inch-thick uniform lifts, and each lift should be spread evenly
and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying
building areas, and within a depth of 2 feet below pavement and sidewalk subgrade, should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this
report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D1557 compaction test procedure. Fill
more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least
90 percent of the maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soil to be compacted
should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It
may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet surficial soils in cases where drying to a
compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of
a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction.
Temporary and Permanent Slopes
Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of
soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains
open, and the presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these
variable conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be
the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is
continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able
to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the near-surface weathered till
soils be no steeper than 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H:1V). Cuts in the dense to very dense
till may stand at a 0.75H:1V inclination or possibly steeper. For the fine grain lacustrine deposits
we recommend temporary cuts no steeper than 2H:1V. If groundwater seepage is
encountered, we expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary.
We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include
covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut
slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is
necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to local and
WISHA/OSHA standards.
Final slope inclinations for granular structural fill and the native soils should be no steeper than
2H:1V. Lightly compacted fills, common fills, or structural fill predominately consisting of fine
grained soils should be no steeper than 3H:1V. Common fills are defined as fill material with
some organics that are “trackrolled” into place. They would not meet the compaction
specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute
netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established.
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 9
Robinson Noble, Inc.
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be founded on undisturbed, medium dense or
firmer soil. If the soil at the planned bottom of footing elevation is not suitable, it should be
overexcavated to expose suitable bearing soil. Footings should extend at least 18 inches below
the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection. Minimum foundation widths
should conform to IBC requirements. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in
footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation
prior to placing concrete.
Some foundation improvements should be anticipated in the area of the fine grain lacustrine
deposits south of 304th Street. These improvements may include overexcavation of the
foundation footprint and replacement with granular material. We anticipate that 2 feet of
overexcavation and backfill with crushed rock or rock spalls would be adequate, but additional
excavation could be needed and would be determined during foundation inspections. If needed,
foundation subgrades should be overexcavated wide enough to allow for 0.5H:1V pressure
distribution from both sides of the footing. For example, a 2 foot deep overexcavation under
footings should extend 1 foot outside interior and exterior edges of footings.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design. IBC guidelines
should be followed when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential
foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be
less than 1-inch total and ½-inch differential between footings or across a distance of about 30
feet. Higher soil bearing values may be appropriate with wider footings. These higher values
can be determined after a review of a specific design.
Lateral Loads
The lateral earth pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of
the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement, which can occur as backfill is
placed, and the inclination of the backfill. Walls that are free to yield at least one-thousandth of
the height of the wall are in an “active” condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffness
or bracing are in an “at-rest” condition. Active earth pressure and at-rest earth pressure can be
calculated based on equivalent fluid density. Equivalent fluid densities for active and at-rest
earth pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 60 pcf, respectively, may be used for
design for a level backslope. These values assume that the on-site soils or imported granular fill
are used for backfill, and that the wall backfill is drained. The preceding values do not include
the effects of surcharges, such as due to foundation loads or other surface loads. Surcharge
effects should be considered where appropriate.
Seismic lateral loads are a function of the site location, soil strength parameters and the peak
horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) for a given return period. We used the US Geological
Survey program “U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application” to compute the PGA for the
site. The Design Maps Summary Report” in Appendix A. The above drained active and at-rest
values should be increased by a uniform pressure of 6.0H and 15.3H psf, respectively, when
considering seismic conditions. H represents the wall height.
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 10
Robinson Noble, Inc.
The above lateral pressures may be resisted by friction at the base of the wall and passive
resistance against the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used to determine the
base friction in the native glacial soils. An equivalent fluid density of 200 pcf may be used for
passive resistance design. To achieve this value of passive pressure, the foundations should be
poured “neat” against the native dense soils, or compacted fill should be used as backfill
against the front of the footing, and the soil in front of the wall should extend a horizontal
distance at least equal to three times the foundation depth. A resistance factor of 0.67 has
been applied to the passive pressure to account for required movements to generate these
pressures. The friction coefficient does not include a factor of safety.
All wall backfill should be well compacted. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of
excess lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the wall backfill.
Slabs-On-Grade
Slab-on-grade areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading
subsection. Slabs should be supported on medium dense or firmer native soils, or on structural
fill extending to these soils. Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that slabs be
underlain by 6 inches of pea gravel for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barrier, such as
heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break. An additional 2-inch-thick
damp sand blanket can be used to cover the vapor barrier to protect the membrane and to aid in
curing the concrete. This will also help prevent cement paste bleeding down into the capillary
break through joints or tears in the vapor barrier. The 2-inch sand layer could be eliminated if a
strong vapor barrier is used that will not be damaged during construction. The capillary break
material should be connected to the footing drains to provide positive drainage.
Drainage
We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs, driveway and access
roadways, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water system. The finished ground
surface should be sloped at a gradient of 5 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet
away from the buildings, or to an approved method of diverting water from the foundation, per
IBC Section 1804.3. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain
lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system.
We recommend that footing drains be used around all of the structures where moisture control
is important. The underlying till and fine grain lacustrine deposits may pond water that could
accumulate in crawlspaces. It is good practice to use footing drains installed at least 1 foot
below the planned finished floor slab or crawlspace elevation to provide drainage for the
crawlspace. At a minimum, crawlspaces should be sloped to drain to an outlet tied to the
drainage system. If drains are omitted around slab-on-grade floors where moisture control is
important, the slab should be a minimum of 1 foot above surrounding grades.
Where used, footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is
surrounded by free-draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into
tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point. Crawlspaces should be
sloped to drain, and a positive connection should be made into the foundation drainage system.
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 11
Robinson Noble, Inc.
For slabs-on-grade, a drainage path should be provided from the capillary break material to the
footing drain system. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains.
Our experience with gently to moderately-sloping till sites is that the volume of water collected
by residence foundation drains and routed to the stormwater detention system is insignificant
when considered in the storm drainage design. We do not expect that the foundation drain
water will impact the design of the stormwater detention system.
Stormwater Detention Pond
If a stormwater detention pond is planned, it should be excavated into the underlying native
soils. We recommend that a minimum 2-foot-thick low permeability soil liner be constructed to
reduce groundwater seepage potential into the pond. We recommend that the soil liner be
constructed of soils having a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second (4 x 10-6
inches/second). A majority of the on-site lacustrine soils encountered in the proposed pond area
of the southern parcel explorations may meet this criterion. Sand seams were observed in the
low permeable fine grain soils. During excavation of this low permeable soil, the material
should be mixed enough to break up the sand seams prior to replacement. Sandier soils were
observed in Test Pit 9 of our explorations in the area of the pond and may not meet this
requirement. We should evaluate the proposed berm fill material prior to construction of the
berm. The alternative to a soil liner would be to use a geosynthetic liner.
If a pond is to be constructed, the cut slopes of the pond should be no steeper than 3H:1V on
the inside of the detention pond and no steeper than 2H:1V on the outside portions of the pond
berms. Where any berms for the pond are to be constructed, the topsoil and soft soils should
be removed down to the medium stiff/dense or better lacustrine or till soils. Areas to receive
new fill should be stripped of unsuitable surface soils and compacted to a firm, non-yielding
state prior to placement of the new fill. The excavation should be kept dry to allow the proper
placement of structural fill. Structural fill should be placed and compacted as discussed in the
Structural Fill subsection of this report. We recommend that the fill in any pond berms be
compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by the
ASTM D1557 compaction test procedure. After each lift of the fill in a berm is compacted to
specification, the surface should be scarified to a depth of 2 inches prior to placement of the
next lift. The purpose of the scarification is to reduce the risk of creating preferential seepage
paths through the pond or berms.
It will be important to compact the face of any pond fill embankments. This should be made
explicit to the contractor performing the on-site work. Uncompacted soils on a berm face will
be more susceptible to erosion and sloughing. If groundwater seepage is encountered within a
cut slope face, a layer of rock spalls may be necessary to minimize erosion of the slope face.
The spall layer can be placed at the time of construction, or in the future if sloughing of the
slope is observed.
Stormwater Management
We understand that the City of Auburn uses the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE). The manual states that Best
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 12
Robinson Noble, Inc.
Management Practices (BMPs) such as full infiltration or basic dispersion must be implemented
where feasible.
The site is underlain by nearly impermeable silt and glacial till, and seepage encountered in our
test pits indicates that high perched groundwater elevations exist due to limited existing
infiltration potential. These conditions do not provide for full stormwater infiltration systems.
We have reviewed Figure 2.5.1 of the City of Auburn - Supplemental Manual to the DOE
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The BMP options presented in
List #2 were evaluated for feasibility. Our opinion of the BMP’s and feasibility are provided
below in the order presented in List #2:
Lawn and Landscaped Areas
BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth – Feasible. Site gradients based
on review of project topography indicate slopes will be less than 33 percent.
Roofs
BMP T5.10A or BMP T5.30
o BMP T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration – Infeasible. Site explorations
encountered either perched groundwater seepage or indications of high perched
groundwater by soil mottling as shallow as 1.0 feet below existing grades and
will not provide the required 1 foot separation from base of infiltration trenches
to the high groundwater elevation.
o BMP T5.30 Full Dispersion – Infeasible. We do not expect that native vegetative
surface will be left in place during site grading. We do not expect a native
vegetation flow path of at least 100 feet in length will be available based on
review of lot layout within project plans.
BMP T7.30 – Bioretention Cells, Swales and Planter Boxes – Infeasible. High perched
groundwater elevations appear to exist up to 1.0 foot below grade in the project area.
These systems would have to be very shallow and therefore impractical because a 1
foot minimum separation from the base of the facility to high water would need to exist.
BMP T5.10B Downspout Dispersion Systems – Infeasible. Project plans indicate that
50 foot flow paths from splash blocks are not feasible within the site.
o Flow paths of 25 feet may be available for sheet flow from downspouts, but will
depend on final locations of structures. A dispersion system such as a trench
would be required for the 25 foot flow path and would need to be set back from
structures a minimum of 5 feet.
BMP T5.10C Perforated Stub Out Connections – Feasible. Site explorations indicate
that high perched water table is as shallow as 1.0 foot below existing grades. Stub outs
should be constructed above this elevation. Final site grades will affect these
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 13
Robinson Noble, Inc.
elevations. We expect that the feasibility of perforated stub-outs will be reduced in cut
regions of the site.
Other Hard Surfaces
BMP T5.30 Full Dispersion – Infeasible. Review above.
BMP T5.15 Permeable Pavements – Potentially feasible depending on final grades.
Permeable pavement requires one foot of separation between the base of the
pavement subbase and high groundwater elevations. Final grades at the site would
determine the separation criteria.
BMP T7.30 Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes– Infeasible. Review above.
BMP T5.11 or BMP T5.12
o BMP T5.11 Concentrate Flow Dispersion – Infeasible. Fifty foot flow paths for
concentrated flows does not appear feasible based on lot sizes.
o BMP T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion – Feasibility based on site layout. Sheet flow
dispersion from hard surface requires a 10-foot-wide vegetated buffer for up to
20 feet of width of impervious surface. Location of structure and hard surfaces
will determine feasibility.
Utilities
Our explorations indicate that deep dewatering will not be needed to install standard depth
utilities. Anticipated perched groundwater is expected to be handled with pumps in the
trenches. We also expect that some groundwater seepage may develop during and following
the wetter times of the year. We expect this seepage to mostly occur in pockets. We do not
expect significant volumes of water in these excavations.
The soils likely to be exposed in utility trenches after site stripping are considered highly
moisture sensitive. We recommend that they be considered for trench backfill during the drier
portions of the year. Provided these soils are within 2 percent of their optimum moisture
content, they should be suitable to meet compaction specifications. During the wet season, it
may be difficult to achieve compaction specifications; therefore, soil amendment with kiln dust
or cement may be needed to achieve proper compaction with the on-site materials.
Pavement Subgrade
The performance of roadway pavement is critically related to the conditions of the underlying
subgrade. We recommend that the subgrade soils within the roadways be prepared as
described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. Prior to placing base
material, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a non-yielding state with a vibratory roller
compactor and then proof-rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully-
loaded dump truck. Any areas with excessive weaving or flexing should be overexcavated and
recompacted or replaced with a structural fill or crushed rock placed and compacted in
accordance with recommendations provided in the Structural Fill subsection of this report.
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 14
Robinson Noble, Inc.
We provide pavement sections based on designs using AASHTO procedures. For the purpose
of pavement designs we divided the project into two separate areas. The project area north of
304th Street encountered very dense glacial till soils at shallow depths. The project area south
of 304th Street exists with less dense fine grain lacustrine soils at anticipated pavement
elevations. The pavement designs were compared to Table 10-5 Pavement Section Design
Chart of the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards. Pavement designs were based on
specifications for Local Residential Roads.
Design Life = 20 years
Maximum Daily Trips = 1200
Reliability “R” = 85%
Overall Standard of Deviation = 0.5
Design Serviceability Loss = 1.5
Growth Rate = 1.5%
Sections were considered based on the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards and the
above values for the pavement design. Minimum City of Auburn design standards are
presented in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Pavement Design Sections (Local Streets)
Project Area Subgrade Soil Design Section Auburn Minimum
Section
North Excellent Soils
SM
CBR 11-20
2” CL ½”
3” CL 1”
4” CSBC
2” CL ½”
3” CL 1”
4” CSBC
South Poor Soils
ML
CBR 3-5
2” CL ½”
4” CL 1”
10” CSBC
2” CL ½”
4” CL 1”
14.5”CSBC
Geotextile Fabric
Our design section is in general agreement with the City of Auburn minimal design standard for
the excellent glacial till soils located north of 304th Street. The minimal City of Auburn section
should be incorporated into the design for the local streets located south of 304th Street. We
expect that the glacial till soils transition to the lacustrine soils in the eastern region of the
southern parcel. During construction it may be feasible to incorporate the “good soil” design
into the road sections in the eastern region of the southern parcel, but should be evaluated by
the geotechnical representative prior to design changes. We recommend a geotextile such as
Mirafi 140N or similar be considered for the geotextile placement in the southern region of the
site.
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-018A
Page 15
Robinson Noble, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
We should be retained to provide observation and consultation services during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions
revealed during the work differ from those anticipated. As part of our services, we would also
evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract
plans and specifications.
USE OF THIS REPORT
We have prepared this report for Lakeridge Development and its agents, for use in planning and
design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for
their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should
not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions.
The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions,
and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors’ methods, techniques,
sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report, for consideration in
design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project
planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions
that vary from those described in this report.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take
care that our services have been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices
followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or
implied, should be understood.
o O o
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report
Alicia SE Plat
Auburn, Washington
July 24, 2019
RN File No. 2605-01 SA
Page 16
W e appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning
this report or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
Robinson Noble, Inc.
Jeff R. W ale, PE
Senior Project Engineer
~
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal Engineer
JRW :RBP:am
Six Figures
Appendix A
Robinson Noble, Inc.
Note:
Basemap taken
from Auburn 7.5-
minute series.
USGS 2017.Lakeridge Development: Alicia SE Development
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
Proj
e
c
t
Sit
e
TP-1
Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
LEGEND
200’0’
PIT-1
Approximate Scale
Number and Approximate
Location of Pilot Infiltration Test
Figure 2
Site Plan
Lakeridge Development: Alicia SE Development
PM: RBP
2605-018A
January 2019
Note:
Basemap taken
from King County
iMap 4/10/2018.
TP-4
TP-3 TP-2
TP-1
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7 TP-9
TP-8
PIT-1
PIT-2
PIT-3
Unified Soil Classification System
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP
SYMBOL GROUP NAME
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP POORLY-GRADED SAND
SILTY SAND
CLAYEY SAND
SILT
CLAY
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
PEATPTHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
SAND CLEAN SAND
SAND
WITH FINES
INORGANIC
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
COARSE -
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
RETAINED ON
number 200 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
FINE -
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50%
LIQUID LIMIT
50% OR MORE
NOTES:
1) Field classification is based on
visual examination of soil in general
accordance with ASTM D 2488-83.
2) Soil classification using laboratory
tests is based on ASTM D 2487-83.
3) Descriptions of soil density or
consistency are based on
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS
Dry- Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Moist- Damp, but no visible water
Wet- Visible free water or saturated,
usually soil is obtained from
below water table
PM: JRW
January 2019
2605-018A
Unified Soil Classification System
Figure 3
Lakeridge Development: Alicia SE Development
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
ROBINSON NOBLE, INC.
FILE NO 2605-018A
FIGURE 4
TEST PIT ONE
0.0 – 1.2 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
1.2 – 2.8 SM Brown to dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and roots (loose to medium
dense, wet) (Fill/Weathered Till?)
2.8 – 4.4 SM Gray mottled brown silty fine sand (medium dense, wet) (Partially Weathered Till)
4.4 – 5.0 SM Gray mottled brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (dense, wet) (Partially
Weathered Till)
5.0 – 5.3 SM Gray mottled brown silty fine sand (dense, wet) (Partially Weathered Till)
Samples were not collected
Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage was observed at 1.8 feet
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 5.3 feet on 1/17/2018
TEST PIT TWO
0.0 – 0.3 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.3 – 1.8 SM Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and roots (loose to medium dense, wet)
(Weathered Till)
1.8 – 2.9 SM Gray mottled brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (medium dense, wet) (Partially
Weathered Till)
2.9 – 3.5 SM Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles (dense to very dense, moist to
wet) (Till)
Samples were not collected
Groundwater seepage was observed at 1.8 feet
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 3.5 feet on 1/17/2018
TEST PIT THREE
0.0 – 0.7 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.7 – 1.5 SM Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and roots (loose to medium dense, moist)
(Weathered Till)
1.5 – 3.0 SM Grayish-brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and trace roots (medium dense to
dense, moist) (Lightly Weathered Till)
3.0 – 3.3 SM Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (Till)
Samples were not collected
Groundwater seepage was not observed
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 3.3 feet on 1/17/2018
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
ROBINSON NOBLE, INC.
FILE NO 2605-018A
FIGURE 5
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0 – 0.7 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.7 – 2.0 SM Brown to dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and roots (loose, wet)
(Fill/Weathered Till?)
2.0 – 4.8 SM Gray mottled brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (medium dense to dense, moist
to wet) (Partially Weathered Till)
Samples were not collected
Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage was observed at 1.0 feet
Moderate test pit caving was encountered below 2.5 feet
Test pit was completed at 4.8 feet on 1/17/2018
TEST PIT FIVE
0.0 – 0.8 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.8 – 2.5 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with trace roots and gravel (loose to medium dense,
moist to wet)
2.5 – 3.5 ML Gray mottled brown silt (medium stiff, moist to wet) (Lacustrine Deposits)
3.5 – 8.0 ML Gray silt (stiff, moist) (Lacustrine Deposits)
Samples were not collected
Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage was observed at 1.8 feet
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 8.0 feet on 1/17/2018
TEST PIT SIX
0.0 – 0.8 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.8 – 1.9 ML Brown silt with trace sand (soft to medium stiff, moist to wet) (Weathered Lacustrine
Deposits)
1.9 – 3.8 ML Gray mottled brown silt (medium stiff, moist to wet) (Lacustrine Deposits)
3.8 – 7.3 ML Gray silt (stiff, moist) (Lacustrine Deposits)
Samples were not collected
Slight to moderate groundwater seepage observed at 2.3 feet
Moderate test pit caving was observed below 1.5 feet
Test pit was completed at 7.3 feet on 1/17/2018
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
ROBINSON NOBLE, INC.
FILE NO 2605-018A
FIGURE 6
TEST PIT SEVEN
0.0 – 0.5 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.5 – 1.8 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with roots (loose to medium dense, moist)
1.8 – 3.5 ML Gray mottled brown silt with trace sand and roots (medium stiff to stiff, moist)
(Lacustrine Deposits)
3.5 – 8.6 ML Gray silt with trace mottling (stiff, moist) (Lacustrine Deposits)
Samples were not collected
Slight groundwater seepage was observed at 2.2 feet
Heavy groundwater seepage was observed at 7.0 feet
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 8.6 feet on 1/17/2018
TEST PIT EIGHT
0.0 – 1.0 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, moist) (Topsoil)
1.0 – 7.5 ML Gray mottled brown silt with trace sand (soft to medium stiff, moist)
(Lacustrine Deposits)
7.5 – 18.0 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (Till)
Samples were collected at 11.5 and 17.0 feet
Groundwater seepage was not observed
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 18.0 feet on 11/12/2018
TEST PIT NINE
0.0 – 0.8 SM Dark brown silty sand with organics (loose, wet) (Topsoil)
0.8 – 2.5 SM Brown silty fine sand with gravel (medium dense, moist)
2.5 – 15.0 SM/SP Grayish brown silty fine sand to fine sand with silt with intermittent silt seams (medium
dense to dense) (Lacustrine Deposits)
15.0 – 19.0 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand (very dense, wet) (Till)
Samples were collected at 12.5 and 18.0 feet
Groundwater seepage was not observed
Test pit caving was not encountered
Test pit was completed at 19.0 feet on 11/12/2018
Appendix A
4/5/2018 Design Maps Summary Report
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=47.330606&longitude=-122.173859&siteclass=3&riskcategory=0&edition=i
Report Title
Building Code Reference Document
Site Coordinates
Site Soil Classification
Risk Category
Design Maps Summary Report
User–Specified Input
Lakeridge 304th Site Class D Soils
Thu April 5, 2018 19:31:25 UTC
2012/2015 International Building Code
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
47.33061°N, 122.17386°W
Site Class D – “Stiff Soil”
I/II/III
USGS–Provided Output
SS =1.257 g SMS =1.257 g SDS =0.838 g
S1 =0.477 g SM1 =0.726 g SD1 =0.484 g
For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the “2009 NEHRP” building code reference document.
Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the
accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge.
January 8th, 2020
James Webb
Traffic Engineering
City of Auburn
Subject: Revisions to Alicia Glenn Traffic Impact Analysis (File No. PLT18-0005 &
SEP18-0018) based on the latest round of City of Auburn comments dated November
25, 2019.
Mr. Webb:
This letter serves to address the requested revisions and questions from your review
comments. Below summarizes how each comment was addressed.
1. Roadway Improvements has been updated to reflect the current 2020-2025 City of
Auburn TIP.
2. Trips generated by the existing Alicia’s plat were reassigned based off of the new site /
driveway configuration. All calculations and figures have been revised accordingly.
3. The pipeline project’s trips were modified to track between the adjacent intersections.
All calculations and figures have been revised accordingly.
4. All LOS calculations at the RAB controlled intersection were modified to reflect HCM
delays through the use of the Synchro 10 analysis program. Delays were found to
meet the City’s level of service standard.
Please call if you require anything further.
Sincerely,
Gregary B. Heath, P.E., PTOE
ALICIA GLENN
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................3
2. Project Description ......................................................................................................3
3. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................6
4. Forecast Traffic Demand and Analysis ......................................................................12
5. Summary ...................................................................................................................19
Appendix .............................................................................................................................20
LIST OF TABLES
1. Existing Peak Hour Level of Service............................................................................8
2. Accident History ...........................................................................................................9
3. Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................12
4. Forecast 2023 Peak Hour Level of Service ...............................................................18
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Vicinity Map & Roadway System .................................................................................4
2. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................5
3. Existing Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................................7
4. School Walking Paths ................................................................................................10
5A. AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution & Assignment ..........................................................13
5B. PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution & Assignment ..........................................................14
6. Pipeline Volumes .......................................................................................................15
7. Forecast 2023 Background Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................16
8. Forecast 2023 Peak Hour Volumes with Project .......................................................17
2
ALICIA GLENN
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes traffic impacts related to the proposed Alicia Glenn project. The
general goals of this impact study concentrate on 1) the assessment of existing roadway
conditions and intersection congestion, 2) forecasts of newly generated project traffic, 3)
estimations of future delay, and 4) recommendations for mitigation. Preliminary tasks
include the detailed collection of roadway information, road improvement information, and
peak hour traffic counts. A level of service analysis for existing traffic conditions is then
made to determine the present degree of intersection congestion. Based on this analysis,
forecasts of future traffic levels on the surrounding street system are found. Following this
forecast, the future service levels for the key intersections are investigated. As a final
step, applicable conclusions and possible on-site or off-site mitigation measures are
defined. The findings of this study are intended to ensure safe and efficient progression of
vehicular and non-motorist traffic near the site.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Alicia Glenn plat consists of developing a 56-lot single-family subdivision in
the city of Auburn. The subject site is located on the north and south sides of SE 304th
Street and east of 124th Avenue SE. The proposed development would occur on a
collective site area of approximately 14.68 acres (parcels 0421059044; 0921059079;
0921059075; 0921059074). Two of the three existing onsite dwelling units would be
removed prior to construction for a net increase of 53 dwelling units. A vicinity map
indicating the nearby roadway network and general surrounding area is presented on the
following page on Figure 1.
A site plan indicates the proposed access configuration with one new north/south driveway
from SE 304th Street and one new SE 302nd Place extension as shown in Figure 2. A
three-year horizon of 2023 was used for future analysis and is intended to present
conditions at the time of project-buildout and full-occupancy.
3
4
5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics
The street network serving the proposed project consists of a variety of roadways.
Characteristics for these roadways vary with respect to lane widths, grades, speeds, and
function. The major roadways surrounding the site are listed and described below.
Descriptions reflect conditions in the general vicinity of the subject site.
SE 304th Street: is an east-west, two-lane minor arterial classification bordering the south
and north side of the subject site. Travel lanes are generally 10 feet in width in the vicinity
with shoulder treatment varying from no shoulders to 8-foot wide paved sections.
Discontinuous sidewalks are available along the roadway length. The posted speed limit
is 35 mph.
124th Avenue SE: is a north-south two- to three-lane minor arterial classification bordering
the west side of the subject site. Travel lanes are approximately 10 feet in width with
shoulder treatment varying from 4-8 foot wide paved sections or designated bicycle lanes
(north of SE 304th Street). Complete sidewalks are identified north of SE 304th Street
with discontinuous segments to the south. The posted speed limit is 35 mph; a school
speed limit of 20 mph in conjunction with a flashing advisory sign was located
approximately 1,050 feet south of the SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE intersection.
3.2 Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Travel Patterns
Field data for this study was obtained from the City of Auburn for the study intersection of
SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE (February, 2018). Additional independent field counts
were taken to obtain volumes at SE 302nd Place/124th Avenue SE (March, 2019). Data
collection consisted of morning peak (7-9AM) and evening peak (4-6PM) periods.
Traffic volumes along 124th Avenue SE were compared from the 2018 and 2019 City of
Auburn counts; volumes from the 2018 counts were found to be higher for all lane
movements in the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the northbound PM peak
hour movement. For this reason, the 2018 volumes were used and grossed by 3%
annually to represent baseline 2020 conditions in conjunction with the turning movements
to/from SE 302nd Place. This 3% growth rate was derived by comparing historic 2009 PM
peak hour volumes at the intersection of SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE. The one-hour
reflecting highest overall volumes from the field counts (peak hour) is then used for
analysis to identify operations at peak congestion. Figure 3 on the following page
illustrates the existing AM and PM peak hour volumes for the study intersections. Full two-
hour count sheets have been attached to the appendix for reference.
6
7
3.3 Roadway Improvements
An improvement project was identified in the study area under the current City of Auburn
Six-Year (2020-2025) Transportation Improvement Program. A summary description of
the planned project is provided below.
Lea Hill Safe Routes to School (TIP# N-11)
The scope of this project is to construct non-motorized improvements along SE 304th
Street from Hazelwood Elementary School extending east to 124th Avenue SE and
continuing south to Lea Hill Elementary School. In total, approximately 2,400 linear feet of
new sidewalk would complete missing gaps in the existing network. Bike facilities, where
feasible, will also be included. If grant funding is secured, construction is anticipated to be
completed during 2022. The project has a total estimated cost of $1,827,000.
3.4 Level of Service
As directed by the City, peak hour delays were determined through the use of the Highway
Capacity Manual 6th Edition. Capacity analysis is used to determine level of service
(LOS) which is an established measure of congestion for transportation facilities. The
range1 for intersection level of service is LOS A to LOS F with the former indicating the
best operating conditions with low control delays and the latter indicating saturated
conditions with heavy control delays. Detailed descriptions of intersection LOS are given
in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual. Level of service calculations were made through
the use of the Synchro 10 analysis program. Overall delays are presented for roundabout
intersections. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the
approach with the highest delay. Table 1 below portrays existing LOS delays for the key
intersections of study.
Table 1: Existing Peak Hour Level of Service
Delays given in seconds per vehicle
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
SE 304th St / 124th Ave SE RAB B 14.5 A 8.5
SE 302nd Pl / 124th Ave SE Stop C 22.6 B 14.2
RAB: Roundabout
1 Signalized Intersections - Level of Service Stop Controlled Intersections – Level of Service
Control Delay per Control Delay per
Level of Service Vehicle (sec) Level of Service Vehicle (sec)
A 10 A 10
B 10 and 20 B 10 and 15
C 20 and 35 C 15 and 25
D 35 and 55 D 25 and 35
E 55 and 80 E 35 and 50
F 80 F 50
Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
8
City Level of Service Standards2: The City has an adopted level of service standard for
roundabout and stop-controlled intersections as LOS D.
SE 304th St / 124th Ave SE: is shown to meet City LOS standards experiencing highest
delays in the AM peak hour with service levels of LOS B (14.5 seconds).
SE 302nd Pl / 124th Ave SE: is shown to meet City LOS standards experiencing highest
delays in the AM peak hour with service levels of LOS C (22.6 seconds). The presence of
local schools in the area influence higher traffic volumes entering the study intersections in
the AM peak period.
3.5 Accident History
A list of the recorded accident history from 2015 through May 16 of 2018 for the study
intersection was requested to the City of Auburn. A summary of the accident types is
provided in the table below.
Table 2: Accident History – SE 304th St / 124th Avenue SE
SE 304th St/124th Avenue SE 2015 2016 2017 2018
(Thru May 16)
Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 1 3 1 0
Right Angle 0 0 1 0
Total per Year 1 3 1 0
As show in Table 2, approximately 1 to 3 accidents have occurred per given year for the
intersection of SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE. The most common occurrence listed
was in the form of “Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle” which is generally represented by single-
vehicle collisions with the center island at roundabout controlled intersections. The
relatively low amount of recorded accidents does not pose a safety concern at this time.
3.6 Non-Motorist Traffic
Pedestrian and bicycle activity was obtained from the turning movement field counts
performed in February of 2018. At the primary intersection of SE 304th Street/124th
Avenue SE a total of 5 pedestrian crossings and 2 bicycles were identified entering the
intersection for the PM peak hour (AM peak hour had only 1 bicycle noted and no
pedestrians). Both minor arterials (SE 304th St & 124th Ave SE) are planned to
accommodate bicycle lanes in the future.
2 City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2015
9
Site development consists of frontage improvements which include sidewalks along the
property boundaries along with internal sidewalk connections to enhance overall mobility.
Elementary aged children residing on the north side of SE 304th Street will be served by
the Arthur Jacobsen Elementary School with an option for local busing. The nearest bus
stop would be provided at the intersection of SE 302nd Pl/124th Street E. Residents
located on the south side of SE 304th Street are located in the Walk Boundary for the
nearby Lea Hill Elementary School. Figure 4 on the following page identifies available
walking paths in the vicinity.
Figure 4: School Walking Paths
As indicated by the dashed blue, a complete sidewalk network (on at least one side of the
roadway) is available on 127th Way SE. Including frontage improvements along SE 304th
Street on the subject site, students would have to traverse an approximate 450-foot
graveled shouldered segment to connect to the existing sidewalk. Similarly, an
approximate 350-foot segment south of the project property on the east side of 124th
Avenue SE currently offers only a paved shoulder with no sidewalk treatment. However,
along this segment, the project proposes the installation of a barrier curb for improved
safety conditions. Furthermore, City improvement project described in Section 3.3
Roadway Improvements, identifies the Lea Hill Safe Routes to Schools (N-11) to complete
missing sidewalks along 124th Avenue SE and would subsequently provide a safe walking
route to Lea Hill Elementary.
10
3.7 Transit Service
A review of the King County Metro Transit system map indicates that the nearest transit
service is provided via Route 164 – Green River College to Kent Station with stops at the
nearby intersection of SE 304th Way/124th Avenue SE. Service is provided from
approximately 5:50 AM to 11:15 PM with 30-minute headways during peak travel times.
Give the proximity to transit with connections to Kent Station, some transit use can be
anticipated by project residents.
3.8 Sight Distance
Access to the site is proposed via one new north/south driveway from SE 304th Place and
via extension of the existing SE 302nd Place from 124th Avenue SE (See Figure 2). Sight
distance requirements were obtained from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for left- and right-turn movements. Based
on the 45 mph design speed of SE 304th Place (minor arterial classification), 500 feet and
430 feet of unobstructed sight lines are needed for left- and right-turn movements,
respectively. In addition, sight lines at 125th Ct SE would require 335 feet when looking
east along SE 302nd Place for the 30 mph design speed (local street).
Based on preliminary examinations of the approximate driveway location on SE 304th St,
clear sight lines are available to the west allowing visibility to the roundabout (~500 feet).
To the east, sight lines are approximately 400 feet but are anticipated to be met
subsequent to site development which includes half street improvements and vegetation
clearance. Moreover, sight lines would appear to be met along SE 302nd Place at 125th
Ct SE.
If required by the City, a stop-control way be warranted at the new internal intersection of
SE 302nd Place/126th Ave SE for the south leg. A sketch below illustrates a sight
distance triangle with the driver’s decision point based on a 30 mph design speed for an
uncontrolled intersection.
As shown, the corner lots may
pose as a sight obstruction.
However, given the lengths of
the roadway segments,
approaching vehicles may be
traveling with speeds lower than
30 mph thereby reducing the
decision point setback needed.
A stop-control driver setback of
14.5 feet would allow for clear
visibility in either direction.
11
4. FORECAST TRAFFIC DEMAND AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation is defined as the number of vehicle movements that enter or exit a site
during a designated time period such as a specific peak hour or an entire day. The
magnitude of the anticipated vehicle trip generation for the Alicia Glenn project is derived
from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication Trip Generation, 10th Edition.
The designated land use is defined as Single-Family Detached Housing (LUC 210) with
“dwelling units” as the independent variable. Table 3 below summarizes the estimated
project trip generation. Trip generation has been separated for the north and south
portions of the site development for distribution purposes. Included are the average
weekday daily volumes (AWDT) and the AM and PM peak hour periods. Refer to the
appendix for trip generation output sheets.
Table 3: Project Trip Generation
Development
Area
Dwelling
Units AWDT AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
North Portion 31 354 6 19 25 20 12 32
South Portion 25 290 5 15 20 16 10 26
Total 56 610 11 34 45 36 22 58
4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution describes the process by which project generated trips are dispersed on
the street network surrounding the site. The trips generated by the project are expected to
follow the general trip pattern as shown in Figure 5A for the AM peak hour and Figure 5B
for the PM peak hour. Trip distribution has been separated based on the north and south
portions of site development. Percentages from Figures 5A & 5B are generally based on
observations from existing field count data.
4.3 Future Peak Hour Volumes
A 3-year horizon of 2023 was used for future traffic delay analysis. Forecast 2023
background traffic volumes were derived by applying a 3 percent compound annual growth
rate to the baseline volumes shown in Figure 3. In addition, pipeline volumes from the
nearby ARCO commercial project were included for future conditions and are illustrated in
Figure 6. Forecast 2023 peak hour background volumes (no project traffic) are shown in
Figure 7. Figure 8 presents forecast 2023 peak hour volumes with the addition of project
traffic. This figure also takes into account a redistribution of peak hour volumes generated
from a neighboring residential development that will be sharing accesses and an internal
roadway network with the proposed development. This redistribution is illustrated in
Figure A, provided the appendix.
12
13
14
15
16
17
4.4 Forecast Level of Service
Level of service analyses were made of the future peak hour volumes without project
related trips (background) and with project trips added to the key roadways and
intersection under the 2023 horizon year. As mentioned, the Synchro 10 analysis program
was to determine LOS forecasts. Delays for the study intersections and project entrance
under future conditions are outlined below in Table 4.
Table 4: Forecast 2023 Peak Hour Level of Service
Delays given in seconds per vehicle
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Background With Project Background With Project
Intersection Control LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
SE 304th St / 124th Ave SE RAB C 20.3 C 21.5 A 10.0 B 10.4
SE 302nd Pl / 124th Ave SE Stop D 26.3 D 25.0 C 15.3 B 14.3
SE 304th St / Project Access Stop -- -- B 14.8 -- -- C 15.3
RAB: Roundabout
SE 304th St / 124th Ave SE: is shown to meet service level standards for the AM peak
hour at LOS C without (20.3 seconds) and with (21.5 seconds) project. The delays are
primarily influenced by school-related traffic. Disproportionate volumes are observed
primarily in a one-hour window. The PM peak hour is shown to operate with acceptable
level of service with project at LOS B (10.4 seconds).
SE 302nd Pl /124th Ave SE: is shown to operate at LOS D or better with project. Delays
with project are shown to result in a mild decrease in average delay due to the increase in
right-turn movements from SE 302nd Place to northbound 124th Avenue SE in addition to
a minor redistribution of existing traffic as a result of the subsequent proposed connection
to SE 304th Street.
SE 304th St / Project Access: is shown to operate with acceptable services levels of LOS
B (14.8 seconds) and LOS C (15.3 seconds) for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
4.5 Left Turn Warrant
Left turn lanes are a means of providing necessary storage space for left turning vehicles
at intersections. For a two-lane or four-lane arterial with no left turn storage, delays are
often created by vehicles waiting to complete the desired left turn movement. These
turning vehicles typically block the heavier through movement, thereby causing some
disruption to traffic flow and subsequent congestion. For this impact study, procedures
1818
described by WSDOT Design Manual (Figure 1310-7a) were used to ascertain storage
requirements on 124th Avenue SE at SE 302nd Place and on SE 304th Street at the
project entrance. Based on the criteria set forth from the design manual, a left turn lane
would not be warranted at either location. Calculations used the higher volumes from the
intersection of SE 302nd Place/124th Avenue SE to determine left turn storage needs.
Refer to the appendix for left turn warrant nomograph.
5. SUMMARY
The Alicia Glenn plat proposes to develop a 56-lot single-family subdivision in the city of
Auburn. The subject site is situated on approximately 14.68 acres (parcels 0421059044;
0921059079; 0921059075; 0921059074) located on the north and south side of SE 304th
Street. As shown in the provided site plan (Figure 2) one of the three existing houses
onsite will remain for a net increase of 53 new dwelling units. Access to the site will be
provided via one new north/south driveway from SE 304th Street and one extension of SE
302nd Place. Sight distance appears to be acceptable at the SE 304th Street access with
clearing or maintaining vegetation. Project trip generation is estimated with 45 new AM
peak hour trips (11 inbound / 34 outbound) and 58 new PM peak hour trips (36 inbound /
22 outbound). Calculations were conservatively based on the total 56 units.
Existing delays at the study intersections are summarized in Table 1 and are shown to
operate with acceptable services levels of up to LOS C. Forecast 2023 peak hour delays
are summarized in Table 4. Assuming project buildout and a three-year horizon of 2023,
intersection delays at SE 304th Street/124th Avenue SE are projected to operate at LOS D
or better without or with project traffic for the AM peak hour. The surrounding area
supports a significant amount of school-related traffic thereby resulting in higher forecast
delays in the AM peak hour. However, the City standard of the PM peak hour operations
are anticipated to operate satisfactorily at LOS B without or with project. Similarly, the
access intersections are shown to operate with service levels up to LOS C for the AM and
PM peak hours. Left turn lanes would not be warranted based on forecast PM peak hour
volumes at either access point.
Based on the findings of the report the recommended mitigation for the site is as follows:
1.Pay Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) required by the City of Auburn which are calculated
and collected by the City at the time of building permit issuance.
2.A final survey may be required by the City to determine appropriate control
measures at the intersection of SE 302nd Place/126th Avenue E.
No other mitigation is identified at this time.
19
ALICIA GLENN
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX
20
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The following are excerpts from the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation
Research Board Special Report 209.
Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions
within a traffic stream. Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed
and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience.
Six LOS are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available.
Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating
conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating
conditions and the driver’s perception of those conditions.
Level-of-Service definitions
The following definitions generally define the various levels of service for arterials.
Level of service A represents primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds,
usually about 90 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Vehicles are
seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delay at signalized
intersections is minimal.
Level of service B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds,
usually about 70 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability to
maneuver in the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome.
Level of service C represents stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change
lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues,
adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of
about 50 percent of the average free-flow speed for the arterial classification.
Level of service D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause
substantial increases in approach delay and hence decreases in arterial speed. LOS D
may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or
some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free-flow
speed.
Level of service E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of one-
third the free-flow speed or less. Such operations are caused by some combination of
adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical
intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
21
Level of service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds, from less than one-
third to one-quarter of the free-flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical
signalized locations, with long delays and extensive queuing.
These definitions are general and conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to
uninterrupted flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary widely in terms of
both the user's perception of service quality and the operational variables used to describe
them.
For each type of facility, levels of service are defined based on one or more operational
parameters that best describe operating quality for the subject facility type. While the
concept of level of service attempts to address a wide range of operating conditions,
limitations on data collection and availability make it impractical to treat the full range of
operational parameters for every type of facility. The parameters selected to define levels
of service for each facility type are called "measures of effectiveness" or "MOE's", and
represent available measures that best describe the quality of operation on the subject
facility type.
Each level of service represents a range of conditions, as defined by a range in the
parameters given. Thus, a level of service is not a discrete condition, but rather a range of
conditions for which boundaries are established.
22
Project Name: Alicia Glenn
Intersection: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl Date of Count:
Jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project Number:
HV R T L HV R T L HV R T L HV R T L Total
7:00 AM 309610000118900000187
7:15 AM 209800004219600000199
7:30 AM 101580000318214000000303
7:45 AM 10123005012214700000278
8:00 AM 0080101023410800000196
8:15 AM 208000101516400000147
8:30 AM 0013500302207400000214
8:45 AM 2084002034197000001879:00
11085420120163712815000001,711
7:15 AM to 8:15 AM Total
4045910601025949100000976
7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 0.2 199
303
278
460 497 196
459 1
6
16
7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 10 26
Intersection PHF:0.81
10
491 9 97 0 90 0
98 4 97 0
469 500 158 3 142 0
123 6 149 0
98 4 97 0 81 3 112 0
158 3 142 0 80 2 65 0
123 6 149 0 135 5 74 0
81 3 112 0 84 5 98 0
Heath & Associates, Inc.
2214 Tacoma Road
Puyallup, WA 98371
124th Ave SE
957
4/3/2019
4111
Peak Hour
Peak Total
Heavy Veh.
PHF
Total
Soutbound Westbound Northbound
969
124th Ave SE
1.3% 0.0% 4.5%
0.73 0.67 0.84
SE 302nd Pl
EastboundTime
Period 124th Ave SE SE 302nd Pl 124th Ave SE
23
Project Name: Alicia Glenn
Intersection: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl Date of Count:
Jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project Number:
HV R T L HV R T L HV R T L HV R T L Total
4:00 PM 207410001149000000170
4:15 PM 207710100237700000159
4:30 PM 009230100007800000174
4:45 PM 206810102149800000174
5:00 PM 0012100000108700000208
5:15 PM 107520001209400000172
5:30 PM 208510101016900000158
5:45 PM 2098101011181000001836:00
110690100506813674000001,398
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Total
30356602034435700000728
4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 0.2 174
174
208
362 359 172
356 6
2
5
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 315
Intersection PHF:0.88
10
357 4 75 1 94 0
78 1 80 0
359 361 95 1 78 0
69 3 102 0
95 1 78 0 121 0 87 0
69 3 102 0 77 1 94 0
121 0 87 0 86 2 70 0
77 1 94 0 99 2 82 0
EastboundTime
Period 124th Ave SE SE 302nd Pl 124th Ave SE
720
124th Ave SE
1.6% 0.0% 1.2%
0.75 0.42 0.88
SE 302nd Pl
Heath & Associates, Inc.
2214 Tacoma Road
Puyallup, WA 98371
124th Ave SE
721
4/3/2019
4111
Peak Hour
Peak Total
Heavy Veh.
PHF
Total
Soutbound Westbound Northbound
24
25
26
5/16/2018 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=210&ivlabel=UNITS210&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=57&edition=385&locationCode=General Ur…
https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=210&ivlabel=UNITS210&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=57&edition=385&locationCode=General%20Urban/Suburban&countedM
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 159
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 264
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
9.44 4.81 - 19.39 2.10
Data Plot and Equation
T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average RateFitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.71 R²= 0.95
Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,0000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
57
620
27
5/16/2018 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=210&ivlabel=UNITS210&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=57&edition=385&locationCode=General Urb…
https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=210&ivlabel=UNITS210&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=57&edition=385&locationCode=General%20Urban/Suburban&countedMo
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 173
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 219
Directional Distribution: 25% entering, 75% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.74 0.33 - 2.27 0.27
Data Plot and Equation
T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average RateFitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.71(X) + 4.80 R²= 0.89
Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,0000
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
57
45
28
5/16/2018 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=210&ivlabel=UNITS210&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=57&edition=385&locationCode=General Urb…
https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=210&ivlabel=UNITS210&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=57&edition=385&locationCode=General%20Urban/Suburban&countedMo
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 190
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 242
Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.99 0.44 - 2.98 0.31
Data Plot and Equation
T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average RateFitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.96 Ln(X) + 0.20 R²= 0.92
Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,0000
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
57
59
29
Heath & Associates, Inc
Alicia Glenn TIA, 1/8/2020
Annual Growth Rate: 3 %
# of Years to Horizon: 3
1. 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl
SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Baseline 2020 0 520 1 6 0 11 10 534 0 0 0 0
Project Trips + Figure A022601‐240000
Pipeline 060000060000
Without 0 574 1 7 0 12 11 590 0 0 0 0
With 0 576 3 13 0 13 9 594 0 0 0 0
2. SE 304th St & 124th Ave SE
SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Baseline 2020 138 345 48 88 177 75 34 245 92 122 105 210
Project Trips + Figure A210278200030
Pipeline 00661200000120
Without 151 377 58 102 205 82 37 268 101 133 127 229
With 153 378 58 104 212 90 39 268 101 133 130 229
3. SE 304th St & Access
SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Baseline 2020 0000340000001870
Project Trips + Figure A7053‐2130124‐23
Pipeline 00001800000180
Without 0000390000002220
With 70533881301242203
2023
AM Peak Hour Forecast Intersection Volumes
30
Heath & Associates, Inc
Alicia Glenn TIA, 1/8/2020
Annual Growth Rate: 3 %
# of Years to Horizon: 3
1. 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl
SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Baseline 2020 0 402 620343600000
Project Trips + Figure A056401330000
Pipeline 050000050000
Without 0 444 720343980000
With 0 449 13 60474010000
2. SE 304th St & 124th Ave SE
SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Baseline 2020 93 239 73 68 137 40 75 222 66 139 174 74
Project Trips + Figure A114254720082
Pipeline 00551000000100
Without 102 261 85 79 160 44 82 243 72 152 200 81
With 103 262 89 81 165 48 89 245 72 152 208 83
3. SE 304th St & Access
SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Baseline 2020 0000245000003220
Project Trips + Figure A4034‐1320813‐17
Pipeline 00001500000150
Without 0000283000003670
With 40342823208133667
PM Peak Hour Forecast Intersection Volumes
2023
31
HCM 6th Roundabout Existing AM Peak Hour
11: 124th Ave SE & SE 304th St 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.5
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1111
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 502 390 427 611
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 517 405 439 618
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 546 647 429 409
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 481 221 634 643
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0000
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.4 14.7 10.6 15.5
Approach LOS C B B C
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 517 405 439 618
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 791 713 891 909
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.972 0.963 0.972 0.989
Flow Entry, veh/h 502 390 427 611
Cap Entry, veh/h 768 687 866 899
V/C Ratio 0.654 0.568 0.493 0.680
Control Delay, s/veh 16.4 14.7 10.6 15.5
LOS C B B C
95th %tile Queue, veh 5436
32
HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour
3: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 6 534 10 1 520
Future Vol, veh/h 11 6 534 10 1 520
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 15511
Mvmt Flow 14 7 659 12 1 642
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1309 665 0 0 671 0
Stage 1 665 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.11 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.209 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 177 462 - - 924 -
Stage 1 513 -----
Stage 2 525 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 177 462 - - 924 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 177 -----
Stage 1 513 -----
Stage 2 524 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 0 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 226 924 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.093 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 22.6 8.9 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0 -
33
HCM 6th Roundabout Existing PM Peak Hour
11: 124th Ave SE & SE 304th St 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1111
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 425 270 399 445
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 430 273 403 450
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 391 402 356 271
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 330 357 465 404
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0000
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.6 7.1 8.6 8.2
Approach LOS AAAA
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 430 273 403 450
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 926 916 960 1047
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.991 0.989 0.990
Flow Entry, veh/h 425 270 399 445
Cap Entry, veh/h 915 907 949 1036
V/C Ratio 0.464 0.298 0.420 0.430
Control Delay, s/veh 9.6 7.1 8.6 8.2
LOS AAAA
95th %tile Queue, veh 2122
34
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM Peak Hour
3: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 2 360 4 6 402
Future Vol, veh/h 3 2 360 4 6 402
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11122
Mvmt Flow 3 2 409 5 7 457
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 883 412 0 0 414 0
Stage 1 412 -----
Stage 2 471 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 318 642 - - 1145 -
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 630 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 315 642 - - 1145 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 315 -----
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 625 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.2 0 0.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 396 1145 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.014 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.2 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
35
HCM 6th Roundabout Forecast 2023 AM Peak Hour Without Project
11: 124th Ave SE & SE 304th St 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 20.3
Intersection LOS C
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1111
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 562 447 467 674
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 579 465 480 681
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 603 707 489 462
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 540 262 693 710
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0000
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.9 20.7 13.0 22.1
Approach LOS C C B C
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 579 465 480 681
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 746 671 838 861
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.970 0.960 0.972 0.989
Flow Entry, veh/h 562 447 467 674
Cap Entry, veh/h 724 644 815 852
V/C Ratio 0.776 0.693 0.573 0.791
Control Delay, s/veh 23.9 20.7 13.0 22.1
LOS C C B C
95th %tile Queue, veh 8648
36
HCM 6th TWSC Forecast 2023 AM Peak Hour Without Project
3: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 7 590 11 1 574
Future Vol, veh/h 12 7 590 11 1 574
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 15511
Mvmt Flow 15 9 728 14 1 709
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1446 735 0 0 742 0
Stage 1 735 -----
Stage 2 711 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.11 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.209 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 146 421 - - 870 -
Stage 1 476 -----
Stage 2 489 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 146 421 - - 870 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 146 -----
Stage 1 476 -----
Stage 2 488 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 26.3 0 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 192 870 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.122 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 26.3 9.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - D A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 -
37
HCM 6th Roundabout Forecast 2023 PM Peak Hour Without Project
11: 124th Ave SE & SE 304th St 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.0
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1111
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 476 311 436 492
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 481 314 441 497
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 432 440 406 306
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 371 407 507 448
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0000
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.5 8.2 10.1 9.5
Approach LOS BABA
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 481 314 441 497
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 888 881 912 1010
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.991 0.989 0.990
Flow Entry, veh/h 476 311 436 492
Cap Entry, veh/h 879 873 902 1000
V/C Ratio 0.542 0.356 0.484 0.492
Control Delay, s/veh 11.5 8.2 10.1 9.5
LOS BABA
95th %tile Queue, veh 3233
38
HCM 6th TWSC Forecast 2023 PM Peak Hour Without Project
3: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 2 398 4 7 444
Future Vol, veh/h 3 2 398 4 7 444
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11122
Mvmt Flow 3 2 452 5 8 505
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 976 455 0 0 457 0
Stage 1 455 -----
Stage 2 521 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 280 607 - - 1104 -
Stage 1 641 -----
Stage 2 598 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 277 607 - - 1104 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 277 -----
Stage 1 641 -----
Stage 2 592 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.3 0 0.1
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 354 1104 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.016 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
39
HCM 6th Roundabout Forecast 2023 AM Peak Hour With Project
11: 124th Ave SE & SE 304th St 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 21.5
Intersection LOS C
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1111
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 565 467 469 677
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 582 486 482 684
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 613 707 492 480
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 551 267 703 713
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0000
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 22.5 13.2 23.8
Approach LOS C C B C
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 582 486 482 684
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 738 671 835 846
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.970 0.961 0.973 0.989
Flow Entry, veh/h 565 467 469 677
Cap Entry, veh/h 716 645 812 837
V/C Ratio 0.788 0.724 0.577 0.809
Control Delay, s/veh 25.0 22.5 13.2 23.8
LOS C C B C
95th %tile Queue, veh 8649
40
HCM 6th TWSC Forecast 2023 AM Peak Hour With Project
3: Project Access & SE 304th St 01/08/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 220 4 1 388 3 12 03507
Future Vol, veh/h 3 220 4 1 388 3 12 03507
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33444111111
Mvmt Flow 3 253 5 1 446 3 14 03608
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 449 0 0 258 0 0 716 713 256 713 714 448
Stage 1 ------262262-450450-
Stage 2 ------454451-263264-
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.14 - - 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.236 - - 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1106 - - 1295 - - 347 358 785 348 358 613
Stage 1 ------745693-590573-
Stage 2 ------588573-744692-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1106 - - 1295 - - 341 357 785 346 357 613
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------341357-346357-
Stage 1 ------743691-588572-
Stage 2 ------580572-739690-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 14.8 13
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)384 1106 - - 1295 - - 464
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.003 - - 0.001 - - 0.03
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.8 8.3 0 - 7.8 0 - 13
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
41
HCM 6th TWSC Forecast 2023 AM Peak Hour With Project
16: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl 01/08/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 13 594 9 3 576
Future Vol, veh/h 13 13 594 9 3 576
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 15511
Mvmt Flow 16 16 733 11 4 711
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1458 739 0 0 744 0
Stage 1 739 -----
Stage 2 719 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.11 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.209 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 143 419 - - 868 -
Stage 1 474 -----
Stage 2 484 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 142 419 - - 868 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 142 -----
Stage 1 474 -----
Stage 2 480 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25 0 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 212 868 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.151 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 25 9.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - D A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0 -
42
HCM 6th Roundabout Forecast 2023 PM Peak Hour With Project
11: 124th Ave SE & SE 304th St 01/07/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.4
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1111
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 487 323 446 499
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 492 327 451 504
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 444 444 422 317
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 377 429 514 454
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0000
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 8.5 10.6 9.8
Approach LOS BABA
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 492 327 451 504
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 877 877 897 999
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.988 0.990 0.990
Flow Entry, veh/h 487 323 446 499
Cap Entry, veh/h 868 867 888 989
V/C Ratio 0.561 0.373 0.503 0.505
Control Delay, s/veh 12.1 8.5 10.6 9.8
LOS BABA
95th %tile Queue, veh 4233
43
HCM 6th TWSC Forecast 2023 PM Peak Hour With Project
3: Project Access & SE 304th St 01/08/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 366 13 3 282 4802304
Future Vol, veh/h 7 366 13 3 282 4802304
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 8 402 14 3 310 4902304
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 314 0 0 416 0 0 745 745 409 744 750 312
Stage 1 ------425425-318318-
Stage 2 ------320320-426432-
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - 4.11 - - 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - 2.209 - - 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1252 - - 1148 - - 331 344 645 332 341 731
Stage 1 ------609588-695655-
Stage 2 ------694654-608584-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1252 - - 1148 - - 326 340 645 328 337 731
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------326340-328337-
Stage 1 ------604583-689653-
Stage 2 ------688652-601579-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 15.3 12.6
HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)362 1252 - - 1148 - - 479
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.006 - - 0.003 - - 0.016
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.3 7.9 0 - 8.1 0 - 12.6
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0
44
HCM 6th TWSC Forecast 2023 PM Peak Hour With Project
16: 124th Ave SE & SE 302nd Pl 01/08/2020
04/09/2019 Baseline Synchro 10 Light Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 6 401 7 13 449
Future Vol, veh/h 4 6 401 7 13 449
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11122
Mvmt Flow 5 7 456 8 15 510
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1000 460 0 0 464 0
Stage 1 460 -----
Stage 2 540 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 271 603 - - 1097 -
Stage 1 638 -----
Stage 2 586 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 266 603 - - 1097 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 266 -----
Stage 1 638 -----
Stage 2 575 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.3 0 0.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)- - 400 1097 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.028 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.3 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
45
1.5
2023 PM Peak Hour Volumes with Project
SE 302nd Pl / 124th Ave SE
Total DHV: 870
LT %: 13/870 = 1.5%
Not Warranted
46
THE ALICIAS
SCHOOL WALKING ROUTES
Students from The Alicias subdivision will attend Arthur Jacobson Elementary School, Rainier Middle
School, and Auburn Mountainview High School.
Elementary School students will catch a bus on 124th Ave SE at SE 302nd Place. This location is about
500' north of the Round About at SE 304th St. and 1234th Ave. SE and will be accessed via concrete
sidewalk once the 304th frontage improvements are completed for the subdivision. Alternately they
could walk approximately 1.2 miles via sidewalk on SE 304th St. and 124th Ave. SE to a signalized cross
walk.
Middle School students will catch a bus on 127th Place SE just North of SE 304th St. This location will be
accessed via concrete sidewalk once the 304th frontage improvements are completed for the
subdivision. Alternately they could walk approximate .9 miles via concrete sidewalk and 8 foot curb
separated paved shoulder along SE 304th and 116th Ave. SE. This route has a signalized cross walk.
High School students will catch a bus on 127th Place SE just North of SE 304th St. This location will be
accessed via concrete sidewalk once the 304th frontage improvements are completed for the
subdivision. Alternately they could walk approximately 1.2 miles via sidewalk on SE 304th St. and 124th
Ave. SE to a signalized cross walk.
Additionally Lea Hill Elementary School on 124th Ave SE is 1,300 feet south of SE 304th St. and can be
accessed via concrete sidewalk and 8 foot paved shoulder. Hazelwood Elementary School on SE 304th
St. is 1,900 feet west of 124th Ave. SE and can be accessed via concrete sidewalk and 8 foot paved
shoulder and a signalized crosswalk.
There are two nearby Metro bus stops with turnouts on 124th Ave. SE, one 200 feet north of SE 304th
St. and one 200 feet south of SE 304th St., both accessed via concrete sidewalk.
THE ALICIAS
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A neighborhood meeting was held on may 3rd 2018 starting at 6:00 PM at the Hazelwood Community
Club located at 30400 124th Ave. SE
21 days prior to the meeting a notice a 4' x 8' banner with hand outs was installed and a notice of the
meeting with a layout of the subdivision was mailed to all neighbors within a 310' radius of the proposed
subdivision.
Eleven neighbors representing the neighborhoods to the North, Northeast and Southeast came to the
meeting which lasted about an hour and 20 minutes.
Copies of the Notice of Meeting, handouts, and sign in sheet are attached.
The biggest concerns came from the Alicia Glenn subdivision to the North. They were quite concerned
about the lack of on street parking in their neighborhood and that the proposed subdivision would add
to the problem. Their other big concern was that our original design did not include any recreation space
and they did not want any spillover use of their recreation area that the HOA pays to maintain (our new
design includes two recreation areas, one on the north and one on the south).
The representative of the neighborhood to the east of the north part of the proposed subdivision big
concern was drainage problems and that there were a wide variety of retaining walls on their west
property line, some in disrepair, and wanted us to be informed of this. I responded that our survey and
inspection of the site had made us fully aware of the problem and we had discovered several case where
roof and yard drainage were being directed to our site rather than to the conveyance system in their
street . I explained that our grading and drainage plan would take this into account and additional storm
water conveyance was already planned to intercept offsite flows.
Other concerns raised by all were traffic circulation, drainage flows, pedestrian access and loss of
habitat. My response was that we would adhere to City and State codes in our design.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
ALICIA SE, A PROPOSED 57 LOT SUBDIVISION
LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC I PO BOX 146 RENTON, WA 98057
425-228-9750
HAZELWOOD COMMUNITY CLUB
30400 124TH AVE SE
AUBURN WA 98092
MAY 3RD 2018 6:00 PM
THE INTENT OF THIS MEETING IS TO FACILITATE AN EARLY INFORMAL
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PROJECT DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORS
REGARDING THE PROJECT. WHILE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF AUBURN,
THIS MEETING IS NOT CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF AUBURN AND IS IN
ADDITION TO ANY FUTURE HEARINGS OR PUBLIC COMMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE UNDER CITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCESSES.
DOSS JEREMY+THAO T VAN
12419 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
COX TRAVIS+BONNI
30229 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
SHAW QUENTON+KRISTI
30228 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
ANDERSON CHARLES J+MEGAN
30311 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
ADHIKARI NILAV+PALLAVI KHAN
30303 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
SOHAL PROPERTIES LLC
30236 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
CABASAG MICHELLE N+ET AL
30304 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
SOHAL PROPERTIES LLC
30312 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
GETTYS STEVEN+MELANIE
30320 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
ALLEN JARED+HILLARY
30328 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
NAVA AGNES C+ALEJANDRO V
30336 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
KHAILOV IZAKHAR A+SURAYA AB
30344 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
REESE FRANCES J
12303 SE 304TH ST
Auburn WA 98092
BOWER LYNNETTE F+HAMEDI ABD
30515 124TH AVE SE
Auburn WA 98092
GILLETTE ROGER
30527 124TH AVE SE
Auburn WA 98092
JOHNSON DONALD W JR
30623 124TH AVE SE
Auburn WA 98092
JOHNSON KRIS
30619 124TH AVE SE
Auburn WA 98092
JOHNSON DONALD W
30631 124TH AVE SE
Auburn WA 98092
ABRIANI MATTHEW R
12683 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
JOHNSON PAUL F+JOAN T
12677 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
SILVA DOUGLAS J+SEVINA R
12671 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
JANSEN MARK+JULIE
12665 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
YORK ENTERPRISE-3 LLC
12661 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
BOTHELL JAMES+TAMARA
12659 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
DONOVAN DOUGLAS J+SARAH M
12652 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
REPP MICHAEL J+DIANE J
12656 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
ROCK DAVID JR+DAVID JR
12664 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
WONG WILLIAM WEBSTER
12670 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
MATTESON ALETA W
12676 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
BOWMAN PAUL F+SHARIE L
12682 SE 306TH CT
Auburn WA 98092
ENGMAN JOSEPH
30609 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
PALIN EDWIN R+KATHLEEN A
30603 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
RUTH DOUGLAS P+BRIANNA L PE
30515 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
HANISCH CRYSTAL L
30509 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
GILLESPIE TIMOTHY L+LAURIE
30507 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
RUIZ JAMES M
30501 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
NGUYEN LINH P
30433 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
KMIECHICK FREDERICK+ALICE A
30425 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
YASHCHUK PETER
30419 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
RALPH DAVID+RHONDA
12633 SE 304TH ST
Auburn WA 98092
HOKSBERGEN ALLEN D
12627 SE 304TH ST
Auburn WA 98092
KENT 25 LLC
825 5th Ave
Kirkland, WA 98033
________________________________________________________________
DOSS JEREMY+THAO T VAN
12419 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
SINGH BALWINDER
12417 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
BRODIE CARMELYN M
12415 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
LAM BRIAN M
12413 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
COX TRAVIS+BONNI
30229 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
KLAIR SUKHWINDER S
30221 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
KING JALENE+DARRELL+JOURNEY
30213 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
TRUONG DANIEL N+NGOC
30205 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
BLACKBURN JEREMY D+MARISSA
30204 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
KUMARI AMME+AVINASH AVINASH
30212 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
ERDMANN DENNIS B JR+SARAH K
30220 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
SHAW QUENTON+KRISTI
30228 125TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
TRINH TAI V+LOAN T NGUYEN
12404 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
CHAU TU
12412 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
JONES TIMOTHY P+ERIN
12420 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
DEEP JAI+JASMEEN KAUR
12428 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
ISHII-HUFFER RICHARD B+SHAN
Auburn WA 98092
12436 SE 302ND PL
LEKANOFF FREDERICK C
12504 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
KASIM ABBAS P+SAFIYA+TAMAL
12512 SE 302ND PL
Auburn WA 98092
BERRY G ALLAN+ANDREA L
30113 126TH CT SE 98092
Auburn WA 98092
FOREMAN ALAN L+RANDI R
30107 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
FORSBERG COREY & CORINNA
30103 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
LANDON PATRICE F+RENA
30104 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
MINTON DENNIS L JR+KRISTI M
30108 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
RONSER ANDREEVES R+JACQUEL
30112 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
SINGH NIRMAL+MANVEER+KAUR V
Auburn WA 98092
30037 127TH PL SE
MUGRIYEV SARVAR+DZHAMLIA MU
30105 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
HARRIS HEIDI N+MARTIN
30111 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
HOWARD VINCENT H
12620 SE 301ST S
Auburn WA 98092
SAUTER CANDY
30124 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
ROMERO FRANCINA
30118 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
KOCH ROBERT ARTHUR+JACKIE L
30119 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
ROBINSON MICHAEL G
12519 SE 301ST P
Auburn WA 98092
ZUCATI NICK & REBECCA
30123 126TH CT SE
Auburn WA 98092
SINCLAIR MICHAEL+LINDA
12525 SE 301ST P
Auburn WA 98092
LOMMEN LAYNE D+KRISTY J
12605 SE 301ST PL
Auburn WA 98092
ANDERSON DEAN H & MARIANNE
12611 SE 301ST PL
Auburn WA 98092
YMCA OF GREATER SEATTLE
12617 SE 301ST PL
Auburn WA 98092
CHANG KAI-TSUN+CHANDRADINAT
Auburn WA 98092
12623 SE 301ST PL
SAVAGE A EDWARD
12629 SE 301ST PL
Auburn WA 98092
JACKSON WILLIAM+XIAOLING LI
30209 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
CUNNINGHAM CORY RAYE
30215 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
WALLACE DAVID
30221 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
COMPAAN DEAN
30227 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
SCHEURMAN CARL D & MICHELLE
30233 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
MERTENS ROBERT+SHERI
30239 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
SINGH BALWINDER
30245 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
JEFFERY MICHAEL L
30303 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
PECK CHRISTIE BPECK CHRISTI
30311 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
SMITH GLENN P+ANNA R
30319 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
SHCHERBINA ALEKSEY+DINA
30325 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
GOLLIET JEFFREY W
30331 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
NELSON MARK G III+MICHELLE
30312 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
SINGH RAV
30306 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
FORSBERG RANDALL S+CHERIE J
30214 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
NEILSON MICHAEL K
Auburn WA 98092
30208 127TH PL SE
HISS JEFFREY M+GAYLA K
12713 SE 302ND ST
Auburn WA 98092
JENSEN BRAD+JANICE R O
12712 SE 302ND ST
Auburn WA 98092
BRYANT GLENDA R
12711 SE 301ST
DHOOT SUKHRAJ SINGH+RAVINDE
30110 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
CURTIS KENNETH S+SHERYL R
30116 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
AZIM MUHAMMAD
30122 127TH PL SE
Auburn WA 98092
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
Author: Camille A. Mather and Ed P. Arthur
Title of Report: Archaeological and Historic Property Assessment for the Alicias Phase I Plat,
Auburn, King County, Washington
Date of Report: September 14, 2018
County: King Section: 9 Township: 21N Range: 5E
Quad: Auburn Acres: 9
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes
Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No
Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No
TCP(s) found? Yes No
Replace a draft? Yes No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes No
Were Human Remains Found? Yes No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
1155 North State Street Suite 428 – Post Office Box 944 – Bellingham, Washington 98227-0944
61841 Ward Road – Bend, Oregon 97702
(360) 332.2600 – (541) 668.6121 – calderaarchaeology.com
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND H ISTORIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ALICIAS PHASE I PLAT,
AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
BY: CAMILLE A. MATHER AND ED P. ARTHUR
REPORT PREPARED FOR:
WAYNE JONES JR
LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 146
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057
CALDERA ARCHAEOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT 0618E
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NUMBER: APPLICATION PENDING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
Caldera Archaeology [2]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Management Summary
Caldera Archaeology conducted an archaeological and historic property assessment of the nine acre
Alicias Phase I Plat located in Auburn, Washington at the request of Lakeridge Development in order to
assist with the regulatory requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
implementing regulations of 36CFR800. The proponents intend to plat King County parcels
0921059074, 0921059075 and 0921059079. Wetland areas exists within portions of the proposed
development, and wetland filling and on-site mitigation will require obtaining a Department of the
Army Corps permit, application pending.
The archaeological investigation and assessment of the proposed Alicias Phase I Plat area of potential
effects (APE) included background research and the archaeological field investigation. Research
included review of archaeological site forms and historic property inventory files at the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and review of archival literature,
maps, and previously conducted archaeological surveys in the project vicinity. The field investigation
consisted of pedestrian survey, surface inspection, excavation of 30 shovel probes across the APE, and
documentation of the 1958 Lucy Stevens house located within parcel 0921059075.
The landscape within the parcels is hummocky with a southwest aspect. The majority of the area
currently contains pasture and/or residential gardens with forest growing along the south/southeast
property margins. The observed subsurface profiles closely matched the expected Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam soils mapped across the APE by Natural Resources Conservation Service. The typical
subsurface profile observed across the APE consisted of pale brown to dark brown gravelly sandy loam
to an average depth of 25 cm below the ground surface (cmbs), over light to dark yellowish brown
gravelly sandy loam to 60 cmbs, over mottled pale to very pale brown gravelly sandy loam to 75+ cmbs.
The Lucy Stevens residence located at 12511 SE 304th Street was built in 1958, meeting the minimum
age requirement to be considered as a historic property. The single family residence displays an
irregular plan shape with an attached garage that was added sometime after the original home
construction. The home is single story with a partial basement cellar and cinderblock foundation, with a
mix of horizontal clap board, brick and shingle as exterior cladding; shingles are at the entryway and a
brick façade skirting is along the front (north) portion of home. The roof is low hip with asphalt shingles
and an offset chimney. All original windows appear to be replaced with modern vinyl with a mix of
opening types. The home does not exhibit any qualities or associations that meet criteria for the
National Register of Historic Places. Caldera Archaeology recommends the Lucy Stevens residence is
not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
No potentially eligible historic properties, structures, archaeological sites, isolated artifacts, or cultural
materials were identified within the APE during the course of this survey. Caldera Archaeology
recommends the Corps assert a Determination of No Historic Properties Affected to the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), and any other consulting or
affected parties. It is recommended that Alicias Phase I Plat project proceed without further
archaeological oversight.
Caldera Archaeology [3]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Table of Contents
Management Summary .......................................................................................................................... 2
Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................. 5
Area of Potential Effects (APE) ............................................................................................................... 6
Geomorphologic Background ............................................................................................................... 10
Paleoenvironmental Background .......................................................................................................... 11
Cultural Background ............................................................................................................................. 11
Prehistoric Summary......................................................................................................................... 11
Ethnographic Summary .................................................................................................................... 13
Historic Summary ............................................................................................................................. 14
Archaeological Background ...................................................................................................................17
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Archaeological Investigations ....................................17
Research Design ................................................................................................................................... 18
Objectives and Practical Expectations ............................................................................................... 18
Background Research and Field Methods.......................................................................................... 18
Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 27
References Cited ................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix A: Shovel Probe Data ............................................................................................................ 33
Appendix B: Historic Property Inventory Form, Lucy Stevens House .................................................... 38
Caldera Archaeology [4]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
List of Figures
Figure 1. Auburn, WA USGS 7.5” quadrangle map indicating the location of the proposed Alicias Phase I
Plat APE. ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2. Wetland and contour map of southernmost parcel 0921059074 located within the Alicias
Phase I Plat; map provided courtesy of Lakeview Development. ............................................................ 8
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE indicating tax parcels, base map courtesy of
King County iMap (https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/imap/). ................................................................... 9
Figure 4. General Land Office map from 1867 illustrating the location of early settler’s claims, trails,
roads and villages in the vicinity of the current APE (BLM 2018). .......................................................... 15
Figure 5. 1936 historic aerial photograph illustrating land-use; the extent of the current APE is indicated
by the solid black line with current tax parcels indicated by red lines (King County iMaps).....................17
Figure 6. Aerial map of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE indicating the locations of excavated shovel probes
and structures over 50 years of age. ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the center of the APE, view to south. .. 21
Figure 8. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the center of the APE, view to east. .... 21
Figure 9. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the southwest corner of the APE, view to
north. .................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the southern edge of the APE, view to
southwest. ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 11. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the northeast corner of the APE, view
to south. ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 12. Subsurface profile exposed within Shovel Probe (SP) 1. ........................................................ 23
Figure 13. Subsurface profile exposed in SP31. ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 14. Subsurface profile exposed in SP27. ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 15. Overview photograph of the Lucy Stevens home, view to southwest. .................................. 25
Figure 16. Overview photograph of the east side of the Lucy Stevens home with the attached garage
addition on the southeast side of original home plan. ........................................................................... 26
Figure 17. Basement cellar entrance on west side of home. .................................................................. 26
Figure 18. Detached carport and shed built in 1970 located on the Lucy Stevens property, view to north.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE. ......17
Table 2. Previous Archaeological Investigations within One Mile of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE. ......... 18
Caldera Archaeology [5]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Archaeological and Historic Property Assessment for the Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn, King County,
Washington
Authors: Camille A. Mather and Ed P. Arthur
Date: September 14, 2018
Location: King County, Washington
USGS Quad: Auburn, Washington 7.5’ (1994)
Township, Range, Sec.: T. 21 N, R. 5 E, Sec. 9, Willamette Meridian
Regulatory Context
Caldera Archaeology completed the archaeological investigation and evaluation of the project APE at
the request of Lakeridge Development to partially fulfill compliance with the regulatory requirements
of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the implementing regulations of
36CFR800. The current survey and investigation was conducted to satisfy regulatory requirements for
obtaining an United States Department of the Army Corps (USACE) permit; application pending.
The USACE is the lead federal agency regarding Section 106 and must comply with the regulations of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA or Section 106). Section 106
mandates all federal agencies involved in an undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties
must consider the effects of those actions and consult with affected parties. A historic property is
defined at 36 CFR part 800.16(l)(1), as follows:
Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or
object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places
maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes
properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native
Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.
The USACE is obligated to identify if historic properties (36 CFR part 800.04) are present within the
APE. The background research, pedestrian survey, subsurface testing, report preparation, and historic
property inventory was a concerted effort to identify surface and/or buried historic properties within
the APE.
Properties that meet the criteria established by the NHPA are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) and must be reviewed following Section 106 mandates. Impacts to a Historic
Property must be avoided, minimized or mitigated. Properties that do not meet eligibility criterion
require no further management consideration. The criteria used to evaluate significant cultural
properties are (36 CFR 60.4):
Caldera Archaeology [6]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering
and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,
and:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
The Alicias Phase I Plat APE is located southeast of the intersection of 124th Avenue Southeast and
Southeast 304th Street, approximately three miles northeast of downtown Auburn, within tax parcels
0921059074, 0921059075 and 0921059079, King County, Washington. The nine acre plat is located in
the northwest ¼ of the northwest ¼ of the northeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 21 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian (Figure 1).
Wetland areas exist within portions of the proposed development and wetland filling and on-site
mitigation will be required (Figure 2). For the purposes of this investigation, the project APE includes
the entire nine acres of the proposed plat development area (Figure 3).
Caldera Archaeology [7]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 1. Auburn, WA USGS 7.5” quadrangle map indicating the location of the proposed
Alicias Phase I Plat APE.
Caldera Archaeology [8]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 2. Wetland and contour map of southernmost parcel 0921059074 located within the Alicias Phase I Plat; map provided courtesy of Lakeview Development.
Caldera Archaeology [9]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE indicating tax parcels, base map courtesy of King County iMap
(https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/imap/).
Caldera Archaeology [10]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Geomorphologic Background
The proposed Alicias Phase I Plat APE is located in the central portion of the Puget Sound Lowland, a
north-south trending structural and topographic depression lying between the Cascade Mountains to
the east and Olympic Mountains to the west. Pleistocene glacial and non-glacial deposits are mapped in
the vicinity of the project area (Palmer et al. 1994). The youngest glacial sediments were deposited
during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation as till and outwash.
The Fraser Glaciation was the last major phase of glacier growth in western Washington and was
marked by three separate stades occurring from 18,000 to 10,000 14C yr B.P. (Easterbrook 2010:190).
The oldest and most extensive phase of glacier growth was the Vashon Stade which began around
18,000 years ago. Continental ice flowed south into the Puget Lowland from source areas in Canada.
The ice sheet split into two lobes in the vicinity of the San Juan Islands and continued to flow south and
west. The Juan de Fuca lobe terminated in tidewater west of Vancouver Island and north of the Olympic
Peninsula while the Puget lobe continued south, reaching its maximum extent south of Olympia
approximately 140 miles south of the Canadian border (Easterbrook 2010). Both lobes began to retreat
rapidly between approximately 15,000 to 14,000 years ago, receding past the San Juan Islands before
approximately 13,000 years ago (Dethier et al. 1995).
As the Puget lobe receded northward a large freshwater lake formed behind the retre ating ice mass
(Thorson 1989, Waitt and Thorson 1983). The surface elevation of the proglacial lake, called Glacial
Lake Russell, was initially several hundred feet above current sea level. As the ancestral Cedar River
began downcutting through the accumulated glacial till and glacio-lacustrine sediments, it eventually
abandoned its southerly course through the Covington Channel and formed a new, northerly trending,
and lower course to the Duwamish Valley (Mullineaux 1970).
Collapse of the ice-sheet across the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca and Admiralty Inlet at the start of the
Everson Interstade allowed sea water to enter ice-free areas that were below relative paleo-sea levels.
The ice collapse across Admiralty Inlet that marks the start of the Everson Interstade appears to have
occurred before 13,650±350 14C yr B.P. (Dethier et al. 1995). Marine water inundated the trough-like
embayments formerly occupied by Glacial Lake Russell. The Green-White River valley, and what is now
Lake Washington, became a long, steep-sided marine fjord that has been termed the Duwamish
Embayment (Mullineaux 1970; Dragovich et al. 1994). During the mid-Holocene, the Duwamish
Embayment south of the APE filled with sediment from the Osceola Mudflow, a massive lahar that
swept down from the northeast face of Mount Rainier around 5,700 years ago and covered portions of
the Enumclaw Plateau (Dragovich et al. 1994).
The surficial geology within the project area consists of compact glacially transported and deposited
Vashon ablation and lodgement till deposited by the Puget lobe, which mantles large upland areas in
the project vicinity (Mullineaux 1965). The till generally forms an undulating surface a few meters to a
few tens of meters thick and consists primarily of non-sorted sand, silt clay, and gravel. The till was
deposited over previously deposited Pleistocene sediments. The till is generally compact as the result of
Caldera Archaeology [11]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
ice 1000 m thick from the overriding glacier (Mullineaux 1965). Soils within the project vicinity have
been mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes (Snyder et al. 1973).
Alderwood soils are typically found on uplands and terraces and consist of gravelly sandy loam that is
generally between 30 and 70 inches deep over well consolidated glacial till (Snyder et al. 1973). The
typical profile consists of a surface layer of very dark brown gravelly sandy loam over a subsoil of dark
brown to dark yellowish brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of 30 cm (12 in.), over grayish brown
gravelly sandy loam with light olive brown mottling to 69 cm (27 in.), overlying a substratum of grayish
brown till with light olive brown and yellowish brown mottling to a depth of 152 cm (60 in.) (Snyder et
al. 1973).
Paleoenvironmental Background
Pollen data recovered from sediment cores in lakes and wetlands throughout the Puget Sound exhibit
marked shifts in the composition and distribution of regional vegetation since the end of the
Pleistocene (Whitlock 1992). Retreat of the Puget and Juan de Fuca lobes left a large volume o f sand
and gravels that was rapidly colonized by lodgepole pine, the major tree species between
approximately 14,000 to 12,000 years ago (Whitlock 1992). Between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago
lodgepole pine was joined by Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and red alder forming a more
closed forest environment. As the climate continued to warm during the early Holocene, periods of
summer drought intensified and a higher frequency of fires appears to have increased the ranges of
prairies in the Puget Lowland. Forests throughout the Puget Trough contained abundant Douglas fir,
red alder, and bracken fern between approximately 10,000 and 8,000-6,000 years ago (Whitlock 1992).
After approximately 6,000 years ago temperatures lowered and precipitation increased. Pollen data
suggests that forest communities very similar to those of the historic period have probably been
present since the mid-Holocene (~ 5,000 yr B.P.) with the widespread appearance of cedar and an
increase in Sitka spruce and western hemlock (Whitlock 1992).
Cultural Background
Prehistoric Summary
Presently, the Paleoindian period is the earliest well established cultural period in North America. This
period is associated with distinctive fluted projectile points, commonly called Clovis points. Paleoindian
period materials are somewhat rare in the Northwest, especially west of the Coast and Cascade Ranges
(Ames and Maschner 1999). Several isolated Clovis points have been found in western Washington. The
closest documented discovery occurred southeast of Renton (Meltzer and Dunnell 1983).
A late-Pleistocene occupation containing projectile points fragments that are morphologically
consistent with Paleoindian period artifacts has been identified at the confluence of Bear Creek and the
Sammamish River in Redmond. The site was identified to contain a peat paleosol underlying 1.5 m of
sterile alluvium sand in the Bear Creek floodplain yielding dates 8000-10,000 years old, with a deeper
assemblage of stone artifacts dating to the Late Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Several radiocarbon
dates from macroscopic charcoal fragments recovered from the Late Pleistocene-Holocene
Caldera Archaeology [12]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
archaeological layer dated between 12,670-10,000 B.P. (Kopperl 2016). Tools in the assemblage
include bifaces/knives, scrapers, retouched flakes, pointed tools, denticulates, scaled pieces, used
flakes, and edge-modified cobbles, as well as one base of a square-stemmed projectile point of the
Western Stemmed Tradition (WST) and two additional fragments also likely WST points (Kopperl
2016). The artifact assemblage from the early intact deposits at Bear Creek predates Olcott, (Kopperl
2016:24).
Paleoindian groups are believed to have been highly mobile hunter-gathers whose economy focused on
hunting megafauna, such as mammoth, mastodons and bison that became extinct soon after the end
of the last glaciation. In western Washington, the regional archaeological manifestation of early to mid-
Holocene populations has been termed the Olcott Phase (Kidd 1964). The Olcott Phase is characterized
by sites that are generally in upland settings containing a distinctive lithic artifact assemblage
dominated by scrapers, cobble tools, and stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points (Matson and
Coupland 1995; Nelson 1990). Olcott artifact assemblages are very similar to those within other sites
from the same time period (between approximately 9000 B.P. and 4500 B.P.) along the Northwest
Coast, which have been assigned to the Old Cordilleran Tradition (Butler 1961; Carlson and Dalla Bona
1996).
The Olcott artifact assemblages are usually interpreted as evidence of an early, highly mobile hunting
and gathering adaptation. Indisputable radiocarbon dates from Olcott components are rare; age
estimates of Olcott sites have generally been inferred from the similarity of the assemblages to dated
components from British Columbia sites (Carlson and Dalla Bona 1996). Thermoluminescence dating of
fire-modified rock from three Olcott Phase sites near Granite Falls has produced dates ranging between
approximately 9690 and 7130 years ago: 45SN303, Locus D – approximately 9690 to 7810 years ago;
45SN28 – approximately 8520 to 7660 years ago; 45SN303, Locus B – approximately 8390 to 7130 years
ago (Chatters et al. 2011:242); and 45SN417 – approximately 9314 to 7884 years ago ([7300±430 B.C.
and 5870±430 B.C.] Baldwin and Chambers 2014:32).
The period between approximately 9,000 B.P. and 4,000 B.P. marks an emergence of economies
centered on the utilization of resources from a broadening range of environments (Matson and
Coupland 1995). By the end of this period, an increasing reliance on marine and riverine resources
becomes apparent.
Full-scale development of marine-oriented cultures, essentially identical to those described in the
ethnographic record, are apparent after approximately 2,500 B.P. (Ames and Maschner 1999). A
change to a semi-sedentary settlement pattern focused on movement between a central village and
dispersed highly specialized seasonal camps appears to have occurred by approximately 2,500 B.P. The
period between approximately 2,500 B.P. and 250 B.P. is marked by an increasingly sophisticated use
of storage technology and facilities, population increase and marked seasonal aggregation, and the
emergence of ranked societies (Matson and Coupland 1995; Ames and Maschner 1999).
Caldera Archaeology [13]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Ethnographic Summary
The Alicias Phase I Plat APE is located within the traditional territory of the Muckleshoot, Duwamish
and Puyallup peoples (Eells 1985:20; Haeberlin and Gunther 1930:8-10; Ruby et al. 2010). The
Muckleshoot, Duwamish and Puyallup are considered by anthropologists to be part of the larger
Southern Coast Salish cultural group and spoke the southern Lushootseed language dialect.
Neighboring groups including the Nisqually, Suquamish, Snohomish, and Snoqualmie also spoke the
southern Lushootseed language dialect (Suttles and Lane 1990:485-502).
The Muckleshoot are a Puget Sound Salish people with traditional villages located within the White and
Green River valleys (Ruby et al. 2010:197). The Muckleshoot are made up of several peoples; two groups
from which the Muckleshoot Tribe was formed were the Skopahmish, or Green River Indians, who had
once occupied the central Green River valley, and the Smulkamish, who had lived near present day
Enumclaw-both later relocated to the Muckleshoot Reservation. Another group, the Skekomish, or
White River Indians, moved to the Port Madison Reservation. An important Muckleshoot village made
up of seventeen houses was located on the Green River near Auburn (Smith 1940; Ruby et al. 2010:197)
(see Figure 4).
Traditionally, the Duwamish people occupied the land surrounding Elliott Bay, the Duwamish, Cedar,
and Black Rivers, Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Lake Sammamish. Duwamish winter villages were
located along the Duwamish, Black, and Cedar Rivers and their tributaries (Eells 1985:20; Ruby et al.
2010:115; Hilbert et al. 2001). The Puyallup lived along the banks of the Puyallup and White Rivers,
including the present site of Tacoma and Point Defiance, as well as all of Vashon Island (Haeberlin and
Gunther 1930:9; Smith 1940). Their main village was situated on the north bank of the Puyallup River
and numerous villages were scattered over the prairie at North Puyallup (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930:9;
Hilbert et al. 2001).
Governor Stevens facilitated the Medicine Creek Treaty December 26, 1854 with bands of Nisquallys,
Puyallups and other Indians of the lower Puget Sound; no mention was specifically made of the
Muckleshoot, but the treaty instructed tribes from the Green and White Rivers to remove to the
Nisqually Reservation (Ruby et al 2010:198). On December 5, 1856, Stevens recommended the
establishment of the Muckleshoot Reservation, approximately 3,192 acres between the Green and
White Rivers on the Muckleshoot Prairie in an area that had previously been a military tract (Ruby et al
2010:198).
Traditionally, the Southern Coast Salish subsistence base was focused on salmon and harvesting
seasonally available plant and animal resources that were present across the varied environmental
zones within their territory, moving from temporary camp to temporary camp until winter when people
returned to their permanent winter villages until the arrival of spring. Although the Muckleshoot were
located a few miles inland, salmon fishing was an important resource, as well as hunting and gathering
(Ruby et al. 2010:197). The Muckleshoot also traveled east to the Cascades to harvest wool from
mountain goats (Ruby et al. 2010:198), as did other neighboring groups.
Caldera Archaeology [14]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Historic Summary
The Donation Land Act of 1850 provided incentive for the settlement of the Pacific Northwest by
allowing married couples arriving between 1850 and 1853 to claim 320 acres of land by surveying the
property, submitting a description to the government and residing on the land for a period of four years
(Bagley 1929). Non-Native populations grew throughout the Puget Sound region from 1850-1900
following a boom in the logging, mining, and farming industries.
Early settlers were attracted to the area because of the fertile alluvial soils. Since the mid-Holocene and
the Osceola Mudflow, the Green River Valley began in-filling with alluvium. By the time the first white
settlers arrived in the mid-1800s, the valley was filled with rich soil perfect for farming. Auburn is
located near the original confluence of the Green and White Rivers (Figure 4). Several settlers were
occupying donation land claims at the start of the Indian War of 1855-56. One of the first settlers in the
valley, David A. Neely of Tennessee arrived in the valley with his family in 1854 (Bagley 1929). Neely
took out a 320 acre land claim and built a log cabin alongside the river near Kent (Scott 2008). In
November 1855, a military unit led by Lieutenant William Slaughter camped near Auburn. On
December 4, 1855, Lt. Slaughter and two other men were killed by a group of Indians (Bagley 1929; City
of Auburn 2018). More troops were dispatched and within a few months the war was over. On January
20, 1857, United States President Franklin Pierce signed an executive order that formally established
the Muckleshoot Reservation (Ruby et al. 2010:198).
Following Indian resettlement, more settlers began moving to the Auburn area, and the Seattle to
Steilacoom military road ( ~5 mi. west of the APE) was completed by 1860 (Prosch 1908). With military
presence active within the Puget Sound in 1859, and war with Great Britain seemingly imminent over
the ownership of San Juan Island, the road was thought to be a necessity that would also induce
settlement along the shore of Puget Sound (Prosch 1908: 125).
The town of “Slaughter”, in commemoration of Lt. Slaughter, was platted in 1887 by early local settler
Levi W. Ballard (Bagley 1929). Settler David A. Neely's son Aaron moved to Auburn and married,
birthing the first settler baby in the area in 1879. Aaron Neely moved in the early 1880s to the present
site of the Neely Mansion (two miles south of current APE), which was later constructed in 1894 (Gains
1974). In 1891, the town of Slaughter incorporated but many citizens felt uncomfortable with the name
and in 1893 the town was renamed Auburn (Bagley 1929; City of Auburn 2018).
Much of the valley had been cleared by the late 1870s and farmers raised crops of potatoes, onions, and
other vegetables, and livestock was grazed on untilled pasture. Hops soon became the new cash crop
(Scott 2008). The first hop roots were brought to the valley in 1878 by Ezra Meeker of Puyallup. Hops
were easy and cheap to grow and due to blight in Europe, they brought a high price at market. The
production of hops in the valley led to the early growth of the community; almost a million pounds of
hops were harvested in 1888. Hops continued to dominate the valley market until 1891 when aphids
destroyed most of the crop (Bagley 1929).
Caldera Archaeology [15]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 4. General Land Office map from 1867 illustrating the location of early settler’s claims, trails, roads
and villages in the vicinity of the current APE (BLM 2018).
The success of the hops and other farm crops necessitated transportation routes to and from the valley.
As soon as the first hop crop was picked in the early 1880s, farmers needed a way to get it to market
(Bagley 1929). The use of flat-bottomed steamboats to navigate the river was the most reliable
transportation to and from Seattle. It wasn’t long before roads and bridges over the river were also
constructed. In 1883, work began on a rail line through the valley that connected up with the Northern
Pacific. When the Northern Pacific moved its terminus from Tacoma to Seattle in 1887, the rail line
finally became a reliable means of transportation in the valley (Bagley 1929; City of Auburn 2018).
Caldera Archaeology [16]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Virgin stands of fir, hemlock and cedar covered the hills surrounding Auburn, and the timber industry
became an important economic contributor to the valley economy. Lumber companies began in many
locations throughout the valley (Bagley 1929). The national economic collapse of 1893 made survival in
the valley difficult for farmers and loggers, but also gave rise later to new industry. With reliable railroad
service many new companies set up business in Auburn, among them the Borden Condensery, which
made Borden's Condensed Milk (Bagley 1929).
Damming the Green River had been a goal for valley residents since the 1920s to help control flooding.
The construction of Howard A. Hanson dam was completed in 1962, preventing subsequent major
floods in the valley. As more valley-land became viable after the dam was built, developers and
industrial companies began to purchase large tracts of acreage. Additional changes came with the
construction of the Valley Freeway, which began in 1957, and when Interstate -5 on the western rim of
the valley was completed in 1966 (Kent Historical Museum 2017).
Boeing acquired 320 acres of farmland in Kent in 1963 and constructed the Boeing Aerospace Center,
becoming the first major industry to move to the valley. During the 1960s, most residential
developments were constructed in the suburbs outside the central core of Kent and Auburn to house
Boeing workers and employees of the numerous warehouses and manufacturing plants. By the 1980s,
high-tech firms began to prevail in the valley and in the 1990s a large shopping mall was built in Auburn
(Kent Historical Museum 2017; City of Auburn 2018).
Historic aerial photographs of the current APE indicate that by 1936 the project area was part of a larger
20 acre farm (Figure 5). A building built in 1925, now used as the Hazelwood Community Club, is visible
northwest of the APE and several outbuildings were present at the northeast corner where the current
Lucy Stevens house stands (built 1958).
Caldera Archaeology [17]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 5. 1936 historic aerial photograph illustrating land-use; the extent of the current APE is indicated by
the solid black line with current tax parcels indicated by red lines (King County iMaps).
Archaeological Background
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Archaeological Investigations
Previously recorded archaeological sites that lie within one mile of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE are listed
within Table 1. These sites include a historic hand-dug well and concrete water tank (45KI292), and a
precontact pit and battered cobble (45KI293) (Miss 1987a, 1987b).
Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE.
Site # Site Type Location NRHP Determination Reference
45KI292 Historic Agriculture ~1250 m
northwest No determination Miss (1987a)
45KI293 Precontact Pit ~ 1550 m
northeast Not eligible Miss (1987b)
Caldera Archaeology [18]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Four previous archaeological investigations have been conducted within one mile of the Alicias Phase I
Plat APE (Table 2). Surveys were conducted for Bonneville Power Administration maintenance and cell
projects (Tipton and Schmidt 2018; Oliver and Schmidt 2010), for a multi-family housing project (Stipe
2015) and for several Green River Community College (GRCC) Humanities and Social Sciences buildings
(Heideman 2013). No archaeological resources were identified during any of the surveys. Two houses
and six GRCC buildings were inventoried; the houses were recommended not eligible, and the GRCC
buildings were found to meet King County Landmarks criteria for eligibility.
Table 2. Previous Archaeological Investigations within One Mile of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE.
Reference Type of Investigation Location Relative to
Project Resources Identified
Stipe (2015) Archaeological survey ~600 m southeast None; two houses inventoried
Oliver and Schmidt
(2010) Archaeological survey ~850 m north/northwest None
Tipton and Schmidt
(2018) Archaeological survey ~1600 m northwest None
Heideman (2013) Archaeological
reconnaissance ~1600 m south
Six GRCC buildings inventoried,
recommended eligible for King
Co. Landmarks
Research Design
Objectives and Practical Expectations
The objective of our investigation was to identify any archaeological sites or isolated artifacts, cultural
materials, and/or historic properties that may be located within the Alicias Phase I Plat APE, document
them if present, and provide recommendations regarding their NRHP eligibility.
Archaeological probability within the current APE was considered moderate due to its inland
positioning in what was prehistorically a dense stand of timber, and its distance from a major fresh
water stream. Precontact deposits that may be present would likely be associated with short-term
occupations or ephemeral travel through the project area, possibly consisting of lithic debitage, lithic
points, cobble tools or other artifacts associated with cedar bark harvesting and resource extraction
practices. The most likely resources expected would be historic debris associated with farming,
homesteading and logging.
Background Research and Field Methods
Prior to conducting our field investigation background research was completed to assess the likelihood
for encountering buried historic or precontact cultural resources within the project area. Our
background research included review of archaeological site forms and cultural resource assessment
reports archived at DAHP, and inspection of historic maps and aerial images of the project area.
Caldera Archaeology [19]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
The field investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey to identify and visually examine existing ground
disturbances and mature trees, and excavation of shovel probes to identify any buried cultural materials
that may be present. Shovel probes were spaced approximately 30 m (98 ft.) apart from one another or
closer. Standard shovel probes typically consist of cylindrical pits 40 cm (16 in) in diameter. The
terminal depth of the probes is dependent upon the geologic conditions encountered during
excavation. Excavation typically continues until sediments that predate human occupation of the area
are encountered. The wide-spread glacial sediments deposited throughout much of King County during
the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation provide a suitable temporal marker for termination of
excavation.
All excavated sediments were passed through ¼” hardware screen. Details regarding the location,
depth, and sediments encountered were recorded for each probe. All excavations were completely
backfilled after examination and their locations were marked on project maps.
Detailed notes and photographs were taken for the 1958 Lucy Stevens residence located within the
APE.
Results and Discussion
The archaeological investigation and assessment of the proposed Alicias Phase I Plat APE was
conducted July 19-23, 2018 by archaeologist Gary Geiger and consisted of pedestrian survey, surface
inspection, excavation of 30 shovel probes spaced 30 m or less apart across the APE, and
documentation of the 1958 Lucy Stevens house located within parcel 0921059075 (Figure 6).
The landscape within the parcels is hummocky with a general southwest aspect. The majority of the
area currently contains pasture and/or residential gardens with forest growing along the
south/southeast property margins (Figures 7-11). A home built in 1988 is located on tax parcel
0921059079, and another home built in 1981 was previously located within parcel 0921059079 but has
been destroyed by fire and razed.
The observed subsurface profiles closely matched the expected Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils
mapped across the APE by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The typical subsurface
profile observed across the APE consisted of pale brown to dark brown gravelly sandy loam to an
average depth of 25 cm below the ground surface (cmbs), over light to dark yellowish brown gravelly
sandy loam to 60 cmbs, over mottled pale to very pale brown gravelly sandy loam to 75+ cmbs (Figures
12-14).
A table describing each shovel probe in detail is presented in Appendix A.
Caldera Archaeology [20]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 6. Aerial map of the Alicias Phase I Plat APE indicating the locations of excavated shovel probes and structures over 50 years of age.
Caldera Archaeology [21]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 7. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the center of the APE, view to south.
Figure 8. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the center of the APE, view to east.
Caldera Archaeology [22]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 9. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the southwest corner of the APE, view
to north.
Figure 10. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the southern edge of the APE, view
to southwest.
Caldera Archaeology [23]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 11. Overview photograph of the Alicias Phase I Plat from the northeast corner of the APE, view
to south.
Figure 12. Subsurface profile exposed within Shovel Probe (SP) 1.
Caldera Archaeology [24]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 13. Subsurface profile exposed in SP31.
Figure 14. Subsurface profile exposed in SP27.
Caldera Archaeology [25]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
The Lucy Stevens residence located at 12511 SE 304th Street was built in 1958, meeting the minimum
age requirement to be considered as a historic property. The single family residence displays an
irregular plan shape with an attached garage that was added sometime after the original home
construction (Figures 15-16). The home is single story with a partial basement cellar and cinderblock
foundation, with a mix of horizontal clap board, brick and shingle as exterior cladding; shingles are at
the entryway and a brick façade skirting is along the front (north) portion of home (Figure 17). The roof
is low hip with asphalt shingles and an offset chimney. All original windows appear to be replaced with
modern vinyl with a mix of opening types. A detached carport and shed located on the property were
built in 1970 (Figure 18). The property landscaping is immaculate with mature and established gardens.
The home does not exhibit any qualities or associations that meet criteria for the National Register of
Historic Places. Caldera Archaeology recommends the Lucy Stevens residence is not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. The Lucy Stevens house has been documented on a Historic Property Inventory
Form at DAHP (Property #717026) (Appendix B).
Figure 15. Overview photograph of the Lucy Stevens home, view to southwest.
Caldera Archaeology [26]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 16. Overview photograph of the east side of the Lucy Stevens home with the attached garage
addition on the southeast side of original home plan.
Figure 17. Basement cellar entrance on west side of home.
Caldera Archaeology [27]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Figure 18. Detached carport and shed built in 1970 located on the Lucy Stevens property, view to north.
No precontact archaeological sites, isolated artifacts, or potentially eligible historic properties were
identified within the APE during the course of this survey.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The archaeological investigation and assessment of the proposed Alicias Phase I Plat APE included
background research and the archaeological field investigation. Research included review of
archaeological site forms and historic property inventory files at the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and review of archival literature, historic photos, maps,
and previously conducted archaeological surveys in the project vicinity. The field investigation
consisted of pedestrian survey, surface inspection, excavation of 30 shovel probes across the APE, and
documentation of the Lucy Stevens house. No potentially eligible historic properties, structures,
archaeological sites or isolated artifacts, or cultural materials were identified within the APE during the
course of this survey. Caldera Archaeology recommends the Corps assert a Determination of No
Historic Properties Affected to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers (THPO), and any other consulting or affected parties. It is recommended that the
project be permitted to proceed with no further archaeological oversight.
In the unlikely event that archaeological deposits or human skeletal remains are encountered during
future property development, all work in the vicinity of the discovery area must stop immediately and
contact made with the Washington DAHP, Army Corps and affected tribes.
Caldera Archaeology [28]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Caldera Archaeology also recommends that the project proponents be familiar with the provisions of
Washington State laws pertaining to cultural resources particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
Chapter 27.53.060 and RCW 27.44.040.
RCW 27.53.060, Archaeological Sites and Resources, protects known prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites within the state that are located on public and private lands and makes it a crime to
intentionally destroy an archaeological site.
RCW Chapter 27.44.040, Indian Graves and Records, protects Native American graves within the state
that are located on public or private lands. These laws specifically state that the willful removal,
mutilation, defacing, and/or destruction of Indian burials constitute a Class C felony.
No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for project impacts
to prehistoric sites, historic properties or traditional cultural properties. The information presented in
this report is based on professional opinions derived from our analysis and interpretation of available
documents and on our field investigation and observations. Conclusions and recommendations
presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of our study and those reasonably
foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this report should not be construed as a
warranty of subsurface conditions throughout the project area. They cannot necessarily apply to site
changes of which Caldera Archaeology is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate.
Caldera Archaeology [29]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
References Cited
Ames, K. M. and H. D. G. Maschner
1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson Ltd.
London.
Bagley, C.E.
1929 History of King County, Washington. Vol. 1. S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago.
Baldwin, G. and J. Chambers
2014 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations for the Woodhaven Site (45SN417), Granite Falls,
Snohomish County, Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia, WA.
BLM
2018 Land Status and Cadastral Survey Records. Electronic document,
http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php , accessed September 7, 2018.
Butler, B. R.
1961 The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State
College Museum 5.
Carlson, R. and L. Dalla Bona (editors)
1996 Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Chatters, J., J. Cooper, P. LeTourneau, and L. Rooke
2011 Understanding Olcott: Data Recovery at 45SN28 and 45SN303 Snohomish County, Washington.
Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
City of Auburn
2018 History. Electronic document, http://www.auburnwa.gov/about/history.htm, accessed
September 6, 2018.
Dethier, D. P., F. Pessl Jr., R. F. Keuler, M. A. Balzarini, and D. R. Pevear
1995 Late Wisconsin Glaciomarine Deposition and Isostatic Rebound, Northern Puget Lowland,
Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 107:1288-303.
Dragovich, J. D., P. T. Pringle, and T. J. Walsh
1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland -
Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography. Washington Geology 22:3-26.
Easterbrook, D. J.
2010 A Walk Through Geologic Time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay. Chuckanut Editions,
Bellingham, WA.
Eells, M.
1985 The Indians of Puget Sound. The Notebooks of Myron Eells. G.P. Castile, editor. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Caldera Archaeology [30]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Gains, R. E.
1974 Aaron Neely Sr. Mansion Inventory Nomination Form (45KI202). Form on file at the Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther
1930 Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Heideman, E.
2013 Addendum to Cultural Resources Desktop Overview and Reconnaissance Survey of the Green
River Community College Humanities and Social Science Buildings and Property. Letter report on
file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Hilbert, V., J. Miller, and Z. Zahir
2001 Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T. T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press, Seattle.
Available from Zahir Consulting Services, Federal Way, WA.
Kenady, S. M., M. C. Wilson, R. F. Shalk, and R. R. Mierendorf
2010 Late Pleistocene butchered Bison antiquus from Ayer Pond, Orcas Island, Pacific Northwest:
Age confirmation and taphonomy. Quaternary International 223:130-141.
Kent Historical Museum
2017 History of Kent. Electronic document, http://gkhs.org/kent-history/, accessed June 1, 2017.
Kidd, R. S.
1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites.
University of Washington, Seattle.
Kopperl, R. (editor)
2016 Results of Data Recovery at the Bear Creek Site (45KI839), King County, Washington. Volume
1: Report. On file at Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Matson, R. G. and G. C. Coupland
1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press. San Diego, California.
Meltzer, D.J. and R.C. Dunnell
1983 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form 45KI215. Form on file at the
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Miss, C.
1987a Archaeological Site Inventory Form 45KI292. Form on file at Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
1987b Archaeological Site Inventory Form 45KI293. Form on file at Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Mullineaux, D. R.
1965 Geologic Map of the Auburn Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington. U. S.
Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-406, scale 1:24,000.
Caldera Archaeology [31]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
1970 Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County, Washington.
U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 672. Washington, D.C.
Nelson, C. N.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: The
Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Oliver, L. and S. Schmidt
2010 A Cultural Resource Survey of Three Wireless Sites in King County, Washington. Report on file at
the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Palmer, S.P., H.W. Schasse, and D.K. Norman
1994 Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Des Moines and Renton 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Washington.
Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map GM-41.
Prosch, T. W.
1908 The Military Roads of Washington Territory. The Washington Historical Quarterly 2 (2): 118-126.
Ruby, R.H., J.A. Brown, and C.C. Collins
2010 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Third Edition. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Scott, T.
2008 Historic Resources Survey & Inventory Kent, Washington. Report on file at Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Smith, M.W.
1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology No. 32. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Snyder, D.E., Gale, P.S., and R.F. Pringle
1973 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University,
Agriculture research center.
Stipe, F.
2015 Promenade Cultural Resource Survey. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Suttles, W. and B. Lane
1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp 485-502. Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Thorson, R.M.
1989 Glacio-Isostatic Response of the Puget Sound Area, Washington. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 101: 1163-1174.
Caldera Archaeology [32]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Tipton, K. and S. Schmidt
2018 Cultural Resources Survey for the Tacoma-Raver No. 1 Structures 12/2 and 12/4 Access Road
Maintenance Project in King County, Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Waitt, R. B., Jr., and R. M. Thorson
1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Minneapolis, Minnesota,
University of Minnesota: 53-70.
Whitlock, C.
1992 Vegetation and Climatic History of the Pacific Northwest during the Last 20,000 Years:
Implications for Understanding Present-Day Biodiversity. The Northwest Environmental Journal
8:5-28.
Caldera Archaeology [33]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Appendix A: Shovel Probe Data
Shovel Probe 1
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-45 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, trace of charcoal No cultural materials.
45-71 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 2
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-25 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials.
25-53 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels
No cultural materials.
53-68 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, very compact,
~10% gravels, glacial till
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 3
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-21 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials.
21-58 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels
No cultural materials.
58-75 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, ~10% gravels, No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 4
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-23 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials.
23-57 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels
No cultural materials.
57-76 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, ~10% gravels No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 5
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-34 Brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam, <5% gravels, many fine to large
roots No cultural materials.
34-75 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam, roots common,
<5% gravels
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 6
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-31 Brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam, <5% gravels, many fine to large
roots No cultural materials.
31-75 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam, roots common,
<5% gravels
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 7
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
Notes: old house site, impervious surface
Caldera Archaeology [34]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Shovel Probe 8
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-25 Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam, gravels/cobbles No cultural materials
25-67 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly sandy loam No cultural materials.
67-74 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 9
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-31 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials
31-58 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels
No cultural materials.
58-73 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, very compact,
~10% gravels
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 10
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-27 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials.
27-58 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels
No cultural materials.
58-75 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, very compact,
~10% gravels
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 11
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-27 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials.
27-72 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels
No cultural materials.
72-81 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, ~10% gravels No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 12
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-26 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, ~10% poorly-sorted gravels,
many fine roots No cultural materials.
26-57 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam, ~15% poorly-
sorted gravels, roots
No cultural materials.
57-75 Mottled very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, ~10% gravels No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 13
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-67 Very dark brown (10YR 2/2) silt loam, disturbed mix Glass at ~60cmbs
67-75 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 14
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
Notes: old house site, impervious surface
Caldera Archaeology [35]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Shovel Probe 15
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-21 Dark brown (10YR 3/3) gravelly sandy loam, roots No cultural materials.
21-52 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand No cultural materials.
52-67 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, very
compact
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 16
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-18 Light gray (10YR 7/1) gravelly sandy loam, fill Concrete chunks
18-33 Dark brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam, ~15% gravels Glass fragments, concrete chunks
33-84 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) silt loam, ~10% gravels No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 17
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-15 Light gray (10YR 7/1) gravelly sandy loam, fill Concrete chunks
15-43 Dark brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam, ~15% gravels Glass fragments
43-76 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) silt loam, ~10% gravels No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 18
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-76 Dark brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam, mixed fill Glass fragments, non-descript rusty metal
Notes:
Shovel Probe 19
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-15 Brown (10YR 5/3) gravelly sandy loam, many fine roots No cultural materials.
15-75 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, woody debris No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 20
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-24 Brown (10YR 5/3) gravelly sandy loam, many fine roots No cultural materials.
24-68 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, woody debris No cultural materials.
Notes: cobble obstruction
Shovel Probe 21
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-41 Brown (10yR 4/3) sandy loam, mixed fill, gravelly/cobbles Glass, ceramic fragments
41-76 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 22
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-27 Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam, gravels/cobbles No cultural materials.
27-57 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
57-75 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 23
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-18 Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam No cultural materials.
18-68 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
68-77 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam
Notes:
Caldera Archaeology [36]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Shovel Probe 24
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-21 Dark brown (10YR 3/3) organic rich gravelly sandy loam, roots No cultural materials.
21-52 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
52-67 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly, sandy loam, very
compact
Notes:
Shovel Probe 25
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
Notes: inaccessible by fence and brush
Shovel Probe 26
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-27 Very dark brown (10YR 2/2) gravelly silt loam, cobbles No cultural materials
27-61 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam, gravels/cobbles No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 27
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-23 Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam, gravels/cobbles No cultural materials.
23-57 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
57-75 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly, sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 28
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-67 Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam, mixed fill Glass, ceramic fragments; concrete, metal
Notes:
Shovel Probe 29
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-19 Brown (1oYR 5/3) gravelly sandy loam, many fine roots No cultural materials.
19-61 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, many fine to
medium roots, woody debris; bioturbation in b horizon
No cultural materials.
61-74 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam
Notes:
Shovel Probe 30
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-51 Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam, mixed fill No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 31
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-18 Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam, mixed fill No cultural materials.
18-61 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) gravelly sandy loam, cobbles No cultural materials.
Notes: cobble obstruction
Shovel Probe 32
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-38 Pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy loam, mixed fill, gravels/cobbles Concrete chunks, plastic
38-51 Mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, cobbles,
very compact
No cultural materials.
Notes:
Shovel Probe 33
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
0-12 Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam, roots No cultural materials.
12-63 Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) gravelly sandy loam, roots No cultural materials.
63-75 Light gray (10YR 7/2) gravelly sandy loam No cultural materials.
Notes:
Caldera Archaeology [37]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Shovel Probe 34
CM Depth Sediments/contents Comments
Notes: inaccessible by fence and brush
Caldera Archaeology [38]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Appendix B: Historic Property Inventory Form, Lucy Stevens House
Caldera Archaeology [39]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn
Caldera Archaeology [40]
Technical Report 0618E: Alicias Phase I Plat, Auburn