The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-04-07 HEX# 10-002 Exhibit Hrl� 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements 1- Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan r�• t.. M r` .- - r f •'..SFr -... r-,-• r January 2009 Adik � Washington State U.S. Department of Transportation %// Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Wetland Mitigation Plan 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation January 2009 Submitted by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 720 Olive Way, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98101 Job No. FAPWT-04-064 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................IV CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION ........................................ ,................................ -..:................................. 1 CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED PROJECT ............ ...... -...................................... _........................... .............2 2.1 Location................................................................................................:.........................-......2 2.2 Purpose and Description.......................................................................................................2 2.3 Project Schedule .................................................... --............................................ ................ 5 2.4 Responsible Parties ............................. :...................... ,..,,.............................. ....... ................. 5 CHAPTER 3 - WETLAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT.................................................................................5 3.1 Landscape Setting.................................................................................................................5 3.2 Existing Conditions of Wetlands and Buffers to be Impacted..........................................10 3.3 Permanent Wetland Impacts.............................................................................................12 3.4 Temporary Wetland Impacts ................................ :............ :................................................. 15 3.6 Wetland Buffer Impacts......................................................................................................15 3.7 Riparian Area Impacts...................................................................................................... 18 3.8 Wetland Functions Impacted.....................................................................:....................... 19 3.9 Wetland Buffer Functions Impacted.................................................................................. 23 CHAPTER 4 - MITIGATION STRATEGY.............................................................................................. 24 4.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts ................... ........................ .......... ...-. 24 4.2 Compensatory Mitigation................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 5 - COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SITE........................................................................... 28 5.1 Site Location....................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Landscape Perspective..........................................................._......,................................. 28 5.3 Rationale for Site Selection............................................................................................... 31 5.4 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions.................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 6 - MITIGATION ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................. 38 6.1 Mitigation Accounting........................................................................................................ 38 6.2 Mitigation for Temporary Impacts ............... --................................................................. 41 6.3 Mitigation for Permanent Impacts ............. ...--r........ :........................................... a.......... 41 6.4 Site Hydrology.....................................................................................................................45 6.5 Invasive Species Control Strategy..................................................................................... 45 6.6 Grading Design.................................................................................................................... 46 6.7 Planting Design................................................................................................................... 47 6.8 Habitat Features................................................................................................................. 49 6.9 Buffers........................:........................................................................................................50 6.10 Site Protection................................................................................................................ 50 6.11 Implementation Schedule... ........................................................................................... 50 6.12 Ecological Benefits......................................................................................................... 51 CHAPTER 7 - MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ........................ 54 7.1 Goals ................................. ....................... ..,...._.............. .,....................................................... 54 7.2 Objectives ................................................... ........................................ ................. .............. 54 Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page i 7.3 Performance Criteria..............................................—................................... .... --- ... ......... 54 7.4 Monitoring............................................................................................................................56 7.5 Contingency Plan................................................................................................................ 57 7.6 Site Management............................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER8 — REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 59 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Project Wetland Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation....... ... ...................... v Table2. Wetland Summary...................................................................................................................8 Table 3. Permanent Wetland Impact Summary by Classification...................................................12 Table 4. Wetland Size, Classification, and Area Impacted by the Proposed Project.....................15 Table 5. Wetland Buffer Size, Classification, and Area Impacted by the Proposed Project .......... 18 Table 6. Impacted Wetland Functions.............................................................................................. 21 Table 7. Wetland M Impact Summary................._............................................—............................... 22 Table 8. Wetland N Impact Summary ................ --................................................ ......................... — 23 Table 9. Wetland Buffer Function Impacts....................................................,...,............................... 24 Table 10. Summary of Wetland Mitigation Measures ................................................... --- ........... 26 Table 11. Recommended Mitigation Ratios for Projects in Western Washington ......................... 27 Table 12. Mitigation Area Required per City of Federal Way City Code* ....................................... 27 Table 13. Mitigation Site Wetland Summary.................................................................................... 37 Table 14. Project Impacts and Mitigation ....................................... .............................................. — 41 Table 15. Seed Mix for Wetland Creation Areas.............................................................................. 48 Table 16. Plant List Proposed for Wetland Creation and Enhancement Areas .............................. 48 Table 17. Plant List Proposed for Upland Buffer Enhancement Areas ........................................... 49 Table 18. Wetland Functions Provided by Various Areas of the Mitigation Site ............................ 52 Table 19. Comparison of Impacted Wetlands and Buffers to Mitigated Wetlands and Buffers.... 52 Table 20. Monitoring Report Recipients............................................................................................ 56 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1— Project Area Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Proposed Project Figure 3 — Project Area Aerial Photograph Figure 4— Wetland and Wetland Buffer Impacts Figure 5 — Wetland and Buffer Photographs Figure 6 — Wetland Buffer Photographs Figure 7 — Preserved Areas Figure 8— Mitigation Site Baseline Conditions Figure 9 — Corrington Site Photographs Figure 10 — Mitigation Activities Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page ii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A — Wetland N Memo Appendix B — Wetland Impact Plan Sheets Appendix C— Mitigation Site Wetland Memo Appendix D — Mitigation Site Plan Sheets Appendix E — Wetland Rating Form for Anticipated Conditions of Mitigation Site at End of Monitoring Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to improve safety, relieve congestion, and improve mobility in southern King County by reconstructing a major freeway interchange in Federal Way, Washington. The Interstate 5 (I-5)—State Route (SR) 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project (Triangle project) will replace two existing cloverleaf loop ramps with direct access flyovers and add new roadway lanes in high traffic areas. Building a new SR18 to I-5 northbound access ramp as part of the proposed work will result in the unavoidable loss of 0.03 acre of Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) -rated Category I wetlands and 0.20 acre of Ecology Category III wetlands. Additionally, various portions of the project will result in the loss of 1.11 acres of forested and herbaceous wetland buffers extending from five separate wetlands within the project area. To mitigate for the planned impacts and ensure no net loss of wetland and buffer functions and values, WSDOT proposes to complete wetland and buffer mitigation measures at an off -site mitigation area approximately 2 miles from the project area. This 3.37-acre site, which is located in a relatively undeveloped portion of the city, adjoins the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek and is dominated by a large emergent wetland. The Corrington site is located in a large urban natural open space corridor, has wetlands supported by surface and ground waters, and provides several excellent opportunities for wetland, stream, and riparian mitigation. The project's wetland mitigation measures will create 0.32 acre of emergent and forested wetlands and enhance 1.37 acres of emergent wetlands degraded by dense stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Of this, 0.77 acre will apply to wetland mitigation and 0.60 acre within the paper buffer will apply to buffer mitigation. The project will enhance 1.03 acres of wetland buffer by installing a native tree and shrub community. In addition, the project will increase off -channel habitat for resident and migrating fish in the North Fork of West Hylebos Creek by constructing a side channel that will meander through the mitigation site. The Category I created and enhanced wetlands will be vegetated with diverse emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested plant communities. Compared to existing wetland conditions, the created wetlands will provide improved flood flow alteration and water quality function and increased wildlife habitat functions, and the enhanced wetlands will provide greater habitat interspersion, species richness, and improved vegetative structure. The proposed mitigation measures will increase wetland and wildlife habitat functions dramatically and improve water quality conditions in the Hylebos Creek watershed. Table 1 summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page iv Table 1. Summary of Project Wetland Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation Region Northwest Region 1-5/SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements - Contract #Y-8742 Project # OL3493 UCO Region Township/Range/Section (impact) Township 21N, Range 4E, sections 21 and 28 Permanent Wetland Impact 0.23 acre Temporary Wetland Impact 0.02 acre Permanent Buffer Impact 1.11 acres (0.79 acre herbaceous and 0.32 acre forested) Temporary Buffer Impact 0.68 acres Jurisdictional Wetland Impact Areas 0.23 acre 0.0 acres Regulated by Corps and Ecology Regulated by Ecology (Isolated) Mitigation Location Southwest of project site on South 364th Street, City of Federal Way, WA T21N, R 4E, sections 21 and 28 Total Area of Mitigation Site 3.37 acres Area & Type of Mitigation 0.32acre of wetland creation 1.37 acre of wetland enhancement (0.77 acre wetland enhancement credit and 0.60 acre paper buffer credit) 0.06 acre upland preservation 1.03 acre of buffer enhancement al Area of Mitigation F 2.78 acres rs of Monitoring 10 years WSDOT will monitor and maintain the completed mitigation measures for 10 years according to a comprehensive monitoring, contingency, and adaptive site management plan. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page v CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to improve safety, relieve congestion and improve mobility in southern King County by reconstructing a major freeway interchange in Federal Way, Washington. The Interstate 5 (I-5)/State Route (SR) 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project (Triangle project) will replace two existing cloverleaf loop ramps with direct access flyovers and add new roadway lanes in high traffic areas. Building new SR18 to I-5 access ramps will result in the unavoidable loss of 0.23 acre of Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) -rated Category II and Category III wetlands. In addition to these direct wetland impacts, the project will result in 1.11 acres of permanent wetland buffer impacts. This mitigation plan describes wetland and wetland buffer mitigation that will offset wetland and buffer impacts and ensure that the project does not result in a net loss of wetland and buffer functions. This mitigation report will be used to obtain the following permits. = US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 permit • Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification ■ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ■ City of Federal Way Critical Areas Permit The plans preparation used the following documents and guidelines. ■ 1-5-SR 1611SR 18 Triangle Improvements Wetland/Biology Report (BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 2006) ■ I-5-SR 1611SR 18 Triangle Improvements Fish Vegetation, Wildlife Habitat Report (BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 2007) ■ Fisheries and Stream Survey Report, I-5-SR 161 IIC & /SR 18 IIC Triangle Project (WSDOT, 2006) ■ WSDOT Wetland Mitigation Guidelines - (WSDOT, 2008) ■ Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1 (Sheldon et al., 2005) ■ Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (Granger et al., 2005) ■ Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1 (Ecology et al., 2006a) ■ Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2 (Ecology et al., 2006b) Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 1 CHAPTER 2 — PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 Location The Triangle project area is located within the City of Federal Way and is roughly bound to the north by South 336th Street, to the east by Weyerhaeuser Way, to the south by SR 161, and to the west by Enchanted Parkway South (Figure 1). The entire project area is located in the City of Federal Way in King County, Washington. The area east of I-5 and South of SR 18 is in unincorporated King County. Zoning adjacent to the project within the city limits is Commercial Enterprise and Office Park. In the unincorporated areas southeast of the project area, residential developments and urban open space are the dominant land uses. 2.2 Purpose and Description The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce traffic congestion, increase vehicle and freight mobility, and address safety concerns. Increased traffic volumes, combined with explosive land use that in part resulted from statewide land use regulations and zoning requirements, has caused increasing congestion and safety problems within the project area. Current traffic counts exceed capacity on SR 161 and are expected to continue to rise as south King County and north Pierce County continue to grow. These facts, combined with the safety problems stemming from loop ramps that do not meet current design guidelines, have resulted in congestion and higher accident numbers. This project will be necessary to alleviate the existing congestion and safety problems and allow future efficient and safe travel in the face of growing population and business growth. The Triangle project will construct road modifications that will increase driver safety and reduce existing and projected traffic congestion. During the design process, a number of different build alternatives were developed and analyzed in a two-phase WSDOT screening process. The project team selected the current build alternative for its top scores in minimizing environmental impacts, as well as in four of the six categories reviewed. Figure 2 shows the proposed project improvements. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 2 Legend Project Limits Q WiptonArea Figure 1 Project Area Vicinity Map 1-5/SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements 0 0 1000 2000Faet I I I t l Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 January 2009 Page 3 North - —'— — -- lakr r Federal Way 1,11eYel hueuser poll 9 1 18 i d i n g CJ a-nty— r r - ' — l I 6 f � � Legend Project Limits Roadway Redesign Figure 2 Proposed Project 1-5/SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements •�► 0 500 1,000 Feet I t i r l Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 January 2009 Page 4 The principal features of the project will include ■ Constructing a collector -distributor road between southbound I-5/westbound SR 18 to SR161 via the construction of new ramps at South 356th and South 359th streets. ■ Constructing a new two-lane flyover to replace the existing single -lane northwest loop ramp for westbound SR 18 to southbound I-5 traffic. a Replacing the existing southeast loop ramp with a new flyover ramp to allow direct access for eastbound SR 18/ South 348th to northbound I-5 traffic. a Reconfiguring the South 348th Street/SR 161 intersection to reduce left -turn movements and decrease congestion. n Constructing auxiliary lanes along I-5 between the area south of the South 336th Street Bridge and the exit/entrance to the weight station/rest area. 2.3 Project Schedule Pending approvals from the appropriate agencies, construction will occur in multiple phases, with the first phase beginning during spring 2010 and finishing at the end of 2013. The first phase would address the weaving pattern of the northbound I-5/ westbound SR 18 loop ramp, and reduce congestion and improve safety at the South 348th Street/SR 161 intersection by providing a direct access ramp between I-5 and SR 18 to SR 161. The second phase of the project would complete all the remaining improvements of the build alternative. 2.4 Responsible Parties WSDOT will be the primary party responsible for the, oversight of the construction of the proposed project, work that includes the completion of the proposed mitigation and required monitoring and maintenance. CHAPTER 3 — WETLAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 Landscape Setting The area of the Triangle project is in the City of Federal Way and is bounded roughly to the north by South 336th Street, to the east by Weyerhaeuser Way, to the south by SR 161, and to the west by Enchanted Parkway South. The entire project area is located within the Hylebos Creek Basin and is drained by the East and West Branch of Hylebos Creek. Land uses within the surrounding area consist of (1) high - intensity commercial and residential development that is primarily concentrated in the western portion of the project area, and (2) relatively undeveloped urban open space in the eastern half of the project area (Figure 3). Conditions in the general vicinity of the project are typical for highly developed areas. They include large amounts of paved surfaces and traffic, fragmented natural resource systems, and extensive stormwater management. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 5 In terms of recording the existing conditions and assessing the potential for direct project - related impacts, project staff determined that the project area extends 200 feet outward from the existing edge of pavement. Vegetation types ranging from second -growth forestland with relatively intact and diverse native understory vegetation to heavily impacted road right of way (ROW) subject to routine mowing characterize the area. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 6 Legend Project Limits Project Area Q Mitigation Area Figure 3 Project Area Aerial Photograph 1-5/SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements 0 1000 2000 Feet 3.1.1. Wetlands Project scientists delineated the wetlands in the project area in May and June 2005 and identified 16 wetlands. The I-5—SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Discipline Report (Appendix J, April 2006) contains detailed information about these wetlands. Subsequent visits to the project area by project staff resulted in the identification of an additional wetland — Wetland N—in the eastern portion of the site. This depressional small shrub/scrub wetland is located immediately east of Wetland M. The details of this wetland are provided in Appendix A. Table 2 below presents a summary of wetland classifications, sizes, and buffer requirements. Table 2. Wetland Summary Wetland Name Acres Cowardin Classification Ecology Rating Federal Way Rating Base Buffer Width Wetland AB 0.42 Palustrine emergent shrub/scrub I!I II! 50 ft Wetland D 0.05 Palustrine shrub/scrub III Not rated * — Wetland E 0.77 Palustrine shrub/scrub II II 100 ft Wetland F 0.01 Palustrine unconsolidated bed Shrub/Scrub Ili Not rated * — Wetland G 0.74 Palustrine emergent shrub/scrub forested I I 200 ft Wetland H 0.06 Palustrine shrub/scrub III III 50 ft Wetland J 0.02 Palustrine shrub/scrub III 111 25 ft Wetland K 0.13 Palustrine shrub/scrub III III 25 ft Wetland L 0.02 Palustrine shrub/scrub III III 25 ft Wetland M 1.16 Palustrine shrub/scrub forested 11 II 100 ft Wetland N 0.20 Palustrine shrub/scrub 111 III 25 ft Wetland 0 0.75 Palustrine shrub/scrub II II 100 ft Wetland P 1.91 Palustrine emergent shrub/scrub forested I[ II 100 ft Wetland Q 0.24 Palustrine forested II II 100 ft Wetland T 0.05 Palustrine shrub/scrub III Not rated * — Wetland U 0.13 Palustrine shrub/scrub III 111 1 25 ft Wetland U-1 0.01 Palustrine shrub/scrub III Not rated * — *Category III wetlands under 0.10 acre in size are not regulated by the City of Federal Way 3.1.2. Streams The project area is situated in the upper reaches of the Hylebos Creek basin and is further divided into the West Branch of Hylebos Creek sub -basin, generally located west of I-5, and the East Branch of Hylebos Creek sub -basin, situated for the most part east of I-5. For most of the project area, Tributary 0016A flows parallel to the west side of I-5 and is located in the East Branch of Hylebos Creek sub -basin (Figure 2). Tributary 0016, located east of 1-5, is also located within the East Branch of Hylebos Creek sub -basin (Figure 2). Both are tributaries to the East Branch of Hylebos Creek, which eventually combines with the West Branch of Hylebos Creek and continues to flow south before draining into Commencement Bay. The high proportion of impervious surfaces in the developed portions of the basin and the associated stormwater controls affect the hydrologic cycle of Tributary 0016A substantially, and Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 8 reaches of it are dry for most of the year. Tributary 0016A has a limited capability to support fish and other aquatic life because of its intermittent and flashy flow (WSDOT 1997). These stream characteristics could result in fish stranding and high stream temperatures during low or zero flows and channel scouring, increased turbidity, and lack of spawning substrate as a result of high flows. Tributary 0016 starts at North Lake and flows into Weyerhaeuser Pond. From there, the stream is routed under the Weyerhaeuser corporate headquarters building and a grass field in a culvert about 0.5 mile long. Downstream of the culvert outlet is a short reach of channel that flows through a thick riparian corridor down to the culvert under SR 18. The SR 18 crossing consists of two culverts. Analysis of velocity and depth guidelines for fish passage indicates that the SR 18 culverts are velocity barriers for adult migration and depth barriers for downstream migration (BERGER/ABAM 2008b). Below SR 18, the channel is fairly low gradient and dominated by silt. The stream condition within this reach is dominated by shallow pools or slow water conditions. The riparian area is generally wide, except where houses have encroached down to the stream channel. Shading is generally good. A local resident reported seeing a dead 5-inch trout. Farther downstream at the 354th Street crossing, the stream channel is covered by a narrow strip of dense riparian growth. This stream reach resembles the riparian corridor in the previous reach. The culvert under SR 161 is perched and impassable. While both tributaries are fish -bearing and at one point supported healthy runs of anadromous fish, several fish blockages downstream of the project area now prevent migrating salmonids from reaching the stream reaches in the project area. Culverts on Tributary 0016A in the project area prevent the upstream passage of salmonids into the project area. These fish passage barriers are culverts just north of SR 161, the I-5 cross culvert, and culverts associated with the I- 5/SR 18 interchange. Analysis of velocity and depth guidelines for fish passage indicates that the I-5 culvert is a velocity barrier for adult salmon migration and a depth barrier for downstream salmon migration (BERGER/ABAM 2008b). Stream survey results reported in the fish, vegetation, wildlife, and habitat discipline report (BERGER/ABAM 2007) indicate that the average channel width of Tributary 0016A ranges from 5 to 15 feet and that it has an average depth of 0.5 to 1.25 feet. An electrofishing study by King County staff in 1996 and 1997 identified no salmonids in Tributary 0016A. The study report noted that even insect life was "limited" (WSDOT 1997). Project -related stream surveys also noted the absence of aquatic insects (BERGER/ABAM 2007). Tributary 0016 has a history of coho salmon use and current use by cutthroat trout (WSDOT 1997; WSDOT 2007). An electrofishing study by King County staff in 1996 and 1997 identified no salmon in Tributary 0016 (WSDOT 1997). 3.1.3. Uplands While the surrounding area has been subject to extensive high -intensity commercial and residential development, the uplands immediately adjacent to most of the project alignments Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 9 are maintained highway ROW, urban forestland, and open space (Figure 2). These uplands have been subject to manipulation in the forms of historic logging and agricultural practices, disturbance from past road construction activities, and on -going road ROW maintenance. Except in a few locations, the first 50 feet of area adjacent to the existing roadway and gravel shoulders is a regularly mowed and maintained lawn area. Outside this immediate ROW, vegetation varies greatly, ranging from heavily impacted areas dominated by monotypic stands of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armenicus) to relatively undisturbed upland forestland with an overstory of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and red alder (Alnus rubra). Understory vegetation here is typical of this region and is dominated by snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), salal (Gaultheria shallon), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), swordfem (Polystichum munitum), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). 3.1.4 Land Use History Historically, the 18-square mile Hylebos watershed was a small but productive salmonid- bearing watershed. Before urbanization, the watershed supported substantial runs of coho, Chinook, chum salmon, and residential cutthroat trout. Early land uses were limited to timber harvesting. With the completion of Highway 99 in the 1920s, the population and commercial opportunities increased. Steady residential and economic growth in the 1980s brought rapid growth in population and commercial and retail development. Increased development activity resulted in large-scale negative impacts to the surrounding landscape and watershed that included filling and draining wetlands, installing poorly designed culverts, channelizing natural stream channels, the loss of riparian vegetation, and increased impervious surfaces without proper stormwater treatment. 3.2 Existing Conditions of Wetlands and Buffers to be Impacted Figure 4 illustrates the locations of both temporary and permanent wetland and buffer impacts. The conditions of the impacted wetlands and buffers vary greatly, ranging from relatively undisturbed forested wetlands to heavily manipulated wetland buffers in maintained ROWS. Refer also to the I-5-SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Wetland/Biology Report (BERGER/ABAM 2006) for more details about each wetland, including rating forms and field data forms. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 10 North Lake P Federal Way Weyerhaeuser Pond 99 r' lT U-1 r L Q K �07 - rl, + - O + E ' N !� II M H T �' ` (u ;u1 - � 1' I rI Lake / Killarney r' King lCOunty _ IMPACTS B NAME PERM WETLAND TEMP WETLAND PERM BUFFER TEMP BUFFER WETLAND M 0.03 ac 0.02 ac 0.56 ac 0.17 ac WETLAND N 0.20 ac 0 0 0 WETLAND K 0 0 0 0.01 ac WETLAND P 0 0 0.18 ac 0.32 ac WETLAND 0 0 0.14ac 1 0.04ac WETLAND AB 0 0 0.23 ac 0.14 ac 6 TOTALS [a5r g = 0.23 0.02 1.11 0.68 Legend Project Limits Permanent Wetland Impact Delineated Wetland Temporary Wetland Impact Wetland Buffer Permanant Wetland Buffer Impact Temporary Wetland Buffer Impact Figure 4 Wetland & Wetland Buffer Impacts 1-5/SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements e 0 500 1,000 Feet E t I IJ Wetlands were classified using: w USFWS system (Cowardin et al. 1979). ■ Hydrogeomorphic Classification system (Brinson 1993). ■ Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2004) ■ City of Federal Way City Code, Chapter 22 (City of Federal Way 1990) These criteria were used to assess the condition of wetland buffers qualitatively: ■ Dominant land use (e.g., agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial) ■ Dominant buffer vegetation type (tree, shrub, herb, vine, un-vegetated) rr Estimated percent cover of invasive plant species 3.3 Permanent Wetland Impacts The proposed project will permanently impact a small portion of Wetland M and Wetland N in its entirety. These impacts will result in a net loss of 0.23 acre of wetlands. In addition to these permanent impacts, the project will temporarily impact 0.06 acres of Wetland M to allow for construction access. The following table summarizes the proposed impacts by classification (Table 3). Table 3. Permanent Wetland Impact Summary by Classification Wetland Classification Class Wetland Impact Area (acre) Percent of Total Wetland Area USFWS Washington Department of Ecology (Hruby 2004) _ PSS 0.03 13% PSS 0.20 87% Total 0.23 II 0.03 13% III 0.20 87% Total 0.23 Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way III 0.20 13% ll 0.03 87% Total 0.23 Hydrogeomorphic Class De ressional 0.23 100% Total 0.23 Percentage of total in wetland class. Wetland M is a palustrine shrub/scrub-forested depressional wetland with riverine influenced portions of the wetland located adjacent to Tributary 0016 (Table 2). The construction of the new SR 18 to northbound I-5 onramp will impact the southernmost portion of the wetland, which is regulated on federal, state, and local levels by the Corps, Ecology, and City. Direct wetland impacts totaling 0.03 acre will result from grading and construction of a large retaining wall. The proposed impacts will result in a loss of wetland area and the permanent loss of wetland vegetation, primarily mature shrubs. These impacts will result in the permanent loss of associated wetland functions and values. Sheet 1 of Appendix B shows project plans for the proposed road alignment and wetland impacts. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle lmprovements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 12 Wetland N is a depressional Category III wetland dominated by shrub/scrub vegetation. The wetland is located within a prominent depression at the base of the SR 18 fill slopes. Hydrologic inputs from seasonal interactions with elevated ground water levels and precipitation sustain Wetland N. In addition, the wetland likely receives a small amount of surface runoff from the SR 18 fill slopes. This small wetland was likely part of a drainage system that connected historically but no longer connects to Tributary 0016. Douglas' spirea (Spirea douglasii), willow, and thimbleberry dominate the vegetation in the shrub/scrub portion of Wetland N. Its easternmost portions are forested and have a canopy layer of red alder, black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and willow. The size of the forested area is too small for the wetland to be divided into both shrub/scrub and forested vegetation classifications under the Cowardin system. Wetland N's 25-foot buffer has been subject to past land disturbances and ongoing ROW mowing. Mixed upland pasture grasses, non-native weed Species, and Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) dominate the buffer areas. Direct permanent wetland impacts to Wetland N will result from the construction of fill slopes necessary for the expansion of SR 18 in addition to impacts to the wetland resulting from construction access. Direct wetland impacts will result in the loss of 0.17 acre of Wetland N. This represents a loss of 85% of the total area of Wetland N. It was determined that the proposed fills would likely cause the hydrology of the remaining portions of Wetland N to be indirectly impacted to such an extent that the remaining portions of the wetland would not function properly. To ensure that the project completes sufficient mitigation to offset all direct and indirect wetland impacts, the impacts to Wetland N have been calculated as if the entire wetland were impacted. Under this plan, mitigation requirements and calculations indicate impacts to Wetland N totaling 0.20 acre. Photographs of the areas of impact are provided in Figure 5. Sheet 2 of Appendix P shows project plans and details of the proposed Wetland N impacts. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 13 PIP, } H tom•:- �.�• �.� ;,nr`--. � `:.• Ax— ii"'llo :i.. tz 3.4 Temporary Wetland Impacts Temporary impacts to Wetland M may result from clearing vegetation on the northern side of the proposed retaining wall. The clearing is not expected to extend further than 20 feet from the edge of the permanent wetland impacts. Based on this 20-foot wide disturbance zone, project scientists calculated temporary wetland impacts at 0.02 acre (Sheet 1, Appendix B). These temporary impacts may be necessary to allow equipment access for constructing the retaining wall. To the greatest extent practicable, the project will remove vegetation only to the base of the plant and the roots will not be grubbed or removed with machinery. Vegetation that will be temporarily impacted by the project will include red alder saplings, willow (sahx sp.) shrubs, red -osier dogwood, reed canarygrass and Douglas spirea. Temporary impacts will be mitigated through the restoration of the temporarily impacted areas. Restoration will include reseeding and planting of native vegetation and is covered in the sections below that discuss mitigation activities. Table 4. Wetland Size. Classification and Area Impacted by the Proposed Project Wetland Wetland Classification CowardinA HGMB Ecologyc Local D Wetland Size (acre) Wetland Impact Area (acre) Permanent Temporary M PFO Dp/Ri II II >0. 0.03 0.02 N PSS Dp III Ili 0.20 0.20 none Total I- - - I- -1 0.23 0.02 Notes: A) Cowardin, et al. (1979) or National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Class based on vegetation: PEM = Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore; PEM = Palustrine Emergent; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub; PFO = Palustrine Forested. B) Brinson, Mark (1993) Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands Dp=Depressional; Ri = Riverine C) Ecology rating according to Hruby (2004). D) City of Federal Way 3.6 Wetland Buffer Impacts Constructing the westbound SR 18 flyover, proposed road widening activities, and associated grading will result in impacts to the buffers of wetlands AB, K, M, P, and U through a loss of both vegetation and buffer area (Figure 4) The wetlands and their associated buffers represent a broad continuum in terms of quality and wetland/habitat functions. They range from low quality wetlands and buffers subject to historic disturbance and largely dominated by non- native invasive species, such as Wetland AB, to higher quality wetlands vegetated with a structurally- and species -diverse assemblage of native plants, such as Wetland G's buffer. 3.6.1 Permanent Wetland Buffer Impacts The proposed project will permanently impact 1.11 acres of wetland buffers that are roughly divided into two types, herbaceous and forested. The buffer impact areas of Wetland M and Wetland AB are dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. Dominant species include sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), meadow Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 15 foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), reed canarygrass, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Scotch broom. A dense canopy of medium -aged Douglas fir trees characterizes the buffers extending from Wetlands K, P, and U. Understory vegetation in the buffer impact areas ranges from wetland to wetland, but in general includes Himalayan blackberry, osoberry, vine maple (Acer circinatum), beaked hazelnut, and red alder seedlings. Photographs of the wetland buffers that will be impacted are presented in Figures 5 and 6. Table 5 below summarizes buffer impacts. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 16 VIC •� `� ,� *'a.. !': - ;�: • „y'� •-..r,;: -' .` ter. .s '� .�.. �►.'�"F'`-ram: Outer edge of Wetland U-1 buffer Outer edge of Wetland P buffer ?. •i '.tiitir' [ outer edge of northern wetland AB buffer (northernTypical •• • Figure 6 Wetland Buffer Photographs 1-5 /SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements Table 5. Wetland Buffer Size, Classification. and Area Impacted by the Proposed Project Wetland Wetland Classification Buffer Local Width Ecology A Jurisdiction (feet) c B II II [ 100 Impacted Vegetation Buffer Impact Area (acre) u Permanent Temporary Wetland M Herbaceous 0.56 0.17 Wetland AB III III 50 Herbaceous 0.23 0.14 Wetland K III III 25 Forested 0.00 0.01 Wetland P II II 100 Forested 0.18 0.32 Wetland U III III 100 Forested 0.14 0.04 Total - - - I 1 1.11 0.68 Notes: A. Hruby (2004). B. Wetland rating according to City of Federal Way City Code (City of Federal Way, 2005). C. Wetland buffers according to City of Federal Way City Code (City of Federal Way, 2005). 3.6.2 Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts The temporary impacts to a total of 0.68 acre will result during the construction of the project. Temporary buffer impacts are necessary to provide construction site access. Temporary impacts to herbaceous vegetation from impacts to wetlands M and AB Will total 0.31 acre. A total of 0.37 acre of forested buffers on wetlands K, P, and U will be impacted. All temporary impacts to woody vegetation will be minimized to the maximum extent possible during construction. Mitigation for temporary wetland buffer impacts will take the form of revegetation of all the impacted areas. These revegetation efforts will include hydro -seeding or the planting of herbaceous vegetation and native woody trees and shrubs. Information about the proposed temporary buffer mitigation measures is included below. 3.7 Riparian Area Impacts The proposed project will include impacts to riparian habitat along tributaries 0016 and 0016A. The Draft Stream Mitigation Plan (BERGER/ABAM, 2009) gives details of the proposed stream impacts and restoration activities. The Triangle project will not directly affect the stream channel of Tributary 0016. Minor temporary alteration of vegetation in the setback area of Tributary 0016 may accompany the construction of a retaining wall at the stream crossing of SR 18. All temporarily disturbed areas will be restored by planting appropriate native trees and shrubs. The Triangle project will result in various impacts and restoration activities to Tributary 0016A. Construction of the project will have the following impacts on the stream channel of Tributary 0016A and its associated riparian area within the regulated 100-foot setback. The project will: Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 18 ■ Enclose 250 feet of Tributary 0016A in new culverts (65 feet) and culvert extensions (185 feet) ■ Fill 495 feet of Tributary 0016A and relocate the stream ■ Encroach into an estimated 4.44 acres of riparian habitat, principally mixed deciduous/conifer forest, Himalayan blackberry thickets, and roadside grass fields w Temporarily impact an estimated 1.28acres of riparian area along Tributary 0016A In addition to these direct impacts, the Triangle project will cause a small amount of indirect impacts by not alleviating fish passage issues that occur at several culverts in the project area that convey Tributary 0016A flows. Reconstruction of these culverts in their present locations (deep, under the entire width of I-5) would entail significant construction difficulties and increase project costs and traffic delays. Repairing these culverts would not allow fish to access usable habitat because the upper reaches of Tributary 0016A lack sufficient water levels and suitable fish habitat and are subject to flashy stream flow. 3.8 Wetland Functions Impacted Wetland functions were evaluated using the functional groupings and assessment methods detailed in the Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington — Revised (Hruby, T, 2004). The only wetlands that will be directly impacted by the project are Wetland M and Wetland N. Wetland M is a palustrine shrub/scrub and forested wetland provides a variety of wetland functions that include hydrologic functions, water quality functions, and wildlife habitat functions —most of these based on the wetland's depressional/riverine hydrogeomorphic rating, mature and species -diverse vegetation layers, and the diversity and size of buffers to the west, east, and north of the wetland. Wetland M's hydrologic functions include flood flow attenuation, shoreline stabilization, and sedimentation control. The wetland has the potential to provide these functions because of its location adjacent to Tributary 0016, its depressional characteristics that allow for the ponding of water, and its well -established emergent and shrub/scrub vegetation layers. These characteristics also provide water quality functions that include sediment removal, production and export of organic matter, and uptake and sequestration of toxicants and pollutants. Finally, the wetland provides a relatively high degree of wildlife functions relative to the surrounding areas that have been subject to high intensity developments. Wetland vegetation in Wetland M consists primarily of diverse, structurally complex native plant communities that provide emergent, shrub/scrub, and canopy layer habitats. Habitat functions include native plant richness and habitat for wetland -associated mammals, resident and migratory birds, and aquatic invertebrates. The impacts proposed will result in the loss of a small amount of shrub/scrub plant community along the southern edge of Wetland M and a small reduction in wildlife habitat values. Project scientists identified the hydrologic source of Wetland M as interactions with the seasonally high Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 19 water table and periodic flooding from Tributary 0016. Since the impacts will occur along the southern edge of the wetland, no hydrologic impacts to Wetland M are anticipated to occur. In addition, the portion of the wetland to be impacted does not lie in a depression and does not adjoin Tributary 0016. Therefore, loss of hydrologic functions such as sediment removal, toxicant removal, and attenuation of flood flows, is not anticipated. Anticipated loss of vegetation will increase the edge effect along the southern portion of the wetland and decrease the visual attenuation functions of well -established woody vegetation, although it is not anticipated that the edge effect impacts will be significant because no canopy vegetation will be removed that may cause injury to shade -tolerant plant species. The proposed 10-foot high retaining wall will mitigate the loss of the sound attenuation functions of the wetland vegetation. At this height, the new roadway will be elevated to such an extent that traffic -generated noise will be commensurate with existing noise levels. Wetland N is a small (0.20 acre) depression class wetland that is vegetated with both shrub/scrub and forested vegetation. The amount of functions that the wetland provides is limited due to its size, character and position in the landscape. The wetland is located directly adjacent to maintained ROW to the south and west and routinely mowed fields to the north. The lack of a connection with other wetlands or surface waters severely limits the ability of Wetland N to provide benefits to water quality and the export of organic material. This is because pollutant -laden surface waters that could be treated by vegetation within Wetland N have no clearly defined outlet by which to leave the wetland. Wetland N does have some potential to alleviate localized flooding by preventing surface water runoff from continuing down slope; however, the small size of the wetland limits this function. The proposed impacts will result in a loss of shrub/scrub and forested vegetation communities and the associated wildlife habitat values associated with Wetland N. Birds and small mammals likely use the habitat provided by Wetland N; its closeness to SR 18 limits its usefulness as habitat for other species. Wetland N's loss of water quality and hydrologic functions will be very limited because it is small and because it experiences only minimal surface water inputs that provide the potential for the sequestration of sediment and uptake of toxicants. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 20 Table 6 summarizes the existing wetland functions and anticipated impacts. Table 6- Impacted Wetland Functions Function/Valuea Wetland M Wetland N Existing Anticipated Existing Anticipated Flood Flow Alteration + No change - Sediment Removal X No change - Nutrient and Toxicant Removal + Small decrease X Complete Loss Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization X No change - Production & Export of Organic Matter + No change - General Habitat Suitability + Small decrease x Complete Loss Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates + No change - Habitat for Amphibians - - - Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals + Small decrease Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds + Small decrease - General Fish Habitat - - Native Plant Richness + No change x Complete Loss Educational or Scientific Value - - Uniqueness and Heritage means that the function is not present, "X" means that the function is present is of low quality, and "+" means the function is present and is of high quality. Table 7 summarizes the impacts to Wetland M and its associated functions that would result from the proposed project. Table 8 summarizes impacts to Wetland N. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 21 Table 7. Wetland M Impact Summary Wetland Impacts Summary,Sheet Local Jurisdiction Citi of Federal Way WRIA 10 ° Ecology Rating Il Hrub 2004) Local Jurisdiction Rating 11 Local Jurisdiction Buffer 100 feet Width Wetland Size > 1.16 acres :=4 Palustrine forested- .. Cowardin Classification �� shrub/scrub HGM Classification D /Ri Wetland Rating System Pts. Water Quality Score 24 Hydrologic Score 6 Habitat Score 21 _ Total Score 51 Wetland and Buffer Impact Summary Permanent 0.03 acre (< 3% of Wetland M) Wetland Impacts Temporary 0.02 acre Indirect 0 Buffer Impacts Permanent 0.56acre Temporary 0.17 Dominant Vegetation Mature shrub/scrub vegetation will be impacted within the wetland. Primary species include Impacted willow, red -osier dogwood, and Douglas spiraea. Wetland buffer impacts will be limited to non-native grass species (reed canarygrass, tall fescue, velvet grass, and small clump of Scotch broom). Soils Series Impacted Alderwood sandy gravelly loam Hydrology Impacted Depressional wetlands- no indirect hydrology impacts anticipated Wetland Functions Impact Summary The portion of the wetland that will be impacted provides a small amount of water quality Water Quality functions due to interactions with the seasonally high water table which is the primary source of hydrologic inputs for it. The impacted portion of the wetland is not adjacent to Tributary 0016 and no anticipated effects to Tributary 0016 are anticipated. The impacted portion of the wetland does not store surface waters during normal years and Hydrologic has no direct connection with Tributary 0016. No hydrologic impacts are expected to occur from the proposed wetland fill activities. Wetland M provides significant wildlife habitat, although the habitat value of the impacted portion of the wetland is significantly lower than the rest of the wetland due to its location. The impacted area is located approximately 50 feet from SR 18 and the buffer in this area is Habitat subject to periodic mowing and other disturbances. A small amount of habitat for resident and migratory birds and some small mammals likely will be lost with the loss of shrub/scrub habitat. The planned retaining wall in this area should alleviate noise impacts and reduce traffic fatalities for resident terrestrial wildlife. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 22 Table 8. Wetland N Impact Summary Wetland Impacts Summary Sheet Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating III (Hrub 2004 Local Jurisdiction Rating It Local Jurisdiction Buffer 25 feet - Width Wetland Size 0.20 acre Cowardin Classification Shrub scrub HGM Classification Dp Wetland Ratirs9 System Pts. Water Quality Score 18 Hydrologic Score 16 Habitat Score 10 Total Score 44 Wetland and Buffer Impact Summary Permanent 0.20 (100%) Wetland Impacts Temporary 0 Indirect 0 Buffer Impacts Permanent 0 Temporary 0 Dominant Vegetation Mature shrub/scrub and medium aged forested vegetation will be lost because of the Impacted proposed wetland impacts. Dominant species include Douglas spires, Nootka rose, red alder, black cottonwood, and thimbleberry. Buffer vegetation is limited to common mixed pasture grasses and invasive scotch broom. Soils Series Impacted I Alderwood sandy gravellyloam Hydrology Impacted Depressional wetlands- hydrologic impacts to the remaining portions of the wetland are expected. Mitigation calculations will assume that the entire wetland was directly impacted. Wetland Functions Impact summary The primary source of hydrologic inputs for this wetland is interactions with the seasonally high water table. It is anticipated that during storm events, the wetland could receive surface water inputs from the adjacent road fill slopes of SR 18. These surface waters would likely Water Quality be pollutant -laden, thereby providing the opportunity to improve water quality. However, little loss of water quality functions is anticipated, as the wetland has no defined outlet to discharge "treated" water. The wetland provides a limited amount of hydrologic benefits through impoundment of surface runoff from adjacent SR 18 slopes that would otherwise continue to flow downslope. Hydrologic The hydrologic benefits provide by the wetland are very limited due to its small size and limited retention potential. Wetland N provides little wildlife habitat outside of forage opportunities for resident and Habitat migratory birds and perhaps opportunistic hiding cover for small mammals. The wetland is too small and located too close to SR 18 to provide significant habitat value. 3.9 Wetland Buffer Functions Impacted Buffers are vegetated areas adjacent to an aquatic resource that can, through various physical, chemical, and/or biological processes, reduce impacts from adjacent land uses. Buffers also provide the terrestrial habitats necessary for wildlife that use wetlands to meet their life -history needs. Sheldon et al. (2005) identified the following buffer functions: ■ Water quality —Removing sediment, excess nutrients and toxics (bacteria, metals, pesticides) ■ Influencing the microclimate ■ Maintaining adjacent habitat critical for life needs of species that use wetlands Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 23 • Screening adjacent disturbances (noise, light, etc.) ■ Maintaining habitat connectivity The project proposes to impact buffers that provide some of these functions. For this project, the forested buffers (0.32 acre) provide most of these functions, but herbaceous buffers (0.79 acre) provide only water quality functions (Table 9). All of the buffers filter stormwater runoff and help maintain the quality of water that reaches the wetlands. None of the buffers function to maintain habitat connectivity between wetlands because that connectivity is already blocked by I-5 or SR18. Forested wetlands alter microclimate by providing shade and screening the wind, while herbaceous buffers do not have the structure to shade or block the wind. In the Pacific Northwest, most wetland -dependent wildlife that use adjacent terrestrial habitats rely on forested areas for part of their lifecycle. Few, if any, wetland -dependent species in the Pacific Northwest rely on herbaceous buffer, especially along a highway, for critical life needs. Forested buffers can screen wildlife in the wetland from movement and light that could disturb breeding or feeding. Herbaceous buffers do not screen light or visible movement from wildlife using the wetlands. Table 9 below summarizes the wetland buffer impacts and the losses in wetland buffer functions that are anticipated. Table 9. Wetland Buffer Function Impacts Permanent Buffer Vegetation Extent of Wetland Name Impacts (acres) Composition Anticipated Buffer Buffer Function Impacts Function Loss Wetland AB 0.23 Herbaceous Moderate Water quality Wetland M 0.56 Herbaceous Moderate Water quality Wetland P 0.18 Forested Moderate Wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation diversity Wetland U 0.14 Forested Low Water quality CHAPTER 4 — MITIGATION STRATEGY 4.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts WSDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers to the greatest extent practicable. During the design process, the project team used a two-phase WSDOT screening process to examine the different build alternatives as they were developed and analyzed. Eleven different build alternatives were analyzed during this process. The current build alternative was chosen for its top scores in minimizing environmental impacts as well as in four of the six categories that were reviewed. Total avoidance was not possible due to constraints associated with safety and design guidelines. By using site -specific design techniques —primarily mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls to limit fill slopes and associated impacts —the project team was able to minimize critical area impacts. Adjacent to Wetland M, the project will construct a 10-foot high wall to limit fill slopes and resulting wetland impacts. The construction of this retaining wall will reduce wetland impacts by 0.15 acre. A retaining wall is also proposed along Wetland A.B. also reducing wetland impacts. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 24 New stormwater detention and treatment facilities will treat and detain additional runoff created by new road surfaces and provide a higher level of treatment and detention for a portion of the existing road surfaces. Runoff from a total of 14.7 acres of new pavement and 34.10 acres of existing pavement will be treated and detained in accordance with the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16 (WSDOT, 2006) and the WSDOT Hydraulics Manual M 23-03( WSDOT, 2007). Ecology embankments or media filter drains, modified bio-infiltration swales, and detention/water quality ponds will provide water quality treatment, and the expansion of two existing detention ponds and the construction of two additional ponds and a detention vault will provide detention. These stormwater treatments will prevent incidental wetland impacts by providing/ supplementing the water quality functions of the wetland buffers. 4.2 Compensatory Mitigation 4.2.1 Mitigation Overview To prevent the loss of wetland and wetland buffer functions and values, the project includes comprehensive wetland mitigation measures such as creating wetlands and enhancing wetlands, riparian habitat areas, and wetland buffers. Temporary wetland and buffer impacts will be mitigated through restoration of impacted plant communities following construction activities. Permanent wetland and buffer impacts will be mitigated off site. An off -site 3.37-acre parcel (the Corrington site) will be the location of wetland mitigation. The Corrington site is approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site along South 364th Street. This rural residential lot is mostly undeveloped, except for a mobile home trailer and garage located in the northern portion of the property and a small pump house located in the east - central portion of the site. Much of the wetland on the Corrington site has been degraded by the establishment of invasive, non-native reed canarygrass, a species that can colonize wetland areas aggressively and out -compete native vegetation, ultimately resulting in the loss of wildlife habitat and vegetation diversity values. Removing this species and re-establishing a native plant community represents an opportunity for wetland enhancement. WSDOT has taken a watershed approach to mitigating wetland and stream impacts. The overall intent of the proposed mitigation is to preserve, protect, and enhance a significant contiguous wetland and wildlife corridor within the Hylebos Creek watershed. The Corrington site is close to other wetland and riparian habitat enhancement sites, and the surrounding area has not been subject to extensive development. Compared to potential on -site mitigation opportunities that would result in isolated enhancement projects in highly developed areas with limited wildlife habitat potential, the proposed off -site mitigation will provide a greater increase of wetland and wildlife habitat values for the watershed. The mitigation activities will restore temporarily impacted wetlands and buffers on site. Off - site, they will create a large contiguous tract of highly functioning wetlands and wetland buffers characterized by high amounts of native plant diversity and diverse fish and wildlife habitat. Table 10 below summarizes the mitigation activities for the Triangle project. Wetland mitigation for the proposed buffer impacts will take the form of increased stormwater treatment to replace lost water quality buffer functions and off -site buffer enhancement Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 25 activities to offset the loss of a small amount of native vegetation and associated wildlife habitat functions. Project staff determined that off -site buffer enhancement in an area with a higher potential for wildlife usage would serve the watershed better than buffer enhancement in the project area. The wildlife habitat potential for many of the wetlands and buffers in the project area is severely limited because they are close to the freeway and other high intensity developments. Table 10. Summary of Wetland Mitigation Measures Impacted Critical Area Corresponding Mitigation Temporary wetland and buffer impacts Restoration of affected areas within the road ROW Permanent wetland impacts Creation of additional wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands on the Corrington site Permanent herbaceous wetland buffer impacts Added detention of project stormwater as part of a larger watershed approach Permanent forested wetland buffer impacts Wetland buffer enhancement on the Corrington site Riparian Area Impacts Enhancement of riparian area, creation of off -channel fish habitat 4.2.2 Regulatory Requirements Local Permits The City regulates wetlands and wetland buffers under Chapter 22 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). Under the FWCC, initiating construction activities that would impact wetlands or wetland buffers requires prior authorization. Federal Permits The project will result in direct impacts to wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps. Therefore, the applicant will apply for a Nationwide Permit (NWP) from the Seattle District of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project would likely be permitted under the guidelines of NWP 14 (Linear transportation projects). Under NWP 14 guidelines, formal mitigation to offset the planned wetland impacts will be required. State Permits Under the Nationwide Permit 14 guidelines, a Section 401 individual water quality certification from Ecology will be required, as will an HPA from WDFW because the proposed project will also include work below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters of the state. (All in - water work is addressed in a separate stream mitigation plan.) 4.2.3 Recommended Mitigation Ratios Wetland mitigation recommendations were determined using guidance from the Corps, Ecology, and the City code. Table 11 below summarizes the wetland mitigation ratios recommended by Ecology in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1) (Ecology et al., 2006a). These recommendations assume impacts occur to wetlands within a similar wetland category. Ecology guidance provides for the adjustment of ratios for an increase or decreases in category from the impact to the mitigation site. Ecology guidance also provides for the adjustment of mitigation ratios when either the probability of success is high or temporal impacts are low. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 26 Table 11. Recommended Mitigation Ratios for Category Re - and Type of establishment Rehabilitation Wetland or Creation Only Impacts All other 3:1 6:1 Category III 1 2:1 * Ecology et al. (2006a) in Western Washinot❑n Re-establishment or Re-establishment or Enhancement Creation (R/C) and Creation (R/C) and Only Rehabilitation (RH) Enhancement (E) 1:1 R/C and 4:1RH 4:1 1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 12:1 8:1 E 1:1 R/C and 8:1 4:1 E According to the FWCC (City of Federal Way, 2005), the following standard ratios apply to creation/restoration/enhancement of wetlands disturbed by this project. ■ Shrub/scrub, Category II wetlands: 2:1 creation, 2:1 restoration, 4:1 enhancement ■ Shrub/scrub, Category III wetlands: 1.5:1 creation, 1.5:1 restoration, 3:1 enhancement only It should be noted, however, that the City's planning director has the authority to decrease wetland mitigation ratios (in no case will the minimum acreage replacement ratio be less than 1.25:1 as authorized in Section 22-1358(e)(3)) of the FWCC based on the following criteria: ■ Probable success of the proposed mitigation ■ Projected losses in functions and values ■ Findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demonstrate that no net loss of wetland functions or values is attained under an alternative ratio. Table 12 below summarizes the amount of creation required by the City. Table 12. Miti tlon Area Required per City of Federal Way City Code* Direct Creation or Restoration Enhancement Wetland Impacts Proposed Local Proposed Jurisdiction Area Ratio^ Creation Ratio^ Enhancement Wetland (acres) Cate ory Area (acres) Area (ac) II 0.03 2:1 0.06 4:1 0.12 III 0.20 1.5:1 0.30 3:1 0.60 Total 0.23 0.36 0.72 * Federal Way, 2005 4.2.4 Buffer Mitigation Wetland buffer requirements are regulated on a local level by the City. As per the FWCC, wetland buffer impacts for essential public facilities, public utilities, and other public improvements may be approved by the planning director. Buffer impacts were unavoidable for the Triangle project based on the existing alignment of the roadways and current design limitations. The FWCC does not set out exact wetland buffer mitigation requirements when buffer impacts are authorized. 4.2.5 Surplus Mitigation The mitigation project is designed to have a small amount of surplus mitigation to address any unforeseen wetland impacts associated with final design. These final design changes are often Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 27 associated with utility boxes, utility lines, stormwater outfalls, or sign placement. By providing a surplus of mitigation, WSDOT will not have to redesign the mitigation site to address these impacts. WSDOT will notify regulatory agencies if impact areas should change as a result of redesign and if they wish to use the surplus mitigation. The Corrington mitigation site provides more buffer mitigation than is needed for the project. The surplus buffer mitigation provided includes upland buffer and wetland enhancement within paper buffers. WSDOT would like to preserve this buffer mitigation for use on future projects. Two likely projects include the SR 509 Freight and Congestion Relief Project and the SR 167 Stage 5 Project. Both have buffer impacts that are not fully addressed. Any use of the site for mitigation for any other WSDOT project would require regulatory review and approval. For the agencies to consider a project that might use the mitigation site, the project will have to follow avoidance and minimization procedures, provide a report of project impacts and mitigation, and evaluate functional replacement. CHAPTER 5 — COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SITE 5.1 Site Location To prevent the loss of wetland and wetland buffer functions and values, comprehensive wetland mitigation activities will be completed off site on a parcel known as the Corrington property. The Corrington site is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site along South 364th Street with a street address of 933 South 346th Street (Figure 1). This gravel road serves as access to five single-family homes and terminates at a single-family residence approximately 400 feet west of the Corrington property. The property consists of two separate tax parcels (2921049110, 2921049081) totaling 3.37 acres. 5.2 Landscape Perspective 5.2.1 Landscape Position The US Geologic Survey (USGS) Poverty Bay topographic map of the area illustrates that the property is situated on the eastern edge of a large drainage basin that contains the West Branch of Hylebos Creek (USGS, 1997). The North Fork of West Hylebos Creek flows south along the western boundary of the site. In addition, a small perennial channel flows east across the central portion of the property, into a small man-made pond, and eventually outfalls to the North Fork via a small corrugated metal culvert. The Corrington site is in an area which has not been subject to the types of high intensity development that characterize the project area. Land use in the surrounding area is limited to low density residential developments, public parks, and urban open space. Large tracts of undeveloped forestland are located north and west of the property. 5.2.2 Ecological Connectivity The Corrington site is located in the upper portion of the approximately 18-square mile Hylebos Creek watershed. Hylebos Creek eventually drains into the Hylebos Waterway and the navigable waters of Commencement Bay. Although the watershed is rather small, it was once a productive salmon rearing and spawning watershed. Unfortunately, the negative effects of Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 28 urban development and deforestation have resulted in dramatic declines in salmonid numbers and an overall decline in water quality parameters. In the immediate area surrounding the Corrington site, the hydrologic conditions are characterized by large tracts of wetlands likely supported by high ground water tables, precipitation, and surface water inputs. Emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested wetlands are located to the north, south, and west of the Corrington site. In addition, several ponds with permanently open water are located on the Corrington property as well as in the immediately surrounding area. Based on the relatively undeveloped nature of the surrounding area, the Corrington site is located within a broad forested corridor that stretches roughly from South 348th Street all the way to the northern edge of Commencement Bay. Except for the occasional single-family residence and Highway 99, this corridor is relatively unbroken and serves as an important migration corridor for resident wildlife. 5.2.3 Historic and Current Land Use Like many forested areas adjacent to urban centers, the Corrington site and adjacent lands have been subject to timber harvesting activities. Federal Way was originally settled as a timber outpost in the early 1800s. It was not until the 1950s that the city began to transition from an economy based on natural resource extraction to one based on providing services. Therefore, the Corrington site and surrounding areas were likely subject to several cycles of timber growth and harvest. The Corrington site and adjacent lands are zoned as rural residential (R35) which equates to one single-family residence per 35,000 square feet. The property to the north of the Corrington site is designated as open space by the City (Spring Valley Open Space). Land south of the Corrington site is undeveloped wetlands. To the east and west, the mitigation site is bordered by low -density residential developments characterized by grasslands and small tracts of forestland. On a larger scale, the Corrington property is located within a large tract of undeveloped land owned by the City, WSDOT, and other public agencies. Figure 7 is an aerial photograph of the Corrington site and shows its relation to the forested areas of the watershed and the locations of publicly owned property slated for conservation that will remain as open space. The West Branch of Hylebos Creek subbasin has been the focus of several wetland and watershed improvement projects. These have included wetland restoration, fish enhancement, and riparian habitat improvements. Their goal has been to restore and increase overall wetland and wildlife habitat functions within the West Branch of Hylebos Creek watershed. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 29 Figure 7. Wetland Mitigation Plan I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 January 2009 Page 30 yo, Ao 16i A14 J State Park C, c ift G ?A City ti City ZQY. Silci:ted Mitiga 5p'rl'n'4Aftitey city 47 Cft Vs DaT IC., 4p os West t67 L 5.3 Rationale for Site Selection Before selecting the Corrington mitigation site, WSDOT biologists used a formal evaluation process to review a number of potential sites. Screening criteria of the review and selection process included: • Sites located in same sub -basin as impacts • Sites with adequate area for wetland and buffer mitigation ■ Sites with appropriate construction equipment access and equipment/materials storage capabilities ■ Sites located outside of WSDOT ROW ■ Sites that are not dominated by forested vegetation ■ Sites with an adequate source of hydrology ■ Sites capable of replacing wetland functions lost by roadway impacts Details of the preliminary mitigation site reconnaissance are provided in the WSDOT I-5 — SR 18/SR 161 Triangle Project, Wetland Mitigation Site Selection Preliminary Field Reconnaissance memo (WSDOT, 2006). Following the review of 11 different potential mitigation sites, a more detailed review of the mitigation potential of the Corrington site was conducted and a summary of these findings was supplied to WSDOT (WSDOT, 2007). The team subsequently chose the proposed mitigation site for its high potential for the successful design and completion of mitigation and because of the relatively low development and large tracts of forestland and wetlands that surround it. These increase the potential for wildlife habitat benefits by enhancing an existing vegetated corridor. In addition to the surrounding area's undeveloped nature, the property directly north of the site is designated as urban natural open space and is protected from further development activities. The mitigation site is also adjacent to the North Fork of West Hylebos Creek. The existence of this creek, which is designated habitat for ESA -listed fish species, provides the potential to increase water quality benefits and off -channel habitat. The presence of permanently open water sources in the form of the man-made pond and associated inlet and outlet channels coupled with high water table elevations will ensure adequate wetland hydrology and a high potential for success for planned wetland creation areas. Lastly, dense stands of reed canarygrass have become established in most of the wetlands on the site. This invasive weed species is outcompeting native emergent plant species, resulting in less plant diversity and loss of wildlife habitat, and presents a prime opportunity for wetland enhancement. Because of its landscape position and the fact that the surrounding land use is limited to low - density residential development, the Corrington site has high potential for providing significant wildlife habitat functions. Compared to potential mitigation on the project site, on the Corrington site, enhancement efforts can be carried out that will complement the ongoing Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 31 restoration efforts in the surrounding area. The combination will make for a more substantial increase of wetland and wildlife habitat values in the watershed. 5.4 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions WSDOT staff completed a preliminary wetland assessment of the mitigation site in November 2007 and BERGER/ABAM staff performed a routine wetland delineation of the site in spring 2008. (Appendix C). Development on the mitigation site is limited to a mobile home site and detached garage located in the northern portions of the property and a small pump house located in the east -central portion of the site. The mobile home sits on a broad shelf of obvious fill material that gently slopes down to what appears to be a constructed pond. The garage is located in the northwest corner of the property and is accessed by a narrow driveway constructed of a thin layer of gravel and fill material. Except for the areas immediately south of the man-made pond, mature trees are primarily located along the eastern and western boundaries of the property. BERGER/ABAM biologists delineated the wetlands on the Corrington site in May 2008, identifying one large Category I wetland in the central and southern portion of the property as well as a small Category IV wetland and a small portion of a Category II wetland located in the site's northern portion (Figure 8). 5.4.1 Uplands The only uplands located on the site are in the northern portions of the property close to the existing garage and mobile home. These portions of the property have been regularly maintained and are dominated by typical upland pasture grasses, scattered coniferous trees that include Douglas fir and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and deciduous trees that include red alder, black cottonwood, bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and Oregon ash (Fraxintts latifolia). 5.4.2 Wetlands There are three separate wetlands within the Corrington mitigation site although all the proposed mitigation measures will take place within the largest — Wetland C, which is a small portion of a much larger depression/riverine wetland that includes emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested components. On the subject parcel, most wetland is emergent, although scattered red alder, black cottonwood, western red cedar, and a few Oregon ash trees are located along the western boundary of the wetland adjacent to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek and immediately south of the man-made pond (Figure 8). Common pasture grasses and forbs subject to routine mowing characterize the wetland's northern portions, and the dominant vegetation here is limited to tall fescue, meadow foxtail, colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris), reed canarygrass, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), English plantain, and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Figure 9 presents photographs of this area. This portion of the wetland receives hydrologic inputs from subsurface water movement and overland flow from adjacent slopes. The wetland boundary in this area was clearly identifiable through a marked change in soil saturation in conjunction with subtle changes in soil color. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 32 The southern portions of the wetland are dominated almost entirely by reed canarygrass, although a few small patches of soft rush Uuncus effusus, FACW+), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC), Himalayan blackberry and Douglas spiraea are scattered throughout the wetland (Figure 9). Small upland islands were identified directly south and southwest of the man-made pond. Vegetation within the southwest upland island adjacent to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos is dominated entirely by Himalayan blackberry, while the upland island directly adjacent to the man-made pond is dominated by common mixed pasture grasses and forbs. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 33 Legend Nlitigalion SAO Boundary Delineated Wetland Boundary Major Stream Minor Stream OHWM a Culvert Figure 8 Mitigation Site Baseline Conditions 1-5/SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements G 0 50 100 Feet 1 I 1 Legend Corrington Site Photographs Figure 9 — — — Delineated Wetland Boundary 1-5 - SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project August 2008 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 22 The hydrologic source for Wetland C is a combination of interactions with the seasonally high water table and periodic flooding from the North Fork of West Branch Hylebos Creek. The southern portions of Wetland C appear to have a slightly higher degree of saturation and seasonal inundation owing to their lower elevation and reed canarygrass monoculture. At the time of the delineation, the southern portion of the wetland had higher levels of soil saturation between 2 and 8 inches from the surface. The northern portions of Wetland C are located at a slightly higher elevation and are not subject to seasonal flooding from the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek. The northernmost portions of Wetland C form a lobe located on the moderate fill slopes that descend from the mobile home plateau in the northernmost portion of the site. The wetlands within this lobe likely receive hydrologic inputs from surface runoff in addition to subsurface flows. Based on the delineated wetland boundary in this area, subsurface flows east of the lobe may have been interrupted during site preparation and grading for the placement of the mobile home. The wetland buffers are primarily located in the northern portion of the site, as Wetland C extends all the way to the property boundaries to the south. Mixed non-native upland pasture grasses and forbs commonly associated with maintained lawn areas and pastures dominate the wetland buffers; invasive plant species in the buffer area are limited to a few scattered Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) plants. 5.4.3 Streams/Surface Waters The North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek enters the property after passing through a culvert under the graveled South 364th Street. The creek flows south along the western edge of the property for approximately 400 feet. Average water depths at the time of the site visits varied from 8 inches to almost 2 feet. The North Fork currently exists as one long riffle with little channel form diversity. Small -sized cobble and areas of sand/silt dominate the substrate. The other surface water feature on the property is a medium-sized man-made pond in its central portion. The pond receives water inputs via a small inflow channel that drains west from the adjacent property (Figure 4). The inflow channel has an average width of approximately 2.5 feet and an average depth of 1 foot. The input water comes from ground water discharge from the large wetland complex north and east of the Corrington property. Flow leaves the pond through an outflow channel similar to the inflow channel and eventually outfalls to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek via a small corrugated steel culvert. Table 13 below summarizes information about the mitigation site wetland. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 36 Table 13. Mitigation Site Wetland Summary Location The southern and central portions of the property are dominated by the wetland. The wetland continues off site to the south, east, and west. Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating Category I i (Hruby 2004) Federal Way Rating Category I Federal Way Buffer 200 feet Width Wetland Size 2.4 acres Cowardin Palustrine emergent ` t Classification (PEM) HGM Classification Riverine/Depressional Wetland Rating System Pts. Water Quality Score 20 32 Hydrologic Score Habitat Score 71 Total Score Dominant Vegetation Emergent in nature, most of wetland dominated by reed canarygrass Soils within the wetland vary depending on location. Most common soil profile was identified as silty clay loam material with soil matrices colors Soils of 10YR 2/1. This soil typically extended to depths of 18 inches. Below this level, soil matrices included the presence of common distinct 10YR 5 6 mottles. Hydrology Seasonally saturated, temporarily flooded Rationale for Local Rating Presence of ESA -listed salmonids = Category 1 rating as per the City of Federal way development code. The existing wetland provides wetland functions including flood flow attenuation, sediment removal, toxicant and nutrient uptake, habitat for Functions of Entire Wetland amphibians and aquatic invertebrates, and general fish habitat. Buffer Condition Buffers on the property are a mixture of forested areas and maintained lawn areas dominated by common non-native grasses and forbs. 5.4.4 Wildlife Habitat and Use The potential for wildlife usage of the site is largely a function of the rural nature of the property and the large tracts of adjacent open space (Figure 7). Vegetation diversity and structural complexity are relatively poor. Overall, vegetation is best characterized as uplands vegetated with common non-native pasture grasses and forbs and wetlands dominated by monotypic stands of reed canarygrass. Canopy -level trees are limited to a small row of trees adjacent to North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek and a few scattered cottonwoods adjacent to the man-made pond. Shrub layer vegetation is limited to a few small stands of Nootka rose and Himalayan blackberry shrubs. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 37 The lack of structural complexity and interspersion of different habitat types reduces the habitat potential of the site. In addition, it lacks any large woody debris (LWD) or snags that offer prime habitat for nesting, denning, and feeding. Nevertheless, the mitigation site does offer a fair amount of wildlife habitat owing to its various permanent water sources, large wetlands, and rural setting. A wide variety of terrestrial, avian, and aquatic wildlife species probably use the mitigation site. Terrestrial wildlife observed within the West Hylebos Creek Park approximately 1 mile north includes coyote, raccoon, muskrats, mountain beaver, little brown bat, and various other small mammals such as mice, moles, and squirrels. These mammals likely utilize the mitigation site for feeding, denning, and migration. Avian species that use the site most likely include great blue herons, red-tailed hawks, and a wide variety of resident and migratory passerine birds. There are several different habitats available to reptiles and amphibians in the form of the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek, man-made pond, and inflow and outflow channels of the pond. Potential species include garter snake, northern alligator lizard, red -legged frog, northwest tree frog, northwestern salamander, and western toad. The only federal listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species known to utilize the site are listed salmonids. The West Branch of Hylebos Creek is verified habitat for coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshazuytscha) salmon. CHAPTER 6 — MITIGATION ACTIVITIES 6.1 Mitigation Accounting This section provides details on the wetland mitigation accounting of the project in order to ensure that the mitigation requirements of the City, Ecology, and Corps. Wetland mitigation efforts are summarized in Figure 10 and will entail the following activities: ■ Creation of 0.32 acre of Category I wetlands ■ Enhancement of 1.37acres of degraded Category I wetlands x Upland preservation of 0.06 acre ■ Enhancement of 1.03 acres of wetland buffers ■ Creation of 0.05 acre of new off -channel fish habitat (stream mitigation) ■ Enhancement of 0.14 acre of off -channel fish habitat (stream mitigation) Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 38 Wetland A N. Fork West Branch Hylebos (0.02 acre) { _► S 336th St Wetland Creation (0.09 acre) f i Wetland Creation (0.03 acre) / It :t i_ _ _ µ' �: �•r.ri it -;: •.- . ' �.'._ "1�3i`;•r. -+.w- wean. •!!:� 5r� Wetland Creation 0.01 acrel altr T..: ' ..... E. ••� •-• 7 4? . f-7.YllL,l1 �.�...._ -- •-'� All[! -- __ _ �I Off Channel Habitat ►_.. - x -W& 430 Linear Feet - -= =» (0.05 acre) ._. • _ .t ; _ EW SSW... { Wetland Creation = 0.32 acre Wetland Enhancement - 1.37 acres Wetland Buffer Enhancement = 1.05 acres Riparian Enhancement Area = 1.08 acre Off -Channel Habitat = 0.19 acre Wetland Enhancement area within 75' Paper Buffer = 0.60 acre Wetland Creation area within 75' Paper Buffer = 0.04 acre Legend Project Area L _ Delineated Wetland Brush Pile Stream Off -Channel Habitat + Large Woody Debris Culvert Removal Wetland Buffer Enhancement 75' Paper Buffer Wetland Creation ! _ _ 11 Upland Preservation — Riparian Enhancement Area - - . Wetland Enhancement Wetland B (0.01 acre on -site) Wetland Creation (0.19 acre) Off -Channel Habitat Pond Enhancement (0.14 acre) Upland Preservation (Understory Enhanced) (0.06 acre) Wetland Enhancement (1.37 acres) Figure 10 Mitigation Activities 1-5/SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements G 0 40 80 Feet I I I I I The need for buffers around the Corrington site to ensure protection of wetland functions and values will affect the mitigation accounting for the project dramatically. Consultation with Rebecca McAndrew, Senior Scientist for the Seattle Corps, resulted in the determination that the Corrington site should have 75-foot buffer zones to prevent incidental impacts to the mitigation site. Because WSDOT does not own the adjacent properties and because these areas are subject to routine disturbance in the form of periodic mowing and traffic, the first 75 feet of the mitigation area adjacent to the east and west property lines will act as a paper buffer. The road along the northern edge of the property is also a vector for disturbance and the first 75 feet of the property that adjoins the road will also act as a paper buffer. These paper buffers will protect the wetlands on the Corrington site, although the areas covered by them are themselves wetlands. Ms. McAndrew, in a January 15, 2008 email to WSDOT staff, stated that the wetland enhancement activities within the 75-foot paper buffers will not count towards eliminating the wetland mitigation debt as the wetland enhancement areas within them are not properly buffered. The enhancement areas within the paper buffers should be calculated as wetland buffer enhancement areas when determining mitigation credits generated by the project because the functions provided by the wetland enhancement areas within the paper buffers may be degraded by impacts from the adjacent properties. However, WSDOT will receive full credit for the wetland creation activities taking place within the paper buffers along the stream, although not for those within the paper buffer for the road. Wetland enhancement area and creation areas within the 75-foot paper buffers total 0.60 and 0.03 acre respectively (Figure 10). Therefore, WSDOT will get credit for completing only 0.77 acre of wetland enhancement (1.37 minus 0.60) and 0.28 acre of wetland creation (0.32 minus 0.04) for the purpose of mitigation accounting. The wetland creation and enhancement credits inside the 75-foot paper buffer (0.63 acre) will be counted as wetland buffer enhancements. Therefore, for the purposes of mitigation accounting, the project will receive credit for enhancing 1.67 acres of wetland buffer. In addition to the paper buffer calculations, it was agreed that WSDOT will get credit for preserving the small upland forested island located immediately south of the pond. In addition to preserving the existing mature trees in this area, blackberry stands will be removed and the understory enhanced (Figure 10). This preservation credit will be calculated at a 5:1 ratio. Table 14 below explains the mitigation accounting for the project. The mitigation debt for each impact is zeroed out by the creation, enhancement, and preservation activities. The credit for each mitigation activity is calculated by dividing the area of each mitigation activity by the corresponding mitigation ratio. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 40 Table 14. Project Impacts and Mitigation Impact Mitigation Type Area (ac) Debt Type Area (ac) Credit Ratio Credit Generated Balance Category II Wetland 0.03 -0.03 Wetland Creation 0.09 3:1 0.03 0 Category III wetland 0.20 -0.20 Wetland Creation 0.19 2:1 0.10 + 0.01 Wetland E Enhancement 0.77 8:1 0.10 Upland Preservation 0.06 5:1 0.01 Forested Buffer 0.32 Buffer Enhancement 1.1.67 1:1 1.67 1 1.35 6.2 Mitigation for Temporary Impacts Mitigation for the temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts that will result from the necessary clearing and grading activities will take place on site. This mitigation will restore the areas to their original condition by planting trees and shrubs and reseeding herbaceous vegetation. Only native species suited for the conditions of each individual restoration area will be planted/seeded. 6.3 Mitigation for Permanent Impacts WSDOT will mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands using standard mitigation ratios (Table 14 and Ecology 2006). The mitigation plan includes creation of additional Category II wetlands, enhancement of wetlands, and enhancement of wetland buffers that will occur at the Corrington site and these are shown individually below. This results in an increase in wetland quality from impacts primarily to Category III wetlands with creation and enhancement of Category I wetlands. Water quality treatment to mitigate for buffer impacts to herbaceous buffers will occur as part of the larger watershed approach to mitigation. The proposed mitigation provides more mitigation than required for this project's impacts. WSDOT would like to set this mitigation aside for future projects. Lastly, the Corrington mitigation site includes stream mitigation, including off -channel fish habitat and riparian enhancement. 6.3.1 Wetland Creation The primary wetland mitigation measures will consist of wetland creation and wetland enhancement. The wetland creation activities will increase the amount of Category I wetlands on the site by 0.32 acre (Figure 10). Wetlands will be established through excavation of upland areas in order to lower the base elevation sufficiently to induce interactions with the seasonally high ground water levels. Excavation amounts range from 6 inches to 4 feet. Grading and construction sheets for the Corrington site are provided in Appendix D of this report. Four separate areas, totaling 0.32 acre, will be created within the mitigation site. Two creation areas adjoin the permanently flowing waters of the man-made pond and outflow channel. In addition to these two areas, the area previously covered by the garage and driveway will be converted to wetlands and a small section of the off -channel fish habitat channel will pass through a small section of upland (Figure 10). The largest creation area is located directly north of the man-made pond. Wetlands in this area will be created through excavating down to a level that will induce prolonged saturation and seasonal flooding (Sheet 2, Appendix D). The proposed excavation will create a broad flat Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 41 bench that begins at the elevation of the water level within the man-made pond. From this point, the created wetland will gradually rise, eventually matching the existing grade of the hillside (Sheet 2, Appendix D). The second creation area is located north of the outflow channel (Sheet 1, Appendix D). This creation area was designed so that all surface waters would drain back to the pond, thereby preventing stranding of fish that enter the creation area during flood events. All of the creation areas will receive hydrologic inputs through surface runoff, capillary saturation of soils from adjacent open waters, and periodic flooding. The northernmost wetland creation area will receive hydrologic inputs from seasonally high ground water interactions and through surface runoff from adjacent slopes. To increase shading of surface waters and increase wildlife habitat values, native emergent, forest and shrub/scrub plant communities (deciduous and coniferous trees) will be planted in these wetland creation areas. The wetland creation activities will offset some of the losses due to impacts to wetlands M and N by increasing the following wetland functions: native plant richness, nutrient and toxicant uptake and sequestration, production and export of organic matter, flood flow alteration, and habitat complexity and diversity. 6.3.2 Wetland Enhancements Enhancement of existing wetlands will be the largest form of mitigation on the site, with the project removing invasive vegetation and establishing a diverse native plant community to enhance a total of 1.37 acre (0.77 beyond the paper buffer, with 0.60 acre within the paper buffer) (Sheet 1, Appendix D). Wetland enhancement activities will result in an increase in wetland functions, thereby eliminating the remaining amount of wetland mitigation debt. Wetland enhancement will take place in the southern portion of Wetland C where reed canarygrass has become established and in the northern section of Wetland C that is dominated by emergent vegetation. The invasive weed control section below discusses invasive weed eradication and control methods. Ultimately, the enhancements will establish a complex matrix of emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested wetland plant communities with a high degree of vegetative interspersion. The enhancements are projected to increase numerous functions (native plant richness; habitat complexity and diversity; sediment capture; habitat for amphibians, mammals, and birds; and production and export of organic material) and to reduce the source of invasive seeds for downstream watersheds. 6.3.3 Wetland Buffer Enhancements In addition to the various wetland creation and enhancement activities described above, the mitigation strategy includes 1.03 acre of wetland buffer enhancements. The buffer enhancements will increase wetland buffer and riparian buffer functions along the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek and offset the impacts to 0.32 acre of permanent forested wetland buffers in the project area. Enhancements will install a native forested plant community and habitat improvement structures, such as LWD and wildlife habitat brush piles. These enhancements will increase wetland buffer and wildlife functions by increasing plant diversity, foraging and nesting habitat, overall habitat complexity, and plant structure diversity. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 42 6.3.3 Wetland Buffer Preservation A small (0.06 acre) upland island located immediately south of the man-made pond is currently vegetated with mature trees with an understory of native and non-native shrubs. This area will be preserved, the non-native plants removed, and the understory enhanced through the planting of native woody shrub species. 6.3.4 Stormwater Treatment and Control To mitigate for the loss of 0.79 acre of herbaceous wetland buffers and their associated water quality functions, the project will provide water quality and stormwater control for 34.10 acres of existing I-5 and SR 18 impervious surfaces. This infrastructure will collect and treat pollutant -laden surface runoff that would otherwise enter the wetlands and buffers. Therefore, the water quality functions that these buffers currently provide will be augmented/replaced by the construction of stormwater collection, treatment, and detention facilities. 6.3.5 Off -Channel Fish Habitat Creation To mitigate for the lack of fish passage improvements along Tributary 0016A, in -lieu mitigation will be performed at the Corrington site. Because of the low base flows and flashy nature of Tributary 0016A and the poor habitat of the stream reach above the existing fish barriers, removing the existing fish barriers will not improve conditions for fish species significantly. Therefore, the project will create off -channel fish habitat in the southern portion of the site in the form of a permanently flowing channel (Sheet 1, Appendix D). Since the Corrington site adjoins the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek, which has better habitat than tributaries 0016 and 0016A, the added channel will be a greater benefit to fish species than removing the fish barriers on tributaries 0016A and 0016. New off -channel habitat will increase the amount of available fish habitat in the reaches of North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek used by anadromous and other resident fish species. The project will excavate a channel averaging 3 feet wide and 2 feet deep in the wetlands (Sheets 2 and 3, Appendix D). Sheet 4 of Appendix D details the proposed cross-section of the stream. Water depths within the channel are expected to be relatively constant between 18 and 24 inches. This channel will start near the pond outfall channel in the central portion of the Corrington site, meander through the enhanced wetlands, and ultimately outfall to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek (Figure 10). The channel will receive flows that currently flow through the pond outfall channel and outfall to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos through a small corrugated culvert. The water source for the pond is perennial and is composed of cool and clean ground water discharges from the wetlands east and north of the project site. This water source flows year round and water levels were observed to remain constant throughout the year. The proposed channel and wetland creation areas adjacent to the pond are not anticipated to change the level of water in the pond. The outflow channel will be created in wetland areas where the soils are listed as Shalcar muck. Shalcar muck soils are moderately permeable soils that are very poorly drained and high in organic content. Soil samples taken during the wetland delineation of the Corrington site confirmed the presence of Shalcar soils within the channel creation areas. The upper 5 to 10 inches of the soil are very high in decomposed organic matter mixed with a matrix of silt loam Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 43 material. Deeper in the soil profile (below 12 inches), the soil transitions to a sandy loam material with inclusion's of clay. Below approximately 18 inches, the soil is a mixture of sandy silt loam and sandy clay loam more similar to Snohomish silt loam soils that are listed by the NRCS as a minor component to the Shalcar series. The proposed channel will result in excavation within the wetland areas to depths approaching 3 feet (Appendix D, sheet 3). It is anticipated that the dominant material within the created streambed will be the clay loam material encountered below 18 inches. Erosion is not expected within this soil due to the very low overall slope of the created channel (0.98%). The construction of the channel will be completed in stages in coordination with the grading and other enhancement activities. Following the mowing and spraying of the reed canarygrass stands, the grading of the stream channel will be completed in conjunction with the other required grading on the Corrington site. The beginning and end of the stream channel will be isolated from the surface waters of the pond and North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos with temporary cofferdams constructed from plastic sheeting and sandbags. Once herbaceous vegetation has become established within the creation areas minimizing the risks of erosion, the cofferdams will be removed and surface waters allowed to flow through the new channel. The last stage of the channel construction will be the removal of the existing culvert on the pond outflow channel. A small backhoe or similar equipment will remove the existing culvert, and the area previously occupied by the culvert will be backfilled with compacted soil. Prior to removal, the area will be isolated with cofferdams similar to those used for the new stream channel. This plan will allow surface waters to continue to circulate through the pond while at the same time providing valuable off -channel habitat for resident and migratory fish. It is anticipated that, over time, the backwater area between the entrance to the created channel and the old location of the culvert will silt in as suspended sediment settles out. The open water channel will make it easier for fish to access the resting and feeding opportunities in the pond. To enhance the amount of available fish habitat within the pond, several large softwood logs will be placed within it. In addition to providing egg laying opportunities for amphibians and basking habitat for turtles, these logs will provide cover opportunities for fish. When the channel is constructed, the project will plant the floodplains adjacent to it with native wetland emergent vegetation. These plantings will increase water quality functions by trapping sediment during high flow events. The plantings also will increase exports of insects and organic matter to the stream. Creating the channel and enhancing the pond will add or enhance 0.19 acre of off -channel fish habitat. It should be noted that the construction of the fish channel will result in the creation of 0.01 acre of new riverine wetland and the conversion of 0.05 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands to riverine wetlands. 6.3.6 Riparian Area Enhancements To mitigate for the negative effects of lost riparian area, the entire riparian area east of the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos will be enhanced (Figure 10). Because of the location of the wetlands and wetland buffers on the site and the overlapping nature of their setbacks, the Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 44 riparian enhancement area is composed of wetland creation areas, wetland enhancement areas, and wetland buffer enhancement areas (Figure 10). For the purposes of accounting, the riparian area was presumed to extend 100 feet from the OHWM of the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek. The total amount of riparian area that will be enhanced equals 1.08 acres. 6.4 Site Hydrology The hydrologic source for the existing wetlands on the site is interactions with the seasonally high water table; for the wetlands adjacent to the surface waters on the site, the source is periodic flooding from the North Fork of West Branch Hylebos Creek. These sources of wetland hydrology will not be altered by the proposed mitigation activities. Data collected during the delineation of the Corrington site wetlands reveled soil saturation levels that ranged from the surface to a depth of 8 inches. Depth to standing water ranged from 12 to 18 inches in wetland sample plots. The current hydrologic regime for the existing wetlands on the site (that will be enhanced) is best described as semi -permanently saturated to seasonally flooded. Hydrology for the wetland creation areas will come from surface runoff from adjacent slopes, capillary saturation of soils from adjacent open waters, and interactions with ground water. The entire site sits in an area with high ground water levels. Test wells were dug within the anticipated wetland creation areas in January of 2009 to record standing water elevations. The location of these wells and the observed standing water levels are provided in Sheet 2 of Appendix D. In general, standing water was observed within 2-3 feet of the surface of the soil within the creation areas. Based on the results of the sample wells, winter ground water elevations appear to be approximately 81 feet. Although a decrease in the elevation of the water table is expected to occur during the latter portions of the summer months, the fairly static water level within the pond, presence of large amounts of springs in the general vicinity of the project area, and saturated soil conditions observed during the summer within wetland areas dictates that fluctuations of ground water levels will be fairly minimal. With ground water elevations generally occurring at 81 feet, the excavation within the creation areas was designed to create hydrologic regimes that will include seasonally saturated, semi - permanently saturated, and seasonally flooded. The existing water sources flowing through the man-made pond will supply hydrology for the planned perennial, off -channel habitat. After the channel has been graded, the existing culvert will be removed; allowing the pond's surface waters to drain through the created channel and eventually outf all to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos in the southern portion of the project area. The dimensions of the created channel are similar to the existing pond outlet channel (Sheet 5, Appendix D). Based on the designed volume, the created channel will flow year-round and be subject to periodic flooding. 6.5 Invasive Species Control Strategy Invasive reed canarygrass dominates the entire wetland enhancement area. This aggressive colonizer of wetland areas reproduces by both seed and rhizome, making its control difficult. Without continued annual application, chemical control is not very effective and the annual Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 45 application of broad-spectrum herbicides can damage mitigation plantings. Therefore, a comprehensive eradication plan will be executed. Physical as well as chemical control methods will be used to eliminate reed canarygrass from the site. At a minimum, WSDOT will remove the reed canarygrass by mowing and spraying with herbicide. Typically, this involves mowing followed by spraying, followed by another mowing and another spraying. Excavating the top foot of soil and roots, which was considered, was rejected because the site's soils, especially when wet, are unsuitable for the extensive use of heavy equipment. All herbicide application will be completed by a qualified professional to minimize overspray. All applicable WSDOT guidelines for applying herbicides will be followed WSDOT is considering using tarps, but questions remain about whether there is enough time in the schedule. With this option, heavy tarps will remain in place for an entire growing season as the principal method of reed canarygrass elimination. Installing the tarps will prevent light and water from reaching the stands of reed canarygrass and will cause elevated soil surface temperatures that should result in increased mortality to reed canarygrass seeds and rhizomes. If the tarps are used, the sequence of controls will be as follows: 1. Mow all reed canarygrass stands in early spring (March) to expose new growth. 2. Spray all new growth with an appropriate concentration of glyphosate. 3. Following the excavation of the new stream channel, install heavy tarp material over the entire enhancement area that is infested with reed canarygrass. 4. Keep tarps in place and inspect them periodically throughout the summer. 5. Remove the tarps in the early spring of the following year and hydro -seed the entire area with a native emergent wetland seed mix. 6. Complete the woody enhancement planting in the early spring as conditions permit. All herbicide application will be completed by a qualified professional to minimize overspray. All applicable WSDOT guidelines for applying herbicides will be followed. The tarp material that will be used must be sufficiently thick and constructed to prevent solar degradation and subsequent failure of the material. All tarps should be at least 50 feet by 50 feet and installed with at least 5 feet of overlap. Tarps will be secured with sandbags or similar material so that the tarps are not affected by the wind and the pressure of the growing reed canarygrass. No stakes or similar hold-down devices should puncture the tarps. Darker tarps are preferred to maximize the temperature beneath them. Blackberry patches in the mitigation site will be removed using hand or mechanical methods. The work will include removing the entire root mass of the shrubs while minimizing ground disturbance to the greatest extent practicable. Future invasive species control will include monitoring and the methods specified in the monitoring and maintenance section below. 6.6 Grading Design The project team determined the proposed grades for the mitigation site by analyzing soil test pit data collected during the delineation, measuring surface water elevations during several site Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 46 visits, and correlating this data with 2-foot contour maps. The dominant soil type within the wetland enhancement and creation areas is very poorly draining Shalacar muck. Soil samples revealed clay/silt loam soil texture with large amounts of decaying organic matter and a soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1. The depths of this soil within the enhancement site range from 12 to >18 inches. Based on the excavation depth of 12 inches in the enhancement areas, the remaining soils should be of suitable depth and texture to support the enhancement plantings (Sheet 2, Appendix D). The enhancement area will have a hydroperiod that is primarily semi -permanently saturated with areas experiencing seasonal inundation. Following the proposed grading, the contractor will cover all graded areas with a 3-inch layer of mulch to inhibit weed establishment and nourish future plantings. No additional soil amendments should be necessary. The wetland creation areas will be graded to the contours shown in Sheet 2 of Appendix D. This elevation will allow seasonal inundation of the created wetlands from the adjacent open water sources of the man-made pond and outflow channel. The only other areas of the mitigation site that will require earthwork or soil manipulation are those close to the existing trailer home and garage. The areas directly north of the garage have been compacted by vehicle traffic and small amounts of gravel. The gravel areas around the mobile home are similarly highly compacted and probably not conducive to establishing trees and shrubs. In order to prepare these buffer enhancement areas for planting, any gravel material and the upper 3 inches of topsoil will be graded away and removed from the site. Afterward, the contractor will spread 4 inches of compost evenly over the area, till the compost into the upper 12 to 18 inches of the soil, and hydro -seed the tilled areas with native upland plant mix. A native forested plant community is identified in the planting section below. 6.7 Planting Design The plan calls for planting several different plant communities in the wetland creation and wetland enhancement areas. Plant communities were chosen based on soil and anticipated hydrologic conditions. The dominant soil type within the wetland enhancement and creation areas is very poorly draining Shalacar muck. Soil samples revealed clay/silt loam soil texture with large amounts of decaying organic matter and a soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1. The depths of this soil within the enhancement areas range from 12 to >18 inches. Since only minor excavation to produce several small hummocks will occur within the enhancement area, the existing semi -permanently saturated hydroperiod will be maintained while the hummock areas will likely experience seasonal inundation. Following the proposed grading, the contractor will cover all graded areas with a 3-inch layer of mulch to inhibit,weed establishment and nourish future plantings. No additional soil amendments should be necessary. The wetland creation areas will be graded to the contours shown in Sheet 2 of Appendix D. Based on observed ground water levels, these elevations will create hydroperiods ranging from Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 47 seasonally inundated to seasonally ponded. The creation areas adjacent to the man-made pond will receive hydrologic inputs from surface water as well as interactions with seasonally high ground water levels. Soil test pits in this area indicated the presence of highly organic muck soils to depths of 48 inches. Soil amendments will not be required in the creation areas adjacent to the pond for proper seed establishment/plant growth. Tables 15 and 16 list the contents of the wetland emergent seed mix and the woody vegetation species that will be planted throughout the creation and enhancement areas. Table 16 and provide details on woody vegetation species that will be installed within the wetland buffer enhancement areas. Sheet 5 of Appendix D shows the boundaries and locations of each specific vegetation community. Table 15. Seed Mix for Wetland Creation Areas Common Name Scientific Name % Composition of Mix Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 35% Small -fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 25% Saw Beaked Sedge Carex stipata 20% Slender Rush Juncus tenuis 10% Spike Rush Eleocharis palustris 10% Table 16. Plant List Proposed for Wetland Creation and Enhancement Areas Common Name Scientific Name Indicator Status Emergent Wetland Community (PEM) Small -Fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus OBL Awl Fruited Sedge Carex stipata OBL Scrub -Shrub Wetland Community (PSS) Nootka Rose Rosa nootkana FAC Scouler Willow Salix scoulerana FACW Pacific Willow Salix lasiandra FACW Pacific Ninebark Physocarpos capitatus FACW W. Crab Apple (Pyrus fusca) FACW Black Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) FACW Salmonberry Rubus spectabalis FAC Forested Wetland Community (PFO) Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa FAC Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia FACW Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata FAC Pacific Willow Salix lucida FACW+ Douglas Hawthorn Crataegus douglash FAC Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana FAC Pacific Ninebark Physocarpos capitatus FACW Salmonberry Rubus spectabalis FAC Nootka Rose Rosa nootkana FAC Red -osier Dogwood Cornus sericea FACW+ Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 48 Table 17. Plant List Proposed for Upland Buffer Enhancement Areas Common Name Scientific Name Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa Red Alder Alnus rubra Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Big Leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Vine Maple Acercircinatum Evergreen Huckleberry Vacinium ovatum Snowberry Symphoricarpus albs Ocean Spray Holodiscus discolor Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Cascara Rhamnus purshiana Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Tall Oregon Grape Berbaris aquifolium Indian Plum Oemleria cerasiformis 6.8 Habitat Features The plan describes three habitat features: LWD, snags, and wildlife habitat brush piles (Sheet 5, Appendix D). 6.8.1 Large Woody Debris LWD will be placed within the wetland and wetland buffer enhancement areas and the man- made pond to provide cover, food, and breeding habitat for small mammals, amphibians, and insects (Sheet 5, Appendix D). All LWD will be at least 20 inches in diameter at the butt end and at least 15 feet long. If possible, root wads should remain on the LWDs. This plan includes the placement of a minimum of 10 pieces of LWD in the buffer area. Several LWD pieces will be placed in a way that will protect the outside banks of the perennial channel. In addition, at least two LWD pieces will be placed in the man-made pond. A qualified biologist will be on site to supervise the placement of LWD. 6.8.2 Snag To provide habitat for cavity nesting birds and mammals, four upright snags will be installed in the mitigation area (Sheet 5, Appendix D). They will be at least 24 inches in diameter and at least 20 feet tall. The plan calls for placing snags upright in an excavated hole with a depth that is approximately equal to one -quarter of the total length of the snag, backfilling the hole with native material, and compacting the soil to ensure stability of the snag. Snag locations shown in Sheet 5, Appendix D are approximations only. To avoid property damage, the installer should exercise best professional judgment in the field during installation Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 49 6.8.3 Wildlife Habitat Brush Piles To further increase available habitat for small mammal and insect populations, the project team will oversee the construction of five brush piles in the mitigation site to provide cover from predators, assist thermal regulation, provide nesting areas, and increase insect populations for birds and other insectivores. Brush piles will be at least 10 feet in diameter and 5 feet high and constructed of native woody debris layered in a criss-cross pattern with the largest debris on the bottom and smallest debris set on top. Typical Brush Pile Bottom Typical Brush Pile Top The illustrations above are a general guideline. To ensure proper construction and placement, brush pile construction in the field will be assisted by a qualified biologist. 6.9 Buffers To increase wetland buffer functions, the project will install a native forested plant community in the buffer enhancement area. The buffer width in the project area varies from 60 feet along the western boundary of the wetland to 150 feet along the northern portion of the existing and created wetlands (Sheet 2, Appendix D). These buffer widths are consistent with the existing conditions of the site. Upon maturation, the forested plant community described in Table 16 will result in a structurally and species -diverse vegetation community typical of the Western Cascades bioregion. Project scientists observed similar plant communities in upland areas that have not been subject to recent land use disturbances. The team has not yet determined the specific abundance numbers and community composition of this forested plant community, but anticipated spacing for woody vegetation will be 5-foot centers or less. The proposed enhancements will increase wildlife habitat, support characteristic vegetation, provide thermal regulation, and assist production/export of organic material. 6.10 Site Protection To protect the site from future development, the entire parcel will be placed in a conservation covenant running with the land. WSDOT anticipates placing a three -wire fence on the north, west, and south sides to limit human disturbances, neighbor encroachment, and dumping. The stream side of the property will not be fenced. 6.11 Implementation Schedule The site preparation and installation of erosion control BMPs will be the first steps in completing the proposed mitigation. Sheet D3 in Appendix D presents information about site Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 50 access, staging areas, and erosion control. The existing gravel access drive in the northern portion of the site will provide access to the site, while establishing a temporary path along the site's eastern boundary will give access to the wetlands in the southern portion of the site. A large steel plate will facilitate crossing the pond inlet channel. Grading of the mitigation site will begin during the spring/summer and will last for approximately 3 weeks. The site will be prepared and the soil remediated in the northern portions of the property after grading has been completed. The installation of the proposed wildlife habitat enhancement features will follow grading. Afterwards, the contractor will cover all bare ground in the mitigation site with a 4-inch layer of weed -free mulch and hydro -seed the wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration areas with the specified seed mixes. Hydroseeding mixes will contain appropriate amounts of tactifier to ensure proper seed adhesion through fall and winter precipitation events. Lastly, the contractor will install woody vegetation and aquatic plugs in the locations specified in the planting plan (Sheet 6, Appendix D). Woody vegetation will be planted between December 1 and March 31 when plants are dormant. 6.12 Ecological Benefits 6.12.1 Wetland Functions The mitigation design will create a total of 0.32 acre of Category I wetland and restore and enhance a total of 1.37 acres of Category I wetlands now dominated by invasive species. These activities will improve water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions (Appendix E). Functional attributes of the mitigation wetlands that will be improved and added compared to the existing impacted wetlands are shown in Table 18. The table shows which functions and values will be present at the mitigation wetland as well as which type of mitigation provides which functions. For this table, the off -channel habitat creation was treated as wetland creation. Table 19 compares, in more specific terms, the characteristics of the wetland and buffer areas of the impacted versus mitigation sites. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 51 Table 18. Wetland Functions Provided by Various Areas of the Mitigation Site Function/Value Creation Enhancement Flood Flow Alteration + + Sediment Removal + + Nutrient and Toxicant + + Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline x + Stabilization Production & Export of + + Organic Matter General Habitat Suitability + + Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates + Habitat for Amphibians + + Habitat for Wetland- Associated Mammals + Habitat for Wetland- + Associated Birds x General Fish Habitat + - Native Plant Richness + + Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage - - a "" means that the function will not be present; "X" means that the function will be present is of low -quality; and "+" means the function will be present and will be of high quality. Table 19. Comnarison of Impacted Wetlands and Buffers to Mitigated Wetlands and Buffers Item j Typical Wetland Impact Miti ation Site Functions Improved Wetland Dominant Reed canarygrass Native species Wildlife habitat, support of Vegetation characteristic vegetation Geomorphic Adjacent to highway Adjacent to stream Higher wildlife habitat potential Setting Habitat Moderate Interspersed emergent, General, bird, amphibian, and Interspersion scrub -shrub, and forested mammal habitat habitats Species Relatively low within impact Diverse —several General, bird, amphibian, and Richness area dominants in each habitat mammal habitat Vegetative Shrub/scrub Trees, shrubs, emergent General, bird, amphibian, and Structure vegetation mammal habitat Buffer Width Narrow —subject to mowing Range from 60 to 150 All buffer functions improved adjacent to impact area. feet Vegetative Moderate —shrub -scrub and Trees, shrubs, and Screening and cover, increased Structure emergent emergent layer sediment capture Species Low —approximately four Diverse —several Habitat Richness species in impact area. dominants in each habitat Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 52 6.12.2 Stream and Riparian Functions Stream and riparian functions will be improved by enhancing the wetlands adjacent to the stream and the riparian buffers on the site and creating off -channel fish habitat. Establishing a native forested plant community within the wetland and riparian buffer enhancement areas will provide a large amount of riparian functions. Upon maturation, this plant community will lower surface water temperatures by preventing direct solar radiation, create a cool microclimate within the riparian area, increase woody debris and nutrient inputs to West Branch of Hylebos Creek, increase water quality parameters during storm events through entrainment of sediments, and increase the amount of wildlife habitat through a more structurally and species diverse vegetation community. In addition, the proposed surface water channel will increase stream functions by increasing the amount of off -channel habitat available for migrating salmonids. Creating the channel and channel side floodplain areas also will increase habitat for a variety of macro -invertebrates, and this habitat will be further enhanced with LWD and habitat brush piles in the riparian floodplain areas. 6.12.3 Buffer Functions Common non-native grasses and forbs characterize the wetland buffers on the site. The installation of a native forested plant community and the construction of wildlife habitat structures in the form of snags, brush piles, and LWD placements will enhance these buffers. The mitigation site has the potential to provide a wide variety of wetland buffer and wildlife habitat functions. This potential is largely a function of the site's location in a relatively undisturbed vegetation corridor, its closeness to different wetlands and open waters, and its adjacency to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek. The installation of the forested plant community and wildlife enhancements will help the wetland buffers reach their full functional potential. Dense woody vegetation plantings will better screen adjacent land uses and associated disturbances and create a more structurally diverse vegetation community, which in turn will provide more habitat for a wider variety of species. The eventual canopy layer will help induce a cool microclimate adjacent to the stream and lower overall surface water temperatures; these effects also will increase wildlife habitat values by providing opportunities for thermal regulation. Creating a forested floor with a thick layer of leaf litter and many woody stems will increase water quality values, decrease surface runoff during storm events, and trap sediments that otherwise could enter the surface waters of the site. Lastly, the proposed snags, brush piles, and placement of LWD will directly benefit a wide variety of birds and small mammals that use the area by providing feeding, nesting, perching, and denning opportunities. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 53 CHAPTER 7 — MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The proposed mitigation site will be monitored for 10 years to demonstrate that the intended goals and objectives are established. Goals describe the overall intent of mitigation efforts, and objectives describe individual components of the mitigation site in detail. Performance measures and standards describe specific on -site characteristics that indicate a function is being provided. Performance measures are intermediate steps used to guide management of the mitigation site. Performance standards are the finish line used to evaluate compliance with regulatory permits in the final year of monitoring. Contingency plans describe what actions can be taken to correct site deficiencies. WSDOT uses the adaptive management process to improve mitigation success. Adaptive management involves learning from monitoring and implementing management activities, such as implementing parts of the site management or contingency plans. Information from monitoring is used to direct subsequent site management activities. 7.1 Goals The goal of the proposed mitigation is to ensure that no net loss of wetland functions and values occurs as a result of the proposed wetland and buffer impacts. 7.2 Objectives The plan proposes to reach the goal by achieving these objectives: 1. Increase wetland area at the mitigation site by excavating upland area to create an additional 0.32 acre of wetland. 2. Enhance 1.37 acres of emergent wetlands degraded by a dense monoculture of invasive reed canarygrass. 3. Enhance 1.03 acres of wetland and riparian buffer area through the installation of a native forested plant community. 4. Preserve and enhance 0.06 acre of existing forested wetland buffer. 5. Improve hydrologic functions by increasing wetland area and flood storage capacity, extending wetland hydroperiod, and increasing cover of woody vegetation 6. Improve water quality functions by increasing wetland acreage, adding additional vegetation classes, and increasing the connectivity of wetlands to the North Fork of West Branch of Hylebos Creek 7. Improve habitat functions by increasing the numbers of vegetation strata, water depth classes, hydrologic regimes, native plant species, and plant assemblages by increasing vegetation class interspersion and canopy closure over the wetlands and by improving buffer condition by placing LWD, snags, and brush piles within the mitigation area. 7.3 Performance Criteria The performance standards described below provide benchmarks for measuring achievement of the goals and objectives of the mitigation site. Mitigation activities are intended to meet these performance standards within a specified period. The performance standards are based on function characteristics described in Method for Assessing Wetland Functions (Hruby et al., 1999). These function -based performance standards measure structural attributes that provide a Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 54 reasonable indication of wetland functions. Methods to monitor each performance standard are described in general terms. 7.3.1 Hydrologic Performance Criteria The hydrologic performance measures/standards help to document and verify that wetland area and ground elevations within the wetland creation areas are established according to the criteria specified during the design. The hydrology performance criteria directly relate to Objectives 1, 2, 6, and 7. Performance Measures Years 1, 2, and 3 The soils in the created wetland will be saturated to within 6 inches of the surface, or standing water will be present within 12 inches of the surface, for at least four consecutive weeks (10%) of the growing season in years when rainfall meets or exceeds the 30-year average. Performance Standard Year 10 The wetland area at the mitigation site will be delineated using current methods to assure that the mitigation site contains 0.32 acre of created wetland. 7.3.2 Wetland and Buffer Vegetation Performance Criteria Many of the anticipated increases in wetland and buffer functions are directly related to the establishment of diverse plant communities throughout the mitigation site. The wetland and buffer vegetation performance criteria help to verify that the proposed increases in wetland and buffer functions and values are attained. The wetland vegetation performance criteria directly relate to Objectives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Wetland and buffer area performance measures and standards should be set separately. Performance Measures Year 1 and Year 3 Native, wetland (facultative and wetter) woody species (planted and volunteer) will achieve an average density of at least four plants per 100 square feet in the scrub -shrub and forested communities of the created, enhanced, and restored wetland areas and the buffer enhancement areas. Year 3 Aerial cover of native, wetland (facultative and wetter) herbaceous plant species will be at least 30% in the emergent community of the created and enhanced wetlands. Year 5 Aerial cover of native, wetland (facultative and wetter) woody species will be at least 35% in the scrub -shrub and forested communities of the created, enhanced, and restored wetland areas and the buffer enhancement areas. Year 7 Aerial cover of native, wetland (facultative and wetter) woody species will be at least 50% in the scrub -shrub and forested communities of the created, enhanced, and restored wetland areas and the buffer enhancement areas. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 55 Years 1, 3, 5, and 7 State listed Class -A noxious weeds and non-native blackberries (Rubus spp.), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Scot's broom, thistles, and non-native knotweeds (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. polystachyum, P. sachalinense, and P. bohemicum) will not exceed 25% aerial cover in the created and enhanced wetlands. Performance Standard Year 10 Aerial cover of native woody species will be at least 60% in the scrub -shrub and forested communities in the created, enhanced, and restored wetland areas and the buffer enhancement areas. State listed Class A noxious weeds and non-native blackberries (Rubus spp.), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Scot's broom, thistles, and non-native knotweeds (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. polystachyum, P. sachalinense, and P. bohemicum) will not exceed 25% aerial cover in the created and enhanced wetlands. 7.3.3 Wildlife Structures Performance Criteria The wildlife structures performance criteria will document that the proposed placement of various wildlife structures has been completed. The wildlife structures performance criteria directly relate to Objectives 1, 2, 6, and 7. Performance Standard Year 1 Ensure that all of the proposed wildlife enhancement structures have been placed within the wetland and buffer areas and meet the specific size requirements detailed above. These include 10 LWD, four snags, and five habitat brush piles. 7.4 Monitoring WSDOT staff will monitor the mitigation site for 10 years after installation. If all the F performance standards are achieved in less than 10 years, WSDOT may terminate monitoring with approval of the review agencies. Quantitative monitoring will be completed and documented in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 10th years after initial acceptance of the mitigation construction. The site should be evaluated informally during the summer following plant installation to assess survival rates and document the presence of non-native invasive species. WSDOT HQ Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Program will also complete informal (qualitative) assessments of the mitigation sites in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 10th years for adaptive management purposes only. Monitoring will be designed to determine if the performance measures or performance standards have been met. Monitoring reports will be submitted for review and comment to the recipients listed in Table 20 by April following the formal monitoring activities conducted the previous year. Tnhla in Mnni+nrinO Ronnr+RPr_4nFP_nt4 Permitting Agency or Organization Contact Name and Address US Army Corps of Engineers WSDOT Liaison Department of Ecology WSDOT Liaison City of Federal Way City of Federal Way Planning Staff Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 56 WSDOT has established a comprehensive set of monitoring methods that are based primarily on Elzinga et al. (1998). The actual methods used to monitor each site are documented in annual monitoring reports prepared by WSDOT's Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Program, which is based in the Environmental Services Office in Olympia, Washington. Some variation of the methods occurs as techniques are improved, or standards change. 7.5 Contingency Plan WSDOT anticipates the mitigation goals will be accomplished with the construction and installation of the mitigation design as shown on the grading and planting plans. Contingency actions, however, may be needed to correct unforeseen problems. Contingency revisions will be completed following coordination with the permitting agencies. As necessary, contingency measures (site management or revisions to performance criteria with permitting agency agreement) will be implemented in order to meet performance standards. The following describes potential situations that may occur and the contingencies that might be implemented to correct the problem. Because not all site conditions can be anticipated, the contingencies discussed below do not represent an exhaustive list of potential problems or remedies. 7.5.1 Hydrology Hydrologic problems occurring on a mitigation site are typically the result of either insufficient water or excessive water. Insufficient water can occur seasonally during drought conditions or can be a long-term problem. Long-term problems can be the result of altered surface water flows for mitigation sites reliant on surface water flows as the primary source of hydrology. For ground water driven mitigation sites, typical long-term hydrologic problems that result in either excessive or insufficient hydrology can occur from a design based on insufficient ground water data, the establishment of incorrect final grade elevations, or an unperceived soil condition that alters ground water flows. Hydrologic contingency measures will be implemented based on observed conditions or monitoring data. Steps to address insufficient or excessive hydrology are: ■ Clearly identify the source of the problem. ■ Consult with the mitigation design team, including members of Biology, Landscape Architecture, and Hydrology, and the resource agencies to determine an appropriate course of action. Adjust elevations or install water management structures to achieve appropriate hydrologic conditions. 7.5.2 Vegetation Problems related to vegetation include plant mortality and poor growth resulting in low plant cover. These problems could be the result of insufficient site management, particularly watering in the first few growing seasons, animal browse, competition from invasive species, incorrect plant selection, altered site conditions, and vandalism. Contingencies for plant mortality and poor plant cover may include: Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 57 ■ Plant replacement — Additional planting may be required to meet plant survival and plant cover requirements. Plant species will be evaluated in relation to site conditions to determine if plant substitutions will be required. x Weed control — Control of non-native invasive species may be required to meet survival and plant cover requirements. Weed control methods could include mechanical or hand control, mulching, or herbicide application. ■ Herbivore control — If plant survival or vegetation cover standards are not met because of animal browse, the wildlife responsible will be identified and appropriate control measures will be attempted. This could include plant protection, fence installation, or the use of repellents. Implementing precautionary measures with design and placement will minimize unwanted species but likely not eliminate them. Wildlife damage and manipulation to plantings and structures should be expected to occur and, with exceptions, it may be necessary to accept the situation and allow the vegetation to mature under these conditions. ■ Vandalism — To prevent vegetation disturbance from vandalism, fence installation and sensitive area signage may be installed. ■ Review and revise performance criteria with permitting agency agreement. 7.5.3 Wildlife Structures Wildlife structures will be installed during construction activities, and will be monitored to verify presence/absence. A contingency for wildlife structures is to: ■ Replace or repair missing or damaged structures — If habitat structures become vandalized, are missing, or are functionally damaged, they will be repaired or replaced as necessary. 7.6 Site Management WSDOT will actively manage the site annually for the first 3 years. Site management activities will include noxious weed control and may include mulching, fertilizing, supplemental watering, maintaining access, repairing damage from vandals, correcting erosion or sedimentation problems, and litter pickup. The first year of plant establishment includes supplemental water and care of all replacement plants installed during the first year. Reed canarygrass currently dominates the entire enhancement area with seed sources presumed to be plentiful within the West Hylebos watershed. Suppression/control of this invasive plant will require careful site preparation and active site management. While complete elimination of reed canarygrass from the mitigation site may not be possible, the species should be managed sufficiently to ensure survival of the native planted species until they can compete effectively. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 58 CHAPTER 8 — REFERENCES Azous, A. L., M. B. Bowles, and K. O. Richter. 1998. Reference standards and project performance standards for the establishment of depressional flow -through wetlands in the Puget lowlands of western Washington. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, Renton, WA. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 2009. Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation, January 2009 BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 2008a. I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements Phase 1 Hydraulics Report. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. May 2008. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 2008b. I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements Fish Evaluation Passage Report. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. February 2008. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 2008c. I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. August 2008. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 2007. I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Fish, Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat Discipline Report. Prepared by CH2M Hill for the Washington State Department of Transportation. March 2007. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 2006. I-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Water Resources Discipline Report. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. October 2006. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRPDE-4. US Amy Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 79/31. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST- 98/005+1730. Governor of the State of Washington. 1989. Executive Order EO 89-10, "Protection of Wetlands." December 11, 1989, Olympia, WA. h wwtiv.dr italarchives.wa.,ov overnoTlocke e❑ eoarr-hive eo89=10.htm Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 59 Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. [April 2005] hU://www.egy.wa..goy pubs 0506008.pdf. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-15. hn://www,ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0406025.pdf Null, W., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool For Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office. Olympia, WA. [June 20001 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B92BEOD4- 9078-4EF C-99DA-3COEA4805E2F/0/bpj tool.pdf Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006.Olympia, WA. [March 20051 hU:/Iwww.egy.waa.goy/12ubs/0506006.pdf. US Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. US Geological Survey, 1:24,000-scale topographic map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' quadrangle (1957, revised 1997). Denver, Colorado. Washington State Department of Ecology, US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, WA. [March 20061 ht wmv.ec .wa. ov Libs 0606011a. df. Washington State Department of Ecology, US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011b. Olympia, WA. [March 2006] h=://vAvw.ecy.wa.gov/t2ubsIQ606011b.2d . Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2006. Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16, Engineering and Regional Operations Division, Environmental and Engineering Programs. Olympia, WA. htW://mvw.wsdot.wa.govLPublicadons/ManLials/M31-16.htm. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007. Hydraulics Manual M 23-03, Engineering and Regional Operations Division, Environmental and Engineering Programs. Olympia, WA. http://vvww.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M23-03.htm Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007. I-5, SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements Project; Proposed Corrington Mitigation Site memo. November 18, 2007. Wetland Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project January 2009 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 60 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Wetland Guidelines. Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office. Olympia, WA. Iztt w.wsdot.wa.gov/Envi-ologyLWetlandslaidelines.htm, Wetland Mitigation Plan I-5 — SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation BERGER/ABAM, FAPWT-04-064 January 2009 Page 61 Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington -State Department of Transportation Appendix A Wetland N Menlo MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 Triangle Project: Delineation of Wetland N To: Jilma Jimenez/Berger ABAM COPIES. Jodi Ketelsen/ CH2MHILL FROM: Katina Kapantais/CH2MHILL DATE: October 21, 2008 Introduction and Summary In 2006, field surveys were conducted to determine impacts to wetlands, streams, and fisheries resources from the construction of the proposed SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 Interchange "Triangle" Project. A total of 8 wetlands and 4 drainages were located in the study area (see original SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 Interchange, Wetland Discipline Report [WSDOT 2006]). The largest of the wetlands was Wetland M, which is located just northeast of the SR-18/SR-5 interchange. The four drainages in the study area (Trib16, Trib16A, Trib16B, and Trib16C) were classified as tributaries to East Hylebos Creek. A site visit by WSDOT staff revealed that Trib16B, originally characterized as a low functioning stream channel with characteristics of a bioswale, potentially met wetland criteria. CH2M HILL staff visited the site on July 28, 2008, and determined that a depressional scrub -shrub wetland was present in a portion of Trib16B. Both the wetland and Trib16B were hydrologically connected to Wetland M and Trib 16 approximately 200 feet down slope. Exhibit 1 shows the flow of water in the area, from Trib16B and its associated wetland to Wetland M.CH2M HILL staff returned on August 4, 2008, to conduct wetland delineation and to survey the boundary of the wetland now referred to as Wetland N. Field datasheets from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008 Wetland Delineation Manual Supplement for the region were used to record the characteristics of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology surrounding each soil pit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). This technical memorandum is an addendum to the existing SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 Interchange Triangle Project Wetland Discipline Report (WSDOT 2006), and describes the characteristics of the 0.19-acre Wetland N and the rationale behind classifying it as a Category III depressional scrub -shrub wetland by Department of Ecology and the City of Federal Way guidelines. Wetland N Description Wetland N met the three criteria for hydric soils, hydrology, and vegetation (Tables 1 and 3). Historically, Wetland N was part of a salmon -bearing stream and wetland system that flowed through Wetland M and into Trib16. Past disturbances in the immediate area have UPDATED TRIANGLE W Q•N MEMO 01-12 QQ SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 TRIANGLE PROJECT: DELINEATION OF WETLAND N altered and fragmented the drainage feature, and as a result the remnant stream currently functions as a bioswale. Named Trib16B, the feature does not have a defined channel bed, and has no signs of erosional scour on either the stream bank or stream bed. The remnant channel is heavily vegetated by a dense salal thicket (Gaultheria shallon) with a coniferous overstory of Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Wetland N was classified as a depressional system based on the presence of a linear running depression in the center of the wetland that ponds water beyond normal storm flow events. Wetland N does not meet the qualifications of a riverine wetland, as the system it is hydrologically connected to no longer functions as a stream. Water enters Wetland N from several sources; flow from Trib16B during storm events, and as groundwater discharge and runoff from the abutting grassy hillside to the north. During storm events, runoff from the surrounding upland areas and roadways drain into Trib16B, which conveys water into Wetland N. Some water ponds in Wetland N, while the rest continues to flow east and down slope, past the berm, where it enters Wetland M and Trib16. Groundwater flow and runoff from the surrounding hillsides also provide Wetland N with water. Signs of seasonal ponding and saturation were evident during the July and August visits. The presence of water marks on low lying vegetation and on mature trees hydrology during part of the year. Debris dams were also present in the wetland. In addition, no upland vegetation occurred within roughly 40 feet of the wetland boundary. Wetland N has a hydric soil profile of 10YR 3/2 with approximately 30 percent of the soil profile containing redoximorphic features between 8-14 inches below ground surface. A total of three soil pits were dug to determine the soil characteristics in the immediate vicinity of Trib16B and Wetland M. Two wetland soil pits (SP1 and SP3) were examined, both having 10YR 3/2 silty loam with prominent, abundant redoximorphic features. Approximately 30 percent of the soil profile contained redoximorphic features between 8-14 inches below ground surface. The upland soil pit (SP2) had no redoximorphic features, and was keyed out to a 10YR 3/3. The upland soil texture was also silty loam, but had a gravel component and was compacted. Vegetation in Wetland N includes a dense shrub thicket of Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii), willow (Salix sitchensis), and thimbleberry (Rebus parviflorits). Deciduous trees, including black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red alder (Alnus ncbra), and willow form the forested overstory. A herbaceous layer is located in this reach, with slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and Dewey sedge (C. dezveyana) dominant. Wetland N ends approximately 10 feet west of a constructed berm. The upland vegetation surrounding Wetland N consists of Scot's broom (Cytisits scopariics) and grasses. The grasses were not identified as only stems remained from maintenance mowing activities. A distinct vegetative line between the wetland vegetation and the adjacent upland vegetation was observed. Black cottonwood, spirea, and willow were confined within the wetland, and were not located further upslope in the upland. Redoximorphic features were also confined within the wetland only, and were not found upslope in the upland area. UP0ATEDTRIANGLE_WETLN -N MEMO 01-12-09.00C"o nro Lr c pgG SR-5/SR-16/SR-161 TRIANGLE PROJECT: DELINEATION OF WETLAND N Wetland N was determined to be a Category III depressional wetland, according to the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2004) (see attached rating form and Tables 1 and 3) and the City of Federal Way criteria. Wetland N is approximately 8,600 square feet or 0.19 acre in size. UPDATED TRIANGLE WETLNED•N MEMO, 01-12.09.DOCl3P$t��n�� a ir_r c rnr�i�n p�escino nn_ �6 SR-5/SR-181SR-161 TRIANGLE PROJECT: DELINEATION OF WETLAND N Table 1. Soil Hydrology and Vegetation Data from Wetland N, Soil Pit 1 (SP1). Soil Pit Soil Depth Soil Matrix Data Soil Redox Data Hydrology Observed Plants Perce Covi W-0016B-SP1 0-16" 10YR 3/2 silty loam 7.5YR 5/8 De ressionRivefiiie Forest 50 Po ulus balsaiiiifcra 20 Alnus rubra Shrub Doze lets spirea 80 Salix lasiandra 10 Table 2. Soil, Hydrology and Vegetation Data from Wetland N, Soil Pit 2 (SP2) Soil Pit Soil Depth Soil Matrix Data Soil Redox Data Hydrology Observed Plants Percent Cover W-0016B-SP2 0-7" 10 YR 3/3 gravelly silty loam None Upland Forest Populus balsamifera 50 Alnus rubra 20 Shrub Douglas spirea 10 Rubus lacinatus 10 Alnus rubra 20 Ricbus discolor 10 Herbaceous Holcus lanatits 70 Hypericum radicata 10 Poa pratensis 5 Carex obnupta 5 Trifolium repens 1 10 UPDATED TRIANGLE WEfLNED•N MEMO_ _ll. DocDOcuPDA-Tf�NG6C---VE kN.� SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 TRIANGLE PROJECT: DELINEATION OF WETLAND N Table 3. Soil, Hydrology and Vegetation Data from Wetland N, Soil Pit 3 (SP3). Soil Pit Soil De th Soil Matrix Data Soil Redox Data Hydrology Observed Plants Percei C(• e W-0016B-SP3 0-16" 10 YR 3/2 silly loam 7.5YR 5/8 Depressioi�-Re Forest Populus balsamifera Shrub Oelmeria cerisormis Rubus parviflorus Salix lasisandra Herbaceous f Moss Bare Ground _ City of Federal Way Wetland Requirements The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Ordinance (FWCC Chapter 19) rates wetlands as Category I, II and III systems on several characteristics. Primary characteristics for rating wetlands include the size of the wetland, its connectivity to fish bearing streams, any association with state or federally listed species, and whether the wetland has any important, local significance. Wetlands between 2,500 to 10,000 square feet that do not exhibit category I or II characteristics are rated category III wetlands. Table 4 shows the wetland classification requirements for each wetland category in Federal Way, Table 4. City of Federal Way Wetland Category Characteristics City of Federal Way Wetland Category Characteristics Category 1 have one or more of the following: 1) contain special status and/or listed species by a state or federal agency 2) contain rare plant assemblages, irreplaceable ecological functions or have local significance 3) have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water Category II have one or more of the following: 1) are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which contain or support fish population 2) are >1 acre in size 3) are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have 2 or more wetland classes not dominated by non-native invasive species Category III have one or more of the following: 1) >2,500 square feet in area 2 do not exhibit category I and II characteristics Source: Federal Way SMP, Appendix A: Critical Areas Ordinance UPDATED TRIANGLE 4VE LNED IJ h1Eh10 Ol•12.69^I}DOCOPgPrTI 9 ;RAt�r_i,�_ urn u n Ai ..r .. ?8 ne'nnC SR-51SR-181SR-161 TRIANGLE PROJECT: DELINEATION OF WETLAND N All wetlands rated as a Category III or higher are required to have a protective buffer surrounding the entirety of the wetland. Table 5 shows the difference buffer sizes regulated to category III wetlands depending on the amount of area they cover. Category III wetlands over 10,000 square feet require a 50 foot buffer. Wetland N is approximately 8,600 square feet or 0.19 acre in size. Wetlands within the City of Federal Way between 2,500 to 10,000 square feet require a 25 foot buffer. Table 5. City of Federal Way Wetland Categories and Buffer Sizes Wetland Category Buffer Size Category 1 200 feet Category 2 100 feet Cate,pry 3 Greater than 10,000 square feet in area 50 feet Cate6ory 3 between 2,500-10,000 square feet in area 25 feet Source: Federal Way SMP, Appendix A: Critical Areas Ordinance The City of Federal Way CAO requires mitigation for impacts and disturbances to Category III and higher wetlands. Mitigation is required to offset the impacts to the wetland, and, if possible, improve the overall functions and values that were provided. Mitigation for wetland impacts occurs through restoring, creating or enhancing the impacted wetland, or another wetland of the same type that is located within the same basin. Based on City of Federal Way CAO, category III scrub/shrub wetlands have a 1.5:1 creation and restoration mitigation ratio, and a 2.5:1 enhancement ratio. Table 6 shows further details mitigation ratio guidelines. Table 6. City of Federal Way Mitigation Ratios Creation and Restoration Enhancement Wetland Category (ratio of mitigation area to (ratio of mitigation area to impacted area) impacted area) Category 1 All Types 6:1 12:1 Category II Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/ Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category III Forested 2:1 4:1 Scrub/Shrub 1.5:1 3:1 Emergent 1.25:1 2.5:1 Source: Federal Way SMP, Appendix A: Critical Areas Ordinance 11PDATE4TRIANGLE WETLNED-N_fi+11 I�fO 01-I2-01DOCUPDATE-DTRVaNET4!FL9 a enr ,"i no n• 7g6 SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 TRIANGLE PROJECT: DELINEATION OF WETLAND N References: City of Federal Way. 2007. Shoreline Management Plan. Appendix A: Critical Areas Ordinance. htt ://www.cit affederalwa .com/Folders/homefbusinesseconomicdevelo mentl rojectsconstraction/s horelinemaste ro .amu date/Shoreline%20Reaulations%n20A endix�Ic20A '20Critical%20Areas %o200rdinance.pdf f1ruby. 2004. Wetland Rating System of Western Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. htt.p://www.usace.army.miI/cw/cecwo/reg/west-mt-intersul2.p.pdf WSDOT. 2006. SR-5/SR-18/SR-161 Interchange Triangle Project Wetland Discipline Report. UPDAT QTRWNGI E_W!<T1NE0-N MEMO f}1.12-09�QOC� c�nrcn in.,r—WETL�V£I1 N=MEMA 9a 41&$f?�Ba?6 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western ountans, Valleys, and Coast Region iway► ProjecUSite: t ► � rfa 4 # �+I vl iCity/County: i Co Sampling Date: U vim# ti ©$ ApplicanUOwner: '4 State: ,, _ Sampling Point:W--C�16, & 5I Investigator(s): !� Esttt C (section, Township, Range: 74W Landform (hlllstope, terrace, etc.): dP n".SS %(y) _ Local relief (concave, convex, none): (jn11C,Cg Ue Slope (0/6): Subregion (LRR): am� te4i: S 41' i7'34,_Va'� N Long: 1ZZ0 17' _I-RdaLtibatum; 60A c O(q Soil Map Unit Name: A;[bHdtt��• SIOD_ NWI classitafon; Q2 faS 16�l °`frCC-) a.CJ1 VD-j'v" OD Are climatic / hydrologic condi[ions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Yes_ No Is the Sampled Area Yes_ No within a Wetland? Yes ^ No Yes _ No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. 3�� Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheets CQ Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1- ❑ uks 1 Saner 4 C{ A_ `` ,'E�r That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. S f Total Number of Dominant 3. _ _ Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Total Cover Saplii iShrub Stfatu_m (Plot size: Q _ p0I 'r Prevalence Index worksheets I- Total % Cover of: Multiply by 3. &JO Ejq�—U OBL species x 1 = . 4 FACW species x 2 = g FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum c eP� = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = (Plot size: 1.0 UPL species x 5 = io lo Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. -; 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 5 _ Dominance Test is ;-50% 6 _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology most 11 • �r, 30 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. - �Y = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Present? Yes No Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum'73_ _�= Remarks.lja �{�1td'�ti)A. tC_�.�-.��a`sCi .CjS cS r� t.c '. •�� : V+�a. f kgln 5j4Qjrr•- I I US Army Corps of Engineers -_0 vvesrem mounrams, vaueys, anu k oasr- inwilm vaisivn SOIL Sampling Point:W"col('8-5e) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Sinches) Color moist % Color (moist,) % Tvoe Lo Texture Remarks 'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) , Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (176) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) T Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (178) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No l Remarks: 5 o7I rn 4A,%e L,,P ' 1Z in c.keZ X &F 3 anJ a c hra� c f 2, Al-sn, '1�11 fl - �A6fl A #- rt"y s 04; HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one re aired• check all that aoolvl_ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (610) x Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ___, Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (BS) _ — Recent iron Reduction'in Tilled Soils (C6) — FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: nemarxs:kr,-06ie)C (vNG,C; ^k [7!1` $��' C.'4 kA4122� oj J4,c � end .. W 4%d t5 I uZo-teed ! 6(1 A eD '+l n GF G ck�o^^el ' �QIY aF�i C9'E i 5�fPvr7 a 6105wale . �'Vb oy f'jyV1 rW a/18 e- 4a--i tJ,ject/-+slope, d-�(a 51-o0'n -049nvS o-t•,c� 6 Xnr 5txroey\�4"� I )ionlwe-2. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region FC&4a" W ProjectlSite: art wvz le �Cp_i* L� I �A!em city/County: t 1 _Sampling Date: L+�`7+ + � Applirantlowner: �WSflO - State: lu14 Sampling Point:Vj-()0%(6-�,j Investigator(s):Vc 'rI�Q UDr# 13 f t h _T � K Sectiam Township. Range: S21 T� i RL E -- Landform (hilistope, terrace, etc.): �e(s I �1 Local relief (concave, convex, none):Siope (96) Subregion (LRR)- N.(-O,werte cafes AA 4.ag$_.j 7°It7' 30-'9(01� N Long-,1220 i%'�� fj�: Dattam, v�ep,�f� Soil Map Unit Name: P&Ae> f () k�UWMcj NWI dassificallon: T f Are climatic 1 hydrologic condiUans on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks') scx `&-5Lvv U Are Vegetation _. Soil or Hydrology __. significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes _�>L No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetiand Hydrology Present? Remarks: Yes ^ No Yes No Yes •- No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Tree Stratum (Plot size: a Absolute uommant moicator % Cover_ Species? Status I. ffilpLAL),5 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover SaplinglShrub Siralum (Plotsize: _ S s 1. 0a.1rvnnita C� isP,r L40 NOS 1GtJ 2. w1 c].K �7 - � F ell 4._Set (ASeO-, 6,t Q1CL- FAQmf 5. Hart} Stratum (Plot size: 3 of , Total Cover 1. - — - 2. — 3.- 4. _ — 5. — 6. _ _ - 7. I a. — — 11. 0_= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1_ - 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Cl r == Total Cove— Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (PJB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of Multi I b] OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAG species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and Welland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: j mex-jbt jom t% r, +Vacf,&�- blvqfV /�s 5 i' i(' C)P5 cb,,�n_z 1, -rr 16l i 66. De I r-,a r is IMA+ea tar+ +r►.ori "Ur �*e- 0� *P' Yes X No 4'0' ► furl r c v 5 i anr• �p►rrca � `t:f'�ei f n errt (Ai! a r�f� Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Interim Version US Army Corps of Engineers IrWff' 0 e4 fo Ia., SOIL Sampling Point: W. b n 1 6 a`SP3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth neaded to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features [Inches) Color (moist) °% colo�ry(moist) % TyG eg� Loc j Texture Remarks 0_ka 1 3 Z �D- '7rs i,+ �1 30 Ff1 !+ { 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _._.. Histosol (All) _.__. Sandy Redox (S5) ___. 2 cm Muck (A10) HisBc Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _— Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 31ndicators flafk Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) of hydrophytic vegetation and _Thick Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: �( Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ` No 1 f3em611rk1 r., � LAP Pex- IZ l � YN"'e a fT � t � O� � 04 d HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators fminimum of one required: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (Bi) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presence/of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) _ _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Secondary Indcators [2 or more rffguired) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (133) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No .(includes capillary fringe) _ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: j�JJ&Ata-l-A VS 1'�'��6 Ol ': s' cvlrwc -8, � Tr-'b16 «f Or fQ/►rif��v S-re0v-1 'f' W'r(- V ky f LV' + 1CrVS C4 S a c7 G Q5 (J+JOt . P d t.-N tLf C)X5 , P Sa""C PP,)�hQ I:I� {5-Fai M ��£Fi.r.� fin) 4�'{ j + �p} A�F� �i S4 !h'�� yt�r�-2.�'�.d✓'cd Get/�� 'CD #Y J 5UC[`tp13�zJ�,L,�C+�p" t'vl �� J�� j-9 �� 1 t 1.7��. �`,�h1� �w^ • „"""' �r �'� i�-�s�p� LY}, �•� GY3 [�. C!� L �ia1,/ � US Army Corps of Engineers 1 ('% Q CW-(J ( eZ5 Ion I OCOLAreet I +Z Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Ptojecl/Slte:Tr a✓ t �� P CitylCounty: pellQ l I Sampling Date:&&,!_ ' �� 7-c`s Applicant/Owner- W ``SCOT State: Sampling Point: V TDOj - 5 P2_ Investigator(s): r,A lf-W ,- � Section, Township, flange: 21 �'Zi N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): C Ln V e h e Slope (9/9): 5_ Subregion (LRR) b'C _"eJ3 Pt, Irats wA Lot.: LIT I 31 -S-Z" N Lortg: �2�° � � � y � • �� rFlJAJDatu 5rauii� ' Soil Map Unit Name: Kma'. fit S AI &D&N*_DA Pnaluun J., 0-CA, • 5�2� NWI classification: �1]f�SIQr�Su c�a-5�yr�y� Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Na (If no, explain in Remarks-) Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Yes � No Is the Sampled Area Yes No �__ within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: -3a fie_) 1. 2. K 3. Absolute Dominant Indicator ok Cover SO=ES? Status -- F6 G 4. }s� ry0 = Total Cover Sa iin !Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 4ct•1�rt-�5 h ❑ � tL�Lt 1 t�l�t►� 2.��L 3. 6PEP �]_ � 4. e � 0 5. 3 = Total Cover Her3� StStratum (Plot size: ��f � 1. _.tJowo _1_�� 3. fpll,M fj 1 30 A-b Fj� c 4. 5. Yes Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species l 10 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/8) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of- _ Multiply by' OBL species x 1 = Q FACW species �x 2 = W FAC species i LQo x 3 = L4'30 FACU species (i Q x 4 = UPL species 0_ x 5 =0�,,_ Column Totals: 2—( _ (A) I O - (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. 1 `I H`�ydrophyfc Vegetation Indicators- l� Dominance Test is 550% oa) V Prevalence Index is s3.0' �O) 6 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8, Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. — 'Indicators of hydrie soil and wetland hydrology must 11- be present, unless disturbed or problematic. q 0 = Total Cover - )Noody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 t . Hydrophytic Vegetation 2• Present? Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum J Remarks: Ga_cex v6nP l an Pon pcai'Ase, 6vtlin f? t, - 5•1, Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Vj-001(013-5PZ Profile Description, (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) _ Color {moist) % Coior (moist) % Tyne Loc Texture Remarks d- 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De lesion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, zLocatlom PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol (Al) — Sandy Redox (S5) _,_, 2 cm Muck (Al0) , _ Hist c Epipedon (A2) — Stripped Matrix (S6) — Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) — Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) — Other (Explain in Remarks) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ,— Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) — ____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present). *_ 4 ��,c� Type: NGr�l�t7�ri [?�� tx QCP� " t 1bCLe s. Depth NO V'Q&aPC- o� fQ1-VS[R/f (inches): HydricSoil Present? Yes No Remarks: m1 a i 41WS HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primm Indicators minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary lrndicatorg i2 4r more reouired] _ Surface Water (Al) , _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA — Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, — High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (Bi 1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) — Water Marks (Bi) ___, Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) — Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) — Geomorphic Position (D2) — Algal Mat or Crust (134) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Iron Deposits (135) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) — Surface Soil Cracks (66) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) — Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): _ Water Table Present? Yes No �� Depth (inches)_ Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes canillary frinael Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, Remarks: inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version Wetland name or number wEma-,,� N 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: id' 9,Z0052. Rated by f da r Trained by Ecology? Yes —No_ Date of training SEC: 21 TWNSHP: 21 MRNGE: HE Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No Map of wetland unit: Figure '1. Estimated size G, So(3 5g ue'ro—iet!- SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV Score for Water Quality Functions Category I =Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for Functions � �y Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) (Zii wn ary of h5mir infnrmntinn nhmit the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics —Wetland RGM Class.. , used for Rating} Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above J� Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form —.western Washington l August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Wetland name or number Woflauj N 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. Cheek -List for Wetlands. That May Need Additional Protection YES NO (in addition to the rotection recommended for its catego- ry) SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitatfor any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE 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 Y 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 complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the ydrogeomoThic 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number WefficV4M Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington .If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with .multiple HGM classes. In tbis.case, identify which bydrol6gic criteria is questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. 4,,mAie water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is 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. fGTz�qndwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland 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)? EN-0 to 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 <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). (90- go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Yvy't " N) 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 zot flooding, to')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 the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetla . c,� IS rtiat Ra* 5 �'a NO — go to 7 ES — fhe wetland class is Depressional '��1 &I I � l °�'j 1/1 fl-e 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank IirZm 1-j flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be 14m,%k maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious ieA, g� p natural outlet. _ NO — o to 8 YES --- The wetland class is Depressional { � ire "1+1kin ' 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. HQMClassesnkithin,thewedandunithein. rated .;`.';'_:`-: ;:.:;:=.;i;:,..FICiMC1ays.jt ,Use in -Rating_: Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + De ressional 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number I_e�.avl I V D Depression.al and Flats Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the- wettand unit functions to («rly i 5c°P per t=) improve water qua.ljt D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p,38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet oints Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) nZf_ 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 it -eat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) D Y15points = 4 Dints = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area pain s = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = I/10 of area p-o—Infs =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Ma of Cowardin vegetation classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland aims = 4 Area seasonally ponded is >'/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 (� Map of H droperiods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I ~i —I D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportullitV to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom 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 #t of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, 1< farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multiplier if 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - ater Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number � E A4 tj D . Depressional and Flats Wetlands — Points 11YDR0L0G1C FUNCTIONS - lndicators that the wetland unlit functions to (only I score reduce flooding and stream degradation PU box) D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep.46) 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 points = 2 Unit is a "fiat" 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 "intermittently (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as flowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet ermanentl awin ) points = 0 D 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 poi Pan Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 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 Dints = 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 — -- l l D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Weiland 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 multiplier — Other YES multiplier i NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number R -Riverine and• Freshwater Tidal. Fringe Wetlands Points MITER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - hid ieator's that wedaitldfi*tions to iC17Pfove tonIy rscore. • - pt;r 6hx) water q up]ity R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions > % of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions pment Points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at Person height): Figure Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportu_n_i� to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels- of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on p; 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wd" w R Rive rine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Paints HYDROLOGIC F'UNCT16KS - tri4iea.w, that wet mi lunetJors to reriuce :. (oa)y escnr�. flaoding-arid-strcarr `�rosWn` .: - - per box) . . R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure _ Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width ofstream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure large woody debris as 'forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description_ (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above 1 !1 R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) 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. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number W-e�" 0 L L L L Lake -fringe. Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland. -unit :functlo s to impxoye water quality. L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1 /3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Add the points in the boxes above L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Poi n is (anfy 1 score Per [JUL) (see p.59) igure _ I __1 (seep. 61) 1 multiplier Wetland name or number 44 L Lake fringe. Wetlands = H.YDROI gOIC F:UNCTIONS..- :Indicators:thaithe,-wetland-uni�. Furrctiaus to. reduoe shoreline erosion L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 6 > % of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L I TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L.3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. I comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Pti111ts (Wy k smre kv box) (see p.62) ure ---- 1 I f (see p.63) 1 multiplier Wetland name or number" S Slope Wetlands Points WATER Q.UALTTY T' lJNfCT10NS Indicators that the wolland unit functi.cros to [only i scr,ro.. ger i,_ax] irn rove water quality S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1 % or less (a 1 % slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > %2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons =_ S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 1 S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the onportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 11 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Slope Wetlands Points HYDRQL0G1C FUNCTIONS-...Indicaforsthat.thev' tland.unit. unctivns,.to.. Omy I s�°r per. hox]. reduce flooding and strewn erosion S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (see p.58) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not ri . points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number vim&4' J These questions.apply to wetlands of all HGM elasses.. Points (�n3y I ;cure HARITkl' FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to, provide irnportant habitat P&mx) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is Y4 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 oints 2 structures porn — 2 1 2� 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or'/4 acre to count. (see textfor 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 1 H 1.3. Richness of Plant S cies (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 ifyou want to: 5 - 19 species o nts = Sptrar� �au-310si { C�seac abnu��-�t < 5 species PtiputUS 60.1sm-ilfa cex-ex d e rar.rt, 5a,l-lx 1a�4 ortrtr�i�+ ��s�r�•-:i`� Total for page Wetland Rating Form— western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number We cil lei H 1.4.Interspersion ofhabitats fiseep. 76) figure_ 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. CD None = 0 points ow = 1 point 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 "hi ". 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 ofpoints 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 (1 Om) 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 'A 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 I i I Add the scores om HI.1, HI.2. H1.3, H1.4. HI.5 1 Uomments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Mi " N I H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure , Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 in (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 in (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 in (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 in (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 in (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 ahoto showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor YES = 4 points (go to H2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and L . roken 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 H2.3) DO H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES =1 point N = 0 points Total for page i Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number jmw aleL H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report _http:Ilwdfw.wa.Fovlhdlphslist him ) 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. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade cresti 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). 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 ofrelatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) - long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat =1 point No habitats = points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H2.4) Q 54--feAm (,u� Y, a5 C pa",f5 c� +v, d r,4bJ- an.kve/lce- t-t,-2 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 t gust 2 04 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 f 0lCf� t- �� S 5�' Wetland name or number vie, 4 0 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 %2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between the are disturbed ants = The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within 1h mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I l Add the scores.fi•ow H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 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 y1 V P.1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number WCA-014 N CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wedand Type Category Checkoff any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category .when the appropriate criteria are met._ SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 C-NO SC 1.l Is the wetland unit within a National Wil ife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve desi nder WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size is at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no ' g, ditching, filling, Cat. H 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 Dual rating (1/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a UII Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDF W definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number We 4WD 0 SC 2.0 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 WNHI'IDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNIIP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX 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 planttarcies? YES = Category I O L_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 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 fo field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 0 - to Q. 2 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 e or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 (:No )Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent o 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 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number _w6i0 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its 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 [NT�Y_not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measz near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 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 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO Category 11 Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number WM& 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 On not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still ne o 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 Cat. H SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it m a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland .based on Special Characteristics Choose fhe "highest" rating if wetlandfallr into several categories, and record on P. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "blot Appl#'eable" on p.1. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. III k Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation Appendix B Wetland Impact Plan Sheets S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. a�.ru�n (NAVDJ 88 WETLAND K RETAINING WALL 0.01 ACRES OF TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER DISTURB/ FUTURE EDGE OF PAVadENT RETAINING WALL 4: 4 D PLAN 1 � ' 1 / ? y� r PROPOSED EDGE — �•. f OF PAVEMENT I J1 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND TEMPORARY WETLAND DITCH BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT 465 PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IIAPACT PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT ALIGNMENT & STATION J WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT _N, __emu— LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL 777777777 RIGHT OF WAY ' STREAM BUFFER " ••••' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _ _ _ _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER jECOLOGY) SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AS 111 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.23 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K ill 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M 11 116 ACRE 003 ACRE 002 ACRE 0.56 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N 111 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 191 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.18 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U III 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.14 ACRE 0.04 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY 33TREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation Appendix C Mitigation Site Wetland Memo `9%k BE'RGER/ARAM F N u, u E F A 5 I N C Memorandum Date: 5 June 2008 Subject: I-5/SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements Project Draft Wetlands Delineation and Stream Boundary Determination — Corrington Mitigation Site From: Jilma Jimenez To: Bruce Nebbitt, PE, Project Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation Route to: INTRODUCTION The I-5/SR 161/SR 18 Interchange Improvements Project (Triangle project) proposes to improve travel time and address safety concerns in the vicinity of the Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 161 and SR 18 interchanges. The Triangle project will result in the replacement of two existing cloverleaf loop ramps with direct access flyovers, in addition to adding new roadway lanes in high traffic areas. It is anticipated that a small amount of unavoidable wetland impacts would result from the completion of the Triangle project. The Corrington property was chosen as the most suitable site to complete wetland and stream mitigation activities through a formal Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) site evaluation and review process. This memorandum describes the wetland delineation completed at the Corrington mitigation site by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. The purpose of the delineation was to determine accurately the extent of wetlands on the Corrington site and attempt to approximate the limits of historic wetland fills on the property through examination of soil profiles within wetland sample plots. This memorandum supplements the 19 November 2007 letter that details the results of a preliminary wetland assessment of the Corrington site completed by WSDOT. As previously agreed by WSDOT staff, this wetland delineation memorandum is not intended to represent a formal wetland delineation report using WSDOT's wetland delineation template, but is of sufficient scope to enable accurate wetland mitigation planning for the Corrington site. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The on -site wetlands were identified and delineated using the routine approach described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Mantcal (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Mantcal: Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987, hereafter referred to as the 1987 Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. • 720 Olive Way, Suite 1100 • Seattle, WA 98101 Phone 206/357-5600 • Fax 206/357-5601 Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 2 In addition to preliminary site visits, BERGER/ABAM staff completed site visits to the Corrington site on 23 and 29 May 2008 to observe field indicators. During the site visits, biologists observed and recorded vegetation, soil, and hydrology data at sample plots located between 5 to 10 feet on either side of the anticipated wetland/upland boundaries. The wetland boundaries were identified using available information, professional judgment, and experience. Special attention was paid to topography and soil conditions within sample plot locations in an attempt to approximate non-native fill material. Wetland boundaries were marked by consecutively numbered pink pin flags and pink surveyor's ribbon, and were subsequently surveyed. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Corrington site consists of a rural residential parcel (zoned R35) with a total size of 3.74 acres. The area surrounding the site is largely undeveloped, with surrounding land use limited to low -density residential development and urban open'space. Large tracts of undeveloped forestland are located north and west of the property. The Corrington property is accessed by a single gravel road that extends north from South 364th Way. This gravel road serves as access to five single-family homes and terminates at a single-family residence approximately 400 feet west of the Corrington property. The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Poverty Bay topographic map of the area illustrates that the property is situated on the eastern edge of a large drainage basin that contains both the West and North Forks of Hylebos Creek (USGS, 1997). The topography of the Corrington site is flat to gently sloping and drains to the south and west. Soils The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps for King County indicate that four soil mapping units occur within the boundaries of the Corrington property, all of which are hydric soils. The predominant soil within the property is listed as Shalcar muck with smaller areas of Snohomish silt loam, Bellingham silt loam, and Tukwila muck (USDA, NRCS 2004). The property has been subject to a significant amount of grading and fill in association with the placement of a single -wide mobile home and construction of a small unattached garage. As such, soil samples in portions of the property did not match the NRCS soil descriptions. More detailed information concerning soil locations is presented in the wetlands discussion below. Hydrology The Corrington site is located within the upper portion of the approximately 18-square-mile Hylebos Creek watershed. Hylebos Creek eventually drains -into the Hylebos Waterway and the navigable waters of Commencement Bay. Although the watershed is rather small in terms of overall size, it was once a productive salmon rearing and spawning watershed. Unfortunately, the negative effects of urban development and deforestation have resulted in dramatic declines in salmonid numbers and an overall decline in water quality parameters. Emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested wetlands are located to the north, south, and west of the Corrington site. In addition to these wetlands, several permanently open water ponds are Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 3 located on both the Corrington property and in the immediate surrounding area. Lastly, the North Fork of West Hylebos Creek flows along the western boundary of the property. High groundwater tables and surface water inputs support these open water areas and wetlands. It is presumed that the Corrington site wetlands are heavily influenced by seasonally high groundwater levels and some amount of subsurface water moving south and west through the property. DELINEATION RESULTS Site visits to delineate wetlands on the Corrington site were completed on 23 and 29 May 2008. The property is located on the south side of South 364th Street in Federal Way, Washington (Appendix A, Figure 1). Development on the property is currently limited to a mobile home site and detached garage located in the northern portions of the property and a small pump house located in the east -central portion of the site. The mobile home sits on a broad shelf of obvious fill material that gently slopes down to what appears to be a constructed pond. The garage is located in the northwest corner of the property and is accessed by a narrow driveway constructed of a thin layer of gravel and fill material. Vegetation on the site comprises typical upland pasture grasses that have been maintained as lawn areas, scattered coniferous trees that include Douglas fir (Pstcedotsuga menziesii, FACU) western red cedar (Thtcja plicata, FAC), and deciduous trees that include red alder (Alntcs ricbra, FAC), black cottonwood (Poptclus trichocarpa, FAC), bitter cherry (Prtcnus emarginata, FACU), and Oregon ash (Fraxintis latifolia, FACW). Except for the areas immediately south of the man- made pond, mature trees are primarily located along the eastern and western boundaries of the property. Through the course of the routine wetland delineation, one large emergent wetland was identified and its boundaries delineated. In addition to the emergent wetlands, the ordinary high water marks of the pond, inflow and outflow channels, and the North Fork of Hylebos Creek were located and flagged in the field. Details of the wetlands and surfacewaters are presented below. WETLANDS A total of one forested wetland and two emergent wetlands were identified on the property, with one of the emergent wetlands (Wetland C) dominating the central and southern portions of the property (Appendix A, Figure 2). Wetland A, located in the northern portion of the property, exists as an extremely small palustrine emergent wetland that is maintained as lawn/mowed area (Appendix A, Figure 2). Vegetation in this wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW) in addition to a small amount of meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis, FACW+). Photographs of Wetland A are presented in Figure 3 of Appendix A. It is likely that this wetland originally was much larger but was impacted during the grading associated with the placement of the mobile Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 4 home. The wetland is surrounded by areas of sandy gravelly loam fill material that likely drains the adjacent areas sufficiently to prevent the formation of wetland soils. The boundaries of Wetland A were identified through rapid changes in the soil color and texture and levels of soil saturation that also corresponded with a change in vegetation. It is presumed that this wetland is sustained through interactions with the seasonally high water table and from subsurface flow from the wetlands on the north side of South 364th Street. Wetland B is located in the extreme northeast corner of the property and is actually the westernmost portion of a larger palustrine forested wetland located on the neighboring parcel. Vegetation in this portion of the wetland is dominated by osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), red alder, and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW). Photographs of Wetland B are presented in Figure 3 of Appendix A. The boundaries of this wetland were clearly identified by rapid changes in topography that corresponded with dramatic changes in vegetation communities. This wetland is sustained through interactions with the seasonally high water table, surface runoff from adjacent roads and compacted soils, and through temporary flooding of a small drainage channel that flows south through the off -site portions of the wetland.- It appears that the off -site portion of Wetland B does not connect to the offsite portions of Wetld C. It appears that the southern portion of Wetland C which if forested abruptly ends at the edge of regularly maintained lawn areas. No indicators of wetland vegetation could be observed in this area. Permission to access the neighboring parcel to further investigate this connection could not be obtained during the field visits. The largest wetland on the site is Wetland C, which dominates the central and southern portions of the site (Appendix A, Figure 2). Within the Corrington property, Wetland C is a small portion of a much larger depression/riverine wetland that includes emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested components. Within the subject parcel, most of the wetland is emergent in nature, although scattered red alder, black cottonwood, western red cedar, and a few Oregon ash trees are located along the western boundary of the wetland adjacent to the north fork of Hylebos Creek and immediately south of the man-made pond (Appendix A, Figure 3). The northern portions of this wetland are characterized by common pasture grasses and forbs that have been subject to routine mowing. Dominant vegetation in this area is limited to tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea, FAC-), meadow foxtail, colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaries, FAC), reed canarygrass, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, FACU), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata, FAC), and creeping buttercup (Appendix A, Figure 3). While most of the wetland with this vegetation pattern is located within the flat portions of the site, a lobe of the wetland does extend northward, upslope, towards the mobile home. This portion of the wetland receives hydrologic inputs from subsurface water flows. The wetland boundary in this area was clearly identifiable through a rapid change in soil saturation in conjunction with subtle changes in soil color. Although changes in soil color were apparent in test pit locations, stark contrasts in soil color and texture —and thus obvious fill patterns —were not discernible adjacent to the wetlands located on the slope. Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 5 The southern portions of the wetland are dominated almost entirely by reed canarygrass, although a few small patches of soft rush (Juncus effuses, FACW+), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armenicus, UPL) and Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW) are scattered throughout the wetland (Appendix A, Figure 3). Small upland islands were identified directly south and southwest of the man-made pond. Vegetation within the southwest upland island is dominated entirely by Himalayan blackberry, while the upland island directly adjacent to the man-made pond is dominated by common mixed pasture grasses and forbs. WETLAND RATINGS The wetlands within the Corrington property were rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Revised (Ecology, 2004) and the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Critical Areas Ordinance, Chapter 22-1357 Wetland Categories, and Standard Buffers (FWCC, 2005). In addition, the Cowardin classification for each wetland was determined using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). Wetland C was previously rated in November 2007 by WSDOT.1 The ratings forms were reviewed and concurred with and have been included in Appendix B of this report. Wetland rating forms for Wetlands A and B are also included in Appendix B. The results of the ratings are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Wetland Classifications and Ratings Wetland Name Cowardin Class Ecology Rating City of Federal Way Rating (Total Score) Wetland A Palustrine Emergent Category IV (29) Not rated -exempt* Wetland B Palustrine Forested Category II (64) Category I Wetland C Palustrine Emergent Category 1 (71) Category I *Wetland A most closely matches the City's description of Category III wetlands, although Category III wetlands less than 2,500 sq. ft. in size are not subject to regulation by the City. Wetland A was rated as a Category IV wetland due to its lack of hydrologic functions and very low habitat functions. Wetland B was rated as a Category II wetland due to its high water quality and hydrologic function score, in addition to a relatively high habitat score of 26. Wetland C was scored high in all three functional areas, achieving a total score of 71 points, placing it in the Category I classification. SURFACEWATERS Several different surf acewaters flow through the project site; all represent jurisdictional waters of the state due to their connection to the North Fork of West Hylebos Creek (Appendix A, Figure 2). 1 Tatiana Craig and Patricia McQuery, Corrington Mitigation Site Memo, November 2007. Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 6 The most important surfacewater within the Corrington property is the North Fork of West Hylebos Creek (Appendix A, Figure 2), which enters the property after passing through a culvert under the gravel of South 364th Street. The creek flows south along the western edge of the property for a total distance of approximately 400 feet. During the site visit, the ordinary high water mark of the stream channel was identified and flagged with orange survey tape for subsequent surveying. The North Fork of West Hylebos Creek drains into West Hylebos Creek approximately three- quarters of a mile after leaving the property, converging with the East Fork of Hylebos Creek at river mile 5.1 located near Porter Way in Tacoma. As it borders the project area, the North Fork has an average wetted channel width of approximately 10 feet (Appendix A, Figure 4). Average water depths at the time of the site visits varied from 8 inches to almost 2 feet. Little channel form diversity was observed within the project area, and the North Fork currently exists as one long riffle. Substrate material is dominated by small -sized cobble and areas of sand/silt. Downstream reaches of West Hylebos Creek (near the confluence of West and East Hylebos) are known to support runs of coho, chum, and chinook salmon, and steelhead and cutthroat trout. Of these species, the North Fork of West Hylebos within the project area is known to support coho salmon in addition to cutthroat trout. The other surfacewater feature on the property is a medium-sized man-made pond in the central portion of the property. The pond receives water inputs via a small inflow channel that drains west from the adjacent property (Appendix A, Figure 4). The inflow channel has an average width of approximately 2.5 feet and, at the time of the site visit, had an average depth of 1 foot. The source of the input water is groundwater discharge from the large wetland complex located north and east of the Corrington property. The water is presumed to flow year-round. The water level within the pond is controlled by a small concrete and timber weir located at the west edge of the pond (Appendix A, Figure 4). From this point, outflows from the pond travel west through a channel of the same size and character as the inflow channel for a distance of approximately 110 feet before the outfall channel makes a 90-degree turn and flows north (Appendix A, Figure 4). Outflows continue through this north -south oriented channel for a distance of approximately 50 feet before entering an east -west oriented culvert and outfalling to the North Fork of West Hylebos Creek. HISTORIC WETLAND FILLS In addition to formally delineating the boundaries of the on -site wetlands, BERGER/ABAM staff roughly calculated the extent of historic fill activity within the bounds of the study area. Throughout the delineation, special attention was paid to dramatic differences in soil structure and color that would indicate past fill activity. Although in a few instances, areas of fill were identifiable, conditions on the property did not lend themselves to easy identification of historic fill activities. This is despite the fact that based on topography, it is obvious that there has been a considerable amount of earthwork done on the site. Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 7 Soil pit data from the slopes immediately south of the mobile home suggests that wetland soils were redistributed throughout the northern portion of the site as a topsoil layer, presumably after preliminary grading was completed. Sample plots in some of these areas revealed soil matrices colors indicative of mixing or artificial layering. Although the slope in question was obviously graded and portions of Wetland C extend up the hillside, soil samples taken in upland plots immediately adjacent to Wetland C did not provide evidence of fill activity but lacked positive indicators of wetland hydrology. The portions of Wetland C that extend up the hillside are supported by subsurface water flow that is causing saturation within 6 inches of the surface. Local topography indicates that subsurface water is flowing from the northern portions of the property (north of the mobile home). It is reasonable to assume that the grading and compacting of soil performed during the placement of the mobile home have severed some of the hydrologic linkages that would have supported wetlands immediately east of the hillside portions of Wetland C. The areas adjacent to Wetland C that could have been hydrologically impacted were not included as areas of historic fill since no evidence of actual fill activity was observed. The areas in which fill activity was observable and identified as historic fill areas are described below and shown in Appendix A, Figure 5. Soil samples in the immediate vicinity of the single -car garage and driveway revealed the presence of gravel -like material close to highly saturated soils. Deep tire ruts and woody material placed on the ground to allow access to the garage were also observed. Positive indicators of hydrology in these areas coincided with their close proximity to Wetland C. These areas were obviously filled during the construction of the driveway and garage (Appendix A, Figure 5). Areas adjacent to Wetland A were also suspected to have been wetlands prior to the completion of grading activities on the site. Soil test pits in these areas revealed the presence of higher amounts of sand and gravel material in addition to rapid changes in soil color by location. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of manipulation in the area, it was difficult to estimate the extent of fill that occur within wetlands. It is likely that a significant portion of the driving and mobile home site that are presently gravel existed as marginal wetlands in the past. An estimation of the extent of disturbance or fill in these areas are presented in Appendix A, Figure 5. Lastly, the portions of Wetland C immediately south of the excavated pond were obviously disturbed in the past. Spoil piles from the excavation of the pond were probably placed in this area based on the presence of uneven topography. It is interesting to note, however, that although this area is obviously composed of dredge spoils, all three wetland indicators were observed during the delineation. Approximate boundaries of the dredge spoils were mapped based on topography and are shown in Appendix A, Figure 5. REGULATORY ISSUES Wetland and streams are regulated on federal and state levels by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology respectively. These critical areas and Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 8 their buffers are regulated on a local level by the City of Federal Way under the FWCC. Based on the FWCC, Wetland A would not have a base buffer as it best matches the description of a Category III wetland, but is less than 2,500 square feet in size and, therefore, the City would not require buffers. Wetland B would be classified as a Category II wetland under the FWCC with a corresponding buffer of 100 feet. Wetland C would be classified by the FWCC as a Category I wetland and have a base buffer of 200 feet. These base buffer widths can be further reduced, up to 50 percent of the base width, through a City -approved buffer enhancement plan. The North Fork of West Hylebos Creek would be regulated by the City as a major stream with a 100-foot base buffer. The man-made pond and inflow/outflow channels would be regulated as minor streams with a base buffer of 50 feet. It should be noted that direct impacts to any of the on -site wetlands would require prior approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecology, and the City of Federal Way. LITERATURE CITED Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Craig, Tatiana and Patricia McQuery. 2007. Corrington Mitigation Site Memo. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Way. 2005. Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Critical Areas Ordinance, Chpater22-1357 Wetland Categories and Standard Buffers. Available online at: htt www.ci Offederalwa .com search.as x?srch=critical+areas. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest Region 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest Region 9. Biological Report 88(26.9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center, St. Petersburg, Florida. Snyder, Dale E., Philip Gale, and Russell Pringle (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Washington, DC. US Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. U.S. Geological Survey, 1:24,000-scale topographic map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' quadrangle (1957, revised 1997). Denver, Colorado. Mr. Bruce Nebbitt 5 June 2008 Page 9 Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington —Revised. Publication #04-06-025. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. Appendix A Wetland Figures Q Kits ap King S. 336111 St j Pierce . S.344th St D 99 S. 356th St AFD + III C Cor g v on Mitigation Mitigatiti on Site 364th 5t S. tr WY �- ff 1 • N _ � J - .. rr s J � a N S. 373rd St Co y JJ 1 i Figure 1 Project Area Vicinity Map 1-5 - SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements Legend 0 1000 2000 Feet Mitigation Site I yI I 1 I Figure 2 Legend Wetland Delineation Results Mitigation Site Boundary OHWM 1-5 - SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements Delineated Wetland Boundary Culvert Major Stream Sample Plot 0 50 100 Feet Minor Stream E) I 2_ Jim p:. Pond inlet channel and pond- facing west .. ..4� .j .y, I It .r East -west portion of outlet channel North Fork of Hylebos Creek - facing south Pond outlet weir North -south channel - facing south Figure 4 Site Photographs 1-5 - SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements a S 364th St �} - r 00 b Approximate Areas of rill 1-1 Appendix B Wetland Rating Forms S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. DA LIM s (NAVD) 88 r WETLAND K RETAINING / / ; / •, WALL / / PROPOSED EDGE 0-01 ACRES OF TEMPORARY -- I OF PAVEMENTr8 WETLAND BUFFER OISTLN7BANCL- } FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ �' 7�• �r \,. rn� �'• EMSTING EDGE ^ �+� 4 lip �i OF PAVEMENT .-r r� G ,��r' � air 1 • F'- ' fl'1, ti�� r' tij .a' � ��1• ��4 RETAINING °0/ r'.,, • G�[� WALL.--,, G(G '• ,�% A 47 + f rJ FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT O� r io r . 0 50 100 ' SCALE IN FEET PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND TEMPORARY WETLAND DITCH BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT 465 PERMANENT WETLAND TEMPORARY STREAM PERMANENT STREAM ALIGNMENT 8 STATION IMPACT - - BEIMPACT IMPACT WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL 777777777 RIGHT OF WAY • STREAM BUFFER ••••••• WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGYI SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB III 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K III 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 1.16 ACRE 003 ACRE 0.02 ACRE 056 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N 01 0.20 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 1.91 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0-18 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U III 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 014 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBM - S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. DATUM t _ (NAVD) 88 INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS OF 1,306 SO FT - /l'{ IMPACTS MITIGATED AS DIRECT DUE TO ANTICIPATED LOSS OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS NO BUFFER ON WETLAND N AS ENTIRE WETLAND WILL BE IMPACTED AND MITIGATED. •\ 020 ACRES OF TOTAL "y PERMANENT WETLAND DISTURBANCE ,y g WETLAND N =. I PROPOSED EDGE I OF PAVEmENF_ ,p \ RETAINING WALL r y' — WETLAND M yF' I I r / 010 ACRES OF TEMPORARY- •'r• / WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE et Gf' dilG ta r��+' 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET C+ �` FUTURE EDGE - . - �Q- • OF PAVEMENT • i f i� EXISTING EDGE — OF OF I "�-0.37 ACRES OF PERMANENT '1. `�• - I `� �, •r ND BUFFER D611JREIANCE ; I +11001, / MATCH TO SHEET 14 PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -------- - EXISTING EDGE PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT �_-J :-� TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY STBUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT IMPACT > 465 OF PAVEMENT DITCH ALIGNMENT 8 STATION E771 WETLAND PERMANENT giRl=jypl BUFFER IMPACT an--�— LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL 777777T17 RIGHT OF WAY . . . ' STREAM BUFFER ......• WETLAND BUFFER _ PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT — — _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND VuE%ANb CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGY) SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB AI 0.42 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K III 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 1.16 ACRE 003 ACRE 0.02 ACRE 056 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N III 0.20 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 191 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 01B ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U III Q13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 014 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL BUFFER STREAM IMPACT TOTAL !STREAM TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 4.44 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: REFERENCE NUMBER: I-5 SR 161/SR 18 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS gan APPLICANT BY: WASHINGTON STATE E N GG I� 1 N G. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION LOCATION ADDRESS: FEDERAL WAY, KING CO., WA DATE: 1,28419 SHEET 2 OF 1 S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. MATCH TO SHEET 15 0-01 ACRES OF TEMPORARY . WETLANO BUFFET[ DISTURBANCE WETLAND M �`_•'•• ,'p¢'Y OF PAVEMENT 0.06 ACRES �� {G OF TEMPORARY RETAINING WETLAND BUFFER WALL A �� • • �jF' G'Iy� DISTURBANCE •� �pp� f f _ EXISTING EDGE QC OF PAVEMENT I t ' ••, 11 >'� �" 5.03 ACRES OF pERMANEH PROPOSED EDGE 'li- W'ET'Ll1N0 DISTURBANCE OF PAVEMENT _ 0 1.s �1-002 ACRES OF TEMPO 1pl u .111WETLAND OISYOR cE 019 ACRES OF PERMANENT II WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE, - II II FUTURE EDGE �o -- FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF PAVEMENT II I -i II II I I - "'f'I n —PROPOSED STORMWATER POND u u --LIMITS OF GRADING FOR PROPOSED STORMWATER POND 7RtBU7ARY 0016 - ` / •Ii II ,, DIRECTION OF FLOW G A T li l„1 � - O (NAVD) 88 3 2. I - r 0 50 100 2 r G2G ACRES OF PERMANENT SCALE IN FEET O STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE PI AN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND TEMPORARY WETLAND DITCH BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT 46S PERMANENT WETLAND TEMPORARY STREAM PER STREAM ALIGNMENT 8 STATION IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT -cur--rlu— LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL TTIJTJ= RIGHT OF WAY ' STREAM BUFFER .... ..., WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _ _ _ _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGY) SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB III 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.23 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K III 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 116 ACRE 003 ACRE 002 ACRE Q56 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N III 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 1.91 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.18 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U III 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE Q14 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL TOTAL STREAM TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 0.00 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: S. 28. T. 21N. R. 4E. W.M. TRIBUTARY 016A^� r � r I DIRECTION \ OF FLOW _ • r i +I \ ' a+ WETL.AND. P 41 I r' ! �<n_ / 1 S _ 1 0.03 ACRES OF PERMANENT \ WerLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE a r f ' OF TEMPORARY r � � PROPOSED _IdGEr I WETLAND BUFFER) OF PAVEMENT Ir DISTURBANCE r + �' r / rr I 1 -F'1. ISANO EDGE OF PAVEMEN" 1 f t IJ -5ASTIN0 EDGE J I I !y OF PAVEMENT `J x - ` 40 L. a , k � 1 ro 2 r 3 T M r + -FUTURE EDGE 1 OFPA OF PAVEMENT i+ r ` 0.01 ACRES !r ;OF TEMPORARY to / ! ( N A V D) 88 WETLAND BUFFER I' J .� DISTURBANCE p T f i 100 _ I SCALE IN FEET MATCH TO SHEET 12 PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE BUFFERENTPAWETLAND CT IMPACT EM LVCTWND IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT I .:� TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT' PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 4fi5 DI PAVEMENT DITCH ALIGNMENT 8 STATION WETLAND P£RMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT - --Fu— LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL 777777777 RIGHT OF WAY ' STREAM BUFFER•• WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _ _ �, WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND NUMBER WETLAND CATEGORY (ECOLOGY) WETLAND SIZE PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT TOTAL WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB III G42 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K III 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 1.16 ACRE 003 ACRE 002 ACRE 0.56 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND IN 111 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P 1.91 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.18 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U 01 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.14 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0018 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. MATCH TO SHEET 13 TRIBUTARY 0016 DIRECTION + •I OF FLOW 1 1 I —FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT r r I 7 I r r I' r`+ y 012 ACRES OF TEMPORARY ET4 • ff I y 7I WLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE (WHICH IS ALSO ROB ACRES OF ' y 1 TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER I I r DISTURBANCE) ' 009 ACRES OF PERMANENT i WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE Ir ' (WHICH IS ALSO OOfi ACRES OF PERMANENT • 1 �y �1 D STURBANCE)TREAM BUFFER WETLAND P i � 7 � f co 2 C] Lu s! 1 >ti / VV r 10 R ' 17. f ' I I PROPOSED EDGE \y _" �I OF PAVEMENT ' 41 r c r I � r I �, (NAVD) 88 -E]CISTINO EDGE i EXISTING EDGE DF PAVEMENT .•..•.. ••••• • j OF PAVEMENT 0.01 ACRES OF TEMPORARY — f r r • w.... fl STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE I ' 0 50 100 ' 001 ACRES OF PERMANENT �_ 1 ••��STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE SCALE IN FEET MATCH TO SHEET 11 PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND TEMPORARY WETLAND DITCH BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT 465 PERMANENT WETLAND TEMPORARY STREAM PERMANENT STREAM ALIGNMENT d STATION IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL TlllllTJ7 RIGHT OF WAY • ' ' ' • STREAM BUFFER • • • • • • .. WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF _ _ _ _ _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGY) SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB III 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 0.14 ACRE WETLAND K III 0-13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.01 ACRE WETLAND M 11 116 ACRE 003 ACRE 0.02 ACRE 056 ACRE 0.17 ACRE WETLAND N III 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 1.91 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 018 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U 41 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 014 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0018A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. Wl1.1111. MATCH TO SHEET 10 I i I a.o6 ACRES ' ,�� I o � • k I nF TEMPORARY y b y 1 TRIBUTARY 001SA -- , STREAM BUFFER ff II ' DISTURBANCE �� J 1' I `�(►� h 1 PROPOSED CULVERT EXTENSION DIRECTION �f b OF FLOW / EXISTING RAMP To BE REMOVED 002 ACRES OF 'PERMANENT 3 STREAM I FUTURE EDGE *� 2s OF PAVEMENT 11 A�TUMIN ur 3 J (I -;, r�,7R ACRES OF A J e` �.� PERMANENT N • "�'r._ STREAM BUFFER `� a N A L ) 88 T� • �� DISTURBANCE = 1 ------ --- ---- -- ---'tir_- - EW-0I-LINE r EXISTING RAMP TO BE REPLACED EXISTING EDGE ++ 11 OF PAVEMENT r + WE-01 LINE f r03B ACRE8 OF PERMANENT ! i STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE x1i"'v.• --DIRECTION +-1 �1. fr I _ 14i �+ !L OF FLOW r { 1 ! TRIBUTARY 0016A �.15 EXISTIN EDGE / '1 O�r WETLAND U • OF PAY ENT 1 Ili msTI EDGE rl OF PA ENT •0-03 ACRES OF TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE O r 1� (WHICH IS ALSO 003 ACRES OF I TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER r DISTURBANCE) ! • (C -110 ACRES OF PERMANENT ! / WETLAND BUFFER OISTVRBANCE tWHICH 19 ALSO 0.10 ACRES OF !� 0 50 100 DSRMANENT IVRBANGE7�M BUFFET! f% SCALE IN FEET P I MATCH TO SHEET 8 PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT STREAM MPA TREAM TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT IPERMANMPACT ENT STREAM 7�1 465 OF PAVEMENT DITCH ALIGNMENT 8 STATION WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT -nn--nu- LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL 777777777 RIGHT OF WAY ' STREAM BUFFER •• WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _ _ - - WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND NUMBER WETLAND CATEGORY (ECOLOGY) WETLAND SIZE PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT TOTAL WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB 111 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE Q23 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K 111 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.01 ACRE WETLAND M II 1.16 ACRE 003 ACRE 002 ACRE Q56 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N III 0.20 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 1.81 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.18 ACRE 0.32 ACRE WETLAND U 1 NI 0.13 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.14 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM RUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY 'STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. MATCH TO SHEET 9 •��: ... tip. 1 WETLAND U r , :; tE TRIBUTARY 061 1. L` DIRECTION �• IJ f OF FLOW rr' Ir 0.1PERMANENT- STREAM ACRES OF PERMANENr i+' -- • �� _ STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE `�kyLL� �� .+ FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT r -0-01 ACRES OF TEMPORARY WETLAND BUFFER PISTIIRBANCE (WHICH IS ALSO 0-01 ACRES OF , TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER _ - _ _ _ • _ -0.01 ACRES OF PERMANER AINCE EXISTING RAMP VMZLAND SUFFER DISTURBANCE rq BE REMOVED (WHICH IS ALSO 0.04 ACRES OF PERMANENT AT BUFFER ,� RETAINING WALL OISTUR9ANCE1 EXISTING RAMP N r , TI BE REMOVED i 4 ' 1 5 r \ u FUTURE EDGE •' Y� Jf OF PAVEMENT w Jtr f rr i r V KJ �r p� \fir EXISTING RAMP i FUTURE EDGE fi TO BE REMOVED I J iLu r OF PAVEMENT to U b Ir A 1 .;t0.11 ACRES OF PERMANENT r' rr v' HTREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE'r, r LiPrI 4 /1 1 0.02 ACRES _ i� - • Jf.'.02 ACRES OF PERMANENT PR STREAM pi TURBANOE OPOSED EDGE OF TEMPORARY w OF PAVEMENT ` STREAM BUFFER �••.` I f/ L I r DISTURBANCE RETAINING WALL (NAVD) 88 4 PROPOSED CULVERT nl _1 i EXTENSION • 1 TRIBUTARY \ � ` �'- �', -OF PAV AENTE f .0016A p ,� ._EXL4TI EDGE OF P 0 50 100 . ► _ .MENft SCALE IN FEET MATCH TO SHEET 7 PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND .'.' TEMPORARY WETLAND II > DITCH BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT ass PERMANENT WETLAND TEMPORARY STREAM PERMANENT STREAM ALIGNMENT 8 STATION IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT _�,�, -_pGa- LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL RIGHT OF WAY . • . . ' STREAM BUFFER •••''•••. WETLAND BUFFER EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGr SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB III 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K 01 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 116 ACRE 003 ACRE 0.02 ACRE 056 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N tli 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 191 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 010 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U III 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 014 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL TOTAL STREAM TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 4." ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. MATCH TO SHEET 6 TEMPORARY STREAM r 1 •_- __ BUFFER IMPACT FOR STREAM CONSTRUCTION— P +� i + Q RETAINING ' 013 ACRES OF TEMPORARY !! •+ WALL i I • — _ J STREA61 BUFFER DIBTLIRBANCE .. �.: • 1 34 ACRES OF PERMANENT I STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE • STREAM CHANNEL TO BE ABANDONED-EX'S IINO EDGE .• _ II DF PAVEMENT f h RELOCATED �• �� 4J STREAM . �. Q '• J PROPOSED CULVERT Ir RELOCATED STREAM •��} � , r r !L1 CS ' ? • - - •] Ll3 ACRES OF PERMANENT r STREAM DISTURBANCE • it . —PROPOSED EDGE RELOCATED STREAM �• BUFFER ll) 1 .w Y�l PROPOSED CULVERT ` EXTENSION FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT— FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT N DA LIH s, (NAVD) 88 en I r EXISTING OF PAVEMENT CULVERT f, lel+ ,RETAINING ly / EXISTING EDGE J i WALL i + OF PAVEMENT ' DIRECTION } • OF FLOW r, 'y 007 ACRES OF PERMANENT ---, n AETLANG BUFFER DISTURBANCE - ✓�' �IIiCH IS ALSO 0.137 ACRES OF Yj PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER !� DISTURBANCE)lql • TRIBUTARY D016A WETLAND AS MATCH TO SHEET 4 PI AN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS EXISTING EDGE PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND TEMPORARY WETLAND > OF PAVEMENT DITCH PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT PERMANENT STR EAIVA IMPACT 465 ALIGNMENT &STATION WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM -nrr --emu— 777777777 RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER IMPACT LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL • STREAM BUFFER •••• WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSEPAVEMENT EDGE OF _ _ _ _ _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGY)- SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AS Ill 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K 111 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 116 ACRE 003 ACRE 002 ACRE 056 ACRE 017 ACRE WETLAND N BI 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 1B1 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 01B ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U 01 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.14 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY :STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 000 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: nA I (NAVD) 88 PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT RETAINING Iy WALL 1 FUTURE EDGE ` OF PAVEMENT—_l� S. 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. MATCH TO SHEET 5 RETAINING WALL — ell EXISTING EDGE ' OF PAVEMENT i i I i 2 i r r .• EXISTING EDGE y i Q 41 r �OF PAVEMENT FUTURE EDGE g II OF PAVEMENT � 7ry_ . TRIBUTARY 0016A IG, ,u Ut . DIRECTION } OF FLOW • n_ r r r 0.14 ACRES OF TEMPORARY ^O 1 WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE (WHICH IS ALSO 0 14 ACRES OF TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER �r DISTURBANCE) Q ' WETL ND BUFFER OdSTES CW UR HCE RETAINING 'p WALL T (WHICH IS ALSO 010 ACRES OF f'`1 PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE) �I` ( WETLAND AS QOS ACRES OF TEMPORARY 1 �• STREAM BUFFER J.' DISTURBANCE 002 ACRES OFPERFAAN EHT — lie STREAM BUFFER OISTURBANOE 0 50 100 a� + � SCALE IN FEET MATCH TO SHEET 3 PLAN LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND WETLAND TEMPORARY WETLAND DITCH BUFPPO IMPACT 465 PERMANENT WETLAND TEMPORARY STREAM PERMANENT STREAM ALIGNMENT & STATION IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL 777777777 RIGHT OF WAY • ' • • ' STREAM BUFFER ... BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT —^--- WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGY) SIZE WEIMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AS III 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K III 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M 0 116 ACRE 003 ACRE Q02 ACRE Q56 ACRE 0.17 ACRE WETLAND N 111 020 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P 11 191 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.18 ACRE 032 ACRE WETLAND U III 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0.14 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL TOTAL STREAM TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 120 ACRE 0016 0.00 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE REFERENCE NUMBER: OATu w V w� J) 88 CO b SM 28. T. 21 N. R. 4E. W.M. MATCH TO SHEET u r ' EXISTING EDGE, OF PAVEMENT r , RETRI NING ALL — PROPOSED EDGE • OF PAVEMENT U l- U 40 / \\ (v / c] t•A / V , y�9i ry BARRIER t�;A 1-6 MP 141.28 \ LW 464+00.00 - LE 463+74.31 --------------- .0.01 ACRES OF PERMANENT _ STREAM BUFFER OISTURBANCC 002 ACRES OF TEMPORARY ' I STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE 1� FUTURE EDGE II I I " • OF PAVEMENT y ; �— EXISTING EDGE �y PROPOSED OF PAVEMENT / / STORMWATER I POND EXPANSION • i' /—• LIMITS OF GRADING II I FOR PROPOSED STORMWATER ' POND EXPANSION ,• 1 1 i I 10 7- •. I / :I = 1 jI`y I O / r I I \ti r 1 \\ 1 / 1 1 / / I I ♦I II /k I BEGIN PROJECT 7.,r' 1' - y I1 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET PLAN l7 TRIBUTARY 0016A WETLAND AS DIRECTION OF FLOW A06 ACRES OF PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE (WHICH IS ALSO 006 ACRES OF PERMANENT BUFFER) STREAM • ACRES OF PERMANENT STREAM BUFFER DISTURBANCE LEGEND & SUMMARY OF IMPACTS --------- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PERMANENT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY WETLAND III— TEMPORARY WETLAND � DITCH DI PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT IMPACT PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 465 ALIGNMENT 6 STATION WETLAND PERMANENT STREAM -cu. —_"u— LIMIT OF CUT OR FILL TTTTTTl19 RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER IMPACT • • • • • STREAM BUFFER ••• WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _ _ _ _ WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND PERMANENT TEMPORARY WETLAND TOTAL WETLAND TEMPORARY NUMBER (ECOLOGY) SIZE WETLAND IMPACT IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND AB Ell 042 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 023 ACRE 014 ACRE WETLAND K 111 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 001 ACRE WETLAND M II 116 ACRE 003 ACRE 002 ACRE 056 ACRE 0-17 ACRE WETLAND N 111 0.20 ACRE 020 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE WETLAND P II 191 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 010 ACRE 0-32 ACRE WETLAND U 111 013 ACRE 0 ACRE 0 ACRE 014 ACRE 004 ACRE STREAM TOTAL STREAM IMPACT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER IMPACT TOTAL TEMPORARY STREAM BUFFER IMPACT 0016A 012 ACRE 444 ACRE 128 ACRE 0016 0.00 ACRE 020 ACRE 000 ACRE USAGE REFERENCE NUMBER: REFERENCE NUMBER: A SIR16LSR 18 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS 8ERGER/ABAM APPLICANT BY: WASHINGTON STATE emu 1 F e i/ m: 1 8 c DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION LOCATION ADDRESS: FEDERAL WAY, KING CO., WA DATE: 128/09 SHEET 10 OF 10 Appendix C Wetland Data Sheets Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 1 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2, % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. _ % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 60% 1. Rubus discolor FACU 1 100% 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. - % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Availabje Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: no positive hydro indicators Dominant Species Species Present ❑ ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1 2 ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover 40 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ® 2 3. 4. 5. ❑ ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. 7� ■�iC Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species FACW 1 100% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 1 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 18+ A 10YR 2/2 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks high amounts of sand in soil profile, likely due to floodplain adjacent to stream WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) rage z Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 2 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6, SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7- Dominant Status I Cover Species Species Present % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: no positive hydro indicators ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. 2- 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. 3. 4. ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. ❑ 9. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Dominant Status Cover I Species % FACW 1 100% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:2 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 18+ A 10YR 2/1 - Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks high amounts of sand in soil profile, likely due to floodplain adjacent to stream WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: no hydrology apparent despite darker soils and presence of reed canarygrass Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 3 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1- % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 2- % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3- % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100% 5. % ❑ 6 % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2.� % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. 7. -- % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:3 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 18+ A 10YR 2/1 - Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks _WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes No Plot ID: 4 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % 2. 3 % 4. % 5 - % 6 SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6_ 7. 8. 9. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Other ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines Field Observations: ❑ Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit 14 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 in. Remarks: % Dominant Status I Cover I Species Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:4 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 - - Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 5 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 0% Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4• % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 0% 6. %1 ❑ 1. % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. % ❑ Total Cover 100% 3. % El— 1 . Rubus discolor FACU 100% ® 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % I ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 0 of 1 = 0% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks). ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:5 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 5/1 5YR 5/6 Few/Distinct Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: obvious break in topographic with changes in vegetation- upland plot Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 6 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6 % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. % I❑ ❑ 2. % 0 ❑ 3 % ❑ ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover 100% 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100% ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ ❑ 5. °% ❑ ❑ 6. % ❑ ❑ 7. % 1 ❑ ❑ 8. % ❑ ❑ 9. % ❑ ❑ 10. % ❑ ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Other ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ Drift Lines ®FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit 15 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 in. Remarks: Plot ID:6 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\Revised data sheet.doc Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Applicant/Owner: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Investigator: Bieger Corrington Corrington Date: County: State: 4/23/08 King WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse side.) ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 7 VEGETATION % Species Present Status Cover Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant ISpecies TREE STRATUM Total Cover % 1. I % 2. % ❑ ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 2. 3. %1 ❑ 3. % ❑ % I ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 50% 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 30% 5 % ❑ 6 % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 50% 1. Rubus discolor FACU 100% ® 2. Ranunculus re ens FAC 10% ❑ 3. Holcus lanatus FAC 10% ❑ 4. A rQstis ea iAaris FAC 50% 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % 6. % ❑ 4. 5. % ❑ 7. % ❑ % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % J ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 3 = 67% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water Depth to Free Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators.: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:7 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 I Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\data7.doc Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID; Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 8 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Dominant -T % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ _ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 90 % 6. % ❑ 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 10% ❑ SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM 2. A rostis capilfans FAC 50% Total Cover: % 3. Taraxacum officinale FACU 30% 19 1. I % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % I ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 2 = 50% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) PlotID:8 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks soil quite a bit more sandy, no hydro WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: despite dark soil, marginal plants and no hydro C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\data8.doe Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation Investigator: Bieger Date: County: State: 4/23/08 King WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ (If needed, explain on reverse side.) Yes ❑ No Yes ® No Yes ® No Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 9 VEGETATION %Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover % 1. 1 % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1 % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover 90 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 20% 5, % ❑ 6. % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2. A mstis ca itlaris FAC 70% 3. % 4. % ❑ 2.� 1 % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % 9. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 2 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) PlotID:9 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/2 - Sandy loam I Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: brighter soil than sample plot 8 C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\data8.doc Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 10 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % Status Cover 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 90 % 1 Phalaris arundinacea 2. Agrostis capiilaris ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Galium aparine 4. Utica dioica ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. 1 9. ❑ n-4:n_ennoi Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species FACW 1 10% FAC 50% FACW 10% FAC 30% % % Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:10 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/2 - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ leyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: high amounts of organic material similar to composted material- no hydrology Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 11 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Ir:1zxc11111.311111 Total Cover: % 0 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Dominant Status I Cover Species Species Present ITO Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1, ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover 100% 1. 2. ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Phalaris arundinacea 4. ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. 9. ❑ EMEE, 4 —; 4 — 4nno/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Dominant Status Cover Species %I ❑ % ❑ FACW 100% % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % fI Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:11 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 12 A 10YR 2/1 - - Silty clay loam i Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: dramatic change in vegetation as well as hydrology Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 12 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2- 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 10% 1. 5 irsea dou lash FACW 70% 2. Rubus s ectabitis FAC+ 30% 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 10 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1 2 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover 90 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 2. Agroslis capillaris 3. 4, 5. _® ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ & ❑ 9. 9 _L I _ 1-1 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover I Species n FACW 1 30% FAC 70% % % Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:12 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: edge of pond — influenced by pond water levels, obvious wet bench Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) rage z Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the -site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 13 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. T % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY Dominant Species I Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover 90 % 1. Festuca arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. 3. 4. 5. ❑ ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. ❑ 9. ❑ 1 10. ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs I ❑ Inundated ❑ Other ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines Field Observations: ❑ Sediment Deposits Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: % Dominant Status Cover Species FAC- 100% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:13 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Veg9tation Present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: hydric soil but plot on higher ground above pond Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 14 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover 1. % ❑ 1. % 1 ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % I ❑ 3 % ❑ 3. % I ❑ 4 % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover 100 6. % ❑ 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 70% SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. Taraxacum officinale FACU 20% Total Cover: % 3. Poa pratensis FAC 10% ❑ 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9 % ❑ 7. % ❑ I 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 2 = 5% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge . Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Other ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit 15 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 9 in. Remarks: Plot ID:14 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 - - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: fairly obvious vegetation patterns, slight topographic difference. wetland likely supported from subsurface water flow from adjacent slopes Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetiand Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ❑ Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 15 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. % I Dominant Status I Cover Species Species Present Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ 2 ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 % 1. Holcus lanatus 2_ Taraxacum officinale 3. Poa pratensis 4. Ranunculus repens ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Juncus effusus ❑ 6. ❑ 7. 8. ❑ 9. 10. 7 -9 A - 7G0/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species n %y IQ FAC 1 30% FACU 25% FAC 20% FACW 20% FACW 5% % % % Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:15 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/2 Silty clay loam f f -- Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 16 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present IBC-011�7f11Ji& Total Cover % 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1.` 2. 3.i 4. 5. 6. 7. Dominant Status Cover Species Species Present Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 17 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 % 1. Holcus lanatus ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2, Taraxacum officinale 3. Juncus effusus 4. Ranunculus repens ❑ 5. 6. ❑ ❑ 7. 8. ❑ 9. AMU 7 -9 7- A A A °/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover i Species FAC 1 50% FACU 10% FACW 20% FACW 30% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:16 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 - Silty clay loam l Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 17 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 . % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover- 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. 11/6 ❑ 3. % ❑ 4• % HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 % 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 50% 5• % ❑ 6• % ❑ SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 • % ❑ 2. Taraxacum officinale FACU 20% 3, % ❑ 4. Ranunculus repens FACW 30% 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. i % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. _ % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8 % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9 % 7. % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 3 = 67% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test 1 ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:17 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 3/3 Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 18 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 2 3 4 _ 5 6 SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % Dominant Status Cover Species Species Present 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 12 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. 2 3. ❑ ❑ ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 70% 1 Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 3. 4. ❑ 5 ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. ❑ 9. d 10. 1 of 1 =100% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover I Species FACW 1 100% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:18 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 3/2 10YR 5/6 Common/Distinct Silt loam 1 Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 19 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Species Present Status Cover Dominant Species Species Present % Dominant Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover 1. I % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4• % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5• % ❑ Total Cover., 70% 6. % ❑ 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 50% SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. Taraxacum officinale FACU 20% Total Cover., % 3. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 10% ❑ 1. % ❑ 4. Ranunculus re ens FACW 20% 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % El7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % El 9. % ❑ 7. % 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 3 = 67% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Other ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: Plot ID:19 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 3/3 Gravelly clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: upland soils, high gravel content- disturbed Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 20 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 30% Total Cover: 1. Psevdotsu a menziesii FACU 100% ® 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % I ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % 1 ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 80 6. % ❑ 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 60% SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. Equisetum arvense FAC 20% Total Cover: 25% 3. Carex obnu to OBL 20% 1. Rubus discolor FACU 60% ® 4. % ❑ 2. Salix scoulerana FAC 40% ® 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. 1 % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 4 of 6 = 67% wetland vegetation HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:20 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - Silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks highly organic WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Sample plot adjacent to pond Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 21 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4 % I ❑ HERB STRATUM 5 % I ❑ Total Cover: 100 6. % I El 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 70% SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM 2. Carex olanu to OBL 20% Total Cover: % 3. % ❑ 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. I % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % I ❑ 7J 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 2 =100% wetland vegetation -11 HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 16 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated E Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) PlotID:21 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks highly organic, less silt more clay WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 22 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover.' 1 % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % I ❑ 3. % ❑ 3, % I ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 100 6. % ❑ 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 40% SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. Ranunculus re ens FACW 30% Total Cover % 3. Taraxacum officinale FACU 25% 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. %• ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % I ❑ 9. % I ❑ 7. I % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 3 = 67% wetland ve etadon HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Other ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: no Primary indicators of hydrology PlotID:22 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 5 A 10YR 2/2 Sandy loam 5 to 8 A 10YR 2/1 8 to 16 A 10YR 4/3 Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks very sandy soil, obvious fill associated with construction of garage WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 23 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2. 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 8 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ® IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 1. Ranunculusrepens ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑i 2. Taraxacum officinale 3. _ Agrostls capfllarfs 4. Holcus lanatus 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 9. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A -L A _ A AM/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status I Cover Species n FACW 1 25% FACU 25% FAC 25% FAC 25% co Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 23 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - Silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: native soil, end of garage fill Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23108 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 24 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover 100% 1 Alnus rubra FAC 100% 2 % 3 % 4. % 5. % 6. % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 25% 1. Rubus discolor FACU 100% 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ® IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. 2. 3 HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 75 1. Agrostis capillar 2 Holcus lanatus 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species n FAC 1 50% FAC 50% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 24 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 12 A 10YR 2/2 - Sandy loam 12 A 2.5YR 4/5 - Sandy loam to 16 Hydric Soil Indicators: , ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4123108 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 25 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Dominant Species Present I Status Cover Species Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4, % 5. % 6 % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2 % 3. % 4. % 5 % 6 % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 6 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover 75 1. Agrostis caprllar 2 Holcus lanatus 3 Ranunculus rep 4. 5. 6- 7- 8. 9. 10. ❑1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status I Cover I Species FAC 35% FAC 40% FACW 25% % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ ° ❑ % ❑ Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 25 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks high organic content in silt loam soil WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4123/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 26 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IW STRATUM Total Cover 50% Total Cover 1. Alnus rubra FAC 100% 1, % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover 50% 6. % ❑ 1. Ranunculus repens FACW 100% SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2 % ❑ Total Cover: 40% 3. % ❑ 1. Rubus s eclabitis FAC+ 100% 4. %2. _ % 5. %3. % ![P 6_ % El4. % 7. %❑5. % 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 10, % 1 ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 3 of 3 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 2 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface in. I Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 26 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 6 A 10YR 3/2 - - Sandy loam 6 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks gravel and pebbles in lower soil profile WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: obvious wetland that extends off of property Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23108 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 27 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover: 1 1 % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2 % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3 % ❑ 1 % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5 % ❑ Total Cover: 100% 6 % ❑ 1. Ranunculus repens FACW 10% ❑ SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM 2. Poa 2. FAC 80% 23 Total Cover: % 3. Taraxacum officinale FACU 10% ❑ 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3, % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5 % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6 % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7 % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 16 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 27 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 3/2 - - Sandy loam - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: obvious break in slope --upland plot Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 2 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 0% Total Cover: 1, % ❑ 1 % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 100% 6. % ❑ 1 Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100% SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM 2, % ❑ Total Cover. 0% 3. % ❑ 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ _ 6. % ❑ 9. % 7. % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC; 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: no positive hydro indicators Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:2 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ®No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 18+ A 10YR 2/1 - Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks high amounts of sand in soil profile, likely due to floodplain adjacent to stream WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: no hydrology apparent despite darker soils and presence of reed canarygrass Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 3 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Dominant ° /o Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1, Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100% 5. % ❑ 6. % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover. 0% 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. 1 % 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6_ % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7 % I ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 3 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 18+ A 10YR 2/1 Clay loam _ I Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 4 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1. % 2. % 3. % 4 % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 14 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 2_ 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. 3. 4. ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. 8. ❑ ■=0 1 of 1 =100% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species % % FACW 1 100% n Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:4 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No I Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 Clay loam I -- Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation Investigator: Bieger Date: 4/23/08 County: King State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse side.) ® ❑ ❑ Yes Yes Yes ❑ No ® No ® No Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 5 VEGETATION % Species Present Status Cover Dominant Species Species Present % Status Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1 % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. % ❑ _ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 1. 0% I % ❑ 5. % ❑ 6. % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1. Rubus discolor FACU 100% ® 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. 5. % ❑ 8. % I ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 0 of 1 = 0% 10. % I ❑ HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot 0:5 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 5/1 5YR 5/6 Few/Distinct Clay loam I Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: obvious break in topographic with changes in vegetation- upland plot Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 6 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Dominant Cover Species Species Present Status]Cover % Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 0% 1 % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 1 % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % 1 ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100% 1. Phalaris arundwacea FACW 100% 5. % ❑ 6. % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6_ % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % I Li 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 15 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) PlotID:6 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 - Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\Revised data sheet.doc Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner. WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 7 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % 1 Dominant Species Present Status Cover i Species Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2_ % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. _ % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 50% 1 Rubus discolor FACU 100% 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % 7 % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: % Dominant Status Cover Species IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3 % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 50% 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 30% ❑ ❑ ® 2, Ranunculus repens FAC 10% 3. Holcus lanatus FAC 10% 4. A rostis ca iffaris FAC 50% ❑ 5. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 10. % 7-fR-970 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands n Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:7 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 - Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\data7. doc Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 8 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species % Species Present Status Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 1 % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover.' 1. % 1 ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. 1 % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. 1% ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 90 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 10% ❑ 5. % ❑ 6. % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % ❑ 2. A rostis ca illaris FAC 50% 3. Taraxacum officinale FACU 30% 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % El7. % ❑ 10. 1 %1 ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 2 = 50% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:8 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/1 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks soil quite a bit more sandy, no hydro WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: despite dark soil, marginal plants and no hydro C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\data8.doc Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 9 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. % Dominant Status Cover Species Species Present % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: ❑ IW STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ 2. ❑ 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 90 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Agroslis capiilaris 3. 4. ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. ❑ 1 9. 9_f 9—gnno% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species n FACW 1 20% FAC 70% o� Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 9 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 2/2 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: brighter soil than sample plot 8 C:\Users\Brian\Desktop\data8.doc Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 10 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. 2 i .� 4. 5. 6. 7. Dominant Status Cover I Species Species Present °lo Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. ❑ 2. 3. ❑ ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 90 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Agrostis capillaris 1Galium aparine 4. Utica dioica ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. n 9. iI -9 .f - A AAG/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status I Cover Species FACW 1 10% FAC 50% FACW 10% FAC 30% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:10 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/2 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: high amounts of organic material similar to composted material- no hydrology Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) rage z Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 11 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover: 2. % ❑ 2. % 1 ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % I ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 100% 6. % ❑ 1. % ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. % ❑ Total Cover % 3. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100% 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. 1 % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Other ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: Plot ID:11 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 12 A 10YR 2/1 - Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: dramatic change in vegetation as well as hydrology Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 12 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover. 90 % 1. Phalaris arundinacea FACW 30% 5, % ❑ 6. % ❑ SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover 10% 1. 5 iraea dou iasii FACW 70% ® 2. A rostis ca illaris FAC 70% 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. Rubus s ectabitis FAC+ 30% ® 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9, % ❑ 7. 1 1 % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 3 of 4 = 75% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 10 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:12 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 47 A 10YR 2/1 Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: edge of pond — influenced by pond water levels, obvious wet bench Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes 0 No Plot ID: 13 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION + % Species Present Status Cover i TREE STRATUM Total Cover % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5 % 6. _ % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1- % ❑ ❑ 2. ❑ 3. % ❑ ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 90 % 1. Festuca arundinacea FAC- 100% ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 5. % ❑ ❑ 6_ % ❑ ❑ 7, % ❑ ❑ 8. % ❑ ❑ 9. % ❑ ❑ 10. % ❑ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:13 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 - - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: hydric soil but plot on higher ground above pond Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 14 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % % Dominant Status Cover Species 1. 1 % 2. % 3. 4. 5. 6. % % % % 7_ % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 15 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 9 in. Remarks: Species Present Status % Cover Dominant Species IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. I % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % I ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 I- Holcus lanatus FAC 70% 2_ Taraxacum officinale FACU 20% 3. Poa pratensis FAC 10% ❑ 4. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 10. % ❑ A -L -f - G°/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:14 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: fairly obvious vegetation patterns, slight topographic difference. wetland likely supported from subsurface water flow from adjacent slopes Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 15 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % Dominant Status Cover Species Species Present 2. % 5. % 6 % 7 % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1, ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 % 1. Holcus lanatus 2. Taraxacum officinale ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Poa pratensis 4. Ranunculus repens ❑ 5. Juncus effusus ❑ 6. ❑ 7. ❑ 8. 9. I■M@ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Dominant Status Cover I Species FAC 1 30% FACU 25% FAC 20% FACW 20% FACW 5% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:15 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? Z Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/2 - Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 16 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1_ 2. 3. 4. 5.` 6 SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Dominant Status I Cover ` Species Species Present Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 17 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 in. Remarks ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 % 1. Holcus lanatus 2. Taraxacum officinale 3. Juncus effusus ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Ranunculus tepens. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I�1 EMU R —41 — AAno/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species n FAC 1 50% FACU 10% FACW 20% FACW 30% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:16 SOILS �I Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 17 A 10YR 2/1 - Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils., ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) rage z Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ❑ Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 17 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION 7Colvoer Species Present Status TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. _ % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. °/° 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available II Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. II Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 2. 3.� HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 % 1. Holcus lanatus 2. Taraxacum officinale 3. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LJ 4. _Ranunculus repens 5. 6. 7. 8. __ET^ ❑ ❑ 9. ❑ 10. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species El FAC 1 50% FACU 20% FACW 30% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 i inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:17 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 3/3 - - Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination Page 2 (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ❑ Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes E No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes E No Plot ID: 18 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1. 2. 3. 4. _ 5. 6. 7. Dominant Status I Cover Species Species Present Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 12 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface in. Remarks: ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1 2 3 HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 70% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 2 3 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 ❑ 6. 7. ❑ 8. ❑ 9. 111111-0 .1 _f 4 - 4 nno/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated E Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Dominant Status Cover I Species FACW 1 100% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data EFAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:18 SOILS Map unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 3/2 10YR 5/6 Common/Distinct Silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Bieger State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 19 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover % 1 1 % 2. % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1. 1 % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: l_ HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 in. Remarks: Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 70% 1. Holcus lanatus 2. Taraxacum officinale 3. Phalaris arundinacea 4. Ranunculus W8ns ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. 6. 7. ❑ 8. 9. ❑ ❑ 10. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Dominant Status Cover I Species % FAC 1 50% FACU 20% FACW 10% FACW 20% n Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:19 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 14 A 10YR 3/3 Gravelly clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarks ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: upland soils, high gravel content- disturbed Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 20 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: 30% 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 25% 1. Rubus discolor 2. Salix scoulerana 3. 4. 5. 6. 4 7. Dominant Status Cover Species I Species Present FACU FACU FAC 100% 60% 40% Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: wetland vegetation HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: IVY STRATUM Total Cover 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover 80 1. Holcus lanatus 2. _ Equisetum arvense 3. Carex obnupta 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. ❑ El ❑ EMU 4of6=67% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species FAC 1 60% FAC 20% OBL 20% % % Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:20 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 1 - - Silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks highly organic WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Sample plot adjacent to pond Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 21 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Species Present Status Cover Dominant Species Species Present % I Dominant Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover % Total Cover 1 % ❑ 1. % ❑ 2 % ❑ 2. % ❑ . 3 % ❑ 3. 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM. Total Cover: 100 5 % ❑ 6 % ❑ 1. Holcus lanatus FAC 70% SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. Carexobnu la OBL 20% Total Cover: % 3. % 1. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 10. % I ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 2 of 2 =100% wetland vegetation HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Other ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ® No Recorded Data Available ❑ Water Marks ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pit 16 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 in. Remarks: Plot ID:21 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - - Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks highly organic, less silt more clay WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 22 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 2- 3- 4- 5 6 SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Dominant Status I Cover Species Species Present Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: wetland vegetation HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: no Primary indicators of hydrology ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. ❑ _ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 100 1. Holcus lanatus 2. Ranunculus repens 3. Taraxacum officinale ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. ❑ 5. 6. 7. ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. 9. ❑ imm 1)s11_c7oi Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Dominant Status Cover I Species FAC 40% FACW 30% FACU 25% % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % n Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID:22 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ Yes ® No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 5 A 10YR 2/2 - Sandy loam 5 to 8 A 10YR 2/1 - 8 to 16 A 10YR 4/3 - Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks very sandy soil, obvious fill associated with construction of garage WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks. Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23108 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ❑ No Plot ID: 23 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present TREE STRATUM Total Cover % 1. 2_ 3. 4. 5. 6. SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 % j Dominant Status Cover I Species Species Present Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)- ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 8 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: Surface in. Remarks: ® IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 1. 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover 100 1. Ranunculus repens ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Taraxacum officinale 3. Agrostis captlla6s 4. Holcus lanatus ❑ 5. ❑ 6. 7. ❑ ❑ 8. 9. ❑ ■1111111111111110 A -9 A - 4nno/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species FACW 1 25% FACU 25% FAC 25% FAC 25% Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 23 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - Silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: native soil, end of garage fill Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) , Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4123108 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 24 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION % Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover I Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: 100% Total Cover 1. Alnus rubra FAC 100% ® 1 i % ❑ 2. % ❑ 2 % I ❑ 3. % 3 % I ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5. % ❑ Total Cover: 75 6. % I ❑ 1. A roshs ca illaris i FAC 50% SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM 2. Holcus lanatus FAC 50% Total Cover: 25% 3. % ❑ 1 Rubus discolor FACU 100% ® 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % I ❑ 7. 1 % ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 3 of 4 = 75% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit >18 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 24 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 12 A 10YR 2/2 - Sandy loam 12 A 2.5YR 4/5 Sandy loam to 16 Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 25 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status + Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover: % 1 % 2. °/o 3. % 4, % 5. % 6. % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover % 1- % 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % 6. % 7. I % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water Depth to Free Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 0 in. 6 in. Surface in. Dominant Species Species Present ❑ IVY STRATUM Total Cover 1. 2. 3. HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 75 1. Agrostis capillar 2. Holcus lanatus 3. Ranunculus reps 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e _c n _ ennui Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands % Dominant Status Cover Species % ❑ % ❑ % n FAC 35% FAC 40% FACW 25% % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ % ❑ Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 25 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Shalcar Muck- Sm Drainage Class: Very Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Terric Medisaprists Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks high organic content in silt loam soil WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4123/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 26 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Species Present Status Cover TREE STRATUM Total Cover 50% 1. Alnus rubra FAC 100% 2. % 3. % 4. 5. % % 6. % SAPLINGISHRUB STRATUM Total Cover: 40% 1. Rubus s ectabilis FAC+ 100% 2. % 3. % 4. I % 5. ! % 6. % 7. % Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water Depth to Free Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: 0 in. 2 in. Surface in. Dominant Species Species Present Status % I Cover Dominant Species ® IW STRATUM Total Cover: _ 1 I I % ❑ ❑ 2. 1 1 % I ❑ ❑ 3. % I ❑ ❑ HERB STRATUM Total Cover: 50% 1, Ranunculus repens FACW 100% ❑ ❑ ® 2. % ❑ 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ ❑ 5. % ❑ ❑ 6. % ❑ ❑ 7. % ❑ ❑ 8. % ❑ ❑ 9. % I ❑ ❑ 10. % ❑ 3of3=100% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 26 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 to 6 A 10YR 3/2 Sandy loam 6 to 16 A 10YR 2/1 - - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks gravel and pebbles in lower soil profile WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric Soils Present? ® Yes ❑ No Remarks: obvious wetland that extends off of property Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: WSDOT Triangle Mitigation site- Corrington Date: 4/23/08 Applicant/Owner: Washington State Dept. of Transportation County: King Investigator: Cary State: WA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 27 (If needed, explain on reverse side.) VEGETATION Dominant % Dominant Species Present Status Cover Species Species Present Status Cover Species TREE STRATUM IVY STRATUM Total Cover: % Total Cover 1 % ❑ 1. % �❑ 2. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 3. % 3. % ❑ 4. % ❑ HERB STRATUM 5• % ❑ Total Cover: 100% 6. % ❑ 1. Ranunculus re ens FACW 10% ❑ SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM 2. Poa sp. FAC 80% Total Cover: % 3. Taraxacum officinale FACU 10% ❑ 1. I % ❑ 4. % ❑ 2. % ❑ 5 % ❑ 3. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 4. % ❑ 7. % ❑ 5. % ❑ 8. % ❑ 6. % ❑ 9. % ❑ 7. 1 % I ❑ 10. % ❑ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 of 1 =100% HYDROLOGY ❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)_ ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ® No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water 0 in. Depth to Free Water in Pit 16 in. Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 in. Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: ❑ Oxidized Roots in Upper 12 inches j ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ®FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Plot ID: 27 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase: Bellingham Silt Loam- Bh Drainage Class: Poorly Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Description Depth Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc. 0 to 16 A 10YR 3/2 - - Sandy loam - - Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aqutic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Remarks: obvious break in slope --upland plot Data Form — Routine Wetland Determination (1987 GOE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Page 2 Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation Appendix D Mitigation Site Plan Sheets a Schematic Mitigation Plan (Showing location of mitigation types: creation, re- establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and/or preservation.) ■ Grading Plan (Include existing and proposed elevation contours, spot elevations for low points, high points, slopes, and structures.) a Cross Section (Provide section drawings, which show the relationship of topography, the water regime, and vegetation. Show anticipated water levels during the dry and wet season. The Corps typically requires two cross -sections, minimum) m. Planting Plan (Include plant community composition [% of each species per plant community].) ■ Habitat Structures ... -- -_.�__ r .-. - - -- --- -- ------- --- - _ --- _•- -- .. ---- -- .lt�r' -►{. sal - - ---" - -'Y c- ----'-•------___`.---=-�----. '----___� ------ --------'-'----- - ----------- + - � -x- -x- -x- -XL- \-ix_-xa x- -x- -x- -x 02 \ ► oLL ♦ aka I I I Z I wm m IcWy xx \ a 1 u� g _ I \ f I KW ♦ OWWm I I I / .. ♦ u�r-{C 1 I l y l f otajw fa..mzm / 1 wo MU= �w 1 I I00 Wo //! \ 11 ow / I ga oa~ \ �I a f x f w �z DO �lp - - r' \ _ x mow az j r� II wt \ -- -- ar ♦♦s ---�I w¢'aa \ X C.j I sw �zC=z wrc �0z & �� IJf x J \ rcr__ a'�m-1 rcx wo 9 w � I I,� xwN \ I ?ooSa _y'_ ♦ -�'�. ��` � x rcouNi wrc / -.- ~ I ♦ 1 04,0 a 1 a o 1 51II \ 1 X Ko w i dl \ mz wm ► 1 Iom I I I t om r - l3NNyF{O MOIi 1f10 r � / /� r ��O�y I ti I' \ 1 � ♦ t18 I x xx- - _ - �\ T — — - X � �X —X— 7C—�—X-K —X— —X— ED�1 - oa /em 1/' I - a I ♦ �m /' 3 \ --o0 1 I /, m ----/� \ I go Jzz-o f/ 1 / \ O w=? w \ \ am gbto) go �sl. � ♦ s� I I - \ I I zZ >-o o a cwiw oo II-� i�-----�\---�T----r,.-------- .-----__— \1 __--- .`-- _ [-� 7 II `mot \ S ro / ■ l U �iti — --I — r� rf r \ r r / i / / kco I I� l .! �►. .11 1 1 I I � �r � 1 / � II sr r t i i. s' t t. II � � � ► r !. '' _ s 8 _La 0 l� �w \ I • r I �+. sew 1 �— + 0 _L_nt IIIy 01� LLI Lu cn LJ L z tu in LU !E'U ig ZM 171- Q c 0 OZ c1t z .......... ------ -- -------- ------- ttt Wm --_---------- 00 co It 1: ---------------- --------------- Lu Ln --- — --- — ----- - LL t — — ---------- j E � ! — — ------- — i i � � � i i I Lo x LU - — — ---------- LM zvm: FL 0 - ---- ---- ----- LL t---------- ------------- . ........ z C2 T ------ --- -------------- .. . .... . ... . z ....... ---------- 6 01 . ........ Fu 2 LU ............. . .............. UJ IF- Lu U.1 tI --------- C/) :k FT--- ---- ZO cm 0 > 74 par! -- — — ------ ---1—^------------ 1 -6. I;o:- t m""� i Iy xxx�x �� i' I`'`1" t � '• a �o � / � . I \ � �� ••yy� � _ � � � - �? — '� � � ,yam; r � _ y 1 r/-:,•. cr 13 cl Go zo III � 1„ i�' '� .� .� � _ . - _ - 'o B� • �.� � - � ,d �: _ - _ b� w ;o; ;a- -.- -.= j �<1 _^ xxx�• fir'.: _ ,_ '�� •.. _� � � � �� ' - -- \`:b, ~°\ \ I� r,•� -- _ - I •-\, \tom \ �? ' 910- f + e � 'yo•' o; a; -a; c Z W -'a= - _ ."�'. � • w o7 u ` / ` � r • r • _ _ i • _ _ — _ air- / + + + ' ++++++++++++ ++ + + + %+ ++++++++++++++5++++1 + + + + + + Z \\ W \\\ X I y z Z rO \ �K g 0� x I a W r d N W O S W° z N Z ooj >oQul g J oZ<UO ° lI] a z a ¢aLL owc_>jz 0. / I N U ° a z } wQ >I ° aaa ® LL W ~ to Z a > F W J J g aO V N R W ~O QaU) Y a LL' z Fly a a K L w�F O awa Cv j LLxLLw3 m waw , f z_ w w�9 WZ> It wo r 3coio J Lu J f x 03 w w o J a 1— Z z Z z oZ a � �° _of m w W J r_ =z ? JZ = Z Z J N} Jw ama Z z U Zz mw -- r Z = O o z� F W 7 W Y F- $0 in ">-> WOU< � �� z mFN rW<w mo f— Z F zoz oNxxx a �� J w Q °° Nma Eo:x� w J uj dN�U 4J O J W W °Qa �3.�a z W O a W Wm OwE N O r eI 5 Ow Or m W. wm�zc°i y i '' aca >o - W UwLL,- w Jaz — d '�F WJm Nxmm O �I7 cc °mO WOm N 7 LL a�Z pzo Z u=vaai �MW wOfn O x<x OMZO U Ng Zuj 4 200� i C) W o x °Z ar gWmW j Ygm amity a°Y Z mozF ! J i °0�o d i r1i � > z _— III E a a W I- =w J LL. Lu m W S O U ~O tu 2 O Z z FLL fn ZW NW � °m r Ovi x � O 1 O W S J O F � LLL C3 9a C70N O Jrn a w wen 0w30 x Y> a W 7 O d W z Q Q N LL'7m li mz L C7 J J_ L = LL lu OY U Y 0�U)g QO O z a G WxZmN I_f=111 r 3 �z mOaw°= Z a W ° 2 K ~ 7 j F m K �a- z Ja (7°FNZW F Wr ZU)0a Z w �W z fzW LLwzZaN � Z ° _ Z J aY—w f J ra 2OLL J w W W ��°OOQ= H N W � K 4 pp .ncc��yy z a O i2 b w 'a a x 4 zLy a x fl 0 s� a Gx 0 0❑❑ Lei z Lei 2 z 0 0 [4h, [?[pis a a 0 3O a x O O c�isa 2 Z O O x a O O r� z O x x O g x x O q x x S S x d 2 6 w w w � w [] (� W�� w www w w ta f a z l i a a � - 'C 6 rC rz 6 6 � Fz C C rz � C a�[ rz rz 3�3 i rr C� i .�¢ z C; z � C� rz Fx 2 2� i a 2- i a z w 7 Lea v c�a []u OUQ L4i00x ct coi coi z ou coi= flO� M V } ¢ W 02 ❑ � $$ a605� NYi'i pa 'oub Ve ❑�� u�� z o�x (�2�u�"vcxi�µ 'I RIM, I'll, It 11"ll. III I I A-L, --oil-111 0 0 } Uaa IL LLa NoWzJ. F= tl1 0 N �zo ww� CULL m F-W �Otan �yy z�w �F H N w z �d wo zoo ova °z= off~ Upp ❑pa a¢z wz0 N�Q N p m LL OUW wm zMN Ow H�ti z Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan 1-5 - SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project Washington State Department of Transportation Appendix E Wetland Rating Form for Anticipated Conditions of Mitigation Site at End of Monitoring 20 Wetland Functions Field Data Form — WSDOT's BPJ Characterization Project: Date: JI 2,W Wetland Name: LAC4( „( — -F, r3,.�, :_ �.� Biologist: A. Flood Flow Alteration (Storage and Desynchronization) 1. Wetland occurs in the upper portion of its watershed. A/ 2. Wetland is in a relatively flat area and is capable of retaining higher volumes of water during storm events, than under normal rainfall conditions. /V 3. Wetland is a closed (depressional) system. Al 4. If flowthrough, wetland has constricted outlet with signs of fluctuating water levels, algal mats, and/or lodged debris. Al 5. Wetland has dense woody vegetation: 6. Wetland receives floodwater from an adjacent water course. 7. Floodwaters come as sheet flow rather than channel flow. Y B. Sediment Removal 1. Sources of excess sediment (from tillage or construction) are present upgradient of the wetland. 2. Slow -moving water and/or a deepwater habitat are present in the wetland. Y3. Dense herbaceous vegetation is present. 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland. 5. Ponding of water occurs in the wetland. Y 6. Sediment deposits are present in wetland. Al Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Ar s��.� Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) f S ay � �A/� �rt•� � � �D 1-4y l t 4� s C'!'�t -dt: J ( pr/ Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995). 21 C. Nutrient and Toxicant Removal 1. Sources of excess nutrients (fertilizers) and toxicants (pesticides and heavy metals) are present upgradient of the wetland. A) 2. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season. 3. Wetland provides long duration for water detention. 4. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of live dense herbaceous vegetation. ,,j 5. Fine-grained mineral or organic soils are present in the wetland. Al D. Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization If associated with water course or shoreline. 1. Wetland has dense, energy absorbing vegetation bordering the water course and no evidence of erosion. 'YIA.1 2. A herbaceous layer is part of this dense vegetation. 3. Trees and shrubs able to withstand erosive flood events are also part of this dense vegetation. E. Production of Organic Matter and its Export 1. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of dense herbaceous vegetation. [ 2. Woody plants in wetland are mostly deciduous. 7 3. High degree of plant community structure, vegetation density, and species richness present. 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland. 5. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season. y 6. Wetland has outlet from which organic matter is flushed.° Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. L (State your rationale.) 14 ��J a * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). 22 F. General Habitat Suitability 1. Wetland is not fragmented by development. �� t 2. Upland surrounding wetland is undeveloped. 'NJ 3. Wetland has connectivity with other habitat types. l 4. Diversity of plant species is high. 5. Wetland has more than one Cowardin Class, i.e., (PFO, PSS, PEM, PAB, POW, etc.) Im \�.cy 6. Has high degree of Cowardin Class interspersion. 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present - /t/%A G. Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates 1. Wetland must have permanent or evidence of seasonal inundation for this function to be provided. V'.q 2. Various water depths present in wetland V Z3 , 3. Aquatic bed vegetation present. '� Jv 4. Emergent vegetation present within ponded area. 5. Cover (i.e., woody debris, rocks, and leaf litter) / present within in the standing water area. l y 6. A stream or another wetland within 2 km (1.2 mi) of wetland. -c H. Habitat for Amphibians 1. Wetland contains areas of seasonal and/or pennanent standing water in most years. (Must be�present for this fiuiction to be provided) Tf 2. Thin -stemmed emergent and/or floating aquatic vegetation present within areas of seasonal and/or perennial standing water. Y X) 3. Wetland buffer < 40% developed, i.e., by pavement and/or buildings.�� Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) prof VVj pit-,4 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) C '-'1 �4-� l ` f •'�i 1' �i% O�i✓c'l C �/-q (f s Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) "kk' 11f ',V,1 � %a �5 -e.. yj t- c 7 e J , * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995). 23 4. Woody debris present within wetland. 5. Lands within 1 lan (0.6 mi) of wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural). � -0 6. Other wetlands and/or an intermittent or perennial stream within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland. I. Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals 1. Permanent water present within the wetland. (Must be present for this function to be provided.) Y- d 2. Presence of emergent vegetation in areas of permanent water. V-0 3. Areas containing dense shrubs and/or trees are present within wetland or its buffer. r 3 4. Interspersion between different strata of vegetation. Y!' ' 5. Interspersion between permanent open water (without vegetation) and permanent water with vegetation. 6. Presence of banks suitable for denning. y_e / 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., dens, tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present. J. Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds 1. Wetland has 30 to 50% shallow open water and/or aquatic bed classes present within the wetland. 2. Emergent vegetation class present within the wetland. 3. Forested and scrub -shrub classes present within the wetland or its buffer. 4. Snags present in wetland or its buffer. 1�95 5. Sand bars and/or mud flats present within the wetland. 4/0 Likely or not likely to provide. ? (State your ationale.) J �UCq' Likely or not likely to provide. (State your `�rationale.) d .� f �L+01r1 �•j.-n� � f iJ i."Irlt' e nL`y1f`rt �� ,(2 �j 41r1't ! Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) / C/ Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). Ar 24 6. Wetland contains invertebrates, amphibians, , and/or fish. x" 7, Buffer contains relatively undisturbed grassland shrub and/or forest habitats. 8. Lands within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland; agricultural). K K. General Fish Habitat (Must be associated with a fish -bearing water.) 1. Wetland has a perennial or intermittent surface -water connection to a fish -bearing water body y �� 2. Wetland has sufficient size and depth of open water so as not to freeze completely during winter. 3. Observation of fish. 4. Herbaceous and/or woody vegetation is present in wetland and/or buffs to provide cover, shade, and/or detrital. matter. 7c 5. Spawning areas are present (aquatic vegetation and/or gravel beds). L. Native Plant Richness 1. Dominant and codominant plants are native. yt_� 2. Wetland contains two or more Cowardin Classes. l r 3. Wetland has three or more strata of vegetation. (� f 4. Wetland has mature trees. A10 / M. Educational or Scientific Value 1. Site has documented scientific or educational use. 2. Wetland is in public ownership. Ao��p y_ee 3. Parking at site is suitable for a school bus!t/0 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) P,j Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) c rem"-6 ��er'-�-? - 4fi,C f Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) t /11, 1.17 t � rtA Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995). 25 N. Uniqueness and Heritage Wetland contains documented occurrence of a state — or federally listed threatened or endangered species. 2. Wetland contains documented critical habitat, high quality ecosystems, or priority species respectively designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the WDNR's Natural Heritage Program, or WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program. ,1,/ 3. Wetland is part of a National Natural Landmark designated by the National Park Service or a Natural Heritage Site designated by WDNR. :Alo 4. Wetland has biological, geological, or other features that are determined rare by the local jurisdiction. Vu 5. Wetland has been determined significant by the local jurisdiction because it provides functions scarce for the area. /0 6. Wetland is part of ... Aro ➢ an estuary, ➢ a bog, ➢ a mature forest. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) / r9 s i `r-1 r-rr k - A Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). 41 , \ � �N rA cn rA O fU.• U a r� z a i A cd J w Ir •� `� V v C� .� C J r''?� r � C a �,• c\ ��' c \6 y�j iL cd > N cz 03 Cd O N M�, Cd � U O QVD U O � U DO "C; to cn W 42 22 1° 41 �° En 'd Cfs Q cd Ct o ° c ct cz