Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit PL10-007 - WIG / JCPENNEY / SOUTHCENTER SQUARE - TUKWILA POND WETLAND MITIGATION
WIG/JC PENNEY/ SOUTHCE.NTER SQ WETLAND MIT. a�r�a�l�N L 1 O-007 TRAVELERS) RIDER To be attached to and form part of Bond No. 104744711 Travelers Casualty Surety Company of America License No. Issued on behalf of Wig Properties LLC-SS as Principal, and in favor of of Tukwila It is agreed that: ❑ 1. The Surety hereby gives its consent to change the Name: from: to: ❑ 2. The Surety hereby gives its consent to change the Address: from: to: ❑X 3. The Surety hereby gives its consent to change the Bond Limit from: $57 to: $5.250 This rider shall become effective as of September 9, 2015 as Obligee. PROVIDED, however, that the liability of the Surety under the attached bond as changed by this rider shall not be cumulative. Signed, sealed and dated o(.' ��f c-� ? ':�o /' Travelers Casualty Surety Company of America By: Attorney -in -Fact Accepted: of Tukwila or •b • • 111h�I L i S-4111 (8/66) Wig Properties LLC-SS Principal City of Tukwila An Haggerton, Mamr Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director September 9, 2015 Wig Properties, LLC. Subject: Bond for Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation Dear Mr. Wig, This mitigation project started in 2007 and we are currently in year eight. We've received and reviewed the 2014 (year seven) vegetation monitoring report and done a visual inspection of the site. The wetland appears to be healthy and no weeds of major concern were apparent. The emergent area is fairly dry, which is expected for the time of year and type of weather we have had, and therefore the wetland is going toward a shrub -scrub vegetation community. The City does not see any reason as of today, that Year 9 monitoring cannot be waived as per Ecology agreement, and that the bond rate be adjusted to reflect this. The remaining item to be completed is Monitoring and Maintenance for the final year, which will occur in 2017 and which must continue to be fully covered at 150%. Specifically that reduced bond amount is for the following items: Item Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Monitoring - years 9 & 10 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 Eliminate year 9 1 $3,500 ($3,500) Total Maintenance/Monitoring Cost $ 3,500 Total Bond Requirement i Multiplier 150% 1 $ 5,250 Should you choose to reduce the amount of the existing bond, please provide the City with verification and a copy of that new document. Sincerely, Moira Xarr' radshaw Senior Planner 6 300 Southcenter Bottlevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431- 3665 CHAD ARMOUR, LLC 775 Greeley Drive Nashville, Tennessee 37205 (206)963-6514 chad@chadarmour.com September 11, 2014 Job No. 08-002 Ms. Holly Konig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 — 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Seventh Year Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area (Fed Ref No. 200601027; St Ref No. 3815) Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Konig: We are pleased to present the results of our seventh year wetland mitigation monitoring report for the above -referenced property. This is the sixth of several monitoring reports designed to assess the condition of the mitigation area relative to the performance standards. The next report is due in 2017. The purpose of the work is to satisfy state and local wetland permit requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents the results of the seventh year of monitoring and recommendations for additional work; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that explains the purpose for the mitigation and how the mitigation area came to be; MONITORING METHODS that describes how we collected the data, and presents the goals and performance standards of the mitigation plan; MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS presents the results of our most recent hydrological and vegetative observations; CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of wetland mitigation effort to date relative to the performance standards; and LIMITATIONS of this project. Tables, figures, and representative photographs follow the text of the report. Table 1 shows the precipitation that fell on the region in the 2013/2014 water year. Table 2 presents the hydrological data for the mitigation area. Table 3 presents the vegetative data for the various wetland classes. And finally Table 4 summarizes the current hydrological and vegetative data relative to the performance standards. Figure 1 is a vicinity map that shows the location of the mitigation area. Figure 2 shows the location of the vegetation classes, monitoring wells, and other pertinent features, as well as the size of the wetland classes and the plants that were installed on the mitigation area. Representative photographs follow the figures. C:/JobsMig/7th Year Mitigation Report.doc 1 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Wig Properties, LLC-SS (Wig) converted the area east of the Tukwila Pond from a wetland and upland plant community dominated by reed canarygrass to a wetland plant community dominated by native plant species. During the grading operation Wig was able to retain a significant portion of the mature trees and shrubs present in and adjacent to the mitigation area (site). Soon after the site was graded Wig installed several thousand native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Wig also applied the seed of several different grasses and herbs to the site. Chad Armour, LLC collected groundwater data from several shallow groundwater monitoring wells (wells) in the spring and summer and collected vegetative data in the summer of 2014. The results indicate that most of the site functions as a wetland. Only the area in the vicinity of well G-101 functions as upland, where a berm was constructed to separate the pond from the mitigation site. When construction was completed the mitigation site had four wetland classes. Now the site has three classes and eventually it will likely have but two. The emergent wetland has been subsumed into the scrub -shrub and forested wetlands. Here the invading trees and shrubs have crowed out the herbaceous plants. In time the taller trees will overwhelm the shorter shrubs and absorb the scrub -shrub wetland into the forested wetland. The open water wetland and forested wetland will likely be the surviving two wetland classes. Both the emergent and scrub -shrub wetlands do not meet the vegetative performance standards. Recommendations Eliminate the emergent class performance standards. It has already become a plant community dominated by woody plants. Converting an established stand of trees and shrubs to a meadow would be counterproductive. Reclassify Sitka willow as a shrub. This will increase the chance to achieve the vegetative standards for the scrub -shrub wetland. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wig constructed a wetland and enhanced degraded wetland in 2007 to compensate for filling slightly less than 1.16 acres (ac) of wetland on their Tukwila Southcenter shopping center. The 3.48ac site is a part of a larger 24ac Tukwila Pond property that includes the pond and what was once a field of reed canarygrass, both with fringes of willow and/or black cottonwood trees. The site is located west of Andover Parkway West about 600 feet (ft) south of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Parkway West in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1 — Tukwila Pond Site). Upland was transformed to wetland and degraded wetland was improved by replacing non-native invasives with a native plant assemblage. First Wig mowed the reed canarygrass then removed its rhizome mat before hauling it from the site. Then they removed some soil from the site, bringing the surface closer to the seasonal water table. To boost post -grading soil productivity, Wig mixed 3 inches (in) of Steergrow, a top soil substitute, into the upper layer of soil. They then installed several snags and added several pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to the finished surface prior to installing the plants. C:/JobsNVig/7«' Year Mitigation Report.doc 2 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington At the time the mitigation area was graded, Wig made every effort to avoid cutting down existing mature trees and shrubs. The net result was and is more forested wetland and less emergent wetland than planned. The City of Tukwila (City) was concerned that the Steergrow (50% steer manure and 50% sawdust) would negatively impact the water quality of the Tukwila Pond. For this reason the City had Wig bridge the open water channel and construct a berm of soil along the western perimeter of the site to prevent the water in the pond from mixing with the water on the site. Subsequently the sand dike at the south end of the channel has been breached and water from the pond has been comingling with water in the channel for the last six years. We have yet to observe pond water overtopping the berm. Following grading, Wig installed several thousand trees and shrubs. Wig also installed several thousand sedge, rush, and spike-rush plugs as well as a mixture of emergent plant seeds to the bare soil. The plan was to install plugs and seeds differentially among wetland classes. During installation the plugs and seeds were installed across the entire wetland mitigation area. Prior to construction we installed 17 shallow wells made from plastic PVC pipe across the site to model the groundwater elevation (Figure 2). Ten of these wells survived site grading. The seven new wells replace those lost during site grading. Together they completely cover the site. Generally the wells serve as the centers of circular 1/100 acre vegetation assessment plots. After the first year's monitoring we noticed that some wells yielded plots that straddled vegetative classes (i.e., emergent and forested). And over the years large willow branches fell into plots, causing an emergent class to look like a forested class. For these reasons we moved some of the vegetative plots away from the similarly numbered well. Wig has maintained the site by removing non-native noxious weeds, although maintenance has been limited for the last four years because weeds have generally been rare. Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and purple loose -strife have been removed historically. In 2008 Wig installed about 80 additional willow live stakes on the site to replace those that had died. In 2010 Wig installed 25 Oregon ash trees to replace trees girdled by rodents and/or drowned by prolonged standing water. And finally we met with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and City staff on the site in 2011 to discuss the results of the 2011 monitoring report. At that time we explained why Wig was not been able to meet the hydrology performance standards in some areas, particularly on the berm constructed along the western perimeter of the site. In their January 25, 2012 letter to Wig, Ecology acknowledged the reason for the higher elevation in this area and that no additional grading would be necessary. MONITORING METHODS We used an electronic water level indicator to detect groundwater, once in the spring and once in the summer. We assume that wetland hydrology is present if groundwater is within 1ft of the surface or the surface soil is saturated. We record the data in the field C:/JobsMig/7th Year Mitigation Report.doc 3 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington and transfer it to a spreadsheet that calculated the ground and/or surface water elevation. In each vegetative plot we estimated the cover of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and undesirable plants by species, and estimated the height of the associated vegetation. We assessed the vegetation in late July and early August, 2014; recording the data in the field and transferring the data to an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. Goal The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88ac and enhance 2.6ac of degraded wetland by converting it to a diverse wetland. This action will improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It also increases the stormwater retention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. Performance Standards Hydrology Performance Standards The design performance standards used to assess wetland hydrology include: • Open water wetland — water from 0 to more than 7ft deep November through May; • Emergent wetland — saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7ft elevation November through June (the hydrology performance standard for the existing degraded wetland [now folded into the emergent wetland] ranged from 17.7 to 20.0ft); • Scrub -shrub wetland — saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2ft elevation November through May; and • Forested wetland — saturated soil between 18.2 and 19.2ft elevation November through April. Vegetation Performance Standards The vegetation performance standards include: • Emergent wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native emergent plant cover and ranging from 1 to 4ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • Scrub -shrub wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native shrub plant cover and ranging from 4 to 8ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • Forested wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native tree plant cover and ranging from 8 to 20ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • The total native plant cover for each wetland class in Year 7 will be at least 70%, • No more than 20% of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. C:/Jobs/Wig/7th Year Mitigation Report.doc 4 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS The 2013/2014 water year was essentially normal. The first four months were drier than normal. The following five months were typically wetter than normal (Table 1). Much of the wetland was flooded in early spring and with the exception of the area in the vicinity of well G-101 wetland hydrology was present (Table 2). As usual the deepest part of the channel remained flooded in mid -summer (well G-11). The total vegetative cover ranged from 110 to 182% (Table 3). Even though there is prolonged standing water herbs cover 44% of the open water wetland, with waterpepper a local dominant. The more than 100% tree cover in the emergent wetland indicates that the emergent class has been overcome by woody plants. The several woody plants present clearly show that the emergent class essentially has been eliminated from the site. Similarly, more than 100% of the cover in the scrub -shrub wetland is represented by trees. As reported previously Pacific willow is aggressively colonizing that part of the site that is regularly flooded. Trees represent 78% of the cover in the forested wetland. Table 4 shows the vegetative results relative to the performance standards. To date Wig has met one of three vegetative standards. Given that the emergent class largely no longer exists, this lapse may be moot. Were Sitka willow considered a shrub the scrub - shrub vegetative standard would have been met. The following paragraphs summarize our observations based on the data collected in 2014 by wetland class. Emergent Wetland The wetland hydrology standard was achieved in three of the four emergent wetland wells (Table 2). As before well G-101 missed the target. The emergent wetland, once dominated by tufted hairgrass, is now dominated by trees (Attachment A — Photograph 1). Branches of willow trees have fallen into the emergent wetland from the adjacent willow forest at a number of spots. In other areas dense willow saplings dominate areas with prolonged flooding. There are a total of 18 different plant species in the emergent wetland. Native herbaceous cover represents somewhat more than 10% of the emergent wetland, considerably less than the 70% Year 7 standard (Table 4). The dominant plant species (two of which are trees) represent 74% of the total vegetative cover. Somewhat more than 1 % of the cover is represented by non-native invasive plant species (Table 3). To be expected, the average height of the plants in the emergent wetland is 20ft (Table 4). Scrub -Shrub Wetland Wetland hydrology is present throughout the scrub -shrub wetland (Table 2). We counted a total of 9 plant species in the scrub -shrub wetland (Table 3). The native shrub cover (20%) missed the 70% Year 7 cover standard (Table 4). Like the emergent wetland, the scrub -shrub wetland is dominated by trees (assuming that Sitka willow is considered a tree). The areas that are regularly flooded (G-8 & G-109) are dominated by Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and red -osier dogwood (Photographs 3 & 4). The non - flooded scrub -shrub wetland is dominated by Sitka willow and red -osier dogwood. C:/JobsNVig/7th Year Mitigation Report.doc 5 09/11/14 Chad Armour. LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Slough sedge is common (Photograph 5). We observed no non-native invasive plants in the scrub -shrub wetland class. The average height of the plants is 35ft (Table 4). Forested Wetland We presume that both of the wells in the forested wetland met the hydrology performance target based in part on historical records. Somehow we missed well G-115 in the spring (Table 2). The forested wetland is covered with a thick blanket of vegetation. We counted 9 different plant species (Table 3). The 78% cover of trees exceeds the 70% Year 7 cover standard (Table 4). Pacific willow, red alder, and red -osier dogwood dominate. Hooker willow and slough sedge are common in the forested wetland (Photograph 6). We observed no non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. The trees average 63ft tall (Table 4). Open Water Wetland The hydrology performance standard for the open water wetland was achieved in 2014. Adjacent woody plants are squeezing into the open water wetland and waterpepper dominates when the water recedes (Table 3). We observed no non-native invasive plant species in the open water wetland (Photographs 7 & 8). Existing Forested Wetland Pacific willow trees and red -osier dogwood dominate the existing forested wetland (Table 3). Creeping buttercup is common (Photographs 9 & 10). We observed 1 % cover of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. CONCLUSIONS Most of the mitigation site, which has very few noxious weeds, functions as a wetland. Over the years, woody plants have invaded the emergent wetland. Now they are so prevalent that the emergent wetland now functions as a scrub -shrub wetland. Eventually, with the possible exception of the open water wetland, trees will come to dominate the entire site. Hydrology Wetland hydrology is present across most of the site. Only in the area of well G-101 is wetland hydrology lacking. It seems that well G-101 does not meet the hydrology criteria because it is located on the berm constructed along the site's western perimeter. Vegetation Trees and shrubs dominate most of the mitigation site. Emergent Wetland The emergent class is virtually gone. What was once a meadow dominated by reed canarygrass is fast turning into a forest dominated by trees and shrubs. We fear that meeting the vegetative performance standard will be unachievable without drastic C:/Jobs/Wig/7th Year Mitigation Report.doc 6 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington measures. By this we mean removing woody plants and seeding the area with herbaceous plants; which we do not recommend. Scrub -Shrub Wetland Were Sitka willow to be considered a shrub, then the scrub -shrub wetland would have met its vegetative performance standards (Table 4). In general this wetland class appears healthy. Some wetter areas are overstocked. The driers areas support a more open structure. Forested Wetland The forested wetland has met the vegetative performance standard (Table 4). Trees and shrubs are growing larger, and slough sedge is spreading. The tree canopy height is somewhat more than 60 feet. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Table 1 — Precipitation measured in inches at SeaTac during the 2013/2014 water year Table 2 — Seventh Year (2014) hydrologic characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Table 3 — Seventh Year (2014) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Table 4 — Seventh Year (2014) performance standard assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Post -Construction Plan Attachment A — Representative Photographs cc: Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwila Kate Thompson, Department of Ecology C:/Jobs/Wig/7th Year Mitigation Report.doc 7 09/11/14 Chad Armour. LLC TABLES Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washington Table 1 - Precipitation measured in inches at SeaTac during the 2013/2014 water year Month Measured Normal Departure Cumulative Departure October 1.54 3.48 -1.94 -1.94 November 3.79 6.57 -2.78 -4.72 December 1.66 5.35 -3.69 -8.41 January 3.7 5.57 -1.87 -10.28 February 6.11 3.5 2.61 -7.67 March 9.44 3.72 5.72 -1.95 April 4.18 2.71 1.47 -0.48 May 3.15 1.94 1.21 0.73 June 0.73 1.57 1 -0.84 -0.11 Total 1 34.3 1 34.41 -0.11 C:/JobsNVig/7th Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washinqton Table 2 - Seventh Year (2014) hydrologic characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Groundwater Monitoring Well Habitat Type Ground Elev ft Target Elev ft Groundwater Elevation ft 3/31/14 7/31/14 G-2 Forested Wetland ex 18.7 NA 18.7 15.2 G-4 Forested Wetland ex 18.5 NA 18.7 14.8 G-11 b Forested Wetland ex 13.5 NA -- 13.5 G-7 Emergent Wetland 17.6 16.6 18.6 16.3 G-101 Emergent Wetland 19.4 18.4 1,8..0 13.5 G-103 Emergent Wetland 18.0 17.0 18.7 14.5 G-106 Emergent Wetland 19.2 18.2 18.6 15.5 G-8 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.5 17.5 18.6 16.3 G-105 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.9 17.9 18.2 14.4 G-109 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 17.8 16.8 18.6 15.6 G-113 Forested Wetland 18.0 17.0 18.7 14.2 G-115 Forested Wetland 18.9 17.9 -- 15.1 G-10 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2 18.7 15.1 G-12 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2 -- 15.3 G-14 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2 -- 14.8 S-1 Open Water Wetland 15.1 15.2 18.7 15.2 S-2 Open Water Wetland 18.7 15.2 18.7 15.9 the target elevation was not met ] C:/JobsNVig[7 Ih Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington I able 3 - Seventh Year 2014 vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Open Water Wetlanda Emergent Wetland Scrub -Shrub Wetlanda Forested Wetland` Forested Wetland (Ex)a Cover Freq Cover Fre Cover Freg Cover Fr eq Cover Fre Trees black cottonwood Populus balsamifera -- -- 30% 50% 3% 67% -- -- -- -- Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 58% 100% 44% 75% 33% 100% 50% 50% 98% 100% red alder Alnus rubra -- -- 18% 50% -- -- 28% 50% -- -- Sitka willow Salix sitchensis -- -- 13% 50% 65% 100% -- -- -- -- Total Trees 58% 105% 101% 78% 98% Shrubs Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana 8% 33% 1 % 25% -- -- 13% 50% -- -- red elderberry Sambucus racemosa -- -- 2% 25% -- red -osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera -- -- 4% 25% 20% 100% 75% 100% 35% 67% thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- Shrub Subtotal 8% 7% 20% 88% 35% Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- Non-Native Invasive Shrub Subtotal 0% T -- 0% 0% 0% Total Shrubs 8% 7% 20% 88% 35% Herbs bird sfoot-trefoi Id Lotus corniculatus -- -- 2% 25% -- -- climbing Solanum -- -- 3% 50% -- -- - C:/JobsNVig/7t Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Seventh Year 2014 vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site _ Open Water Wetlanda Emergent Wetland Scrub -Shrub Wetlanda Forested Wetland` Forested Wetland Ex a Cover Freq Cover Freq_ Cover Freq_ Cover Freq Cover Freq___ nightshade dulcamara common cattail Typha latifolia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- creeping buttercu d Ranunculus re ens 1 10% 50% T 1 33% 1 % 50% 13% 1 33% duck weed Lemna minor 7% 33% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- large -leaved avens Geum macro h llum -- -- 5% 25% -- -- 1 % 50% slough sedge Carex obnu to -- -- 1 % 25% 5% 33% 13% 50% -- -- soft rush Juncus effusus -- -- T 25% 1 % 33% 1 % 100% 2% 33% tufted hairgrass Deschampsia ces itosa -- -- 4% 25% T 33% T 50% -- -- waterpepper Polygonum h dro i eroides 27% 67% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Watson willowherb Epilobium watsonii -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- T 33% western ellowcress Rorippa curvisili ua 10% 33% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- yellow iris Iris pseudacorus -- -- -- -- 1 % 33% -- Herbs Subtotal 44% 25% 7% 16% 15% reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea -- -- 1 % 25% -- -- -- 1 % 33% Non -Native Invasive Herbs Subtotal 0% 1 % 0% 0% 1 % Total Herbs 44% 26% 7% 16% 16% Total Cover 110% 138% 128% 182% 149% C:/JobsM/ig/7`" Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Seventh Year (2014) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitiaation site Open Water Emergent Scrub -Shrub Forested Forested Wetland' Wetland Wetland' Wetland` Wetland (Ex)' Cover Fre Cover Freq_ Cover 1, Freq_ Cover Fre Cover Freq_ ' 3 plots; b 4 plots; c 2 plots; d non- native; T trace C:/Jobs/Wig/7"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Seventh Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 4 - Seventh Year (2014) performance standard assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Performance Dominant Plant Association Plant Open Standard Species Water Emergent Scrub -Shrub Forested 1 of 3 Hydrology Achieved Failures Achieved Achieved Cover of native black dominantsa cottonwood N/A 30% 3% 0% Pacific willow N/A 44% 33% 50% red alder N/A 18% 0% 28% Sitka willow N/A 13% 65% 0% red -osier dogwood N/A 4% 20% 75% Total native emergent, shrub, or tree covert N/A 10% 20% 98% Non-native invasive cover` 1 % 0% 0% Average plant hei htd 20ft 35ft 63ft a Year 10 standard - 20% cover for 3 species (Emergent) & 20% cover for 2 species (Scrub - shrub & Forested) b Year 7 standard - 70% Standard <20% d 1-4 ft (Emergent) Year 3 Standard, 4-8 ft (Scrub -Shrub) Year 5 Standard, & 8-20 ft (Forested) Year 7 Standard shaded cells indicate that the target performance standard was not achieved C:/Jobs/Wig/7` Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC FIGURES Tukwila Pond Site Penny Site Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126' Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 Wetland Class Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) 58,866 1.35 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 22.868 0.52 Emergent (EM) 37,778 0.87 Open Water (OW) 32,849 152,381 0.75 3.50 LlaNrcaR WEu s-z, ' 1 i . L GIP E ia81 - - - - - - - - - - MITIGATION BOUNDARY LND MONITOR WELL G-101 J E w '// g I Q / EXISTING FO NC :.T c'r TUKWILA POND 'MONITOR ILL G_ ; Y MONITOR WEu G-2 ' W Q ' r 1 FO' w I I MONITOR NELL G-a ^ F.'.i ® Emerg t , - III i' j w 19 _ /[#lITOR WELL G-105 - OMIT® WELL G I 1 :1 Il jl Z .S Q Existing_II Nrnnrok ELL c bB i • Forest FO ® Forest J i / ! MONrtoa wEu s-1 T / MONITq WELL G-115 I Open ' .Existing FO MONITOR wELL G-113 _ EDGE OF WATER P • it Water 1'I Forest i / MONITOR WELL 10B , ,1 it MONITOR HELL C-12 Scrub Shrub r I Emergent — MONITOR WELL G-10 / - / MONITOR K. G- ()Y/ I ON1 OR WELL G711 / I .:.... _....... , 1 1 IT _ lg / i FO lg -- _ _ MONI WE L G B - SS F Y . ..,. is Ass umedEdge ofOW ._. e«crcns6we f; Source: Bush. Ro & ROONhgs, 4 POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN 0 10 w 9rtls w rat ATTACHMENT A Representative Photographs S-6o .Rosa&RSMY,p,k Wetland Claw Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) W886 1.35 SCnl)ShNb (SS) 22,868 0.52 E (EM) 37,778 0.87 Open Water(OW) 32,809 0.75 152,361 3.50 4 f i MONITOR will S-2 , s our / r '--------- YITGAl10N 90ral0ARY LYID p / YorxTGR wr1L c-lo,, / V) In ui V1, Q E70SMG TUKWILA POND r 1 FO Y ' MoxrtoR a c- 3 r i W r MONITOR YELL G-2 / I FO, 1 I ® IIIB t / % r W _ —_ .IlllR roll G-105 ITO®R wiLL G-1✓ ; { Z % Q Existing yOMTOR YELL c-,oc . ♦ • FFO / r °. _ ... . / ® r OfeSt Foroat ♦ YIXNTOR WELL G-I15 r l MOMTgi MELL 113 Olin ' -- EYdstlng / FO ocE or wYTER Water 1 Forest • YpIITpt WELL 109 ' , . xarYTGR rcu c-,z ,l Scrub Shrub,- r Emergent — ♦ MmY YELL 0-10 / / EMSTING 1t YOMTM wul c-ol _ h ® of OW l 1p ♦ ONTOR YELL 0 l I/ .. xaxrtae YEu c-e 1@ SS FO rr 8 Assumed Edge of OW` POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN o a b ore✓,aeb r 7th Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washinqton Photograph 1. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-101 looking southwest. Photograph 2. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-7 looking east. C:/Jobs/Wig/7th Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC 7th Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washinqton Photograph 5. View of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland from Plot G-105 looking southwest. Photograph 6. View of the Forested Wetland from Plot G-115 looking northeast. C:/Jobs/Wig/7th Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour. LLC 7th Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 7. View of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-10 looking west. Photograph 8. View of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-12 looking southwest. C:/Jobs/Wig/7"' Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/14 Chad Armour, LLC Ir t r r:. {., .r a` ot- LEGEND Wetland Class Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) 58,866 1.35 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 22,868 0.52 Emergent (EM) 1 37,778 1 0.87 Open Water (OW) 32,849 0.75 152,361 3.50 - - - - - - - - - - MITIGATION BOUNDARY LWD t — F 1 1 ► MONITOR WELL S-2 , - E. iaxi 4-1 jMONITOR WELL G-101 / / T'I! ' `( ` V' // Lij PV- _ LIN EXISTING . N► TUKWILA POND FO MONITOR W G- 3 ILL i .. W'` MONITOR WELL G-2 FO I y 'r f MONITOR WELL G-4 LLJ Emerg t - ♦ MONITOR WELL G-105 ONITOR WELL, 1 4. Z /' I SS Q ,. , FO Existing MONITOR WELL G-106 I Forest MONITOR WELL S-1 ' wR , MONITOR WELL G-115 Open Existing MONITOR WELL G-113 FO EDGE OF WATER Water Forest / I MONITOR WELL 109 { MONITOR WELL G-12 ' it Scrub Shrub Emergent MONITOR WELL G-10 ' O MONITOR WELL G-0 / EXISTING 1 i / ow I _ woo-__ -MONITOR WELL G=11 --a 000 FO MONITOR - FO J 4 'L' MO WELL G 8 `78 SS / _ . / ,,. - -- p-NCSIDEWALK RE7E S} Assumed Edge of OW POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN 0 40 so Seale In Feet Source: Bush, Roed & Hltchings, Inc. POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC—SS 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 9N006 IWG NAME G:\project\CII :ATE 10 22 0a 3: I_lD—oo7- Sandra Whiting 4 From: Thompson, Kate (ECY) <kath461@ecy.wa.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:42 AM To: hkonig@wigproperties.com Cc: Sandra Whiting; McGraner, Patrick (ECY); Chad Armour Subject: JC Penny Mitigation Site Monitoring Change Request (#200400822) Dear Holly, I spoke with Sandra Whiting from the City of Tukwila and she informed me that the Wig family would like to request a change to the monitoring schedule for the JC Penny Mitigation site. It is my understanding that the consultant, Chad Armour, has moved out of state but will still continue monitoring the site until the monitoring period ends. The monitoring plan, dated July 2006, states that the site would be monitored annually for the first 5 years as well as in Years 7, 9, and 10. The monitoring will include four hydrology visits ( April, May, June, and August) and vegetation monitoring once in the late summer/fall. The Wig family has requested to reduce the hydrology monitoring to one event. After talking with Sandra Whiting and Patrick McGraner, the Ecology wetland specialist for this project, we propose the following changes to the monitoring schedule for Years 7-10. Year 7: Hydrology on the site has been well documented and Ecology and the City approve skipping the Year 7 hydrology monitoring event. Late summer/fall vegetation monitoring should still occur. Submit the Year 7 report by December 31, 2014 and include a summary of these approved monitoring changes. Year 9: • Typically mitigation sites are not monitored in Year 9, therefore we approve skipping the Year 9 hydrology and vegetation monitoring event. Year 10: Generally Year 10 is the final year of monitoring on the condition that all performance standards have been meet, the required acreage is present, and all other permit conditions are satisfied. The consultant will need to visit the site at least twice this year. Once in the spring to collect hydrology information and confirm the mitigation acreage and again in the late summer/fall to conduct vegetation monitoring. If you believe that the site is meeting these requirement then the following information is required before we can close-out a site. Requirements for the end of monitoring The year -ten monitoring report for this project is due by December 31, 2017. The following information should be included in the report in order for us to determine whether the mitigation is complete and successful: Documentation that all goals, objectives, and performance standards have been met. Confirmation that the required area of wetland is present. A figure that reflects current conditions of the site. For example, the proposed wetland habitat areas have shifted and the site has more forest then originally planned. If possible, an aerial photograph should be used as the base layer for the figure. We appreciate the monitoring and maintenance efforts performed at this site to ensure achievement of the Year 10 standards. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Kate Thompson Wetland Banking Specialist I Wetland Mitigation Compliance Team WA Dept. of Ecology I SEA Program kate.thompson@ecy.wa.gov 360-407-6749 . I TRAVELERSJ IRI0W11 To be attached to and form part of Bond No. 104744711 Travelers Casualty Surety Company of America License No. Issued on behalf of wig Properties LLc-ss as Principal, and in favor of City of Tukwila as Obligee. It is agreed that: ❑ 1. The Surety hereby gives its consent to change the Name: from: to: ❑ 2. The Surety hereby gives its consent to change the Address: from: to: ❑X 3. The Surety hereby gives its consent to change the Bond Limit from: $69,600 to: $57,375 This rider shall become effective as of March 7, 2014 PROVIDED, however, that the liability of the Surety under the attached bond as changed by this rider shall not be cumulative. Signed, sealed and dated �2(%- 17 DDlq Accepted: _City of Tukwila Obligee By: 5-4111 (8/66) Travelers Casualty Surety Company of America By: Attorney -in -Fact or wig properties LLC-% Principal By: V 6- EXHIBIT "C" EXISTING WETLANDS ON JC PENNEY SITE: Wetland Area A 13,718 B 24,461 C 6,305 D 3,943 E 179 F 1,971 Total SF 50,577 1 Total Wetland Area on Wig Property 50,577 sf 2 Degraded Wetland Area on City Property (Total Area of Wetlands Wig Can Enhance) 99,317 sf 3 On Site Wetlands that Wig can mitigate for offsite at a ratio of 3:1 33,106 sf 4 Remaining Wetland Area on Wig Property that needs to be mitigated (line 1 less line 3) 17,471 sf 5 Upland Area on City Property to Use for Creation at 1.5:1 ratio 26,207 sf 6 Total Wetland Mitigation Area at Pond (line 2 + line 5) 125,524 sf 2.88 acres If line 2 changes as a result of additional wetland readings between now and final approval of Wetland Mitigation Plan, then the above numbers will be adjusted accordingly. Final Wetland Mitigation Plan will have details of how much wetlands area on City Property should be created versus enhanced. C HAD ARMOUR, LLC 6500 126th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941 (425) 641-9743 chad@chadarmour.com September 11, 2012 Job No. 08-002 Ms. Anjali Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 — 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Fifth Year Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area (Fed Ref No. 200601027; St Ref No. 3815) Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Wig: We are pleased to present the results of our wetland mitigation monitoring report the fifth year after installing plants on the above -referenced property. This is the fifth of several monitoring reports to assess the condition of the mitigation area relative to the performance standards. The next report is due in 2014. The purpose of the work is to satisfy state and local wetland permit requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents the results of the fifth year of monitoring and recommendations for additional work; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that explains the purpose for the mitigation and how the mitigation area came to be; MONITORING METHODS that describes how we collected the data, and presents the goals and performance standards of the mitigation plan; MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS presents the results of our most recent hydrological and vegetative observations; CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of wetland mitigation to date relative to the performance standards; and LIMITATIONS of this project. Tables, figures, and representative photographs follow the text of the report. Table 1 shows the precipitation that fell on the region in the 2011/2012 water year. Table 2 presents the hydrological data for the mitigation area. Table 3 presents the vegetative data for the various wetland classes. And finally Table 4 summarizes the current hydrological and vegetative data relative to the performance standards. Figure 1 is a vicinity map that shows the location of the mitigation area. Figure 2 shows the location of the vegetation classes, monitoring wells, and other pertinent features, as well as the size of the wetland classes and the plants that were installed on the mitigation area. Representative photographs follow the figures. C:/JobsMig/5th Year Mitigation Report.doc 1 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Wig Properties, LLC-SS (Wig) converted the area east of the Tukwila Pond from a wetland and upland plant community dominated by reed canarygrass to a wetland plant community containing four wetland classes — open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. During the grading operation Wig was able to retain a significant portion of the mature trees and shrubs present in and adjacent to the mitigation area (site). Soon after the site was graded Wig installed several thousand native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Wig also applied the seed of several different grasses and herbs to the site. Chad Armour, LLC (Armour) collected groundwater data from several shallow groundwater monitoring wells several times in the spring and summer and collected vegetative data in the summer of 2012. The results of the fifth year of monitoring indicate that the site is in the process of complying with the performance standards. It appears that wetland hydrology is present throughout most of the site. The monitoring well measurements that are out of compliance appear to be related to excess ground elevation. Never -the -less grading to reduce the surface elevation in these areas is not warranted. Most of the vegetative performance standards are in compliance at this time. Currently the dominant plant species include Pacific willow, black cottonwood, Sitka willow, red -osier dogwood, and tufted hairgrass. We observed 1 % or less cover of non-native invasive plant species. Recommendations Although it is not necessary to treat non-native invasive plant species at this time, it may become necessary in the future. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wig constructed a wetland and enhanced degraded wetland in 2007 to compensate for filling slightly less than 1.16 acres (ac) of wetland on their Tukwila Southcenter shopping center. The 3.48ac site is a part of a larger 24ac Tukwila Pond property that includes the pond and what was once a field of reed canarygrass, both with fringes of willow and/or black cottonwood trees. The site is located west of Andover Parkway West about 600 feet (ft) south of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Parkway West in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1 — Tukwila Pond Site). Upland was transformed to wetland and degraded wetland was improved by replacing non-native invasives with a native plant assemblage. First Wig mowed the reed canarygrass then removed its rhizome mat before hauling it from the site. Then they removed some soil from the site, bringing the surface closer to the seasonal water table. To boost post -grading soil productivity, Wig mixed 3 inches (in) of Steergrow, a top soil substitute, into the upper layer of soil. They then installed several snags and added several pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to the finished surface prior to installing the plants. At the time the mitigation area was graded, Wig made every effort to avoid cutting down existing mature trees and shrubs. The net result is more forested wetland and less emergent wetland that planned. The City of Tukwila (City) was concerned that the Steergrow (50% steer manure and 50% sawdust) would negatively impact the water quality of the Tukwila Pond. For this reason the City asked Wig to bridge the open water C:/JobsMig/5t Year Mitigation Report.doc 2 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington channel and construct a berm of soil along the western perimeter of the site to prevent the water in the pond from mixing with the water on the site. The sand dike at the south end of the channel has been breached and water from the pond has been comingling with water in the channel for the last four years. We have yet to observe pond water overtopping the berm. Following grading, Wig installed several thousand trees and shrubs. Wig also installed several thousand sedge, rush, and spike-rush plugs as well as a mixture of emergent plant seeds to the bare soil. The plan was to install plugs and seeds differentially among wetland classes. During installation the plugs and seeds were installed across the entire wetland mitigation area. Prior to construction Armour installed 17 shallow groundwater monitoring wells (wells) made from plastic PVC pipe across the site to model the groundwater elevation (Figure 2). Ten of these wells survived site grading. The seven new wells replace those lost during site grading. Together they completely cover the site. Generally the wells serve as the centers of circular 1/100 acre vegetation assessment plots. After the first year's monitoring we noticed that some wells yielded plots that straddled vegetative classes (i.e., emergent and forested). And over the years large willow branches fell into plots, causing an emergent class to look like a forested class. For these reasons we moved some of the vegetative plots about 20 to 115ft from the similarly numbered well. Wig has maintained the site by removing non-native noxious weeds, although maintenance has been limited for the last two years because weeds have generally been rare. Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and purple loose -strife have been removed historically. In 2008 Wig installed about 80 additional willow live stakes on the site to replace those that had died. In 2010 Wig installed 25 Oregon ash trees to replace trees girdled by rodents and/or drowned by prolonged standing water. And finally we met with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and City staff on the site in 2011 to discuss the results of the 2011 monitoring report. At that time we explained why Wig has not been able to meet the hydrology performance standards in some areas, particularly on the berm constructed along the western perimeter of the site. In their January 25, 2012 letter to Wig, Ecology acknowledged the reason for the higher elevation in this area and that no additional grading would be necessary. Ecology also asked us to be consistent in reporting the data relative to the performance standards in our subsequent monitoring reports. The data presented in this report reflects this request. MONITORING METHODS Armour used an electronic water level indicator to detect ground and/or surface water in each of the 17 wells five times (March, May, twice in June, and August). These measurements allow us to calculate the elevation of the groundwater or surface water. Groundwater elevation can be used as a surrogate to infer surface soil saturation. In this instance we assume that wetland hydrology is present if groundwater is within 1ft of C:/JobsNVig/5th Year Mitigation Report.doc 3 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington the surface or the surface soil is saturated. We record the data in the field and transfer it to a spreadsheet that calculated the ground and/or surface water elevation. In each vegetative plot we estimated the cover of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and undesirable plants by species, and estimated the height of the vegetation. We designed the performance standards to evaluate short-, mid-, and long-term vegetation targets. Armour assessed the vegetation on August 21 and September 5, 2012; recording the data in the field and transferring the data to an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. Goal The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88ac and enhance 2.6ac of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater retention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. Performance Standards Hydrology Performance Standards The design performance standards used to assess wetland hydrology include: • Open water wetland — water from 0 to more than 7ft deep November through May; • Emergent wetland — saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7ft elevation November through June (the hydrology performance standard for the existing degraded wetland [now folded into the emergent wetland] ranged from 17.7 to 20.Oft); • Scrub -shrub wetland — saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2ft elevation November through May; and • Forested wetland — saturated soil between 18.2 and 19.2ft elevation November through April. Vegetation Performance Standards The vegetation performance standards include: • Emergent wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native emergent plant cover and ranging from 1 to 4ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • Scrub -shrub wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native shrub plant cover and ranging from 4 to 8ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • Forested wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native tree plant cover and ranging from 8 to 20ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • The total native plant cover for each wetland class in Year 5 will be at least: • Emergent — 50%, • Scrub -Shrub — 50%, C:/JobsMig/5`h Year Mitigation Report.doc 4 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington • Forested — 30%, and • No more than 20% of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS The 2011/2012 water year was wetter than normal. This was the third consecutive wet year. The first three months were drier than normal. The last 6 months were typically wetter than normal (Table 1). Much of the wetland was flooded for a significant period (Table 2). The open water channel was flooded through the end of August (we could not collect vegetation data in the open water wetland in late August due to standing water). Once again water was somewhat less than a foot deep where the channel is deepest in early September (well G-11). Parts of the emergent and scrub -shrub wetland classes were flooded though the end of June. Wetland hydrology was consistently present through the target date for the existing forested wetland, forested wetland, and open water wetland. Depending on the elevation of the ground, wetland hydrology was either present or absent through the target date in parts of the emergent wetland and scrub -shrub wetland. The total cover of installed, volunteer and non-native plant species ranged from 46 to 156% (Table 3). Even though there was prolonged standing water in the open water wetland, herbs cover 13% of the open water channel, with waterpepper a local dominant. Trees continue to cover about half of the emergent wetland. Similarly, more than half the cover in the scrub -shrub wetland is represented by trees. As reported previously Pacific willow is aggressively colonizing that part of the site that is regularly flooded. Trees represent somewhat more than 40% of the cover in the forested wetland. As expected, trees represent most of the cover in the existing forest. Table 4 shows the vegetative results relative to the performance standards. To date Wig has met all but one of the vegetative standards. The cover of native shrubs in the scrub -shrub wetland is 21 %; the standard is 50%. Although we have not formally monitored wildlife on the site, we have made notes about species that we have observed when collecting hydrology data. Most of the animal species we observed are avian, although we have observed some mammals and amphibians. To date we have observed the following bird species on the site: mallard, northern shoveler, Canada goose, American coot, common snipe, red-tailed hawk, white -throated swift, an unknown species of swallow, Northern flicker, red -winged blackbird, European starling, American crow, yellow warbler, American robin, American goldfinch, white -crowned sparrow, song sparrow, and rufous -sided towhee. One year we observed cotton -tail rabbits and we inferred the presence of small gnawing mammals based on damage to some of the plantings. We first noted the presence of the bullfrog in 2009. Bullfrogs are very common in the open water wetland. The following paragraphs summarize our observations based on the data collected in 2012 by wetland class. C:/JobsNVig/e Year Mitigation Report.doc 5 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Emergent Wetland Once again the wetland hydrology standard was achieved in two of the four emergent wetland wells (Table 2). As before: • wells G-103 & G-7 were flooded through the end of June; • the groundwater in the area represented by well G-106 was below the target elevation at the end of June; and • well G-101 missed the target significantly. We moved the stake again in the vicinity of well G-101 because another willow fell into the plot. Here the emergent wetland is dominated by tufted hairgrass. Large -leaved avens and Canada thistle are somewhat common (Attachment A — Photograph 1). The emergent wetland in the southwest corner of the site is dominated by Pacific willow. Spotted ladysthumb western yellowcress, and climbing nightshade are common (Photograph 2). At the emergent/scrub-shrub interface black cottonwood, soft rush, and prostrate knotweed dominate and Pacific willow, Sitka willow, wool -grass, bulrush, and climbing nightshade are common. Branches of willow trees have fallen into the emergent wetland from the adjacent willow forest at a number of spots. The willow seedlings that form a virtual carpet in areas of prolonged flooding suggest that these parts of the emergent wetland will eventually become forested wetland. There are a total of 25 different plant species in the emergent wetland. The native plant species cover 61 % of the emergent wetland; more than the 50% Year 5 cover standard (Table 4). The three dominant plant species (two of which are trees) represent 65% of the total vegetative cover. Only 1 % of the cover is attributable to non-native invasive plant species (Table 3). Scrub -Shrub Wetland Two of the three wells in the scrub -shrub wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). One of the areas was flooded through the end of June and the other through the end of May. The area in the vicinity of well G-105 missed the hydrology target. We counted a total of 15 plant species in the scrub -shrub wetland (Table 3). The native shrub cover (21 %) missed the 50% Year 5 cover standard (Table 4). The areas that are regularly flooded (G-8 & G-109) are dominated by black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and red -osier dogwood. Soft rush and spotted ladysthumb are common (Photographs 3 & 4). The non -flooded scrub -shrub wetland is dominated by Sitka willow, red -osier dogwood, and tufted hairgrass. Hooker willow, Pacific willow, and soft rush are common (Photograph 5). We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. Forested Wetland Both of the wells in the forested wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). The forested wetland is covered with a thick blanket of vegetation. We counted 11 different plant species (Table 3). The 68% cover of trees far exceeds the 30% Year 5 cover standard (Table 4). Pacific willow, red -osier dogwood, and tufted hairgrass dominate. Red alder is common in the forested wetland (Photograph 6). We observed no non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. C:/Jobs/Wig/5I Year Mitigation Report.doc 6 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Open Water Wetland The hydrology performance standard for the open water wetland was achieved in 2012. As indicated previously this wetland class was flooded through the end of August. The plot data indicates that the open water wetland is sparsely vegetated, with waterpepper common locally (Table 3). However, large patches of emergents are present throughout the open water wetland and other areas are covered with fallen willows branches (Photographs 7 & 8). We observed no non-native invasive plant species in the open water wetland. Existing Forested Wetland Wetland hydrology for the existing forested wetland was present through the end of June (Table 2). Three of our original wells are located in existing forested areas dominated by Pacific willow trees about 55ft tall. The total vegetative cover for the existing forested wetland is 128%, with trees representing 100%, shrubs 13%, and herbs 14% of the cover, respectively (Table 3). Pacific willow dominants and red- osier dogwood and creeping buttercup are common (Photographs 9 & 10). We observed 1 % cover of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. CONCLUSIONS The wetland mitigation plan for the Tukwila Pond site currently appears to be on track Hydrology With a few possible exceptions it appears that wetland hydrology in the created and enhanced wetlands is present. After five years of monitoring it appears that two areas — the areas represented by well G-101 and well G-105 — may not meet the hydrology performance standard. These areas have consistently been `dry' later in the growing season ever since the wetland was created/enhanced. However, from a regulatory perspective both areas display wetland hydrology. That is, they are both saturated to the surface for at least 30 consecutive days during the early growing season. We think that the areas represented by wells G-101 & G-106 do not consistently meet the hydrology criteria because they are located on the berm constructed along the site's western perimeter to minimize the potential for Tukwila pond water from comingling with the mitigation site. The primary reason for the berm was to prevent Steergro nutrients from contaminating the pond and compromising its water quality. We suspect that the reason that the hydrology performance standard is not being met in the vicinity of well G- 105 is that not enough soil was removed at the time of construction. With the exception of the open water wetland, some areas are wetter than planned. These areas are subject to prolonged seasonal flooding and are represented by wells G- 103 & G-7 (emergent wetland), G-8 & G-109 (scrub -shrub wetland), and G-113 (forested wetland). All of these areas are adjacent to the open water wetland and are in the process of being dominated by black cottonwood or Pacific willow. C:/Jobs/Wig/5t" Year Mitigation Report.doc 7 09/11/12 Chad Armour. LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Vegetation Wig is on track to meet the vegetative performance standards. Only the shrub cover requirement in the scrub -shrub wetland has not been met (Table 4). Given that this wetland class is dominated by trees it may be challenging to meet this standard. We observed very little non-native invasives on the site. The small patches of reed canarygrass are thin and short. Some purple loosestrife can be found in the southwest portion of the site. Canada thistle is only present in the emergent wetland where tufted hairgrass dominates. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Table 1 — Precipitation measured in inches at SeaTac during the 2011/2012 water year Table 2 — Fifth Year (2012) hydrologic characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Table 3 — Fifth Year (2012) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Table 4 — Fifth Year (2012) performance standard assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Post -Construction Plan Attachment A — Representative Photographs cc: Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Kate Thompson, Department of Ecology C:/Jobs/Wig/5"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 8 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC TABLES Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 1 - Precipitation measured in inches at SeaTac during the 2011/2012 water year Month Measured Normal Departure Cumulative Departure October 3.45 3.48 -0.03 -0.03 November 5.16 6.57 -1.41 -1.44 December 2.24 5.35 -3.11 -4.55 January 6.83 5.57 1.26 -3.29 February 3.63 3.5 0.13 -3.16 March 7.2 3.72 3.48 0.32 April 2.68 2.71 -0.03 0.29 May 2.05 1.94 0.11 0.4 June 2.96 1.57 1.39 1.79 Total 36.2 1 34.41 1.79 C:/Jobs/Wig/5"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington I able 1 - rlttn Year 1U11 hydrologic characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Groundwater Monitoring Well Habitat Type Ground Elev ft Target Elev ft Groundwater Elevation (Ma 3/30/12 5/1/12 6/1/12 6/29/12 8/1/12 G-2b Forested Wetland ex 18.7 NA 17.7 ' 18.8' 18.5 18.2 17.9 16.5 G-4b Forested Wetland ex 18.5 NA 17.5 ° 18.8' 18.59 18.29 17.9 17.1 G-11 b Forested Wetland ex 13.5 NA 12.5 ° 18.8e' 18.5ef 18 2ef 18 1 of 16.6ef G-7 Emer ent Wetland 17.6 16.6c 18.8f 18.5' 18.3' 18.1f 17.5 G-101 Emergent Wetland 19.4 18.4c 18.19 17.4 16.8 16.4 14.7 G-103 Emergent Wetland 18.0 17.0° 18.8' 18.5f 18.2f 18.1f 14.7 G-106 Emer ent Wetland 19.2 18.2° 18.79 18.4 18.3 17.9 16.5 G-8 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.5 17.5° 18.8' 18.5' 18.2' 18.1f 16.5 G-105 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.9 17.9° 18.59 17.8 16.4 15.9 14.5 G-109 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 17.8 16.8c 18.7' 18.4f 18.2f 16.9 15.5 G-113 Forested Wetland 18.0 17.0c 18.8f 18.5' 18.2' 18.19 15.1 G-115 Forested Wetland 18.9 17.9° 18.79 18.3 16.2 15.5 14.8 G-10 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.8f 18.5f 18.2f 18.1f 16.6' G-12 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.8ef 18.5 el 18.4ef 18.3f 16.7' G-14 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.9f 18.5f 18.3f 18.2f 16.6' S-1 Open Water Wetland 15.1 15.2d 18.8f 18.5f 18.2' 18.1f 16.6f S-2h Open Water Wetland 18.7 15.2d 18.8f 18.5 18.2 18.1 16.0 a Emergent target through June; Scrub -Shrub target through May; Forested target through April; & Open Water target through May b control - for comparison only ° 1 ft below the ground elevation d the design elevation e estimated elevation based on elevations from nearby monitoring wells f flooded 9 soil saturated to the surface h located on the northern dike NA not applicable shaded numbers_ indicate that the target elevation was _not _met and wetland_ hydrology was not present C:/JobsNVig/5` Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Table 3 - Fifth Year 2012 vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond miti ation site Open Water Wetland Emergent Wetland Scrub -Shrub Wetland Forested Wetland Forested Wetland (EX)a Cover Freg Cover Fre Cover Freq Cover Freg Cover Fre Trees black cottonwood Populus balsamifera -- -- 21 % 50% 9% 100% 3% 50% -- -- Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 33% 67% 46% 75% 28% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% red alder Alnus rubra -- -- T 25% T 33% 15% 50% -- -- Sitka willow Salix sitchensis -- -- 5% 75% 38% 100% -- -- -- -- Total Trees 33% 72% _ 75%° 68% 100% Shrubs Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana -- -- -- -- 3% 33% 4% 50% -- red elderberry Sambucus racemosa -- -- 1 % 25% -- red -osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera -- -- 4% 25% 18% 100% 35% 100% 13% 67% thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus -- -- 1 % 25% -- -- Native Shrub Subtotal 0% 6% 21 % 39% 13% Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor -- -- T 50% -- -- -- -- -- -- Non-Native Invasive Shrub Subtotal 0% T -- 0% 0% 0% Total Shrubs 0% 6% 1 21% 1 39% 1 13% Herbs American water lantain Alisma plantago- a uatica T 33% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C:/Jobs/Wig/5` Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11 /12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Fifth Year 2012 vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Open Water Emergent Scrub -Shrub Forested Forested Wetlanda Wetland Wetland Wetland` Wetland (Ex)a Cover Freq Cover Fre Cover Freg Cover Freg Cover Fre Lotus birdsfoot-trefoils corniculatus -- -- T 25% 1-- -- -- -- -- -- bulrush Scir us acutus -- -- 3% 25% -- climbing Solanum nightshades dulcamara -- -- 6% 50% T 33% 1 % 50% T 67% common cattail Typha latifolia -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- creeping Ranunculus buttercu d re ens -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- 12% 33% unidentified grasses T 33% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Geum large -leaved avens macro h llum -- -- 1 % 50% T 33% 1 % 50% -- -- mint Mentha sp. T 50% -- -- prostrate Polygonum knotweed aviculare -- -- 8% 25% T 33% -- slou h sedge Carex obnu to -- -- T 25% 2% 33% 4% 100% -- -- soft rush Juncus effusus -- -- 8% 75% 6% 67% 3% 100% 2% 33% spotted Polygonum lad sthumb persicana T 33% 4% 25% 2% 33% -- -- -- -- thick-headed Carex sedge pachystachya -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Deschampsia tufted hairgrass ces itosa -- -- 24% 50% 22% 33% 40% 50% -- -- Polygonum a er h dro i eroides 11% 67%Epilobium Later atson willowherb watsonii -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- T 33% C:/Jobs/Wig/5t Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Fifth Year (2012) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Open Water Wetland Emergent Wetland Scrub -Shrub Wetlanda Forested Wetland° Forested Wetland (Ex)a Cover Freq Cover Fre Cover Freg Cover Freg Cover Fre western ellowcress Rorippa curvisili ua 2% 67% 4% 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- wool -grass Scirpus cyperinus -- -- 3% 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- yellow iris Iris pseudacorus -- -- -- -- 2% 33% -- Native Herbs Subtotal 13% 61 % 34% 49% 14% Canada thistle Cirsium arvense -- -- 1 % 25% -- -- -- purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea -- -- T 25% T 33% -- -- 1 % 33% Non -Native Invasive Herbs Subtotal 0% 1 % T 0% 1 % Total Herbs 13% 62% 34% 49% 15% Total Cover 46% 140% 130% 156% 128% a 3 plots; b 4 plots; c 2 plots; d non- native; T trace C:/JobsMig/5t Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11 /12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 4 - Fifth Year (2012) performance standard assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Performance Dominant Plant Association Plant Open Standard Species Water Emergent Scrub -Shrub Forested 2of3 1 of Hydrology Achieved Failures Failures Achieved Cover of native black dominantsa cottonwood N/A 21 % 9% 3% Pacific willow N/A 46% 28% 50% Sitka willow N/A 5% 38% 0% red -osier dogwood N/A 4% 18% 35% tufted hairgrass N/A 24% 22% 40% Total native plant covert N/A 61 % 21 % 68% Non-native invasive cover° 1 % T 0% Average plant hei htd 1.5ft 15ft 8ft a Year 10 standard - 20% cover for 3 species (Emergent) & 20% cover for 2 species (Scrub - shrub & Forested) b Year 5 standard - Emergent 50%, Scrub -shrub 50%, Forested 30% ° Standard <20% ° 1-4 ft (Emergent) Year 3 Standard, 4-8 ft (Scrub -Shrub) Year 5 Standard, & 8-20 ft (Forested) Year 7 Standard T trace shaded cells indicate that the target performance standard was not achieved C:/JobsNVig/5tYear Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC FIGURES N �AM lIA fGS?f4 Mli "r n' S lI3 ", — • ! S 7 �o • . t544iN ST 3 S 1"T11 ` ST S l00 o1 is IN 7E11 0 , SW q i it r= IMTO 464�,k�r i• w.T .x'r 1,Jr r.� Ty rAft1: r U 7F1) i i5-Nn H sod $7 ST ;i s IOTN St t : 4• r Aim ST S 1SM ST f+erw �T r Igor. iv 1SIS1 ST 1 �, !, � � 1-,751,7�0 fi• S lS7Np S7 - >r ^ s tl2N0 ►. o ' s ± k.'W41a Y SW ST a. yy rj MWiiA C t T� aaC N. p t I ��i(�E-N � � S 156TN sr :.� ,• � � �- _ 8 , _ t a ST 1581H +(��t tE 4 1 ! a 3 S 60TH- g~ SG»t[ENTER �4 PKWY W y ueusST r71�IM * _ N ; sty �;:$ ■ , a� Irl■[ i�SILMS ST �to y BL R E 0. f 1 ►LOI A A_ F -iE 7' ' tNll •//'• s y Tukwila Pond Site f X ■ STRWER M •" 1•''yr BIYD x1 cc AAii I� �1J�4 ■ I'i r� ■ ewa,.'v, 301ttkiMr q. ": . T -•1 . 4 % S I&M ST r, � , I�CR lNpt, • , ,,, olAG1 TO N I 1 166TH _T Si 1 1 1 1 1I :+�► " i 6�1N u eerN er t '� ol+.r ■ : r'' � , A6A1Ef" ?. 5 y L f 17uili Penn Site Wrs t .�;. �1 EORPOPA + _ _ 17M1 'R Nrt I $ x } ST 1 „r.. ♦ . 1 .. WA 17M Ft. i ' , 173RD c ST �j„ S llPUll0 s n 5 175TN ST oMnur - 38T4 tin. MA:A r M1• r - -17M J' ST r MEN�ITE�N STtooiw j1e �)3 n �4 • Il y + • g •` rT��wwa T! Jim <iSamOR ` ' It , 0..W 178TH b RILL A - TRIIAM DR, . _ S 119AI Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126' Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 Scientific Name Common Name F1rlergen Scmb-shr Forested Spacing Slze _ Wetlarxf Wetland Wetland N".tfaT:�' •�.-,�.e R� ..4 >, •�vhei� c."c.: maw .'c:,* «wa-:,�*u;:W_ Inus mbm red alder 47 15' OC 1 5" caliper _ Fmxlnus IIOregonash 4715'OC L5"caliper Populus balsami/em lack cottalwood _ _ _ 31 30' OC 1S" caliper Sala lasianoya Pacific wifiow 440 8' DC cuttings �_.. �«�.._* men. '""'°SHIDW— fin-. Comus stolonAera rebosier dogwood 338 SO 6' OC Comus stdonilem red- 1r dogwood 338 145 6' OC onicem invofcmta black twinbarry 30 6'OC PAysoCarpos capdrus Pacificninebark 30 6' OC L Sala pipen Piper's wllbw 124 6 OC Sala sdchereis Silk. willow 123 6 OC Be_ckmannra syngachne - Amedcan sbughgrass 2.67@ _ 2_671b , 2.671b broadcast seed _ Camx obnupta slough sedge 2253 1336 3.450 24"OC bare root Camx shpats sawbeak sedge 2,380 1,413 3644 24"OC bare root_ Deschampsis cespftosa tufted hairgrass 3.051b _ _ 3.05I4 broadcast seed _ E/eochris palushis _ common spike-rush 607 _ _3.0510 361 930 24"OC bare root Ely—glaucus due wildrye 2.671b 2.67lb 2_.671b broadcast seed Geum macmphylium large -leaved ovens 0.5@ _ 0 Slb _ O.SIb broadcast seed Glyseria elate tall manregrass _ 04211, _ _ _ _ 0421b _ 0A21b broadcast _ s eed Gtysggkgmndis _ reed mannagrass 0 03Ib _ 0.031b _ 0.031b broadcast seed Glyseda occidentalls _ westernmannagmss 3.SBID 3S81b 3.581b broadcast seed Hordeum brach6mmlmeado%vbadey I 2.671bl 2.6716 2.6716 broadcast seed Incluarg uxlsurlg uegmw we — Wetland Class Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) 58,866 1.35 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 22,868 0.52 Emergent (EM) 37,778 0.87 Open Water (OW) 32,849 0.75 ISZ361 1 3.60 - - - - - - - - MITIGATION BOUNDARY LWD ®G-1 NUMBER & LOCATION OF MONITORING WELLS Sour.: Buell, ROe4 a HI-11ga. I- wo NAYS: Q�mol�cv\cv is\an AM- 1R eB 09:a MONITOR WELL 5- j- / 'I r i — MONITpt WELL G-101 / Ljj ' EXISTING ,-'�/- ',I III FO - ---' / MONITOR ILL G- 3 MONTOR WELL G-2 TUKWILA POND �� / FO r MowsoR weu c-' ^� ♦ I �( L 2. F:�: - I Of ® Emerg t j 0 ,MONITOR WELL G-105. MONITOR WELL G;�✓ 1 ` Q SS i �'' Q i Existing `I fIONTOF WELL c as '♦ ��•Forest _ FO - ' ' / r i.(- f�� 'Forest I j MONITOR WELL 5-1 i it MONITOR WEU G-115 Open ' i •.. ��r Ii `1tP Exlstln FO MONITOR WELL G-113 EDGE OF WATER P 1• g \\ Water /'1 Forest ! _I" MONITOR WELL G-1O9 " III POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN 0 M a0 sole b FM MONITOR WELL G-12 ' '1 INI GNI TOR HELL G-10 ; a,': • { r 14 ft I .MONITOR ILL C+1i I ATTACHMENT A Representative Photographs Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washinqton Photograph 1. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-101 looking southwest. Photograph 2. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-7 looking east. C:/Jobs/Wig/5"' Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Photograph 3. View of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland from Plot G-109 looking west. Photograph 4. View of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland from Plot G-8 looking east. C:/Jobs/Wig/5th Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 5. View of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland from Plot G-105 looking southwest. Photograph 6. View of the Forested Wetland from Plot G-115 looking northeast. C:/Jobs/Wig/5"' Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila, Washington Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Photograph 7. View of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-10 looking west. Photograph 8. View of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-12 looking southwest. C:/Jobs/Wig/5t Year Mitigation Report.doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC Fifth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washinqton Photograph 9. View of the Existing Forested Wetland from Plot G-2 looking southwest. Photograph 10. View of the Existing Forested Wetland from Plot G-4 looking northwest. C:/Jobs/Wig/5"' Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/11/12 Chad Armour, LLC 0� STA' . why 18&0 ��y�z STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 January 25, 2012 Ms. Anjali Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 SE 134' Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 RE: Follow-up for site visit to JC Penny Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Site (Ecology Order #3815, Corps Reference #200400822) Dear Ms. Wig: On October 19, 2011, Ecology employees met you, Sandra Whiting from the City of Tukwila and Chad Armour on the wetland mitigation site for the JC Penny development. We visited the site to determine whether it meets: • The conditions of Order #3815 (Order), dated September 1, 2006 • The performance standards described in the mitigation plan as described in the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, dated July 6, 2006, prepared by Chad Armour LLC (mitigation plan). We also wanted to determine whether the site conditions are consistent with the information provided in the Year 4 monitoring report dated September 8, 2011. During our visit, we observed very little invasive cover and most of the plantings were doing well.. The following comments and recommendations are based on site observation, discussions during the site visit, and review of the Year 4 monitoring report. Hydrology The monitoring report stated that several wells did not meet the target hydrology elevation and were out of compliance. The site has 17 wells of which three did not meet target elevations and performance standards. These wells are G-106, G-101, and G-105. The report states these areas are dry due to excess ground elevation but does not explain why these areas are higher in elevation than the rest of the site. During the site visit, we discussed the City of Tukwila's requirement to construct a berm separating the mitigation site from Tukwila pond. The placement of the berm resulted in the higher elevations then originally designed. We understand the reason for the higher elevation and agree that no additional grading is necessary. In your next monitoring report, please clearly explain the reasons for the higher elevations and resulting drier conditions. Ms. Anjali Wig January 25, 2012 Page 2 Vegetation During the visit, we noticed minimal invasive cover on the site. We agree with the recommendation in the monitoring report to continue to aggressively treat these species. This will aid tree and shrub survival, establishment, and growth, and limit competition for light, water, and nutrients. The monitoring report stated that the site has more forested then emergent wetland area than was planned. This was due to efforts to avoid cutting down existing mature trees and shrubs during construction, which resulted in more forested wetland than planned. Ecology accepts that the site is developing more forested and shrub wetland. Monitoring Report Upon review of the Year 4 monitoring report, we have several changes that should be incorporated into the remaining monitoring reports for this project. When reporting the percent cover of the different vegetation classes (i.e. trees, shrubs, herbs), do not sum the total cover for the different classes together to reach an overall total cover. This is an inaccurate way to report this type of data. This will also change how the cover data is reported in meeting performance standards. For example, the Year 4 report states that the scrub -shrub performance standard was met because "the total native plant cover (137%) far exceeds the 40% Year 4 cover standard. " The performance standard in the approved monitoring plan states that "the total native shrub plant cover will be at least: 40% in Year 4 ". Based on the results listed in Table 3 of the Year 4 report there was 19% total native shrub cover present in Year 4, which means the performance standard was not met. Even though the scrub -shrub performance standard was not met for Year 4, the same area also had 75% cover of native trees. The monitoring report needs to accurately describe current site conditions and clearly explain why the site is meeting or not meeting performance standards. If a performance standard is not being met, an explanation of what is happening on the site will help Ecology determine if the site is in compliance. We look forward to receiving and reviewing these changes in the Year 5 monitoring report due in the Fall of 2012. Thank you for working with us to ensure the success of the mitigation associated with this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 360-407-6749 or kate.thoi-npson@ecy.wa.gov ecy.wa.g_ov or Patrick McGraner at 425-649-4447 or patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov Sincerely, Kate Thompson Wetland Mitigation Compliance Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program e-cc: Chad Armour — Chad Armour LLC Corps contact Sandra Whiting - City of Tukwila Patrick McGraner, Erik Stockdale, Rebekah Padgett — Ecology City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director November 14, 2011 Wig Properties, LLC. Subject: Bond for Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation Dear Mr. Wig, We have reviewed the itemized content of the bond for environmental mitigation work located at Tukwila Pond and find that the bond dollar amount may be reduced based upon satisfactory completion of the past four years of work. The remaining items to be completed are Monitoring and Maintenance, which must continue to be fully covered at 150%. Specifically that reduced bond amount is for the following items: Item Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Maintenance years 5-10 6 $ 5,650 $ 33,900 Monitoring -year 5 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Monitoring - year 7 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Monitoring - years 9 & 10 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 Total Maintenance/Monitoring Cost $ 46,400 Total Bond Requirement Multiplier 150% $ 69,600 Should you choose to reduce the amount of the existing bond, please provide the City with verification and a copy of that new document. .................... Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 RIDER To be attached to and form a part of: Bond No. 104744711 Type of Bond: Wetland Mitigation Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America One Tower Square 3PB, Hartford, CT 06183 Executed by Wig Properties, LLC-SS, as Principal, and by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, as Surety, in favor of City of Tukwila and dated November 16, 2011. In consideration of the premium charged for the attached bond, it is hereby agreed to change: The bond limit is amended From: $404,000 To: $69,600 This rider is effective November 14, 2011. This rider is executed upon the express condition that the surety's liability under said bond shall not be cumulative and shall in no event exceed the amount specifically set forth in said bond or any existing certificate changing the amount of said bond. The referenced bond shall be subject to all its agreements, limitations and conditions except as herein expressly modified. SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED this 16th day of November, 2011. Wig Properties, LLC-S8J Principal Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America By: * Lucinda L Young o ney-in - a MzVe t R ACCEPTED BY: . OJ.. , r'fl. -,; ie i City �orf(Tukwila �(Oblidee) Date *If Obligee signature required, please sign duplicate and return to Surety. S-1234 (01-99) CHAD ARMOUR, LLC 6500 126th Avenue S.E. September 8, 2011 Job No. 08-002 Ms. Anjali Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 — 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941 (425)641-9743 chad(a_chadarmour.com Subject: Fourth Year Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area (Fed Ref No. 200601027; St Ref No. 3815) Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Wig: We are pleased to present the results of our wetland mitigation monitoring report the fourth year after installing plants on the above -referenced property. This is the fourth of several monitoring reports to assess the condition of the mitigation area relative to the performance standards. The purpose of the work is to satisfy state and local wetland permit requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents the results of the fourth year of monitoring and recommendations for additional work; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that explains the purpose for the mitigation and how the mitigation area came to be; MONITORING METHODS that describes how we collected the data, and presents the goals and performance standards of the mitigation plan; MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS that presents the results of our most recent hydrological and vegetative observations; CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of wetland mitigation to date relative to the performance standards; and LIMITATIONS of this project. Tables, figures, and representative photographs follow the text of the report. Table 1 shows the precipitation that fell on the region in the 2010/2011 water year. Table 2 presents the hydrological data for the mitigation area. Table 3 presents the vegetative data for the various wetland classes. And finally Table 4 summarizes the current vegetative data relative to the performance standards. Figure 1 is a vicinity map that shows the location of the mitigation area. Figure 2 shows the location of the vegetation classes, monitoring wells, and other pertinent features, as well as the size of the wetland classes and the plants that were installed on the mitigation area. Representative photographs follow the figures. C:/Jobs/Wig/4"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 1 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland Iviaigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Wig Properties, LLC-SS (Wig) converted the area east of the Tukwila Pond from a wetland and upland plant community dominated by reed canarygrass to a wetland plant community containing four wetland classes — open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. During the grading operation Wig was able to retain a significant portion of the mature trees and shrubs present in and adjacent to the mitigation area (site). Soon after the site was graded Wig installed several thousand native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Wig also applied the seed of several different grasses and herbs to the site. Chad Armour, LLC (Armour) collected groundwater data from several shallow groundwater monitoring wells several times in the spring and summer and collected vegetative data in the summer of 2011. The results of the fourth year of monitoring indicate that the site is in the process of complying with the performance standards. It appears that wetland hydrology is present throughout most of the site. The monitoring well measurements that are out of compliance appear to be related to excess ground elevation. Most of the vegetative performance standards are in compliance at this time. Currently the dominant plant species include Pacific willow, Sitka willow, red -osier dogwood, tufted hairgrass, soft rush, and Watson willowherb. We observed 1 % or less cover of non-native invasive plant species. Recommendations We recommend that Wig continue to aggressively treat non-native invasive plant species, particularly reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife. Treatments to date have limited the coverage of both plant species. The reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife can either be mechanically treated by removing the plants, roots and all or by chemically spraying them. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wig constructed a wetland and enhanced degraded wetland in 2007 to compensate for filling slightly less than 1.16 acres (ac) of wetland on their Tukwila Southcenter shopping center. The 3.48ac site is a part of a larger 24ac Tukwila Pond property that includes the pond and what was once a field of reed canarygrass, both with fringes of willow and/or black cottonwood trees. The site is located west of Andover Parkway West about 600 feet (ft) south of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Parkway West in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1 — Tukwila Pond Site). Upland was transformed to wetland and degraded wetland was improved by replacing non-native invasives with a native plant assemblage. First Wig mowed the reed canarygrass then removed its rhizome mat before hauling it from the site. Then they removed some soil from the site, bringing the surface closer to the seasonal water table. To boost post -grading soil productivity, Wig mixed 3 inches (in) of Steergrow, a top soil substitute, into the upper layer of soil. They then installed several snags and added several pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to the finished surface prior to installing the plants. At the time the mitigation area was graded, Wig made every effort to avoid cutting down existing mature trees and shrubs. The net result is more forested wetland and less emergent wetland that planned. The City of Tukwila (City) was concerned that the C:/Jobs/Wig/4"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 2 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland ivi,cigation Monitoring i ukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Steergrow (50% steer manure and 50% sawdust) would negatively impact the water quality of the Tukwila Pond. For this reason the City asked Wig to bridge the open water channel to prevent the water in the channel from mixing with the water in the pond. The sand dike at the south end of the channel has been breached and water from the pond has been comingling with water in the channel for the last three rainy seasons. Wig also added a berm adjacent to the northwest edge of the mitigation area. Following grading, Wig installed several thousand trees and shrubs. Wig also installed several thousand sedge, rush, and spike-rush plugs as well as a mixture of emergent plant seeds to the bare soil. The plan was to install plugs and seeds differentially among wetland classes. During installation the plugs and seeds were installed across the entire wetland mitigation area. Prior to construction Armour installed 17 shallow groundwater monitoring wells (wells) made from plastic PVC pipe across the site to model the groundwater elevation (Figure 2). Ten of these wells survived site grading. The seven new wells replace those lost during site grading. Together they completely cover the site. The wells serve as the centers of 13 circular 1/100 acre vegetation assessment plots. After the first years monitoring we noticed that some wells yielded plots that straddled vegetative classes (i.e., emergent and forested). In other areas large branches of willows fell into plots, causing an emergent class to look like a forested class. For these reasons we moved five of the vegetative plots about 20 to 75ft from the similarly numbered well. For the past three years Wig has maintained the site by removing non-native noxious weeds. Weeds removed and/or treated include Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and purple loose -strife. In 2008 Wig installed about 80 additional willow live stakes on the site to replace those that had died. In 2010 Wig installed 25 Oregon ash trees to replace trees girdles by rodents and/or drowned by prolonged standing water. To protect the remaining and new trees and shrubs, Wig installed plastic protectors around the base of the installed trees and many of the installed shrubs. MONITORING METHODS Armour used an electronic water level indicator to detect ground and/or surface water in each of the 17 wells five times (March, twice in May, June, and August). These measurements allow us to calculate the elevation of the groundwater or surface water. Groundwater elevation can be used as a surrogate to infer surface soil saturation. In this instance we assume that wetland hydrology is present if groundwater is within 1ft of the surface or the surface soil is saturated. We record the data in the field and transfer it to a spreadsheet that calculated the ground and/or surface water elevation. In each vegetative plot we note the health, estimated the cover of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and undesirable plants by species, and estimated the height of the vegetation. We designed the performance standards to evaluate short-, mid-, and long-term vegetation targets. Armour assessed the vegetation on September 5 & 7, 2011; recording the data in the field and transferring the data to an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. C:/Jobs/Wig/4"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 3 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland maigation Monitoring i ukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Goal The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88ac and enhance 2.6ac of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. Performance Standards Hydrology Performance Standards The design performance standards used to assess wetland hydrology include: • Open water wetland — water from 0 to more than 7ft deep November through May; • Emergent wetland — saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7ft elevation November through June (the hydrology performance standard for the existing degraded wetland [now folded into the emergent wetland] ranged from 17.7 to 20.0ft); • Scrub -shrub wetland — saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2ft elevation November through May; and • Forested wetland — saturated soil between 18.2 and 19.2ft elevation November through April. Vegetation Performance Standards The vegetation performance standards include: • Emergent wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native emergent plant cover and ranging from 1 to 4ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • Scrub -shrub wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native shrub plant cover and ranging from 4 to 8ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • Forested wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native tree plant cover and ranging from 8 to 20ft tall at the end of the 10-year monitoring effort; • The total native plant cover for each wetland class in Year 4 will be at least: • Emergent — 40%, • Scrub -Shrub — 40%, • Forested — 20%, and • No more than 20% of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. C:/Jobs/Wig/4`h Year Mitigation Report.doc 4 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland . ,igation Monitoring ukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS The 2010/2011 water year was wetter than normal. This was the second consecutive excessively wet year. Excess precipitation for the 5 'wet' months ranged from 55% to 80% of normal. The four 'dry' months were 3% and 27% drier than normal (Table 1). Much of the wetland was flooded for a significant period (Table 2). The open water channel was flooded through mid -August. Water was somewhat less than a foot deep where the channel is deepest in early September (G-11). Parts of the emergent, scrub - shrub, and forested wetland classes were flooded though the end of June. Wetland hydrology was consistently present through the target date for the existing forested wetland, forested wetland, and open water wetland. Depending on the elevation of the ground, wetland hydrology was either present or absent through the target date in parts of the emergent wetland and scrub -shrub wetland. The total cover of installed, volunteer and non-native plant species ranged from 62 to 190% (Table 3). Even though there was prolonged standing water in the open water wetland, the herbs that are adapted to prolonged flooding that we observed in small quantities in 2010 are now quite abundant. Waterpepper and lady's thumb dominate locally. Like 2010, about half of the plant cover in the emergent wetland is represented by trees. Similarly, more than half the cover in the scrub -shrub wetland is represented by trees. Willow is aggressively colonizing that part of the mitigation area that is regularly flooded. Trees represent about a third of the cover in the forested wetland. As expected, trees represent most of the cover in the existing forest. Table 4 shows the vegetative results relative to the performance standards. To date Wig has met all but one of the vegetative standards. Only two dominants are present in the emergent wetland (three are required). The following paragraphs summarize our observations based on the data collected in 2011 by wetland class. Emergent Wetland Based on the 2011 hydrology data for the emergent wetland it would appear that wetland hydrology met the performance target in two of the four wells (Table 2). Two of the areas as represented by wells G-103 & G-7 were flooded through the end of June. The groundwater in the area represented by well G-106 was below the target elevation at the end of June and we did not observe surface soil saturation here at that time. As before well G-101 missed the target significantly. Here groundwater ranged from 0.7 to 1.9ft below the target elevation from early May through the end of June. The area represented by well G-101 is the only area that regularly has not met the hydrology performance standard. The emergent wetland in the northeast corner of the site is dominated by herbs and tree and shrub seedlings, including soft rush, creeping buttercup, black cottonwood, and Sitka willow. Other common plant species include large -leaved avens, tufted hairgrass, wool -grass, Watson willowherb, climbing nightshade, and speedwell (Attachment A — Photograph 1). The emergent wetland in the southwest corner of the site is dominated by Pacific willow, black cottonwood, spotted ladysthumb, and western yellowcress (Photograph 2). Sitka willow, soft rush, creeping buttercup, red -osier dogwood, tufted hairgrass, and climbing nightshade are common. Branches of willow trees have fallen C:/Jobs/Wig/O Year Mitigation Report.doc 5 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland (.„Ligation Monitoring ukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington into the emergent wetland from the adjacent willow forest at a number of spots. The black cottonwood and willow seedling that form a virtual carpet in areas of prolonged flooding suggest that these parts of the emergent wetland will eventually become forested wetland. There are a total of 22 different plant species in the emergent wetland. The native plant species cover 125% of the emergent wetland; far more than the 40% Year 4 cover standard (Table 4). The dominant plant species represent more than half of the total vegetative cover. Only 1 % of the cover is attributable to non-native invasive plant species (Table 3). Scrub -Shrub Wetland Two of the three wells in the scrub -shrub wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). Two of the areas were flooded through the end of June. From a regulatory perspective the areas represented by all three wells exhibited wetland hydrology because the soil was saturated to the surface for at least 30 consecutive days during the growing season. From the performance standard perspective the area in the vicinity of well G-105 missed the hydrology target. We counted a total of 17 plant species in the scrub -shrub wetland (Table 3). The total native plant cover (137%) far exceeds the 40% Year 4 cover standard (Table 4). The areas that are regularly flooded (G-8 & G-109) are dominated by black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and red -osier dogwood. Soft rush and spotted ladysthumb are common (Photographs 3 & 4). The non -flooded scrub -shrub wetland is dominated by Sitka willow, red -osier dogwood, and tufted hairgrass. Hooker willow, Pacific willow, and soft rush are common (Photograph 5). We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. Forested Wetland Both of the wells in the forested wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). They also met the regulatory hydrology requirement. The forested wetland is covered with a thick blanket of vegetation. We counted 12 different plant species (Table 3). The 182% cover of native plants far exceeds the 20% Year 4 cover standard (Table 4). Pacific willow, red -osier dogwood, tufted hairgrass, and Watson willowherb dominate. Red alder and climbing nightshade are common in the forested wetland (Photograph 6). We observed no non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. Open Water Wetland The hydrology performance standard for the open water wetland was achieved in 2011. This wetland class was flooded through the end of July with nearly 1.5ft of water (Table 2). The open water wetland is no longer sparsely vegetated. Waterpepper dominates locally (Table 3). Spotted ladysthumb is common. Although not rooted in the open water wetland willow branches overhang the channel in places (Photographs 7 & 8). We observed no non-native invasive plant species in the open water wetland. C:/Jobs/Wig/4"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 6 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland —Ligation Monitoring ukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Existing Forested Wetland Wetland hydrology for the existing forested wetland was present through the end of June (Table 2). Three of our original wells are located in existing forested areas dominated by Pacific willow trees ranging from 45 to 50ft tall. The total vegetative cover for the existing forested wetland is 120%, with trees representing 100%, shrubs 10%, and herbs 10% of the cover, respectively (Table 3). Pacific willow dominants and red- osier dogwood is common (Photographs 9 & 10). We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. CONCLUSIONS The wetland mitigation plan for the Tukwila Pond site currently appears to be on track. Hydrology With a few possible exceptions it appears that wetland hydrology in the created and enhanced wetlands is present. After four years of monitoring it appears that two areas — the areas represented by well G-101 and well G-105 — may not meet the hydrology performance standard. These areas have consistently been 'dry' since the wetland was created/enhanced. From a regulatory perspective both areas display wetland hydrology. That is, they are both saturated to the surface for at least 30 consecutive days during the growing season. Some areas not parts of the open water wetland are wetter than planned. These areas are subject to prolonged seasonal flooding and are represented by wells G-103 & G-7 (emergent wetland), G-8 & G-109 (scrub -shrub wetland), and G-113 (forested wetland). All of these areas are adjacent to the open water wetland and are in the process of being dominated by black cottonwood or Pacific willow. Vegetation Wig is on track to meet the vegetative performance standards. Many of the cover and height requirements have been met (Table 4). We observed very little non-native invasives on the site, including reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife. The small patches of reed canarygrass are thin and short. Purple loosestrife can be found in the southwest portion of the wetland. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. C:/Jobs/Wig/4"' Year Mitigation Report.doc 7 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland ....igation Monitoring , ukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Table 1 — Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2010 through June 2011 Table 2 — Fourth Year (2011) subsurface hydrologic characteristics on the mitigation site Table 3 — Fourth Year (2011) vegetation characteristics on the mitigation site Table 4 — Fourth Year (2011) performance standard assessment for the mitigation site Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Post -Construction Plan Attachment A — Representative Photographs cc: Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Patrick McGraner, Department of Ecology C:/Jobs/Wig/4ih Year Mitigation Report.doc 8 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC TABLES Fourth Annual Wetland . gation Monitoring . ,akwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 1 - Precipitation measured in inches at SeaTac during the 2010/2011 water year Month Measured Normal Departure Cumulative Departure October 5.24 3.19 2.05 2.05 November 5.05 5.9 -0.85 1.2 December 8.69 5.62 3.07 4.27 January 4.99 5.13 -0.14 4.13 February 3.05 4.18 -1.13 3 March 6.29 3.75 2.54 5.54 April 4.47 2.59 1.88 7.42 May 3.2 1.78 1.42 8.84 June 1.42 1.49 -0.07 8.77 Total 42.4 33.63 8.77 C:/JobsMig/4`h Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 2 - Fourth Year (2011) hydrologic characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitiaation site Groundwater Monitoring Well Habitat Type Ground Elev ft Target Elev ft Groundwater Elevation (ft)a 3131111 5/5/11 5/31/11 6130/11 811/11 G-2b Forested Wetland ex 18.7 NA (17.7)' 18.8' 18.7' 18.4 17.7 15.3 G-4b Forested Wetland ex 18.5 NA 17.5 c 18.8' 18.7' 18.39 17.8 15.6 G-11 b Forested Wetland ex 13.5 NA 12.5)c 18 8e' 18 7e' 18.4e' 18.0e' 16.4' G-7 Emergent Wetland 17.6 16.6c 18.8' 187' 18.3' 18.1' 16.9 G-101 Emergent Wetland 19.4 18.4c 18.09 17.7 17.3 16.5 14.5 G-103 Emergent Wetland 18.0 17.Oc 18.8' 17.6' 18.3' 18.1' 14.6 G-106 Emergent Wetland 19.2 18.2c 18.79 18.6 18.3 1 17.6 15.6 G-8 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.5 17.5c 18.8' 18.6' 18.3' 18.1' 16.1 G-105 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.9 17.9c 18.1 17.9 17.0 16.0 14.5 G-109 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 17.8 16.8c 18.8' 18.6' 18.3' 18.0' 15.3 G-113 Forested Wetland 18.0 17.Oc 18.8' 18.7' 18.4' 18.1' 15.0 G-115 Forested Wetland 18.9 17.9c 18.89 18.69 17.7 1 16.5 14.6 G-10 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.8' 18.7' 18.4' 18.1' 16.3' G-12 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.8e' 18.7e' 18.4e' 18.2' 16.5' G-14 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.9' 18.7' 18.4' 18.1' 16.4' S-1 Open Water Wetland 15.1 15.2d 18.8' 18.7' 18.4' 18.1' 16.4' S-2h Open Water Wetland 18.7 15.2d 18.8' 1 18.7' 18.4 18.0 15.4 a Emergent target through June; Scrub -Shrub target through May; Forested target through April; & Open Water target through May b control - for comparison only; c 1 ft below the ground elevation; d the design elevation e estimated elevation based on elevations from nearby monitoring wells ' flooded; 9 soil saturated to the surface; h located on the northern dike NA not applicable; shaded numbers indicate that the target elevation was not met and wetland hydrology was not present, C:/JobsNVig/4'h Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Fourth Year (2011) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitiaation site Open Water Wetlanda Emergent Wetland Scrub -Shrub Wetlanda Forested Wetland` Forested Wetland Ex)a Cover Freg re Cover I Freg Cover 7req Cover Fre Trees black cottonwood Populus balsamifera -- -- 14% 50% 9% 67% 3% 50% -- -- Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 2% 33% 44% 75% 28% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% red alder Alnus rubra -- -- T 25% T 33% 10% 50% -- -- Sitka willow Salix sitchensis -- -- 15% 75% 1 38% 100% 1-- -- -- -- Total Trees 2% 73% 75% 63% 100% Shrubs Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana -- -- -- -- 3% 33% 4% 50% -- -- red-osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera -- -- 1 % 25% 16% 100% 28% 100% 10% 67% Native Shrub Subtotal 0% -- 1 % -- 19% -- 32% -- 10% -- Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor -- -- 1 % 25% -- -- -- -- T 33% Non -Native Invasive Shrub Subtotal 0% 1 % -- 0% 0% T Total Shrubs 0% 2% Herbs 19% 32% 10% American water lantain Alisma plantago- a uatica T 33% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- bulrush Scir us acutus -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- climbing nightshade d Solanum dulcamara -- -- 5% 50% T 33% 8% 50% T 67% common cattail Typha latifolia I I --I T 1 25% 1 -- I -- I -- I -- -- -- creeping buftercu pd Ranunculus re ens -- -- 23% 50% 1 % 33% -- -- 4% 33% C:/JobsNVig/4"' Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Fourth Year (2011) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site curly dock Rumex crisjous Open Water Wetland Emergent Wetlandb Sdrub-Shrub Wetlanda Forested Wetland` orested Wetland. (Ex)a Cover -- Freg Cover T Freq 25% Cover -- Freq -- Cover Freg Cover -- Freq -- -- -- -- unidentified grasses T 33% -- -- -- -- T 50% 2% 33% large -leaved avens Geum macro h llum -- --1 3% 50% -- -- -- -- T 33% mint Mentha sp. T 50% -- -- prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- slough sedge Carex obnu to -- -- -- -- T 33% 2% 100% -- soft rush Juncus effusus -- -- 24% 75% 7% 67% 1 4% 100% 1 % 33% spatter -dock Nu har lutem -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T 33% speedwell Veronicas . -- -- 3% 25% -- spotted ladysthumb Polygonum ersicaria 15% 67% 1 5% 25% 2% 33% -- -- T 33% thick-headed sedge Carex ach stack a -- -- -- -- 1 % 33% -- -- -- -- tufted hairgrass Deschampsia ces itosa -- -- 5% 50% 32% 33% 38% 100% T 33% waterpepper Polygonum h dro i eroides 45% 100% Watson willowherb Epilobium watsonii -- -- 2% 50% T 33% 43% 50% 3% 33% western yellowcress Rorippa curvisili ua T 33% 5% 25% 1 % 33% -- -- -- -- wool-grass Scirpus cyperinus -- -- 4% 50% T 33% -- -- -- -- yellow iris Iris pseudacorus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Native Herbs Subtotal 60% -- 79% -- 44% -- 95% -- 10% -- C:/Jobs/Wig/4` Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington I able 3 - Fourth Year 2011 vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site purple le loosestrife L thrum salicaria Open Wafer Wetlanda Emergent : Wetland Scrub -Shrub ` Wetlanda Forested Wetland` Forested W-etiand(Ex)a,, Cover -- Freg Cover 1 % Freq 50% Cover Freq_ Cover Freg Cover Freq- -- reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea -- -- T 25% T 33% -- -- T 33% Non -Native Invasive Herbs Subtotal 0% -- 1 % -- T -- 0% -- T -- Total Herbs 60% 80% 44% 95% 10% Total Cover 62% 155% 138% 190% 120% a 3 plots; b 4 plots; c 2 plots; d non-native; T trace C:/Jobs/Wig/4`h Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC Fourth Annual Wetland N,,..gation Monitoring .,wila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 4 - Fourth Year (2011) performance standard assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Performance Standard Dominant Plant Species Plant Association Emergent Scrub -Shrub Forested Cover of native dominants' Pacific willow 44% 28% 50% red -osier dogwood 1 % 16% 28% soft rush 24% 7% 4% tufted hairgrass 5% 32% 38% Total native plant cover° 125% 137% 182% Non-native invasive cover° 1 % 0% 0% Average plant hei htd 5.1 ft 14ft 9.5ft Year 10 standard - 20% cover for 3 species (Emergent) & 20% cover for 2 species (Scrub - shrub & Forested) b Year 4 standard - Emergent 40%, Scrub -shrub 40%, Forested 20% c Standard <20% d 1-4 ft (EM) Year 3 Standard, 4-8 ft (SS) Year 5 Standard, & 8-20 ft (FO) Year 7 Standard i shaded species are dominants C:/JobsM/ig/4`n Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC FIGURES jr rt s t• >- t N 44`71 ` S7 tt':�. t Mi%t. I P, �• Ail rl 3 47.t IN k 1S, e�. r . eE J aicl•4, �>. rite, �"ti) i . < P (:)IN 5TA. r� ... 'r...•«' isi Ills ;; t 1 �)� , TZ••R hA +' Ra� Tukwila Pond Site BLVD lr'A� 1 i lr, ryt � Penn Site, fs r tl.�-:{P.A7i s } tir X f J It tJ �• r BSI L DPLAr h d 11ArVy S7 • ? LAU 1787H c 'a7�Ata c - Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126`h Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 LEGEND Wetland Class Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) 58,866 1.35 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 22,868 0.52 Emergent (EM) 37,778 0.87 Open Water (OW) 32,849 0.75 152,361 3.50 — — — — — — — — — — MITIGATION BOUNDARY LWD ®G-1 NUMBER & LOCATION OF MONITORING WELLS Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN 0 40 80 Seale In Feet MONITOR WELL G-101 i EXISTING INKINIMA U) LL.I FIGURE 2 POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN (REVISED) Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC—SS 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 DWG NAME: DATE: ATTACHMENT A Representative Photographs Fourth Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila, Washington Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Photograph 1. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-101 looking southwest. Photograph 2. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-7 looking east. C:/Jobs/Wig/4th Year Mitigation Report .doc 09/08/11 Chad Armour, LLC `r ,r o "' ` � � �l • „�►. � `� 11.E • -' � +��` •� .?•_. '('< y7 _ t .. _'mil tr lh 110 ,If r am.•. �, ' 1. i �* �r a t.> . tZ •j �.r� +ice a ., t• 11 � r •� y IF y y r. ., r et ,• x( t 1,� r w, , r :1 1 _' � -- ` �� ,� ,y, � - ,::•« act Y-. I � � • . � ^ ! i �r«,—t. ,� � .: � ,ytir' ; � y aF r { t . . �t. Y.; •- `� ",ram` ' , ��i...� n w _ � ` �.. ' ' • A y I �y, r - A w1• ••F.r y .es :,,SOW ..� VXIII � r r •'1�l. � 1 � � �; � ,t� � '�• � tit i - t{ ` C HAD ARMOUR, LLC 65001261h Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941 (425) 641-9743 Office (425) 643-34 99 Fax chad@chadarmour.com August 13, 2010 Job No. 08-002 Ms. Anjali Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 — 134'h Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Third Year Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area (Fed Ref No. 200601027; St Ref No. 3815) Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Wig: We are pleased to present the results of our wetland mitigation monitoring report the third year after installing plants on the above -referenced property. This is the third of several monitoring reports to assess the condition of the mitigation area relative to the performance standards. The purpose of the work is to satisfy federal, state, and local wetland permit requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents the results of the third year of monitoring and recommendations for additional work; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that explains the purpose for the mitigation and how the mitigation area came to be; MONITORING METHODS that describes how we collected the data, and presents the goals and performance standards of the mitigation plan; MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS that presents the results of our current hydrological and vegetative observations; CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of wetland mitigation to date relative to the performance standards; and LIMITATIONS of this project. Tables, figures, and representative photographs follow the text of the report. Table 1 shows the precipitation that fell on the region in the 2009/2010 water year. Table 2 presents the hydrological data for the mitigation area. Table 3 presents the vegetative data for the various wetland classes. And finally Table 4 summarizes the current vegetative data relative to the performance standards. Figure 1 is a vicinity map that shows the location of the mitigation area. Figure 2 shows the location of the vegetation classes, monitoring wells, and other pertinent features, as well as the size of the wetland classes and the plants that were installed on the mitigation area. Representative photographs follow the figures. C:/JobsNVig/3' Year Mitigation Report.doc 1 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Wig Properties, LLC-SS (Wig) converted the area east of the Tukwila Pond from a wetland and upland plant community dominated by reed canarygrass to a wetland plant community containing four wetland classes — open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. During the grading operation Wig was able to retain a significant portion of the mature trees and shrubs present in and adjacent to the mitigation area (site). Soon after the site was graded Wig installed several thousand native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Wig also applied the seed of several different grasses and herbs to the site. Chad Armour, LLC (Armour) collected groundwater data from several shallow groundwater monitoring wells several times in the spring and summer and collected 7 vegetative data in the summer of 2010. 0 The results of the third year of monitoring indicate that the site -s-�the roce fcomplying with_the performance standards. It appears that etIaooV is p _spnt thoughou _most. f-the-site. The monitoring well measuremen at are out of __----complianc ar to be related to excess ground elevation. Most)of the vegetative performance standards are in compliance at this time. Curren y the dominant plant species include Pacific willow, Sitka willow, red -osier dogwood, and tufted hairgrass. We observeddessAhanA%oxov.er of=non-nativin e vasive-plant-species. ��\� Recommendations We recommend that Wig continue to aggressively treat non-native invasive plant (species, particularly reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife. The reed canarygrass and L q� purple loosestrife should be removed from the ground, roots and all and disposed off of 1 the site. However; the reed canarygrass is prevalent enough that the clumps can be �) sprayed with an approved herbicide. ' Install up to 25 Oregon ash trees in the forested wetland near where red alder and/or black cottonwood trees have died installing `large' trees is not beneficial. Rather the new trees should be of t e -gallon variety. Fit the existing `large' trees and the 25 trees to be installed with tree trunk protectors. The tree trunk protectors will make it difficult for rodents to access the bark of these ,s`� 10 ''trees. It will be necessary to remove the grass before the protectors are installed. Remove the wooden stakes that were installed to support the 'large' trees. These trees no longer need the support. ill Remove any remaining irrigation pipe on the site. V) Y, BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wig constructed a wetland and enhanced degraded wetland in 2007 to compensate for filling slightly less than 1.16 acres (ac) of wetland on their Tukwila Southcenter shopping center. The 3.48ac site is a part of a larger 24-ac Tukwila Pond property that includes the pond and what was once a field of reed canarygrass, both with fringes of willow and/or black cottonwood trees. The site is located west of Andover Parkway West about 600 feet (ft) south of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Parkway West in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1 — Tukwila Pond Site). C:/JobsNVig/3rd Year Mitigation Report.doc 2 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC cam', ee Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila. Washinaton Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Upland was transformed to wetland and degraded wetland was improved by replacing non-native invasives with a native plant assemblage. First Wig mowed the reed canarygrass then removed its rhizome mat before hauling it from the site. Then they removed some soil from the site, bringing the surface closer to the seasonal water table. To boost post -grading soil productivity, Wig mixed 3 inches (in) of Steergrow, a top soil substitute, into the upper layer of soil. They then installed several snags and added several pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to the finished surface prior to installing the plants. AJ At the time the mitigation area was graded, Wig made every effort to avoid cutting down existing mature trees and shrubs. The net result is more forested wetland and less �o' emergent wetland that planned. The City of Tukwila (City) was concerned that the �� /'"'�'c Steergrow (50% steer manure and 50% sawdust) would negatively impac eraS�`',� quality of the Tukwila Pond. For this reason the City asked Wig to bridg the open water channel to prevent the water in the channel from mixing with the water in the pond. The sand dike at the south end of the channel has been breaphed and water from the pond has been comingling with water in the channel for the lapt two rainy seasons. Wig alsoS- added a berm adjacent to the northwest edge of the mitiga1ion area. Following grading, Wig installed several thousand trees and shrubs. Wig also installed several thousand sedge, rush, and spike-rush plugs as well as a mixture of emergent plant seeds to the bare soil. The plan was to install plugs and seeds differentially among wetland classes. During installation the plugs and seeds were installed across the entire wetland mitigation area. Prior to construction Armour installed 17 shallow groundwater monitoring wells (wells) made from plastic PVC pipe across the site to model the groundwater elevation (Figure 2). Ten of these wells survived site grading. The seven new wells replace those lost during site grading. Together they completely cover the site. The wells serve as the centers of 13 circular 1/100 acre vegetation assessment plots. After the first years monitoring we noticed that some wells yielded plots that straddled vegetative classes (i.e., emergent and forested). In other areas large branches of willows fell into plots, causing an emergent class to look like a forested class. For these reasons we moved five of the vegetative plots about 20 to 75ft from the similarly numbered well. Ni\(0) For the past two years Wig has maintained the site by removing non-native noxious U weeds. Weeds removed and/or treated include Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and purple loose -strife. G� ,In�00$Wig-inStalle_d_`a_tiout-80 additionat-wi low-liyp stakes on- the=siteyto,.replace those �#taathad=died ___._. _�_ i MONITORING METHODS Armour used an electronic water level indicator to detect ground and/or surface water in each of the 17 wells five times (March, April, May, June, and August). These measurements allow us to calculate the elevation of the groundwater or surface water. Groundwater elevation can be used as a surrogate to infer surface soil saturation. In this instance we assume that wetland hydrology is present if groundwater is within 1ft of C:/Jobs/VVig/3`d Year Mitigation Report.doc 3 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton the surface or the surface soil is saturated. We record the data in the field and transfer it to a spreadsheet that calculated the ground and/or surface water elevation. In each vegetative plot we note the health, estimated the cover of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and undesirable plants by species, and estimated the height of the vegetation. We designed the performance standards to evaluate short-, mid-, and long-term vegetation targets. Armour assessed the vegetation on August 11, 2010; recording the data in the field and transferring the data to an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. Goal The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88ac and enhance 2.6ac of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. Performance Standards Hydrology Performance Standards The design performance standards used to assess wetland hydrology include: • Open water wetland — water from 0 to more than 7ft deep November through May; • Emergent wetland — saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7ft elevation November through June (the hydrology performance standard for the existing degraded wetland [now folded into the emergent wetland] ranged from 17.7 to 20.0ft); • Scrub -shrub wetland — saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2ft elevation November through May; and • Forested wetland — saturated soil between 18.2 and 19.2ft elevation November through April. Vegetation Performance Standards The vegetation performance standards include: • Emergent wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native emergent plant cover and ranging from 1 to 4 ft tall at the end of the 1-year monitoring effort; • Scrub -shrub wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native shrub plant cover and ranging from 4 to 8 ft tall at the end of the 1-year monitoring effort; • Forested wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native tree plant cover and ranging from 8 to 20ft tall at the end of the 1-year monitoring effort; • The total native plant cover for each wetland class in Year 3 will be at least: • Emergent — 30%, • Scrub -Shrub — 30%, C:/JobsNVig/3`d Year Mitigation Report.doc 4 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington • Forested - 15%, and • No more than 20% of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS The 2009/2010 water year was wetter than normal. Excess precipitation for the 6 'wet' months ranged from 21 % to 73% of normal. The two `dry' months - November and February - were 51 % and 16% drier than normal. A normal amount of precipitation fell in March (Table 1). Much of the wetland was flooded for a significant period. The open water channel was flooded a month longer than it was in 2009. Water was somewhat more than a foot deep in mid -August (Table 2). Parts of the emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland classes were flooded though the end of June. Other areas were flooded though May. Wetland hydrology was consistently present through the target date for the existing forested and open water wetlands. Depending on the elevation of the ground, wetland hydrology was either present or absent through the target date in parts of the scrub - shrub and emergent wetlands. The total cover of installed, volunteer and non-native plant species ranged from 3 to 197% (Table 3). As expected plant cover in the open water wetland was negligible, although in some areas., rasse_ and herbs adapted to prolonged flooding in shallow water are colonizing the channel. About half of the plant cover in the emergent wetland is represented by tree seedlings Similarly, nearly half the cover in the scrub -shrub wetland is represented by tree seedlings. Willow is aggressively colonizing that part of the mitigation area that is regularly flooded. Trees represent nearly half of the cover in the forested wetland. As expected, trees represent most of the cover in the existing forest. Table 4_shews-tfie-vegetative-r-esultslel . tame -to the performance standards. To date Wig h s met all but two of the vegetative standards.JOnly one dominant is present in the emergent gen wetland- ree are require and the average height of the vegetation on the forested wetland is less than the 20ft requirement. The following paragraphs summarize our observations based on the data collected in 2010 by wetland class. Emergent Wetland Based on the 2010 hydrology data for the emergent wetland it would appear that wetland hydrology met the performance target in three of the four wells (Table 2). Two of the areas as represented by wells G-103 & G-7 were flooded through the end of June. The groundwater in the area represented by well G-106 was below or at the target elevation through the end of June; however, we never observe surface soil saturation at this location.,,.-p/sll G-101 missed the target significantly. Here groundwater ranged from 1.1 to 1.5ft below the target elevation from the end of March through the end of June. The area represented by well G-101 does not meet the regulatory wetland hydrology requirement of being inundated or saturated to the surface for more than 30 consecutive days. The emergent wetland in the northeast corner of the site is.dominatedwJ�e bs and tree seedlings, including tufted hairgrass, creefsing uttercup, and black cottonwood.' Other C:/JobsNVig/3`d Year Mitigation Report.doc '— - 5 _/` 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington common plant species include bulrush, soft rush, and Pacific willow (Attachment A - Photograph 1). The emergent wetland in the southwest corner of the site is dominated by creeping buttercup, black cottonwood, and Pacific willow. Soft rush and western yellowcress are common (Photograph 2). Branches of willow trees have fallen into the emergent wetland from the adjacent willow forest at a number of spots. The black cottonwood and willow seedling that form a virtual carpet in areas of prolonged flooding suggest that these parts of the emergent wetland will eventually become forested wetland. There are a total of 25 different plant species in the emergent wetland. The native plant species cover 96% of the emergent wetland; far more than the 30% Year 3 cover standard (Table 4). The dominant plant species - black cottonwood and Pacific willow seedlings - represent more than half of the total vegetative cover. Less than 1 % of the cover is attributable to non-native invasive plant species (Table 3). Scrub -Shrub Wetland Two of the three wells in the scrub -shrub wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). One area was flooded through the end of June; the other area was flooded through the beginning of June. From a regulatory perspective the areas represented by all three wells exhibited wetland hydrology because the soil was saturated to the surface for at least 30 consecutive days during the growing season. From the performance standard perspective the area in the vicinity of well G-105 missed the hydrology target. We counted a total of 17 plant species in the scrub -shrub wetland (Table 3). The total native plant cover (110%) far exceeds the 30% Year 3 cover standard (Table 4). The areas that are regularly flooded (G-8 & G-109) are dominated by Sitka willow saplings, Pacific willow seedlings, and soft rush. Black cottonwood saplings and spotted ladysthumb are common (Photographs 3 & 4). The non -flooded shrub -shrub wetland is dominated by red -osier dogwood and tufted hairgrass. Hooker willow saplings are common (Photograph 5). We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. Forested Wetland Both of the wells in the forested wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). They also met the regulatory hydrology requirement. The forested wetland is covered with a thick blanket of vegetation (Photograph 6). We counted 14 different plant species (Table 3). The 102% cover of native plants far exceeds the 15% Year 3 cover standard (Table 4). Pacific willow, red -osier dogwood, American sloughgrass, tufted hairgrass, and creeping buttercup dominate. Climbing nightshade is common in the forested wetland. We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. In late April we observe that several of the installed trees appear to be dying. On closer inspection we saw that s-p�verat-bl ck:cottonwood and red aldertrees re -rooted -in stand m_g water r n_ g,fihe early_=grow� ing�season. _ Both of these tree species are adapted m to esic (i.e., moderate) water regimes, but no�ydric (i.e., flooded are prolonged surface soil saturation) water regimes. III ugust we:.counted 11- ea Yred.�alder-trees-7 ,aTrd-9-bl-a-ck-Gotonwo—o-d-tr-e-e-s-I It is entirely possible that additional red alder trees will expire in the next year or so due to prolonged flooding during the early growing season. C:/JobsWg/3fd Year Mitigation Report.doc 6 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Although the outer bark of the Oregon ash trees has been gnawed by small rodents, none of these threes are dead. They are adapted to wetter soil conditions than are the alder and cottonwood. Open Water Wetland The hydrology performance standard for the open water wetland was achieved in 2010. This wetland class was flooded through the middle of August with nearly 1.5ft of water (Table 2). Near the end of the second growing season the open water wetland continues to be sparsely vegetated. The presence of standing water limits the vegetation in this wetland class. We observed 2 different plant species that cover 3% of the area (Table 3). Although not rooted in the open water wetland willow branches overhang the channel in places (Photograph 7). In other places aquatic vegetation is beginning to colonize the more protected areas (Photograph 8). mot . -in- p aeoies� tfe^o_ e: xwate�::wetfa;nd* Existing Forested Wetland Wetland hydrology for the existing forested wetland was present through the end of June (Table 2). Three of our original wells are located in existing forested areas dominated by Pacific willow trees ranging from 45 to 50ft tall. The total vegetative cover for the existing forested wetland is 197%, with trees representing 130%, shrubs 3%, and herbs 33% of the cover, respectively (Table 3). In addition to Pacific willow, dominant plant species include Sitka willow, creeping buttercup, and Watson willow -herb. Grasses are common volunteers. We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. CONCLUSIONS The wetland mitigation plan for the Tukwila Pond site currently appears to be on track. Hydrology With a few possible exceptions it appears that wetland hydrology in the created and enhanced wetlands is present. After three years of monitoring it appears that one area - the area represented by elw1may not meet the hydrology performance standard. This area has consistently been `dry' since the wetland was created/enhanced. A hydrological snapshot of this area in early April 2005 and mid -April 2006 prior to creation/enhancement indicates that this`ar- avfu_nctioned-as-upla ff_d.prio-r_to trading. At that time depth to groundwater ranged from 2.3 to 4.1 ft below the ground surface. Other areas not a part of the open water wetland is wetter than planned. These areas are subject to prolonged seasonal flooding and are represented by wells G-103 & G-7 (emergent wetland), G-8 & G-109 (scrub -shrub wetland), and G-113 (forested wetland). All of these areas are adjacent to the open water wetland and are in the process of being dominated by Pacific willow. C:/JobsNVig/3rd Year Mitigation Report.doc 7 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Vegetation Wig is on track to meet the vegetative performance standards. Many of the cover and height requirements have been met -(_Table •4) _Although the data does not show it,�e w. ---�1 ti. observe considerably more non=native-invasives-on`thesite, particularly�reedf �anarygrass and,p ru ple�loo es stnfe`�PWhat were once small clumps are now mall pa ches of r ee d canarygrass. Purple'�loosestnfe�-!'as spreadbeyoYid"fhe�weste deer geYof Lthe3P-acific�willowforest� It is now also�p,�eser���"ia ohe"tlge�of•.the3open-water�we�tla�d do,tthe north.easternisector�f�the wetland.. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Table 1 — Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2009 through June 2010 Table 2 — Third Year (2010) subsurface hydrologic characteristics on the mitigation site Table 3 — Third Year (2010) vegetation characteristics on the mitigation site Table 4 — Third Year (2010) performance standard assessment for the mitigation site Figure 1 — Vicinity Map ` Figure 2 — Post -Construction Plan Attachment A — Representative Photographs cc: Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Amy Klein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Patrick McGraner, Department of Ecology C:/JobsNVig/3`° Year Mitigation Report.doc 8 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC .� 4ty 5t 5 " 'c,r ' h asfE > , !44' f ST pY 7 ... `x ,f Tird-T Yfsir''' -i�d4{ J} ,,. l $"'!/t ¢ •S'/y k�.�. - FCR'r J'yt` n El.. ST 1 5 lk R arfF 4 1r t ,t`� Si1..t 'f$ i-� E S Y i E ,t}°'m$.' i w 5T S tri 4'F rG itJ t( 4F b 5' F}'JaR,� % yter: tY .b 5 Y` d -'-"'. e e�F,:ti.", ... a eY b"lti' s.T 04 4tL:t.h W kay ST 8 .2( S•'",. •Z C i f�� f � �( N �& Itltt BAK" asa iiA,f ;vF� Tukwila Pond Site �.._ ... NT Y_ � ._x ...... _ S wTH ,r w !`Tarrir�a.r e.1 Ottt 1 i'B"r�;Pe tiF.rYAItt i4#i�„ SF `i,Yfl Lit i£+�it4 'Y Sid C, i I� ! ' Penn Site _� 3�4��ifi Ct✓. x4t.,� : �'p �sa7 F I !6'$ nth., .�•:• ''{{'2+G4 "i' t .. Y, 17— s `P FtA x ��1 � � � l i$TH, +: j� ST � ' � � REM 4 . 116& b 3 � F /'*'—roc, ��f+.: �S..t, • �-f Z%'. ��'., '�. k i i vt�:.Yr . F � A Al Ana 5Tt' L. jp , t Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 1260' Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 TABLES Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 1 - Precipitation measure at SeaTac from October 2008 throuah June 2009 a Month October Measured 5.54 Normal 3.19 De arture_ 2.35 Cumulative De arture 2.35 November 8.96 5.9 3.06 5.41 December 2.75 5.62 -2.87 2.54 January 6.17 5.13 1.04 3.58 February 3.52 4.18 -0.66 2.92 March 3.76 3.75 0.01 2.93 April 3.49 2.59 0.90 3.83 M a 2.83 1.78 1.05 4.88 June 2.49 1.49 1.00 5.88 C:/JobsNVig/3rd Year Mitigation Report.doc 08/12/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 2 - Third Year (2010) hvdrolooic characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitiaation site Groundwater Morut4riri ;Weil_ _,= Habitat T 4e ... >. GNV Eound , . Elena. ft ,. :� 'Target , W „Elev ft Groundwater Elevation ft : ;3/31/1Q 4l27l10 6!1/10 6/30/1Q y. 8/11/2130 G-2b Forested Wetland ex 18.7 NA 17.7 ° 18.88' 18.75' 18.559 18.449 16.6 G-4b Forested Wetland ex 18.5 NA 17.5 ° 18.83' 18.68' 18.519 18.429 17.2 G-11 b Forested Wetland ex 13.5 NA 12.5 ° 18.82e' 18.71 of 18.54e' 18.5e' 16.48e' G-7 Emergent Wetland 17.6 16.6° 18.79' 18.76' 18.52' 18.42' 17.389 G-101 Emergent Wetland 19.4 18.4° 17 3 R 17,Q `' 172 7°16 9 14.3 G-103 Emergent Wetland 18.0 17.0° 18.51' 18.69' 18.49' 18.41' 14.4 G-106 Emergent Wetland 19.2 18.2° 18.7 18.7 18.4 18.2 16.3 G-8 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.5 17.5° 18.82' 18.68' 18.52' 18.4 16.4 G-105 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 18.9 17.9° 17.929 ;1;7.2 16:6 n 16.5 14.4 G-109 Scrub -Shrub Wetland 17.8 16.8° 18.77' 18.67' 18.49' 18.39' 15.7 G-113 Forested Wetland 18.0 17.0° 18.84' 18.73' 18.54' 18.47' 14.8 G-115 Forested Wetland 18.9 17.9° 18.799 18.729 18.59 17.4 15.0 G-10 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.8' 18.74' 18.56' 18.49' 16.49' G-12 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.83e' 18.71 e' 18.54e' 18.5 el 17.13' G-14 Open Water Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.92' 18.75' 18.55' 18.5' 16.52' S-1 Open Water Wetland 15.2d 18.87' 18.74' 18.56' 18.47 16.48' 2hO en Water Wetland.7 E15.1 15.2d 18.84' 18.73' 18.5 18.459 15.7 Emergent target through June; Scrub -Shrub target through May; Forested target through April; & Open Water target through May control - for comparison only; ° 1 ft below the ground elevation d the design elevation e estimated elevation based on elevations from nearby monitoring wells ' flooded 9 soil saturated to the surface h located on the northern dike m -.t shaded numbets mdicafe fhatthe target eteuat�on-Was_not met and wetland hydrology_ s not_oresent . '�_. _. .....__ .. .: .__ _._......_. _. C:/JobsWg/3`° Year Mitigation Report .doc Chad Armour, LLC 08/12/10 Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila, Washington Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site I able :3 - I herd Year (1u1 u) veaetatlon characteristics on the I UKwiia Fiona mltlaation site Open Water Emergent Wetland" Scrub Shrub WstlarfcV Forested Wetland Forested NVetland Ex a, � .Wetlands J ,'; Cavern Fre k Dover Fre Cover l're ' Cover Fre .. Cover -re Trees Populus black cottonwood balsamifera -- -- 18% 50% 6% 100% -- -- -- -- Pacific willow Salix lasiandra -- -- 37% 75% 16% 100% 52% 100% 90% 100% red alder Alnus rubra -- -- -- -- -- -- 8% 50% -- -- Sitka willow Salix sitchensis -- -- 4% 50% 28% 67% 1 -- -- 40% 67% TotahTrees. �.= %__.._ _ Shrubs Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana -- -- -- -- 5% 33% 3% 50% -- -- Sambucus red elderberry racemosa -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- Comus red -osier dogwood stolonifera -- -- T 50% 10% 100% 20% 100% 3% 67% Rubus thimbleberry parvitlorus -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- Native Shrub Subtotal 0% -- T -- 10% -- 23% -- 3% -- Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor -- -- T 50% -- -- -- -- T 33% Non -Native Invasive Shrub Subtotal 0% T -- 0% 0% % ,.. , "ital W Herbs American Beckmannia slou h rass s zi achne -- -- T 25% -- -- 10% 50% -- -- American Alisma plantago- waterplantain aquatics T 33% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C:/JobsNVig/3fa Year Mitigation Report .doc 08/12/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Third Year (2010) veaetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond mitigation site bulrush Scitpus acutus -- -- 4% 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- climbing nightshade d Solanum dulcamara -- -- 3% 50% -- -- 8% 50% T 67% commonspike-rush Eleocharis palustris -- -- -- -- T 33% -- -- -- -- common cattail Typha latifolia -- -- T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- creeping buttercu d Ranunculus re ens -- -- 11 % 50% T 33% -- -- 27% 67% unidentified grasses -- -- -- -- T 1 33% 10% 50% 1 5% 33% large -leaved avens Geum macro h llum -- -- 2% 50% -- -- T 50% -- -- mint Mentha s . -- -- -- -- T 33% -- -- -- -- prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare 3% 33% 1 % 25% -- -- slough sedge Carex obnu to -- -- T 25% -- -- T 100% -- soft rush Juncus effusus -- -- 6% 75% 7% 33% 4% 100% 2% 33% spatter -dock Nu har lutem -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10% 33% spotted lad sthumb Polygonum persicaria -- -- 1 % 25% 3% 33% -- thick-headed sedge Carex pachystachya -- -- T 25% 2% 33% T 50% -- -- three -square bulrush Scirpus americana -- T T 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- tufted hairgrass Deschampsia ces itosa -- -- 16% 75% 33% 33% 10% 100% -- -- Watson willowherb Epilobium watsonii -- -- 2% 50% T 33% 3% 50% 20% 67% western yellowcress Rorippa curvisili ua -- -- 3% 25% 2% 67% -- -- -- -- white clover Trifolium re ens -- -- -- -- T 33% 1 -- I -- -- -- C:/JobsNVig/3rd Year Mitigation Report.doc 08/12/10 Chad Armour, LLC Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila, Washington Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Table 3 - Third Year (2010) vegetation characteristics on the Tukwila Pond a Scirpus wool- rass cyperinus -- -- 2% 25% ow iris_ Gis. seu _acorns---------- ---- ~- ---=-- }r Native Herbs Subtotal 3% -- 51% -- f purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria -- -- T 25% Phalaris reed canarygrass arundinacea -- -- T 25% Non -Native Invasive Herbs Subtotal 0% -- T -- ation site —LT 330% =1 -- -- -- -- 47% -- 45% -- 64% -- -- -- -- -- T 33% T 33% T 50% T 33% T-- T -- T -- �� Total Cover 1 3% 1 1 106% 113% 128% 197% a 3 plots; b 4 plots; c 2 plots; d non-native; T trace C:/JobsNVig/3` Year Mitigation Report.doc Chad Armour, LLC 08/12/10 Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 4 - Third Year (2010) performance standatd assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitiaation site IF Cover of native 'a a 7 dominantsa Pacific willow 7% 16% Sitka willow-- red -osier dogwood T 10% �e-.3 tufted hairgrass 16% 3°la .. 10% Total native plant cover 96% 110% 102% Non-native invasive ;n cover ° T T T �t'U Aa Average plant . t?o 3.6ft7 6.1ft 4.6ft a Year 10 standard - 20% cover for 3 species (Emergent) & 20% cover for 2 species (Scrub -shrub & Forested) b Year 3 Emergent 30%, Scrub 30%, Forested 15% standard - -shrub Jp� Standard <20% <� Q� r d 1 4 ft (EM) Year 3 Standard 4 8 ft(SS) Year 5 Standard, & 8 20 ft( Year 7 Standard `� C Fshaded spe17 cies are d giants; -_.. C:/JobsNVig/3" Year Mitigation Report.doc 08/12/10 Chad Armour, LLC FIGURES ATTACHMENT A Representative Photographs Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 1. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-101 looking southeast. Photograph 2. View of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-7 looking east. C:/JobsNVig/3rd Year Mitigation Report.doc 08/13/10 Chad Armour, LLC wl, .. - �' V. ~ p. •,� r 4 `' + '"r`��1� to � � '•'n � / * . � � •tom +� �s '� 'it. :� t• � �frti `y`,vj s•,.,.. ✓ .�`; �; ,«'r;�t�. F`^ i � r` ; fix" � �-�,.y t ,� f •1 .� ,J' Ir.. . 7 r • � , ,•1b • �, S'.t'�" t-IK. ,�: ' !•*.. 'r r . F,ie.,tp., 'rw � .w�'"� 3 ,s .��� v •t r - +' \ � r - S • r y'. f► •w� �.h sue/ � �:i r) r rid' '. � ..M�+•' '. ti �.fi _ + •� ,Or �.•..?tp y. n!+'i is � �.l��+x'.:J �. • ch`r�. .;• ,il 7!�46'.�r Y r. i•f: ice. " ivia 1.� ^yam, d�t�m 0• • sX-0 is � ; �" 4 ,fn YSW T s4 'R�1 f� { i 't "yam. .�''ls�"��?L`""vC1Y•i.."FF� Y F`. i , . i far fiT J.-.. � as,...>.1]t ♦�A°„ti JYl.:f. .4 { ♦i♦�� J iy-. a ��L,a '§)•'si7W1��t�^�+5a�,,�.a �Y �',�K-. A'*�sa..� a th T Third Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 7. View of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-10 looking west. Photograph 8. View of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-12 looking southwest. C:/JobsWg/3rd Year Mitigation Report .doc 08/13/10 Chad Armour. LLC t�y�;,% 1'.J�i�f' •�o,�{ tait�k�,tt� 7 :_�,��� �r i� "�_ � ey�46.tY � �,,,'�,� 4 !�#'�wq.� Inc, NAM MATlem �1 to 0 v zoo, t j.t ,«:' �z.'•'�/..,�7. ';a, ix v: Yg �jyfa.r a d r F a ';$i �s.r� >F. �� k 4✓," aV �. IN ,�a a 1 '' ill ,k. *' Ie`i �A �.. 41 tT4'�"7� � a3r!.k . to FARE N d+' � ��.'� .u-v c .,`cr' y� idyl 4_ f �' t�"� J ",:M'>tt � cif yd i ° �aqr nt is taxes .�is '8 y,)'� t �te• ,R�` Y..% t.l � �° '',�54 " ti��x d w 7-f ' •' • '�i' 7` r 3 fi � •T�FI �`>?' �'S�.y�L�►f � f ��at.+�i'�����, `t{ a+'e• r'&+.o `4 C t', �/ta^ ^'�.FP Sri„ 'r'. a" WIN ' �{ ✓ ''-.�t�x� +.''• ,� �f,y A 4 r A • i �¢ J;1�'a ', *�r. `ll• �iy �+,y� _ - '" Y;�,Y '.�. �4t� • � '� _ .s. �, 4'R_ : Y s v 1f ,yes 2T .:. •Z '� .t' }.% i � y �. J C C 'cif 4 �t � "�vr,� �. ���, M�..1.Y.o�`t � � -�<"' ,�•+� �� � s .. a r,. w• C�w ��: j?�• c ar@�fTj� ,y iY � l k li'Y i ,'�+.�Y,,A ''hY"�" ;i '!-. �,'� qL ,y'i� T-�` - 'L� � ���t{,s ' �„ l Tt� d1 P VFW k �y� �� �-"'$ram �.. �'`'�`si �.'•�'�,' �a,'ti e � yz t G n.n' +^' .r'�"' �,.�d, s .r'.a• �v+ �r"k"k` ..3✓,.. � J ' �y y�,.p/.' �, � '°'" v.Srr .� �� .. � q a ]ss.F ✓� i'! � .�'R � .T'. : `�� .. ,-�.�geaf' �{ -:J f�9 y °0')R� r `T. ��!���'�'#�'�"� �.�yy.,i� r'r„ e^.3' •-% .+" „,,� �i',.� ,'T +1. �''w"wrfeT'`g4—:t•d.s ; Y +�� ..�/ i I+IpYi_ r_f '3" .... 7 , � J s.i B }-:_6` � �y� �# �Y'- � �y�J�.,,� � �4 '^•A dL. 'e • •'+^q R I + r % � � F �)�4Zt'i�•... i,f=� .�li�..tf�.'- p�...y, .t �k � .. �„+t� .fit+....=- s .�94. :�._ ,.... .F�-rt"�. ":inn ✓s_ CHAD ARM& R LLC 6500 126th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941 (425) 641-9743 Office (425) 643-34 99 Fax chad@chadarmoet�grnIVE November 2, 2009 Job No. 08-002 NOV 0 3 2009 COMMUNITY Ms. Maria Luna gEVELOPMENT Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 —134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Second Year Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area (Fed Ref No. 200601027; St Ref No. 3815) Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Luna: We are pleased to present the results of our wetland mitigation monitoring report the second year after installing plants on the above -referenced property. This is the second of several monitoring reports to assess the condition of the mitigation area relative to the performance standards. The purpose of the work is to satisfy federal, state, and local wetland permit requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents the results of the second year of monitoring and recommendations for additional work; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that explains the purpose for the mitigation and how the mitigation area came to be; MONITORING METHODS that describes how we collected the data, and presents the goals and performance standards of the mitigation plan; MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS that presents the results of our current hydrological and vegetative observations; CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of wetland mitigation to date relative to the performance standards; and LIMITATIONS of this project. Tables, figures, and representative site photographs follow the text of the report. Table 1 shows the precipitation that fell on the region in the 2008/2009 water year. Table 2 presents the near -surface groundwater monitoring data for the mitigation area. Table 3 presents the vegetative data for the various wetland classes. And finally Table 4 summarizes the current vegetative data relative to the performance standards. Figure 1 is a vicinity map that shows the location of the mitigation area. Figure 2 shows the location of the vegetation classes, monitoring wells, and other pertinent features, as well as the size of the wetland classes and the plants that were installed on the mitigation area. Representative photographs follow the figures. C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 1 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland jation Monitoring (revised) iila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Wig Properties, LLC-SS (Wig) converted the area east of the Tukwila Pond from a wetland and upland plant community dominated by reed canarygrass to a wetland plant community containing four wetland classes — open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. During the grading operation Wig was able to retain a significant portion of the mature trees and shrubs present in and adjacent to the mitigation area (site). Soon after the site was graded Wig installed several thousand native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Wig also applied the seed of several different grasses and herbs to the site. Chad Armour, LLC (Armour) collected groundwater data from several shallow groundwater monitoring wells several times in the spring and summer and collected vegetative data in the summer of 2009. Armour also established five new vegetative plots after collecting the 2009 data. The results of the second year of monitoring indicate that the site is in the process of complying with the performance standards. It appears that wetland hydrology is present throughout most of the site. Most if not all of the monitoring well measurements that were out of compliance may be related to the elevation of the ground. All of the vegetative performance standards are in compliance at this time. Currently the dominant plant species include black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and tufted hairgrass. In time we expect several other plant species to express their dominance. We observed less than 2% cover of non-native invasive plant species. Recommendations We recommend that Wig continue to aggressively treat non-native invasive plant species, particularly reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, and blackberry. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wig constructed a wetland and enhanced degraded wetland in 2007 to compensate for filling slightly less than 1.16 acres (ac) of wetland on their Tukwila Southcenter shopping center. The 3.48 acre site is a part of a larger 24-ac Tukwila Pond property that includes the pond and what was once a field of reed canarygrass, both with fringes of willow and/or black cottonwood trees. The site is located west of Andover Parkway West about 600 feet (ft) south of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Parkway West in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1 — Tukwila Pond Site). Upland was transformed to wetland and degraded wetland was improved by replacing non-native invasives with a native plant assemblage. First Wig mowed the reed canarygrass then removed its rhizome mat before hauling it from the site. Then they removed some soil from the site, bringing the surface closer to the seasonal water table. To boost post -grading soil productivity, Wig mixed 3 inches (in) of Steergrow, a top soil substitute, into the upper layer of soil. They then installed several snags and added several pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to the finished surface prior to installing the plants. At the time the mitigation area was graded, Wig made every effort to avoid cutting down existing mature trees and shrubs. The net result is more forested wetland and less emergent wetland that planned. The City of Tukwila (City) was concerned that the Steergrow (50% steer manure and 50% sawdust) would negatively impact the water C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 2 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland jation Monitoring (revised) ✓ila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington quality of the Tukwila Pond. For this reason the City asked Wig to bridge the open water channel at both ends with a dam of sand to prevent the water in the channel from mixing with the water in the pond. As a result the open water wetland class was truncated on both ends. Wig also added a berm adjacent to the northwest edge of the mitigation area in an attempt to separate the water in the pond from seasonal standing water on the site. Following grading, Wig installed several thousand trees and shrubs. Wig also installed several thousand sedge, rush, and spike-rush plugs as well as a mixture of emergent plant seeds to the bare soil. The plan was to install plugs and seeds differentially among wetland classes. During installation the plugs and seeds were installed across the entire wetland mitigation area. Prior to construction Armour installed 17 shallow groundwater monitoring wells (wells) made from plastic PVC pipe across the site to model the groundwater elevation (Figure 2). Ten of these wells survived site grading. The seven new wells replace those lost during site grading. Together they completely cover the site. The wells serve as the centers of 15 circular 1/100 acre vegetation assessment plots. After the first years monitoring we noticed that several of the wells yielded plots that straddled vegetative classes (i.e., emergent and forested). In other areas large branches of willows fell into plots, causing an emergent class to look like a forested class. For these reasons we moved five of the vegetative plots (G-101, G-2, G-105, G- 8, and G-10) about 20 to 75 ft from the similarly numbered well. MONITORING METHODS Armour used an electronic water level indicator to detect the near -surface groundwater in each of the 17 wells five times (March, April, May, June, and August). Measuring the depth to groundwater allows us to calculate the groundwater elevation. Groundwater elevation can be used as a surrogate to infer surface soil saturation. In this instance we assume that wetland hydrology is present if groundwater is within 1 foot of the surface. We also noted the presence or absence of surface soil saturation at the time we recorded the groundwater elevation. We recorded the data in the field and transferred the data to a spreadsheet that calculated the groundwater elevation and depth to groundwater. In each vegetative plot we noted the health and estimated the cover of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and undesirable plants by species. We designed the performance standards to evaluate short-, mid-, and long-term vegetation targets. Armour assessed the vegetation on August 27, 2008; recording the data in the field and transferring the data to an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. Goa! The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88 ac and enhance 2.6 ac of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 3 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland jation Monitoring (revised) rila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Performance Standards Hydrology Performance Standards The design performance standards used to assess wetland hydrology include: • Open water wetland — water from 0 to more than 7 ft deep November through May; • Emergent wetland — saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7 ft elevation November through June (the hydrology performance standard for the existing degraded wetland [now folded into the emergent wetland] ranged from 17.7 to 20.0 ft); • Scrub -shrub wetland — saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2 ft elevation November through May; and • Forested wetland — saturated soil between 18.2 and 19.2 ft elevation November through April. Vegetation Performance Standards The vegetation performance standards include: • Emergent wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native emergent plant cover and ranging from 1 to 4 ft tall; • Scrub -shrub wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native shrub plant cover and ranging from 4 to 8 ft tall; • Forested wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native tree plant cover and ranging from 8 to 20 ft tall; • The total native plant cover for each wetland class will be at least: • 5% in Year 1, • 10% in Year 2 • 15% in Year 3, • 20% in Year 4, • 30% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10; and • No more than 20% of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS The 2008/2009 water year was drier than normal. A dry October followed by several dry winter months that are ordinarily wet negated the few months that were wetter than normal. March through May was wetter than normal (Table 1). C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 4 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland jation Monitoring (revised) rila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Much of the wetland was flooded for a significant period. The open water channel was flooded through the end of June and parts of the emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland classes were flooded though April and as late as May (Table 2). Wetland hydrology was consistently present through the target date for the existing forested and open water wetlands. Depending on the elevation of the ground, wetland hydrology was either present or absent through the target date in parts of the forested, scrub -shrub, and emergent wetlands. The total cover of installed, volunteer and non-native plant species ranged from 2% to 159% (Table 3). As expected plant cover in the open water wetland was negligible. About half of the plant cover in the emergent wetland is represented by tree seedlings, tree branches that fell into the plot (G-101), or canopy that over hangs the plot (G-106). Similarly, nearly half the cover in the scrub -shrub wetland is represented by tree seedlings. Black cottonwood and willow are aggressively colonizing that part of the mitigation area that is regularly flooded. Trees represent somewhat more than a third of the cover in the forested wetland. As expected, trees represent most of the cover in the existing forest. Table 4 shows the vegetative results relative to the performance standards. To date Wig has met all of the vegetative standards except average plant height. We expect the cover exhibited by individual species within a given vegetative class to change over time. The following paragraphs summarize our observations based on the data collected in 2009 by wetland class. Emergent Wetland Based on the 2009 groundwater data for the emergent wetland it would appear that wetland hydrology met the performance target in one of the four wells (Table 2). The two areas that missed the target significantly —wells G-101 & G-106 — were those wells with ground elevations at or above 19.2 ft. The area represented by well G-103 barely missed the performance target. The good news is that only the area represented by well G-101 does not meet the regulatory wetland hydrology requirement of being inundated or saturated to the surface for more than 30 consecutive days. Well G-101 is located on the berm designed to separate the pond from the mitigation area. As photographs 1 and 2 show, trees dominated most of the emergent wetland. A branch of a willow tree has fallen and covers the entire G-101 plot. Seedlings of black cottonwood and willow form a virtual carpet in other areas as shown in Photograph 2. There are a total of 22 different plant species that cover 142% of the emergent wetland; far more than the 10% Year 2 cover standard. The dominant plant species — black cottonwood, Sitka willow, and tufted hairgrass — represent more than half of the total vegetative cover. Somewhat more than 1 % of the cover is attributable to non-native invasive plant species (Table 3). Scrub -Shrub Wetland Two-thirds of the monitoring wells in the scrub -shrub wetland met the hydrology performance target (Table 2). The elevation of the ground associated with the well that missed the target is 18.9 ft. Again, from a regulatory perspective the area in the vicinity of well G-105 exhibited wetland hydrology because the soil was saturated to the surface. C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 5 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland ation Monitoring (revised) T Ila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington We counted a total of 20 plant species in the scrub -shrub wetland (Table 3). The total vegetative cover (106%) far exceeds the 10% Year 2 cover standard. Sitka willow and tufted hairgrass dominate, each with more than 20% cover (Photographs 3 & 4). Other common native and non-native plants include black cottonwood and white clover. We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this wetland class. Forested Wetland One of the two monitoring wells in the forested wetland met the hydrology performance target. The other well just barely missed the target (Table 2). The elevation of the ground for the well that missed the target was 18.9 ft. The area represented by both wells in the forested wetland met the regulatory wetland hydrology requirement. The forested wetland is covered with a thick blanket of vegetation (Photographs 5 & 6). Most of the installed plants have survived and many of them are already reproducing. Native tree and shrub seedlings are common locally. Several of the trees are mature Pacific willows that we were able to save. We counted 15 different plant species representing 153% cover. Pacific willow, tufted hairgrass, and white clover dominate (Table 3). American sloughgrass is common in the forested wetland. We observed no non-native plant species. Open Water Wetland The hydrology performance standard for the open water wetland was achieved in 2009. This wetland class was flooded through the end of June with over 2 ft of water (Table 2). Near the end of the second growing season the open water wetland continues to be sparsely vegetated. We observed 4 different plant species that cover somewhat more than 2% of the area (Table 3). Although not rooted in the open water wetland willow branches overhang the channel (Photograph 7). We observed no non-native invasive plant species in the open water wetland (Photograph 8). Existing Forested Wetland Wetland hydrology for the existing forested wetland was present through the end of May (Table 2). Three of our original monitoring wells are located in existing forested areas dominated by willow trees ranging from 45 to 50 ft tall. An understory of red -osier dogwood shrubs grows in the shade cast by the trees. The total vegetative cover for the existing forested wetland is 159%, with trees representing 125% and shrubs 3% of the cover, respectively. Herbs cover 31 % of the existing forested wetland with creeping buttercup as the most common volunteer herbaceous plant species (Photographs 9 & 10). Somewhat more than 2% of the cover is represented by non-native invasive plant species. C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 6 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland gation Monitoring (revised) vila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington CONCLUSIONS The wetland mitigation plan for the Tukwila Pond site currently appears to be on track. Hydrology With a few possible exceptions it appears that wetland hydrology in the created and enhanced wetlands is present. After two years of monitoring it appears that areas where the ground elevation is greater than 18.9 ft may be at risk to fall short of the performance standard targets. The two areas most at risk are represented by wells G-101 and G-105 (Table 2). Vegetation Wig is on track to meet the vegetative performance standards. All of the cover requirements have been met (Table 4), although things can and will change because plant communities are dynamic. The vegetation data will change somewhat next year because we will collect data from five new spots. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions.of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 7 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetlanc gation Monitoring (revised) wila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Table 1 — Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2008 through June 2009 Table 2 — Second Year (2009) subsurface hydrologic characteristics on the mitigation site Table 3 — Second Year-(2009) vegetation characteristics on the mitigation site Table 4 — Second Year (2009) performance standard assessment for the mitigation site Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Post -Construction Plan Attachment A — Representative Photographs cc: Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Amy Klein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Patrick McGraner, Department of Ecology C:/Jobs/Wig/2nd Year Mitigation Report.doc 8 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC TABLES Second Annual Wetland M Jon Monitoring TL 3 Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 1 - Precipitation measure at SeaTac from October 2008 through June 2009 October 2.17 -1.02 -1.02 November 6.52 %.19 .9 0.62 -0.40 December 4.1 5.62 -1.52 -1.92 January 5.4 5.13 0.27 -1.65 February 1.51 4.18 -2.67 -4.32 March 4.16 3.75 0.41 -3.91 April 3.36 2.59 0.77 -3.14 May 3.61 1.78 1.83 -1.31 June 0.18 1.49 -1.31 -2.62 C:/Jobs/Wig/2"° Year Mitigation Report .doc 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC ATTACHMENT A Representative Photographs Source: The Thomas Guide, 200,King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NO T SCALE FIGURE 1:VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC SS 85 O]28` Avenue SE Tukwila, Washb/on Bellevue, Washington 98006 FIGURES Second Annual Wetland ration Monitoring rila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 4 - Second Year (2009) performance standard assessment for the Tukwila Pond mitigation site Cover of native dominantsa black cottonwood 29% 10% 1 % Pacific willow 16% 7% 51 % red alder -- 5% 5% Sitka willow 26% 23% -- red-osier dogwood -- 8% 6% American slou h rass -- -- 10% large -leaved avens 3% -- -- prostrate knotweed 4% -- -- tufted hairgrass 22% 27% 51 % western yellowcress 10% 2% T Total native plant cover' 113% 88% 125% Non-native invasive cover° 1 % T 0% Average plant hei htd N/A N/A N/A e ..--- �^ -`----'--� nnni ------ �— ^ ----0-- �r-------i. a nnni __..__ c__ ^ -'---0-- in__..� 1 VCU zaclfl QIU - GV /O t UVGI IVI J opu% Iua `L-"lul tV. V" j tx L.V /O t,VVGI IVI a. op'utilua `V til UV shrub & Forested) b Year 2 standard - Emergent 25%, Scrub -shrub 20%, Forested 10% Standard <20% d 1-4 ft (EM) Year 3 Standard, 4-8 ft (SS) Year 5 Standard, & 8-20 ft (FO) Year 7 Standard C:/Jobs/Wig/2"d Year Mitigation Report .doc 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland IV tion Monitoring Tukwila, Washington Ti 'a Pond Mitigation Site 0 (D 0 (D 0 M 0 (D 0 (D 0 M oee M M M 0 ID 00 M M H 1 CD MEN' N M ' N 00 ' (D M O O N N N N N N �" N o 0 ID n C' N O N N OD i !g Xm D O o o m O o r 0 m 0 o l ; 0 M I 0 i M 0 0 CO M 0 i t 0 I r 0 m I 0 M i 0 0 (� M 0 0 h M I 0 M .. M <D M M M M M (D (D M M ID M N M M. 0 000 0 C F- i F F- ' W O' N N' N R� N r N i N 0 N i O I N N N O I N N O N N I O N N N N O N N N O O N N N I N L t' W (D (D F- 1- F' ♦- F- I F- M I (D M V ♦- F- ' ° F- N N O F- O N •- N i N n �T;� � >F '✓ � d. t a a II o e I 11 O X O O G U ro ZC1 N _. A ro N N y j ro N ro N U Y� t E ro N'4= c C o o �° ro ro E U U h= G ro G N C C N a c m y o y ac y i Z o u m m h °c `m o ro>> E c u t a o .� ro v) ��pp o amain 'm m m m� o a'c ro- m- ¢NNwmc� u o ro v 'o m>> aU�zwNow�l- o b a,oc cn J .O.ittY' H N C 911 L N .O L N H .°. D y O J y N B L ro m 7 7 m N m N j` L a N N 3 �f w roM# ro 3 7w m m m 3 3 a c o° 3 3 D° c i k a 3 41 � N D row Y D d m U L v- D ro m ai ro o m` m 2 y o v' c> > m- ii m N b o m m D o '� E o ko; E E o c 'o o m ° °1 ro ro m L o m m aDi o iwl o m Q¢n S u ° o ro 7 - yL �� 3 3 32 7 0 2z N m a m 0 0 6 C U 6 Q a a o m M Q N O y a ° f- Z C:/Jobs/Wig/2"d Year Mitigation Report .doc 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland h "ition Monitoring Tukwila, Washinqton T, la Pond Mitigation Site (O O M (O G) O O 7 O M O O ('n M M � �' M M N � � � (`M �t M N c•M er (O N N 00 M st 7 O N N N N M (O I- I- to r� O to r': r` r� 00 00 d OO '' 00 1C1 00 00 ^ d 00 d 00 m 00 d 00 OD P v, CO CO CO 06 co aD ao ao 00 00 00 00 00 -1 (O to N to .. to (fl to to to M in Qn Wn LOto 00 WCO 00 r 0000 0000 Oe0 000 00 c Op 00 00 00 iw U U U_ to tt O N N M 00 O O N N N N N I- 00 i-� t` (O t- r to to to to to Z Z Z ;1ti I� to to (p O N to O) 00 00 Op M I� 61 00 O W 00 I- 00 00 N to to to 00 — c- — — — c- — — — � c- c c c c c C C C C .0 _C - — : - f6 (6 (B (U (6 (6 f0 > > f6 N 2N 2N N N • N (D U) N N N C N C N C N C N W (n W N N fn (n N -M "M -6 -6 .6 rn to c > c c >> c c N N N a) N N N 7 7 N N N N N N 0 tL 0 LL 0 LL E W E W E W E W "0 (n -0U (n W O lL O lL O 0 00 0 1L' M O to O C' L" a CV i ~ O C) CDO c CO O O t i (0 L O) 7 O w N m f0 N iv 0) a O 06 o. Q L a� 0 0 m w H LL 3 (0 c 0 C C _ N 0 E w m c 0 E � 0 L L Q Q O .m L U > C ai (� C c > ° C C (0 o a> U Y 3 0 > a)0 m cu 0 = c m CO .L '0 C C C rn N N L ..:, N w m 0 C)E •0 g 1 , L) 6)> iv o c (TV 01 0) (0) N 'O O N• U O c C .0 0> f o Q E 0 2) 0 a - - 0 ° a�, -0 O - w N 00 '� t-C O) LL w OU to Q .�{ O Z ,uJ Q C:/JobsNVig/2"d Year Mitigation Report .doc 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC LEGEND Wetland Class Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) 58,866 1.35 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 22,868 0.52 Emergent (EM) 37,778 0.87 Open Water (OW) 32,849 0.75 152,361 3.50 W MITIGATION BOUNDARY LWD NUMBER & LOCATION OF MONITORING WELLS TUKWILA MONITOR WELL G-106 VX`! �P Existing / Forest / I Scrub Shrub %�� 9e MONITOR WELL S-2 { V"'k llkv� - EXISTING FO POND -- MONITOR ILL G- 3 MONITOR WELL G-2 / f` vv FO 1 �♦ / 1p + MONITOR WELL G-4 �� T� ',♦ + i ---_®__ `erg t / + � MONITOR WELL G-105 MONITOR WELL G- 4� � 00 SS w FO Existing Forest ' +' Forest MONITOR WELL 5-1 + / • MONITOR WELL G-115 Open FO MONITOR WELL G-113 EDGE Or WATER Water 1 { { MONITOR WELL G-109 f { 1% Emergent *% i EXISTING MONITOR WELL G-7 ' OW + ® 000 ♦ L FO _18 G._ ONITOR WELL G-8 —_-- ------------------ - -- - -- MONITOR WELL G-12 { MONITOR WELL G-10 f / • — ® .0*00, / � ONITOR WELL G-11 / SS FO / �__------------------- / Assumed Edge of OW CONCRETE SiDEW""` POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN 0 40 60 Scale In Feat F— U) W FIGURE 2: POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC—SS 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue. Washington OM Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. DWG NAME: G: DATE: 1c Properties\wig011.dwg x__J771 41 • w•�•w?� �>� ..�.'• 1• t. �� 1. tF � �� ' Sri � •Il \'•e.� � y- a` � ,•jj,�+ .a �' ..- \ �� 47 07 `. I�' 3.t .. r.. �a!••X � - I�. iE^'t+ ��,,-K f4 '� 5 _ y ' ! '•q, r f';L},� � ��y� �^��.' � -� i� � rr� ";�,. �?•v r .LY'� . ,� : *�� ` €- � r T �a3-". '`ae. 7�Nxji /, e •s h� 1� '�1' se pn.:C i y ar N , .. l .r y ��c X r• C� > y R NY 3lM •SI i�d T` 9i.IryV yt^";� rr,. 5 �,♦ P � � Y. `, �• e , t� r t � +o.r`"Y i� f 1 � �•- > � • dam-' t - •• R - * ��� � %in ; � � V ,.moo `• � tf ` T . s At If 01 sr�14 ���cccGGG ; r �a r - {Ar 511t Second Annual Wetland N..__,ation Monitoring T. .la Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 5. 2009 view of the Forested Wetland from Plot G-115 looking northeast. Photograph 6. 2009 view of the Forested Wetland from Plot G-105 looking southwest. C:/Jobs/Wig/2"d Year Mitigation Report .doc 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC Second Annual Wetland IV, -.ition Monitoring T� a Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 7. 2009 view of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-10 looking west. .�, 49� '� y M s mi %f =, c Photograph 8. 2009 view of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-14 looking northeast. C:/JobsMig/2"d Year Mitigation Report .doc 11/02/09 Chad Armour, LLC VN Y � �/'. 'M1 j � � '� ,, � .. �• e !:... ram, : `�\ \ r � '� � � t`•,,r r t �,���\ �.a1,� .r .!, , � w:. ,r• ,�. �' _ (�TY' * 1.'ijt-a Al fax �k-t � t t �:1 .'$��kl�,� 'fcn•A�:.a. .>.'h .• � y M r � 4- i yard. i i\ t � ' �, � _ \ \ �,� �� ram\ �-� 7(i '.r 4 � <../•'•� { �,:�+ vJ_2R';'a tie:,+\ .•! 3t •� t 1i 44 �..',-fi.��� � � '� (� r•��*<r .• < t `L'"'r � � ..c .il` A ! yri i J i r''�,%y� •;� {I, '. -�'. .c h r S 1 n 'tt •�' '}.4 , � , 6 , j i ?'�3 r���� ')°� < `,� a' E d r „ wi ✓ r 4 Y '. ,� �,r t �. •v"� qj i ti�-�:<, � da � J' ° � i+r r � g. T/.��`C €um � � 7 �. 'r �.; '�,r �t-5 ,�- t ,..,,, • �+ r � ��: R )S ra r two p 'fc f', i - •,h �: r +tEA / 4 rw .'�� f ,r h�ryr. � � � �w'�" � h , �U � 9 ' S,t� •r � df Win, �.fi " ! e� d t�4 l"1. � � 7`,. G �'.�f , r / Cl,r' , > $ i gr'sl�`a •G , L .Ayi C ' k y '.� � , +.may � !" '''r'v��� ,�'k ✓ �,,, � ram• >4 .�. py � r' *f L1r(r �w� 1t tcV� .i t ! � / �.\� i s ti .,�lr}�.e;.. c`�r�.� rib�•�,/� I'a '�... � y(( r 'rr `" } rr .fit- :sv �/�'�. •y'('`I ��,�},.Ly!,� �,.4� f*' � t�,"SUtd�jL�-q���„ks Y >�'' ti:``<,. ., e i ytz ,,.. a'� fd�.. ". �+. ti �., yr-i' @ �`" �• -sz c, '3R}�:.",,;�p- tr mot' ` s" i'�'y�'�t��" •��10, '�f +v-�a—Az-.,-'-�*jrr..�~!�'(''�h '� a=rt } `r• .<: �\�`Y.--.�.�7�w✓,�'��;f�", �•n�.�✓s�`''���2+,�r..Y� ♦�•' �..5^','�y'4'�rS.}� 1 � ;,,� ti �r�: i Py4�..��� r . "'+s y ! ., - a.;"-•`I*"r'S� • v.A. - � �.,c. - �iZ a �V3il�..�a�. -J i.`r �� y'�'�.'ts_ ...'�.iY`.53.�.�-- ���• .� '--:o�ii.wN.',R"$`?hi:� ' Page 1 of 1 Sandra Whiting - Tukwila Pond Groundwater Analysis From: "Chad Armour" To: Date: 09/03/2010 4:37 PM Subject: Tukwila Pond Groundwater Analysis CC: "'Sandra Whiting"' Attachments: "'Sandra Whiting"' Hi Anjali — Attached are two documents that hopefully will help you understand the hydrology issue at the Tukwila Pond mitigation site. On the tab labeled `Regulatory' you will see that based on 2 years of groundwater data the areas in the vicinity of Monitoring Well G-101 & G-105 are not functioning as wetlands. For MW G-105 we are technically meeting the regulatory hydrology criteria because we observed soil saturated to the surface both times. So the chief concern at this time is MW-101. On the tab labeled 'Performance Stds' you will see that 3 areas are of concern (although I think that the regulatory criterion is a better benchmark). In addition to MW G-101 & G-105, MW G- 106 currently is not meeting the performance standard groundwater criteria. When I was evaluating the upland areas prior to the final wetland design, I initially included the area in the vicinity of MW G-101 as upland. Since it was an outlier relative to the areas represented by MW G-105 & G-115, 1 decided not to include as upland; a mistake in retrospect. The elevation of the ground at MW G-101 is higher than every other spot on the mitigation site (G-101 = 19.42, G-105 = 18.88, & G-106 = 19.19). The elevation of non Open Water Wetland areas other than the three mentioned range from 17.6 to 18.9. Maybe we should install some additional groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of MW G- 101, G-105, & G-106 to see if we are measuring anomalies. The valley soils are variable, ranging from sandy to clayey. Maybe some of our wells are located in soil anomalies, particularly based on Sandra's observation that the elevation of the pond proper is greater than the groundwater elevation. If you want us to install additional wells we should do it quickly before the rains raise the level of the water again. Chad Armour Your Real Estate Consultant 206.963.6514 Keller Williams Realty 505 106th Avenue NE, Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Fax 425.643.3499 www.chadarmour.com file:HC:\Documents and Settings\sandra.TUKWILA\Local Settin2s\Temp\XPcrowise\4C... 09/08/2010 City of Tukwila 4 L;f V Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director February 10, 2010 Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Subject: Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation, Permit PW06-121 Dear Mr. Wig: This letter is to notify you I inspected the replaced signs put up by your landscape contractor last month. Per the contractor the signs are made of a lightweight metal, which, therefore, meet the City's Code. The contractor replaced the nails with screws, which should help to keep the signs in place. Your project is now in compliance with the signage requirements of TMC 18.45 and there is no need to install different signage than what is currently in place. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sandra Whiting Urban Environmentalist 206-431-3663 Cc: Moira Bradshaw SW Page 1 of 1 H:/Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation/Letter Sensitive Area Signs 10/19/2017 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3663 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mavor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director December 23, 2009 --Wig Properties LLC=SS 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Subject: Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation, Permit PW06-121 Dear Mr. Wig: The signs that were installed at the Tukwila Pond wetland mitigation site as part of the required mitigation for filling wetlands at the Southcenter Square site need to be replaced. Most of the signs have blown away and a couple have been defaced by vandalism. Tukwila's Municipal Code requires that the signs marking sensitive areas be permanent and made of wood or metal. The signs that were installed by your contractor at the completion of the mitigation construction appeared to be made of paper mounted on foam board. Since these signs did not meet the original code requirements and were not designed to be permanent, the City requests that you replace them with wood or metal signs that are mounted securely to the 4x4 posts. New signs should contain the following wording. "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited. Please contact the City of Tukwila (206-431-3570) for more information". Alternate wording may be proposed, but the phone number must be included on the signs. Please advise the City as to when the signs will be replaced. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sandra Whiting Urban Environmentalist 206-431-3663 Cc: Moira Bradshaw SW Page 1 of 1 R/Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation/Letter Sensitive Area Signs 12/23/2009 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Far: 206-431-3663 C HA® ARMOUR, LLC 6500126th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941 (425) 641-9743 Office (425) 643-34 99 Fax chad@chadarmour.com November 5, 2008 Job No. 08-002 Ms. Maria Luna Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 — 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: First Year Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area (Fed Ref No. 200601027; St Ref No. 3815) Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Luna: We are pleased to present the results of our initial wetland mitigation monitoring report the first year after installing plants on the above -referenced property. This is the first of several monitoring reports to assess the condition of the mitigation area relative to the performance standards. The purpose of the work is to satisfy federal, state, and local wetland permit requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents the results of the first year of monitoring; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that explains the purpose for the mitigation and how the mitigation area came to be; MONITORING METHODS that describes how we collected the data, and presents the goals and performance standards of the mitigation plan; MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS that presents the results of our current hydrological and vegetative observations; CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of wetland mitigation to date relative to the performance standards; and LIMITATIONS of this project. Tables, figures, and representative site photographs follow the text of the report. Table 1 presents near -surface groundwater monitoring data for the mitigation area. Table 2 shows the precipitation that fell on the region in the 2007/2008 water year. Table 3 presents the vegetative data for the various wetland classes. Plant mortality is presented in Table 4. And finally Table 5 summarizes the current data relative to the performance standards. Figure 1 is a vicinity map that shows the location of the mitigation area. Figure 2 shows the location of the vegetation classes, monitoring wells, and other pertinent features. Representative photographs follow the figures C:/JobsWg/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 1 11/05/08 Chad Armour. LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In the summer of 2007, Wig Properties, LLC-SS (Wig) converted the area east of the Tukwila Pond from a wetland and upland plant community dominated by reed canarygrass to a wetland plant community containing four wetland classes — open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. During the grading operation Wig was able to retain a significant portion of the mature trees and shrubs present in and adjacent to the mitigation area (site). Soon after the site was graded Wig installed several thousand native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Wig also applied the seed of several different grasses and herbs to the site. In December 2008 a prolonged rain event flooded the site. Floodwater remained on most of the site through the winter months. In the spring Chad Armour, LLC (Armour) installed several shallow groundwater monitoring wells on the site to supplement the monitoring wells that survived site grading. Armour collected groundwater data from these wells several times in the spring and summer and collected vegetative data in the summer of 2008. In the summer and fall of 2008 Wig removed non-native invasive shrub sprouts and herbs from the site. The results of the first year of monitoring indicate that the site is in the process of complying with the performance standards. It appears that wetland hydrology is present throughout most of the site. Most if not all of the monitoring well measurements that were out of compliance could be anomalies. Eighty-seven percent of the installed trees and shrubs survived the first growing season. All of the black twinberry survived as did 87% to 88% of the willow and red -osier dogwood. Only Pacific ninebark faired poorly. Currently the dominant plant species include tufted hairgrass, Pacific willow, and mannagrass. In time we expect several other plant species to express their dominance. We observed no more than 2% cover of non-native invasive plant species. Recommendations We recommend that additional shrubs be installed on the site in November 2008 after the fall rains begin but before the site floods. Based on our count of dead shrubs on the site, we recommend that 70 red -osier dogwood shrubs and 50 Pacific ninebark shrubs be installed in the Scrub -Shrub and Forested wetland areas of the site. We also recommended that 80 willow slips be installed in the same two areas. Finally we recommend that an Armour representative be present when these shrubs are installed. We also recommend that the following vegetative data plots be moved so that the area of each plot is located entirely in one wetland class: G-101, G-2, G-105, G-8, and G-10. The centers of each of these plots should be shifted a few feet from their current location and marked with rebar, wood, or some other device that can easily be seen. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wig constructed a wetland and enhanced degraded wetland in 2007 to compensate for filling slightly less than 1.16 acres of wetland on their Tukwila Southcenter shopping center. The 3.48 acre site is a part of a larger 24-acre Tukwila Pond property that includes the pond and what was once a field of reed canarygrass, both with fringes of willow and/or black cottonwood trees. The site is located west of Andover Parkway West about 600 feet south of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Parkway West in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1 — Tukwila Pond Site). C:/JobsAMg/1st Year Mitigation Report. doc 2 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Upland was transformed to wetland and degraded wetland was improved by replacing non-native invasives with a native plant assemblage. First Wig mowed the reed canarygrass then removed its rhizome mat before hauling it from the site. Then they removed some soil from the site, bringing the surface closer to the seasonal water table. To boost post -grading soil productivity, Wig mixed 3 inches of Steergrow, a top soil substitute, into the upper layer of soil. They then installed several snags and added several pieces of large woody debris (LWD) to the finished surface prior to installing the plants. Wig then installed a temporary irrigation system and several thousand trees and shrubs. Wig also installed several thousand sedge, rush, and spike-rush plugs as well as a mixture of emergent plant seeds to the bare soil. The plan was to differentiate between the Emergent Wetland and the Existing Degraded Wetland by installing plugs and one group of seeds in the former and another group of seeds in the later. During installation the plugs and both groups of seed were installed in both the Emergent Wetland and the Existing Degraded Wetland. As such monitoring does not differentiate the two. Prior to construction Armour installed 17 shallow groundwater monitoring wells made from plastic PVC pipe across the site to model the groundwater elevation (Figure 2). Ten of these wells survived site grading. The seven new wells replace those lost during site grading. Together they completely cover the site. Our intention was to install the new monitoring wells before the beginning of the 2007/2008 rainy season. A prolonged rain event in early December 2007 flooded the site, preventing early monitoring well installation. We installed the new wells on May 15, 2008. MONITORING METHODS Armour used an electronic water level indicator to detect the near -surface groundwater in each of the 17 monitoring wells four times (April, May, June, and August). We recorded the data in the field and transferred the data to a spreadsheet that calculated the groundwater elevation and depth to groundwater. The monitoring wells serve as the centers of 15 circular 1/100 acre vegetation assessment plots. In each plot we counted all of the installed trees and shrubs; noted their health and average height; and estimated the cover of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and undesirable plants by species. We recorded the data in the field and transferred the data to an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. Goal The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88 acre and enhance 2.6 acres of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. Performance Standards As noted previously the plan was to track the Existing Degraded Wetland and Emergent Wetland separately given that the plant species and type were to be different. Because that did not happen, for the purpose of monitoring we combined the two wetland classes into one Emergent Wetland class. C:/JobsNVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 3 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washinaton Hydrology Performance Standards The design performance standards used to assess wetland hydrology include: • Open Water Wetland — 0.92 acre of open water from 0 to more than 7 feet deep November through May; • Emergent Wetland — 1.40 acre of emergent wetland with saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7 feet elevation November through June (the hydrology performance standard for the Existing Degraded Wetland [now folded into the Emergent Wetland] ranged from 17.7 to 20.0 feet); • Scrub -Shrub Wetland — 0.51 acre of scrub -shrub wetland with saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2 feet elevation November through May; and • Forested Wetland — 0.65 acre of forested wetland with saturated soil between 18.2 and 19.2 feet elevation November through April. The hydrology performance standards focus on flooding and surface soil saturation. In 2008 we measured the depth to groundwater which allowed us to calculate the groundwater elevation, but neglected to assess the degree of surface soil saturation. Groundwater elevation can be used as a surrogate to infer surface soil saturation. In this instance we conclude that wetland hydrology is present if groundwater was within 1 foot of the surface. Vegetation Performance Standards The performance standards used to assess vegetation include: • Emergent Wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native emergent plant cover and ranging from 1 to 4 feet tall; • Scrub -Shrub Wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native shrub plant cover and ranging from 4 to 8 feet tall; • Forested Wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20% of total native tree plant cover and ranging from 8 to 20 feet tall; • The total native plant cover for each wetland class will be at least: • 5% in Year 1, • 10% in Year 2, • 15% in Year 3, • 20% in Year 4, • 30% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10; and • No more than 20% of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. C:/JobsNVig/1stYear Mitigation Report.doc 4 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington MITIGATION AREA OBSERVATIONS Armour observed the hydrological conditions of the site throughout the winter and spring of 2007/2008 from Andover Parkway West. From early December 2007 through March 2008 a significant portion of the site was flooded. Only the central Forested Wetland remained above the floodwaters (Figure 2). We collected wetland hydrology data on four occasions. The first occasion was in mid -April, a month before the new monitoring wells were installed. The second occasion was the day the new wells were installed. Because we collected the data the same day the wells were installed the data from those wells is likely not accurate. We collected groundwater data again in early June and mid August. Armour assessed the vegetation on August 27, 2008. The total cover of installed, volunteer and non-native plant species ranged from a trace to 140% (Table 3). The survival rate of the installed trees and shrubs was very good (Table 4). In the late spring it appeared as if many if not most of the live stakes did not survive. However, by late summer it was obvious that the live stake survival rate was better than the initial observation. The live stakes that appeared dead sprouted leaves. Table 5 shows the vegetative results relative to the performance standards. The following paragraphs summarize our observations based on the data collected in 2008. Emergent Wetland The Emergent Wetland class covers 0.87 acre of the site (Figure 2). The objective was to enhance 1.4 acres (0.88 acre of Existing Degraded Wetland and 0.52 acre of Emergent Wetland) of Emergent Wetland. Based on the 2008 groundwater data for the Emergent Wetland it would appear that wetland hydrology was present in one of the four monitoring wells (Table 1). Depth to groundwater was slightly below the target elevation in monitoring well G-106. It was 1.5 to 0.7 feet below the target elevation in monitoring wells G-101 and G-103. It is possible that the data for mid -May and early June is not indicative of actual conditions. As indicated previously the data for mid -May is unreliable. The apparent lack of wetland hydrology in these wells could also be related to the amount of rain that fell on the region from the winter though late spring. The period January through May was drier than normal (Table 2). Finally all four of these monitoring wells are located on that part of the site that pre -construction hydrology data indicated functioned as wetland. A thick carpet of herbaceous plants averaging somewhat more than 1 foot tall covers the Emergent Wetland (Attachment A — Photographs 1 & 2). As shown on Table 3 we observed a total of 19 different plant species that cover 56% of the Emergent Wetland; far more than the 5 % Year 1 cover standard. Most of the cover can be attributed to tufted hairgrass and several unidentified herbs. The three dominant herbs cover 25%, 2%, and 1 % of the Emergent Wetland plant community, respectively. A total of 2% of the cover is attributable to non-native invasive plant species (Table 5). Scrub -Shrub Wetland The Scrub -Shrub Wetland class covers 0.52 acre (Figure 2). The objective was 0.51 acre of Scrub -Shrub Wetland. C:/JobsNVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 5 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington It appears that wetland hydrology for the Scrub -Shrub Wetland was present in 2008. Although the data indicates that the groundwater elevation for monitoring well G-109 was lower than the target elevation in mid -May, the discrepancy was only 0.1 inch (Table 1). Again the mid -May data was likely inaccurate because the groundwater had yet to equilibrate when we collected the data. We counted a total of 20 plant species in the Scrub -Shrub Wetland (Table 3). The total vegetative cover (73%) far exceeds the 5% Year 1 cover standard. Native shrubs average 6 feet tall and the two dominant shrubs cover 5% and 3% of the Scrub -Shrub plant community respectively (Photographs 3 & 4). The only shrub species to do poorly was Pacific ninebark. Only half of the installed ninebark shrubs have survived (Table 4). Tufted hairgrass dominates the herbaceous layer with 27% cover. We observed only a trace of non-native invasive plants in this habitat type (Table 5). Forested Wetland The Forested Wetland class covers 1.35 acres (Figure 2). The objective was to create 0.65 acre of Forested Wetland. Wetland hydrology for the Forested Wetland was present through the beginning of June in 2008 (Table 1). The Forested Wetland is covered with a thick blanket of vegetation (Photographs 5 & 6). Most of the installed plants have survived and many of them are already reproducing. Native tree and shrub seedlings are common locally. Several of the trees are mature Pacific willows that we were able to save. We counted 18 different plant species representing 139% cover. Pacific willow and red alder trees are the two dominants. The installed trees average 11 feet tall. As is typical at this early stage of development, tufted hairgrass occupies the most space with 53% of the cover. The installed shrubs cover 5% of this plant community. We observed only a few non-native invasive herbaceous plant species and no non-native invasive shrubs. Open Water Wetland The Open Water Wetland class covers 0.75 acre (Figure 2). The objective was to create 0.92 acre of Open Water Wetland. The hydrology performance standard for the Open Water Wetland was achieved in 2008 in that this wetland class was flooded through the beginning of June with nearly 2 feet of water (Table 1). Near the end of the first growing season the Open Water Wetland is sparsely vegetated with less than 1 % plant cover (Table 3). Although not rooted in the Open Water Wetland willow branches overhang the channel (Photograph 7). We observed no non-native invasive plant species in the Open Water Wetland (Photograph 8). Existing Forested Wetland Wetland hydrology for the existing Forested Wetland was present through the beginning of June (Table 1). C:/JobsNVig/1 st Year Mitigation Report.doc 6 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Three of our original monitoring wells are located in existing forested areas dominated by willow trees ranging from 45 to 50 feet tall. An understory of red -osier dogwood shrubs grows in the shade cast by the threes. The total vegetative cover is 140%, with trees representing 106% and shrubs 10% of the cover, respectively. Herbs cover 22% of the existing forest with spatter -dock as the most common volunteer herbaceous plant species (Photographs 9 & 10). About 2% of the cover is represented by non-native invasive plant species. We observed some purple loosestrife migrating through narrow areas of forest between the pond and mitigation area. CONCLUSIONS The wetland mitigation plan for the Tukwila Pond site currently appears to be on track. Wetland Class Size The size of all but one of the wetland classes varied from the plan. Post construction, the Open Water Wetland class is about 20% smaller than planned. Similarly, the Emergent Wetland class is about 40% smaller than planned. Conversely the Forested Wetland class is about 50% greater than planned. The planned and actual areas of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland class are nearly identical. Hydrology With a few possible exceptions it appears that wetland hydrology in the created and enhanced wetlands is present. To better track the hydrology component in 2009 Armour intends to collect groundwater data as close to the end of the months of April, May, and June as possible. At that time we will also note the presence/absence of saturated soil at the ground surface adjacent to each monitoring well. Vegetation Armour will continue to monitor the presence/absence of non-native invasive plant species when we collect the water data. These early observations help synchronize weed control to maximize weed mortality. Ideally weed control should occur in the spring and early summer after the weeds expend their root reserves but before they go to seed. Some of the vegetative plots should be relocated. Currently several plots encompass more than one vegetative class. Ideally each plot should be located entirely within a vegetative class. Plot relocation should occur in the spring to minimize the potential for trampling herbs. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. C:/Jobs/VVig/1 st Year Mitigation Report. doc 7 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Table 1 — First Year (2008) subsurface hydrologic characteristics on the mitigation site Table 2 — Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2007 through June 2008 Table 3 — First Year (2008) vegetation characteristics on the mitigation site Table 4 — First Year (2008) tree and shrub survival rate on the mitigation site Table 5 — First Year (2008) performance standard assessment for the mitigation site Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Post -Construction Plan Attachment A — Representative Photographs cc: Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Amy Klein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Robohm, Department of Ecology C:/JobsNVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 8 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC TABLES First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Table 1 - First Year (2008) subsurface hvdroloaic characteristics on the mitiaation site Monitoring Habitat Ground Target .. Groun water Elevation 4/17/08 , r 5/15fQ8 6%4/08 8f1=1/08 Well .. T e Elev Elev t# Forested NA G-2b Wetland ex 18.7 17.7 ° 18.7 18.5 18.4 14.2 Forested NA G-4b Wetland ex 18.5 17.5 ° 18.6* 18.5* 18.4 15.2 Forested NA G-11b Wetland ex 13.5 12.5 ° ND* ND* ND* 14.7* Emergent G-7 Wetland 17.6 16.6° 18.6* 18.5* 18.4* 15.5 Emergent G-101 Wetland 19.4 18.4` ND 16 1 13.9 Emergent „k G-103 Wetland 18.0 17.0° ND 1�5_ _1,6 3 14.0 Emergent G-106 Wetland 19.2 18.2° ND 18.0 _ 15.2 Scrub -Shrub G-8 Wetland 18.5 17.5° 18.2 17.5 17.2 14.0 Scrub -Shrub G-105 Wetland 18.9 17.9° ND 15.2 16.4 14.2 Scrub -Shrub G-109 Wetland 17.8 16.8° ND 16.9- 17.2 15.3 Forested G-113 Wetland 18.0 17.0° ND 16.6 16.9 14.2 Forested G-115 Wetland 18.9 17.9° ND 16.4 17.1 14.5 Open Water G-10 Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.3* 17.4* 17.0* 14.5 Open Water G-12 Wetland 15.0 15.2d ND* 17.5* 17.2* 14.2 Open Water G-14 Wetland 15.0 15.2d 18.3* 17.4* 17.1* 13.2 Open Water S-1 Wetland 15.1 15.2d 18.3* 17.4* 17.1 * 13.9 Open Water S-2e Wetland 18.7 15.2d 18.3 17.5 17.2 14.4 a Emergent target through June; Shrub -Shrub target through May; Forested target through April; & Open Water target through May b control - for comparison only 1 ft below the ground elevation d the design elevation e located on the northern dike * flooded NA not applicable ND no data C:/JobsWg/1 st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila, Washington Table 2 - Precipitation measure at SeaTac from October 2007 through June 2008 Moi th Measured Norma[ a arture CumuI 'tiI ' e arture October 3.32 3.19 0.13 0.13 November 3.71 5.9 -2.19 -2.06 December 9.08 5.62 3.46 1.40 January 4.26 5.13 -0.87 0.53 February 1.47 4.18 -2.71 -2.18 March 3.65 3.75 -0.10 -2.28 A ril 1.9 2.59 -0.69 -2.97 May 0.89 1.78 -0.89 -3.86 Junt___j 1.64 1.49 0.15 -3.71 C:/JobsWig/1st Year Mitigation Report. doc Chad Armour, LLC 11 /05/08 First Annual Welland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site ° 3 plots ° 4 plots ` 2 plots ° non-native T trace N/A not applicable Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington i able 4 - r-irst Year (zuud) tree ana snrub survival rate on the mitigation site live willow Salix sp. stake 687 607 80 88% black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 2-gal 30 30 0 100% Physocarpus Pacific ninebark capitatus 2-gal 30 15 15 50% red -osier dogwood Comus stolonifera 2-gal 533 464 69 87% Total 1280 1116 164 87% I able b - rirst Year (2UUd) performance stanaara assessment Tor the mitigation site Cover of native dominantsa black cottonwood -- -- -- Pacific willow -- -- 48% red alder -- -- 5% red -osier dogwood -- 5% -- willow -- 3% -- American slou h rass 1 % -- -- large-leaved avens 2% -- mannagrass -- -- -- tufted hair rass 25% -- -- Total native plant cover 54% 73% 139% Non-native invasive cover` 2% T T Average plant hei htd 1 +ft 6ft lift a Year 10 standard - each with 20% cover b Year 1 standard 5% Standard <20% d 1-4 ft (EM) Year 3 Standard, 4-8 ft (SS) Year 5 Standard, & 8-20 ft (FO) Year 7 Standard C:/JobsAMg/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour. LLC FIGURES aid}"A5T y Psi sx x a �Tt u' fp �T• ^` ..-c t -s �5� i � .r 3 IE _ SP i ti * ! MTN is 5i' f 14gm �T Ya3r r tn� tt i L. N � s t.s as ., Ix r � {,£dEj ; s rr=¢��>«�( 5 iataati �3yxt a; nr. S L%M. STD w at �EJij � � w }yttT 8 E9TFi i 5 3 Z h Ay k }( f1A SfSv s f _.Tu'. t� r wY�1F kwila Pond Site `fY��(-�-- BLVD cc E r r e t£,"TN �r sr:r=r sa Ntr $ C i 3N s UN!i 3 T _10", LkS P�3Sit�i v a'a $i7f8d a W "M' s SPi a = Penn Site ....t�� pF l.R�hT E� qq 72N1 1 .#+. 5T11KWr14 5� s� } trrTt; pp �....^3 :c?..% a. .: S.�TJi�S } .,.,, tt••a ..�� ,� c+� ��h"._,_p r`as i � i���l� .. .� � !. ,3 � L [ 'T Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126" Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 IZ U •� S � b w Ic � 1 i u a 1 LL ca LL 1 Q ( 1'i i 1 I i I First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 1. 2008 view of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-101 looking southeast. Photograph 2. 2008 view of the Emergent Wetland from Plot G-7 looking east.. C:/JobsAVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington max,. -�,�� ..�..� `;`. t :;��, 3� ' w -. f � r • pry � • ,. � � '� r 4 t `�ON� a _ � �� r ` � '' `; �+e �� ' � ram'- :� Z � '� .'� . ��� '+ � '�, ;�'�%•3�` jv 1�j! si—j�Yi�11�• a3. ,' �1. ✓..f i t �`!_Y _�•G�'. 'iL `,��-!..—'l Photograph 3. 2008 view of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland from Plot G-109 looking west. L•5 Photograph 4. 2008 view of the Scrub -Shrub Wetland from Plot G-8 looking east. C:/JobsNVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila. Washington Photograph 5. 2008 view of the Forested Wetland from Plot G-109 looking northeast. Photograph 6. 2008 view of the Forested Wetland from Plot G-105 looking southwest. C:/Jobs/VVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington a r sb1 Ae .. Photograph 7. 2008 view of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-10 looking west. d 3- NE W Photograph 8. 2008 view of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-14 looking northeast. C:/JobsNVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC Ae .. Photograph 7. 2008 view of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-10 looking west. d 3- NE W Photograph 8. 2008 view of the Open Water Wetland from Plot G-14 looking northeast. C:/JobsNVig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC ENE First Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Tukwila Pond Mitigation Site Tukwila, Washington Photograph 9. 2008 view of the Existing Forested Wetland from Plot G-11. Photograph 10. 2008 view of the Existing Forested Wetland from Plot G-2 looking west. C:/Jobs=ig/1st Year Mitigation Report.doc 11/05/08 Chad Armour, LLC STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 + 360-407-6000 TTY 711 or 800-833-6388 (for the speech or hearing; impairer!) June 13, 2008 Wig Properties LLC Attn: Mon Wig 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 RE: Follow-up for Site Visit to JC Penney Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Site (Corps Ref. #200400822, Ecology Order #3815) Dear Mr. Wig: On June 4, 2008, Ecology employees met Chad Armour on the wetland mitigation site for the JC Penney development. We visited the site to determine if it meets: • The conditions of Order #3815 (Order) dated September 1, 2006 • The specifications of the mitigation plan as described in the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, dated July 6, 2006, prepared by Chad Armour LLC (mitigation plan). During our visit, we observed that the site has been graded and the plantings have been installed. We observed installed habitat features, including standing snags, anchored large woody debris and an osprey platform. During the visit, we saw or heard several avian species, including Swainson's thrush, killdeer, Wilson's warbler, Bewick's wren, and an Empidonax flycatcher. We observed a few items that are not meeting the requirements of the Order: 1. While many of the plantings appear to be thriving, others did not survive transplanting or inundation over the winter. Some areas that were broadcast seeded are currently bare, and the planting of emergent plugs appears to be less dense than intended. We observed high mortality of planted willow stakes, most of which are of very small diameter. We will review the first -year monitoring report to determine whether the site is meeting its performance standards. We recommend re -planting the herbaceous species before the site dries out this summer so that they can become established before inundation this winter. Willow stakes to replace those that have died should be planted this fall before inundating rains. Stakes should be at least 0.5 inch in diameter and 24 inches long. If re- planting of trees is necessary, we recommend substituting some suitable conifers in order to improve habitat cover conditions during the winter months. Wig Properties LLC June 13, 2008 Page 2 2. We observed bull thistle and blackberry plants beginning to invade the site. We recommend diligence in controlling these invasive species and will review future monitoring reports to determine whether the site is meeting its performance standards. 3. The northeast quadrant of the site includes a bare, disturbed area of about 800 square feet, which may have been a staging area. This bare ground should be planted and seeded with native species before weedy non -natives fill the vacuum. 4. At the request of the City of Tukwila, two berms were installed where the open water area of the mitigation site connects to Tukwila Pond. This will prevent excess nutrients from added organic material in the planted areas from contributing to eutrophication in the pond. We recommend that the berms remain in place as there is no need for water to circulate on this site, and allowing the water to draw down will eliminate bull frogs. 5. Condition C2.b of the Order requires submittal of an as -built report and drawing. Please provide one copy to me at the address below and one copy to Rebekah Padgett, 401/CZM Federal Permit Coordinator at Ecology, 3190 160th Avenue, SE, Bellevue, WA 98008- 5452, no later than July 31, 2008. Thank you for working with us to ensure the success of your wetland mitigation project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 407-7172 or dbun461 kecy.wa.gov. You can also contact Richard Robohm at (425) 649-4447 or riro461@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Donna J. Bunten Enviromnental Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Enclosures e-cc: Chad Armour, LLC Amy Klein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Richard Robohm, Ecology MITIGATION SITE INSPECTION FORM (As -built) Date of field visit: 06/04/08 9am Ecology docket #: 3815 Project name: J C Penney/Wig Properties Corps reference # 200400822 County: King Site Location (S,T,R or Street address): NE intersection of the South Center Pkwy and Minkler Blvd, Tukwila Present at site visit: Richard Robohm, Donna Bunten — Ecology: Chad Armour, Melissa Leslie — Chad Armour LLC: Leysha Wig, Mike Weflen —Wig Properties: Sandra Whiting — City of Tukwila Contact Information 1. Name: Mon Wig Phone #: 425/747-8540 Role: Applicant Wig Properties 2. Name: Chad Armour Phone #:425/641-9743 Role:: Agent Chad Armour LLC 3. Name: Suzanne Skadowski Phone #: 2067646984 Role: Corps Project Background Information Date when wetland fill/impact was completed: 2006 Date when installation/construction of the mitigation project was completed: Fall 2007 Date of as -built report ("None", if not provided): To be provided after survey is complete Date of most recent monitoring report: N/A Length of monitoring period: 10 years Project impacts Mitigation required Size of impact (acres) 1.16 acres Total acres 2.6 acres both created and enhanced Creation 0.88 Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement 1.72 Preservation Other Cowardin class(es) Cowardin class(es) HGM subclass(es) HGM subclass(es) Wetland rating Category Wetland rating Category Water quality Water quality Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat JC Penney/Wig Properties June 4, 2008 Page 1 Element What to Look For Comments or Deviations from Meeting Follow-up / the Plan/Permit Requirements? Contingency .. in specifics from 2 = fully order,plan,partially 1. Grading Grading plan fig. 5 of Mit plan Appears to be per plan except 2 Berms should stay — for 2 berms at either end of open circulation not needed water to disconnect it from for habitat. Allowing Tukwila pond. Installed at open water on mitigation request of City of Tukwila to site to draw down prevent exacerbation of water seasonally would quality issues in pond due to eliminate bull frogs and application of SteerCo promote denitrification 2. Water/hydroperiod Temp irrigation system Appears to be adequate. 2 installed for at least one growing season Hydrology listed on pg 15 & 17 of Mit. Plan. 3. Planting Pg 18 of Mit plan. Also see Some areas are bare or seeds 1 Will review monitoring Planting plan figure 6 in Mt have not yet emerged. Emergent report to see if site plan. Installation of plugs were not planted to meets 15` year temporary irrigation system density. Some shrub plantings performance standards. for 1st growing season have died. If re -planting is necessary, consider planting some suitable conifers (spruce & cedar) to improve habitat. 4. Management/control Monitoring biologist will Bull thistle prevalent on site. 1 Will review monitoring of invasive species determine removal when Blackberries along southern report to see if site is needed. Manual removal as edge and in northeast corner will meeting performance well as spot spraying w/ encroach and provide ongoing standards. Rodeo. See pgs. 22-23 of Mt source of seedlings Plan JC Penney/Wig Properties June 4, 2008 Page 2 Element What to Look For Comments or Deviationsthe Plan/Permit Requirements? Contingency .. in specifics from 2 = fully order,plan,partially 5. Habitat features 12 anchored logs, and 6 Osprey platform installed 2 hardwood snags placed on site (pg 19 & 21 of Mit Plan) 6. Performance See pg 15-17 of Mit Plan N/A Will review 1 s year standards monitoring report 7. Required acreage of Mitigation area appears to be the 2 mitigation appropriate size 8. Reports As -built in progress. 0 Submit as -built as soon as survey is complete 9. Deed notification/ Site is owned by City of Tukwila N/A Conservation easement 10. Other Permanent post and rail 2 fence installed along eastern boundary adjacent to Andover Parkway. Habitat Conservation Area signs posted on eastern and southern perimeter. (pg 21 of Mit plan.) SUM 12 out of 16 NOTE: Use visual observations/estimates in the absence of actual measurements. Ifyou visually observe a problem with an element (deviating from the plan) give it a "l" for partially meeting requirements. If, however, the observed problem appears to be more in error than correct (i.e., 50% or greater "messed up"), give it a "0" for not at all meeting requirements. For example, a project is required to have 5 brush piles and 10 LWDs. During the site visit you observe 3 brush piles and 8 LWDs; it receives a "1" for habitat features. However, it the site had no brush piles and 5 LWDs it would receive a "0." JC Penney/Wig Properties June 4, 2008 Page 3 NA ("not applicable") should be used in the "Meeting Requirements?" column only if the element is not part of the plan. For example, a project that involved vegetative enhancement and no grading or earthwork would receive "NA" for the grading element. "NA" should NOT be used for "water/hydroperiod" (unless the mitigation involves upland or non -wetland resources) or "required acreage of mitigation." CND ("could not determine") should be used in the "Meeting Requirements?" column only if no estimate or observation of the element can be made at the time of the site visit. For example, if a project proposes to have seasonal soil saturation as its wetland water regime and you visit the site in September when the soil is very dry, you may not be able to determine if it is meeting the requirements for "water/hydroperiod." In this case, it would receive "CND" for the water/hydroperiod element. Another example may be visiting a site in early spring if surface inundation covers grading. JC Penney/Wig Properties June 4, 2008 Page 4 IM 91 Looking at culvert and buffer enhancement area on east side of site, along Andover Parkway West. Culvert allows overflow from Green River to enter site 42 Standing "snag' and berm in background (center, Left of tree trunk) #3 Blackberries along southern "buffer", looking 94 Looking across open water toward SW across area of scrub -shrub and emergent corner of site, Nupharluteum in background. plantings. Emergent plugs were not as densely planted as planned —may need to be re -planted #5 Osprey latform, center of photo �t #7 Anchored LWD #6 Large existing willow, looking SW #8 Fragrant popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys `igurata), found in seeded areas. #9 Bare area, approximately 800 sf, in NE #10 Fence and sign, looking into mitigation quadrant of site. This was probably the staging site from Andover Parkway West buffer area for the installation crew. enhancement area. Wig Properties LLC 4811 134"' Place SE, Bellevue WA 98006 Tel: 425-747-8540, Fax: 425-865-8648 January 30, 2008 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Wetlands Final To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed the as -built drawings for the offsite wetlands located on Andover Park West. The as -built drawings represent what Wig Properties built at the wetlands location. Wig has agreed to maintain the wetlands in accordance with the wetlands plan submitted to and approved by the City of Tukwila. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Leshya Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS (425) 957-4774 4811 134' PL SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Chad Armour, LLC October 25, 2007 Ms. Leshya Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 1341h Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Services (Proposal No. 296) Tukwila Pond Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Wig: IN31114td0'13A3Q Alwnwwoo LOU 0 � 100 03AG OD S We are pleased to present our proposed scope of work and cost estimate to provide wetland Mitigation monitoring services for the above -referenced property. The purpose of the work is to satisfy the City of Tukwila's (City), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineer's (Corps) compliance monitoring requirements for wetland mitigation. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that you have agreed to monitor the mitigation area for 10 years following installation. To document the results of the mitigation measures and to ensure that reed canarygrass and other incompatible weeds do not invade and take over the mitigation site, you agreed to monitor the mitigation site annually for the first 5 years following installation as well as in Years 7, 9, and 10. Post -construction monitoring will include hydrology monitoring as well as vegetation monitoring. Hydrological monitoring includes measuring the water levels at least five times a year (March, April, May, June, and August) during the growing season with an electronic water level meter. To measure the success of the vegetation effort, we will characterize the vegetation in August in 1 /100-acre circular plots. We will take representative photographs facing a predetermined direction for consistency to provide a visual record of the mitigation site throughout the monitoring period. We will also informally assess the vegetation when on site to monitor hydrology. The intent of informal vegetation monitoring is to identify areas where undesirable weeds (e.g., reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, etc.) are present. These observations will be relayed to the maintenance contractor for timely removal action. We will also record site observations of fish and wildlife during vegetation and groundwater monitoring activities. 6500 126th Avenue SE (425) 641-9743 Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 643-3499 (Fax) www.chadarmour.com chad@chadarmour.com Tukwila Pond Proposal October 25, 2007 Proposal Number 296 The standards for success for hydrology are: • Open Water Wetland — open water from 0 to more than," fDdeepNovember through May; • Emergent Wetland — saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7 feet elevation November through June; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2 feet elevation November through May; and • Forested Wetland — saturated soil between18.2 and 19.2 feet elevation November through April. The standards for success for vegetation are: • Emergent Wetland — at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native emergent plant cover. The total native emergent plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 25% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10. • Scrub -shrub Wetland — at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native shrub plant cover. The total native shrub plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 20% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, 0 80% in Year 9, and Tukwila Pond Proposal Proposal Number 296 • 90% in Year 10. October 25, 2007 • Forested Wetland — at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native tree plant cover. The total native tree plant cover will be at least: • 5 % in Year 1, • 10% in Year 2, • 15% in Year 3, • 20% in Year 4, • 30% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10; and • No more than 20 percent of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. This includes Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, and all other Class A, B, and C weeds on the state noxious weed list. The standards for success for vegetation structure are: • Emergent Wetland — vegetation ranging from 1 to 4 feet tall by Year 3; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — vegetation ranging from 4 to 8 feet tall by Year 5; and • Forested Wetland — vegetation ranging from 8 to 20 feet tall by Year 7. S SCOPE OF. WORK 4 J a ("� This project is composed of four tasks that are described as follows. S 17)�_J�� Task 1— Installing Plots and Monitoring Wells We will install about 13 groundwater monitoring wells that will act as the center of the ve tative monitoring plots. a wi use as many of the original wells that survive construction s posse a as sampling points. The wells will be co d installed using a hand auger. After the wells are installe ou will need to have them survey d.' At that time you should also survey the mitigation site so th can develop an - i IWhen we are in receipt of the As -Built plan we will prepare an su mit a Certificate of Completion a letter to the Corps per the §404 permit requirements. Task 2 — Wetland Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting We will monitor the shallow groundwater monitoring wells according to the following schedule: 3 Tukwila Pond Proposal .Proposal Number 296 LI) October 25, 2007o�s • Open Water and scrub -shrub wetlands in March, ay, and August; • Emergent and Degraded Wetland in March June and August; and • Forested wetland Marc April and August. n� S We will monitor the vegetation in the 1/100-acre circular plots in August by: �3 6 • Counting all of the native trees and shrubs (installed and volunteer) to estimate survival; • Estimating the canopy coverage (percent cover) of each plant stratum and species; • Stand height; and • The health of the vegetation. It is relatively easy to count installed plants early in the monitoring period, but it can be challenging to identify all of the plants after several growing seasons because volunteer trees, shrubs, and herbs tend to hide the installed plants. After the data are collected and analyzed, we will summarize the results of our field effort in a progress report. We will provide you with four copies of each report; one for your records and one each for the three regulatory agencies. The reports will be submitted by December 31 each year the mitigation site is monitored. Task 3 - Coordinate Maintenance Activities We will coordinate maintenance activities with the landscaping contractor. It is important h p g p tat ?�— installed plants that expire be replaced and critical that invasive weedy species be managed. To make sure that you r performance standards for every monitoring event, 't m� ay be necessary for us to make extra trip�� to the site. The purpose of these 'extra' trips will be to make— sure that the landscaping contractor has replaced dead plants and removed invasive weedy species before collecting the data. Task 4 - Meetings and Other Professional Services (Optional) We will attend meetings and provide you with other professional services related to critical area assessment, delineation, permitting, etc. at your request. Because we cannot anticipate the level of effort for any optional tasks in advance, upon request we will provide an estimate of the time required to complete the task and seek your approval to proceed. COST AND SCHEDULE Our services for the outlined scope of work will be provided for an estimated cost of $34,000. This includes about $1,500 to install the shallow groundwater wells and prepare an As -Built plan and Certificate of Completion letter, about $29,150 for monitoring and reporting, and about $3,350 for maintenance contractor coordination. Please note that if the level of effort to complete the work is less than anticipated, we will only bill you for work completed. Similarly, if 4 Tukwila Pond Proposal October 25, 2007 Proposal Number 296 it looks as though we may exceed our authorized budget, we will alert you and seek your approval for additional funding. Our cost estimate includes an estimated increase in fees and other direct costs due to inflation. Finally note that our cost estimate does not include any additional services requested by you or your representative that are included in Task 4. We will begin the scope of work upon receiving written authorization from you. We anticipate installing the monitoring wells in November 2007. We will complete the other tasks as indicated previously. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Our work will be billed on a time and materials basis at the end of each month as a percent of project completed. Our services will be performed in accordance with the standard of care of our profession. If project requirements change requiring additional work, we will notify you and seek your approval for an addendum to the scope of work. This contract is between Chad Armour, LLC and Wig Properties LLC-SS. If Wig Properties LLC-SS transfers responsibility for maintaining the mitigation site to another entity, Wig Properties LLC-SS will continue to be bound by the terms and conditions of this contract, including administration and payment. The attached exhibits or attachments referenced herein are incorporated into our agreement with you and by your authorization to proceed, you are agreeing to these terms and conditions. Please acknowledge your acceptance of this proposal by having this letter agreement properly signed and returning a signed copy to us. Any changes to our agreement must be mutually agreed to. 5 �(fY , F , STATg 0 o b q a �y`L 1R89 'SJ? STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 TTY 711 or 800-833-6388 (for the speech or hearing impaired) June 13, 2008 Wig Properties LLC Attn: Mon Wig 4811 13&h Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 RE: Follow-up for Site Visit to JC Penney Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Site (Corps Ref. #200400822, Ecology Order #3815) Dear Mr. Wig: On June 4, 2008, Ecology employees met Chad Armour on the wetland mitigation site for the JC Penney development. We visited the site to determine if it meets: • The conditions of Order #3815 (Order) dated September 1, 2006 • The specifications of the mitigation plan as described in the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, dated July 6, 2006, prepared by Chad Armour LLC (mitigation plan). During our visit, we observed that the site has been graded and the plantings have been installed. We observed installed habitat features, including standing snags, anchored large woody debris and an osprey platform. During the visit, we saw or heard several avian species, including Swainson's thrush, killdeer, Wilson's warbler, Bewick's wren, and an Empidonax flycatcher. We observed a few items that are not meeting the requirements of the Order: 1. While many of the plantings appear to be thriving, others did not survive transplanting or inundation over the winter. Some areas that were broadcast seeded are currently bare, and the planting of emergent plugs appears to be less dense than intended. We observed high mortality of planted willow stakes, most of which are of very small diameter. We will review the first -year monitoring report to determine whether the site is meeting its performance standards. We recommend re -planting the herbaceous species before the site dries out this summer so that they can become established before inundation this winter. Willow stakes to replace those that have died should be planted this fall before inundating rains. Stakes should be at least 0.5 inch in diameter and 24 inches long. If re- planting of trees is necessary, we recommend substituting some suitable conifers in order to improve habitat cover conditions during the winter months. Wig Properties LLC June 13, 2008 Page 2 2. We observed bull thistle and blackberry plants beginning to invade the site. We recommend diligence in controlling these invasive species and will review future monitoring reports to determine whether the site is meeting its performance standards. 3. The northeast quadrant of the site includes a bare, disturbed area of about 800 square feet, which may have been a staging area. This bare ground should be planted and seeded with native species before weedy non -natives fill the vacuum. 4. At the request of the City of Tukwila, two berms were installed where the open water area of the mitigation site connects to Tukwila Pond. This will prevent excess nutrients from added organic material in the planted areas from contributing to eutrophication in the pond. We recommend that the berms remain in place as there is no need for water to circulate on this site, and allowing the water to draw down will eliminate bull frogs. 5. Condition C2.b of the Order requires submittal of an as -built report and drawing. Please provide one copy to me at the address below and one copy to Rebekah Padgett, 401/CZM Federal Permit Coordinator at Ecology, 3190 160'h Avenue, SE, Bellevue, WA 98008- 5452, no later than July 31, 2008. Thank you for working with us to ensure the success of your wetland mitigation project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 407-7172 or dbun461(24ecy.wa.gov. You can also contact Richard Robohm at (425) 649-4447 or riro461aecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Donna J. Bunten Environmental Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Enclosures e-cc: Chad Armour, LLC Amy Klein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sandra Whiting, City of Tukwila Richard Robohm, Ecology Chad Armour, LLC October 19, 2006 Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188-2544 Subject: Soil Analysis Results Southcenter Square Pond Mitigation — Permit No. PW06-121 Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Whiting: In your October 4, 2006 Planning Comment memorandum you asked us to provide the City with a copy of the soil sample analyses. Per that request, attached is a copy of the soil analyses. Please note that the first three pages (Sample ID SS-3, SS-5, & SS-6) represent samples from the Tukwila Pond mitigation area. The last page (Sample ID WETA) is a sample taken from a nearby site. Sample WETA represents the upper 6 inches of soil from an existing mature forested wetland collected from a site about a mile from the Tukwila Pond and analyzed about 4 years ago. We included this sample for reference only. We trust that this information meets your needs. If you have any questions about the analyses, please let us know. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC d4z 44*644�� Chad Armour Principal Attachments: A&L Western Agricultural Laboratories soil sample analyses c: Leshya Wig, Wig Properties, LLC-SS 6500 126th Avenue SE (425) 641-9743 Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 643-3499 (Fax) www.chadarmour.com chad@chadarmour.com LOS 9� A & L WESTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES 1311 WOODLAND AVE 91 • MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 95361 • (209) 5294=0 • FAX (209) 629.4736 REPORT NUMBER: 06-275-046 CLIENT NO: 99999 SEND TO: CHAD ARMOUR, LLC SUBMITTED BY: 6500 126TH AVE SE GROWER: BELLEVUE, WA 98006- Graphical Soil Analysis Report DATE OF REPORT: 1 W04 06 LAB NO: 51008 SAMPLE ID: SS-3 PAGE: 1 ��! - _ Analyte IAah N©3 N u L11eakCaX XVaNCO, P " K Jalg Ea Na ' S°OAS- 7n: Mn Fe Gu. 8 Gf .._.� %:..:.. �_ �PRm.c `m� ;PPrt! ,��..�PR� �Pm � PAa?.- ._ m_:._ •..PPm .._:..#tP-m Pent.....:: Rm.. :: Am...- PPm: :: Results 6.0 : 5 22, 19 ; 146 164 743 22 6 LOW AVERAGE HIGH ECe INCREASING SALINITY CEC Ex. Lime dsrii n"W1009 NaHCO3-P unreliable at this soil pH Soil Fertility Guidelines CROP: RATE: lC LA BOR AT... ES Percent Cation Saturation (computed) 100 50 409 0 Mal Poiasslum :rii(agneslur>i Calcntm ' Sodiun►'' K°k Cad L INa°k. 5.6 20.2 55.7 1.4 ACIDIC BASIC 5.9 pH INCREASING NEED FOR LIME Buffer pH: 6.9 Dolomde (7t)s�ore) time (70sCore) Gypsum Elemental Sufur NiUogen N izhospAate :�zOs Potash ?Magnesium Kz0 Mg- Sulfur 5045.. Zinc Zra Manganese: Mn iron Fe Qopper Cu Boron B C O M M E N T s "Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor may any reference be made to the work, the result or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization." The yield of any crop is controlled by many factors in additions to nutrition. While these recommendations are based on agronomic research and experience, they DO NOT GUARANTEE the achievement of satisfactory performance. ® Copyright 1994 A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. NOTES: QY L U .rss Mike Buttress, CPAg A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. A & L WESTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES 1311 WOODLAND AVE $1 9 MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 96351 • (209) 629r4080 a FAX (209) 629.4736 REPORT NUMBER: 06-275-046 CLIENT NO: 99999 SENDTO: CHAD ARMOUR, LLC 6500 126TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006- GROWER: Graphical Soil Analysis Report LJAI c yr IRcrVR r. 1 wv-trvv LJW IVV: a IUVZ7 SUBMITTED BY: JAMPLL:IU: JJ-O PAGE: L .-'v'^LYi }rt3 ..� { Y M::.,i,' SE!.'�...,w.9 aa1 .Slay Wlktll i__,rlliin1A 11 ._.. t ON{Iu11Ii:^ - VYIIAI� L711Ci IYMI., O11F>C ,.r�11711 .._, p QVI VII 5: VIIIUI'It!_C Analyte , MatteP . _ NO�il . Uealc8y t�aFCA� =1� `1Vf9 Ca : Na :' SOBS Zi INn Fe Cu B GI %.. a m .:: j)pm nil :pPln. , . =RPm• , •; Pm.._; fl In .. v m,.; PP..m APm gm ; : P m , ' PPM_,. •: PPm i Results 1 0.8 , 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 10-1 24 1 191 1 880 1 45 1 2 LOW AVERAGE HIGH ECe INCREASING SALINITY dSlm CROP: 6.4 CEC Ex. Lime U91t04 Soil Fertility Guidelines RATE: L—ORATORIES ?otass� m 4" " neslum 9, a` Calcium:' Sodium ' 1.0 24.4 68.5 3.1 ACIDIC BASIC pH INCREASING NEED FOR LIME Buffer pH: _._ (70 score); n0score) Gypsum y . Eaemental Sulfur NdrGgen ...N Phos hate PzQs- .:... ? POtash iC20 :-: nesium ._9:,O, Sulfur S.. Zinc Z_. ... Mati9anese 'Mn . Iron Fe Copper Cu f3 C O M M E N T S "Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in pan, nor may any reference be made to the work, the result or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization." The yield of any crop is controlled by many factors in additions to nutrition. While these recommendations are based on agronomic research and experience, they DO NOT GUARANTEE the achievement of satisfactory performance. ® Copyright 1994 A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. NOTES: " ✓ q,. Mike Buttress, CPAg A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. A & L WESTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES 1311 WOODLAND AVE #1 • MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 96361 • (209) 629-4080 • FAX (209) 529-4736 REPORT NUMBER: 06-275-046 CLIENT NO: 99999 SENDTO: CHAD ARMOUR, LLC 6500 126TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006- nATr ne IMCft^ 4A/AA/AG SUBMITTED BY: GROWER: Graphical Soil Analysis Report JJ-v PAGE: 3 Analyte Matter P v slum agnesldm iCalelum, _; 5o iurri- SuKu ' line :anew `.Iron :Co r P Boron .Ghtoi8e NOON Weak•Biay -,ItatiCfl P. tE NIg Ca eta. SOBS Zvi Mn Fe Cu B Cl ' -Dbm_..;. PRm PRm _ : Ppm .. .P ?n . _ PP.m.: ; - m . PPm PPm.. PPm Results 0.9' . 4 , .12 t 14 1 20 138 1716 481 3 ECe INCREASING SALINITY dS/m CROP: 5.1 CEC Ex. Lime mep/10% Soil Fertility Guidelines RATE: Potassium. K% t lagneslurn Mg°k t;a aum ; Sodium: 1.0 22.1 69.8 4.1 ACIDIC BASIC 6.8 pH— INCREASING NEED FOR LIME Buffer pH: Dolomite (/0 Score,) Lime (71) scgre), Gypsum . Elemental Sulfur : nitrogen N Phosphate P205 Potash K, Magnesmm Mg; Sulfur so-5 Zinc Zn Manganese Mn tron Fe Copper Cu. Boron B C O M M E N T S "Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor may any reference be made to the work, the result or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization." The yield of any crop is controlled by many factors in additions to nutrition. While these recommendations are based on agronomic research and experience, they DO NOT GUARANTEE the achievement of satisfactory performance. C Copyright 1994 A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. NOTES: ,s- Mike Buttress, CPAg A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. '' r - A & L WESTERN AGRICL-TURAL LABORATORIES REPORT NUMBER PORTLAND OFFICE - 503-968-9225 02 -22 1-082 10220 S.W. Nimbus Ave., Bldg. K-9 - Portland, OR 97223 Client No: 99999 SEND GROWER: SU TO: CHAD ARMOUR , LLC 6500-126TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006- GRAPHICAL SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT DATE OF REPORT: 08/ 14/2002 LAB NO: 59373 SAMPLE ID: r-�s.ax.mc - pp'. rrrFtc:e3tfA7.I^N2HC0&P I _ 96 P ::K Pent :-.Mg Porn Ca-.. PPm ppm 1 �, I TEST RESULTS 49' ; <5f rl'3r SQ fir, t o7 t n�Q a v r S o� 3 r LOW AVERAGE HIGH O ECe INCREASING SALINITY dS/m CEC EX. LIME NaHCO3-P unreliable at this soil pH n�Q„� CROP: SOIL FERTILITY GUIDELINES )SPHATE I POTASH .I MAGNESIUM SULFUR .ZINC. P205 K20 Mg. SOe-S Zn A A J Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in pan, nor may any reference be made to the work the result or the company t any advertising, news release, or other public announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization. - he yield of any crop is controlled by many factors in addition to nutrition. While these recommendati_ a.. h.UA EMITTED BY- tl Co V, RATE: WETA PAGE: DARCY PEEBLES, CCA 0 e] ,3T. op. a� x o �7 Regulatory Branch Chad Armour, LLC Attention: Mr. Chad Armour 6500 126`' Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear NIr. Armour: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 OU11 i i K "r"q Reference: 200400822 Wig Properties Our regulatory program Utilizes a series of nationwide permits (NWPs) to authorize specific categories of'work that have minimal impact on the aquatic environment when conducted in accordance with the permit conditions (Federal Registef-, January 15, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 10). You submitted information to complete the; Post Notification process for NWP 39. Based on the infornation you provided to us, we have confirmed that NWP 39, Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments, authorizes your proposal to fill 0,09 of an acre of wetland, as depicted on the delineation (not enclosed) dated July 24, 2004. The project would occur in wetlands adjacent to the Grcen River, in Tukwila, King County, Washington. Thank you for submitting information to commplete the post construction notification process. If you have any questions about this letter or our regulatory program, please contact me at (206) 766-6438 or via email at t�my.S.Klein�susace..aniiy.niil. Sincerely, Amv S. Klein, Project Manager North Application Review Section DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 Regulatory Branch *vIr. Chad Armour 6500 126'h Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 Reference: 200601027 Wi- Properties, LLC Dear Mr. Armour: We have reviewed your application to enhance, restore, and create wetland areas in and near Tukwila Pond, connected to the Green River via culverts at Tukwila, King County, Washington. Based on the information you provided to us, Nationwide Pcrnit 27, Stream and Welland Restoration Activities (Federal Register, January 15, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 10), authorizes your proposal as depicted on the enclosed drawings dated May 5, 2006. In order for this NWP authorization to be valid, you must ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed Natiomvide Permit 27, Terms and C'vttciitions. We are unable to determine whether or not your project requires individual Water Quality Certification front the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Before you may proceed with the work authorized by this NWP, you must contact the following Ecology office retarding these requirements: Nationwide Permit Coordinator, Department of'Ecology, SEA Program, Post Office Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600, at (360) 407-6926, If more than 180 days pass without Ecology responding to your individual WQC request, your requirement to obtain an individual WQC and CZti4 consistency determination response becomes waived-, You may then proceed to construction. We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in regards to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). We have determined that this project complies with the requirements of NWP National General Condition I I with no effect to Endangered Species and no effect on EFH. This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to Liarch 18, 2007, It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the present tents and conditions of this nationwide permit. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this NWP verification invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 404 of the CIean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. Also, you must obtain all State and local permits that apply to this project. Upon completing the authorized ~work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certrfirwe of Compliance with heparwteirt of the Army Permit fonn. Thank you for your cooperation during the permit process. We are interested in your experience with our Regulatory Program and encourage you to complete a customer service survey form. This fonn and information about our program is available on our website at; wtiv,,v.nw&usace.annv.mil (select "Regulatory' and then "Regulatory/Permits"). If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (206) 766-6438 or via email at Amy.S_KleinCusace.army.mil. Sincerely, Amy Klein, Project Manager North Application Review Section Enclosures CITY C;= TU:0,%';1 A DEPI: CF TUMVILA, VIA 9 ISU3 PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT larcel No.: 2623049081 Permit Number: kddress: 17200 SOUTHCENTER PY TUKW Issue Date: Suite No: Permit Expires On .ocation: tenant: Name: WIG PROPERTIES Address: 17200 SOUTHCENTER PY, Dwner: Phone: Name: WIG PROPERTIES LLC Address: 4811 134TH PL SE, BELLEVUE WA Contact Person: Name: LESITYA WIG Address: 4811 134TH PL SE, BELLEVUE WA Contractor: Name: WIG PROPERTIES LLCSS Address: 4811 134TH PL SE, BELLEVUE WA Contractor License No: WIGPRPL945N3 PW06-077 09/06/2006 03/05/2007 Phone: (425)957-4774 Phone: (425)641-2044 Expiration Date: DESCRIPTION OF WORK: OX AMTELOYn18,000 CUBIICNYARDS OF RELOAD MATERIAL ON THEI ON NORTHEAST PART OF THEC SEPTIC TANK, AND APPRCAP EXISITNG SITE. PPR Value of Construction: $0.00 Fees Collected: $1,314.75 Public Works Activities: Channelization / Striping: N Curb Cut / Access / Sidewalk / CSS: N Fire Loop Hydrant: N Number: 0 Size (Inches): 0 Flood Control Zone: N N Start Time: End Time: Hauling: Y Volumes: Cut 18000 c.y. Fill 18000 c.y. Land Altering: Landscape Irrigation: N N Start Time: End Time: Moving Oversize Load: Sanitary Side Sewer: N N Number: Private: 0 N Public: N Sewer Main Extension: Storm Drainage: Y N Profit: N Non -Profit: N Street Use: Water Main Extension: N Private: N Public: N Water Meter: N ** Continued Next Page ** PW06-077 Printed: 09-06-2006 �__.b�nr_t^nAICT ) 077 z umber' 0910612p06 permit N 31051200i Issrmue DEXPlres On 0 pe 0 l pate s °f laW and and correct. All provision true laws know the sane n°ob not. n otter state or IOcal F ' Signature � e her speckfied he s of ay horized mined this perm the provision struction perm With, Wh + el have read and bea lied ri to violate °r wand obtain this con �) gat I comp 1 , ( l this Work W au d pate' of pres a Wor1ke I am authorize to s g ;rnin9 um .. errnit does n ance °f this P t perform or if the Work is ;truelon or / ace, - days from the date °f Assun ced With in 180 om e \ the Work is n� the last nspection • �l��x , . c ail become nu" P r °d ° nd V6 180 days fro ioaband Onedfo i 262304900 jCFt4-rE1R jPj -f UY'W 472100 SOU'T PERM IT cot4j)IIJOSS permit Number: Status: Applied led Date: Issue Date' ISSUED 0712612006 091()612006 O1,xorI, at least VqiG PROPERTIES -f IONV encement and completion Coto Upon GOMM Ours In advance. )A79 (2()6)433-( Made 24 h sedimentation WORKS 0 EP P,inspector at t also be prevent notify the CityUtility ts for utility NNOrVMUS order Of business to ;ant must 0 Onreques e first vertical rise of ,dvance- P111 rispectI ures Shall be implemented as steeper an 3VI bed control meas. or r or mulct, other disturbed . estockpiles that are cove inning of this pry erosion' j�piles this time Period, site at the beg ,to existing dr'Anag any slopes and[)ur-Ing led On s A 2 hours. stoop -Over 'I must be d WIIONing storms All h ppril 30, r ater than during an at least Monthly worked tOT gre Covered material �Gtober A through Immediately before,d sediment W-111 be un t1lan,2 days. d more and unworVed more weekly prevention 3" proval. this stabilization porary erosion Code Within ney will be tem maintain construction ap M d Maintain to final County Board 0,,lealth ,spect and .,() inspect all - r ,ugh September '-OanentlY stabilized Prio accordance with King May A 11110 site shall be per, lished In Plans ,d areas 0, he S' ndosment shall be accOMP Inspector- Traffic Control �eqflc tank removal or aba coordinated with Ith the City Utilities 30) days- closely traffic approval. ,O,Ns shall be in the r immediately used again ,,Y, affecting to the inspe'tor for Prior submitted be cleaned UP d• 11 theywill be ridone -meter respectively- oe street shall if they are to be abB water ny Material spilled Onto any d at the mains and at the water hall be plugge capped at the Prop with line the ter utilities S Viewer and water building, they shall be caPP acceptable IN future for a new iFire Prevention Bureau and are ar • DEPAP, WE14-T CON have been reviewed by the d during demolition and construction Fire The attached set of building Plans . maintaine . Contact the Tukwila concerns' hydrants shall be constantly atic spri"Wer system matic sprinkler )IJONNIng and existing .1 the autOM doWn of the auto nartment access a demo gprjor to shut ved Prior to building ,,2.. V-ireoep- must be rem . n 01 thealarm systems during . demo debris 4407tOr , inspectIO stems and tire A 3. . P'llinterlor at wish sprinkler SY Prevention Bureau rtable tire extinguishers, Codes does not Imply approval of system - . coverage and operability of '0 0 01 the adopted Fire or Building eau at 14- M3*1ritaln nstruction. violation r-we Prevention Bur and GO and/or vi Tukwila demolitionOverjooVed hazardous condition U have any questions, . estiOris, please C811 U printed'. Any or violation 5A A.. It YO . ......................................... 15: such condition reviewed by Inspector Plans were Thp . — se j7 TU" A CIEF-1. r5-4407 —continued on next page** Ant- —�Printed: I hereby certify that I have read these conditions and will comply with them as outlined. All provisions of law and ordinances governing this work will be complied with, whether specified herein or not. The granting of this permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provision of any other work or local laws regulating construction or the performance of work. Signature: Print Name: &_-s W1 Date: q /Y,::, /9` 1 doc: Conditions PW 06-077 Printed: 09-06-2006 r PERFORMANCE TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA Hartford, Connecticut 06183 BOND (Miscellaneous, not Construction) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we Wig Properties LLC-SS, as Principal, (hereinafter called "Principal"), and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, a Connecticut corporation, as Surety, (hereinafter called "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto City of Tukwila, as Obligee, in the full and just sum of Four hundred and four thousand and 00/100 U.S. Dollars ($404,000) to be paid to the said Obligee or its successors or assigns for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS the Principal has entered, or is about to enter, into a written Agreement with the Obligee for Wetland Mitigation Work as is more specifically set forth in said Agreement, to which reference is hereby made. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal shall well and truly perform and carry out the covenants, terms, and conditions of said Agreement, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Signed this 30th day of August, 2006. (Principal) By: C Wig roperties, LLC-SS Travelers Casualty and Sure Co any of America By - ph P J Scarpello, Attorney -in -Fact (S-1935-B1)06-03 a PERFORMANCE TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA BOND Hartford, Connecticut 06183 (Miscellaneous, not Construction) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we Wig Properties LLC-SS, as Principal, (hereinafter called "Principal"), and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, a Connecticut corporation, as Surety, (hereinafter called "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto City of Tukwila, as Obligee, in the full and just sum of Four hundred and four thousand and 00/100 U.S. Dollars ($404,000) to be paid to the said Obligee or its successors or assigns for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS the Principal has entered, or is about to enter, into a written Agreement with the Obligee for Wetland Mitigation Work as is more specifically set forth in said Agreement, to which reference is hereby made. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal shall well and truly perform and carry out the covenants, terms, and conditions of said Agreement, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Signed this 30th day of August, 2006. (Principal) By � Wig roperties, LLC-SS Travelers Casualty and By. P Scarpello, Attomey-in-Fact of America (S-1935-B1) 06-03 ST PAUL POWER OF ATTORNEY TRAVELERS Farmington Casualty Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Seaboard Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Attorney -In Fact No. 214701 Certificate No. 000157203 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Seaboard Surety Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York, that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, that Farmington Casualty Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint Mory Whitaker, Joseph P. Scarpello, Melissa L. Johnson, and Lucinda L. Young of the City of Seattle State of Washin{ ton _ __ _ , their true and lawful Attomey(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, recognizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or per i�ted<in any, � ions or eedings allowed by law. 22nd IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused this instrumentt oebe siig dan the r-c rporate seals to be hereto affixed, this day of February 1" ` Farmington Casualty Comp3oy NS-)� St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Fidelity and Guarantylins ranee{ tompSt. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insu*e iJnderwiit°ers, Inc. Travelers Casualty and Surety .Company Seaboard Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company SUAETy FIRE 6 �R71 �aSG + 1NSyq V AA, s VesWry �4>!n'ub aRoaAr' �F cow ` 1896 i �,19825 i '� 1977 � 195f s 1927 ^ � �,SEAL:o' �sB2t.I.:iD : 4 sV..,.. s, r State of Connecticut City of Hartford ss. By: G rge W ompson, Sen' r Vic President On this the 22nd day of February 2006 before me personally appeared George .W. Thompson, who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. fv�k)�� In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. w ,.My Commission expires the 30th day of June, 2006. Marie C. Tecreault. Notary Pubtic 58440-9-05 Printed in U.S.A. WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER. This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the Company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding on the Company in the future with respect to any bond or understanding to which it is attached. I, Kori M. Johanson, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary, of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety.,. . tpany-o%Artterica, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power AMUnmey exu ed by, A' companies, which is in full force and effect and has not been revoked. r -001' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and a t,iced thess6als of saidAmlianies this Jam(! day of J� 20 t ? `efxC,, i� L0 ' Kori M. Johans Assistant Secretary ��,gu pp1l1Y� SUREfy Vf\xE f �fM �Rs + \Haag ,IT 4he VRwyr 3t'fA'i0 6 n ••111i� _ �.301lIORATtt�C, ytr�M�R�TjrCT KOMM �� 96 t„ 9`2s`aD 1977 195i N�j,1927�yr ^aor (`�_$�AL �o! ��S87LL;%s y � e$ oytR 1ti96 �i�C�•. A�` � � "�Gl_hEW `" `RANG= 1S . A��S vty "�• *.+� ��i •a�+� � • '�'" � Att�� To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney, call 1-800-421-3880 or contact us at www.stpaultravelersbond.com. Please refer to the Attorney -In -Fact number, the above -named individuals and the details of the bond to which the power is attached. WARNING:THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER AGENCY USE ONLY Agency Reference #: Date Received: Circulated by: (local govt. or agency) JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (JARPA) (for use in Washington State) MPLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. 4 TO FILL IN ELECTRONICALLY. Y USE F11 TO MOVE THROUGH THE FORK� ❑ Application for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 77.55.290. You must submit a copy of this completed JARPA application form and the (Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition) to your local Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same day. NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS — You must submit any comments on these projects to WDFW within 15 working days. Based on the instructions provided, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply) ❑ Local Government for shoreline: []Substantial Development []Conditional Use []Variance ❑Exemption ❑Revision ❑Floodplain Management []Critical Areas Ordinance ❑ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA (Submit 3 copies to WDFW Region) ❑ Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification (to Regional Office -Federal Permit Unit) ❑ Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification xx Corps of Engineers for: 0 Section 404 ❑ Section 10 permit ❑ Coast Guard for. ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) ❑ For Department of Transportation projects only: This project will be designed to meet conditions of the most current Ecology/Department of Transportation Water Quality Implementing Agreement SECTION A - Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to ALSO complete Section C (Signature Block) for all permit applications. 1. APPLICANT Wig Properties LLC-SS MAILING ADDRESS 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS -'. HOME PHONE FAX # 425 957-4774 leshyawig@wigprope rties.c If an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process, complete #2. Be sure agent signs Section C (Signature Block) for all permit applications 2. AUTHORIZED AGENT Chad Armour, LLC MAILING ADDRESS 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PHONE FAX # 425 641-9743 1 chad@chadarmour.com I 425 643-9743 3. Relationship of applicant to property: ❑ OWNER ❑ PURCHASER ❑ LESSEE 0 Mitigation site 4. Name, address and phone number of property owner(s) if other than applicant: 5. Location (street address, including city, county and zip code, where proposed activity exists or will occur) Tukwila Pond/Park Local government with jurisdiction (city or county) City of Tukwila Waterbody you are working in Tukwila Pond/Park Tributary of WRIA # Is this waterbody on the 303(d) List** YES ❑ NO ® Green River 9 Duwamish-Green If YES, what parameter(s)? Shoreline designation **For 303d List, http•//vrww ecy wa gov/programs/wq/303d/index.htmi Zoning designation TUC Zone % Section Section 26 Township 23N Range 4E lGovernment Lot DNR stream type if known Latitude and Longitude: Tax Parcel Numbers 2623049117, 9081, and 9080 ECY 070-15 (Rev. 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 1 6. Describe the current use of the property, and structures existing on the property. Have you completed any portion of the proposed activity on this property? YES © NO For any portion of the proposed activity already completed on this property, indicate month and year of completion. The Tukwila Pond site occupies approximately 24 acres, more than 19 acres of which are open water. It is used as a regional stormwater detention facility. The Tukwila Pond site is bounded by urban development. Its buffers are narrow, confined to short steep slopes, and support trees and shrubs. The southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site is the location of the Mitigation site. This area is dominated by reed canarygrass. The total area of degraded upland and wetland represents 3.48 acres. Is the property agricultural land? ❑ YES © NO Are you a USDA program participant? YES ® NO 7a. Describe the proposed work that needs aquatic permits: Complete plans and specifications should be provided for all work waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line, including types of equipment to be used. If applying for a shoreline permit, describe all work within and beyond 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark. If you have provided attached materials to describe your project, you still must summarize the proposed work here. Attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed. Create 0.88 acre and enhance 2.6 acres of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes covering 3.48 acres. The plan is to remove all of the reed canarygrass and replace it with native trees, shrubs, and herbs adapted to seasonally flooded and saturated soil conditions. The elevation of the water in the mitigation area is controlled by a 15 inch corrugated metal culvert (CMP) fitted with a flap gate near Andover Parkway. Tukwila Pond is connected to the Green River by way of this culvert and the existing stormwater management system. Mitigation measures could indirectly impact listed species in the Green River. PREPARATION OF DRAWINGS: See sample drawings and guidance for completing the drawings. ONE SET OF ORIGINAL OR GOOD QUALITY REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS MUST BE ATTACHED. NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to submit photographs of the project site, but these DO NOT substitute for drawings. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND COAST GUARD REQUIRE DRAWINGS ON 8-1/2 X 11 INCH SHEETS. LARGER DRAWINGS MAYBE REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES. 7b. Describe the purpose of the proposed work and why you want or need to perform it at the site. Please explain any specific needs that have influenced the design. Wig plans to construct an 18.77-acre commercial shopping center. To build the shopping center, Wig proposes to fill 1.16 acres of low quality emergent and forested wetlands (subject to a separate NWP). To mitigate for filling these wetlands, Wig proposes to enhance and/or create 3.48 acres of existing degraded upland and wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site. The 3.48 acre area includes creating wetland at a ratio of 1.5:1 and enhancing existing degraded wetland at a ratio of 3:1 and 1:1. At the end of the 10-year monitoring the functional value of the enhanced wetlands on the Mitigation site will be considerably greater than the functions of the existing wetlands. 7c. Describe the potential impacts to characteristic uses of the water body. These uses may include fish and aquatic life, water quality, water supply, recreation and aesthetics. Identify proposed actions to avoid, minimize, and mitigate detrimental impacts and provide proper protection of fish and aquatic life. Identify which guidance documents you have used. Attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed. It appears that potential constraints can be adequately mitigated. The 3.48 acre wetland will be designed so that seasonal flooding and near -surface groundwater will support and maintain wetland plant communities. It will be vegetated with native plants that typically tolerate temporary seasonal flooding during the dormant season. Controlling reed canarygrass is a key component of the maintenance plan. Reed canarygrass invading the mitigation area constitutes a potential impact. 7d. For in water construction work, will your project be in compliance with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity WAC 173.201 A-1 10? x YES NO (See USEFUL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS) 8. Will the project be constructed in stages? YES NO x� Proposed starting date: late Summer 2007 Estimated duration of activity: Several months to construct the wetland. 9. Check if any temporary or permanent structures will be placed: N/A ❑ Waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line for fresh or tidal waters AND/OR Waterward of the mean higher high water for tidal waters? 10. Will fill material (rock, fill, bulkhead, or other material) be placed: No �x Waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line for fresh waters? Likely topsoil to amend the existing soil. If YES, VOLUME (cubic yards) 1,400 / AREA 3.48 (acres) Waterward of the mean higher high water for tidal waters? If YES, VOLUME (cubic yards) / AREA (acres) 11. Will material be placed in wetlands? ❑x YES ❑ NO If YES: A. Impacted area in acres: 3.48 B. Has a delineation been completed? If YES, please submit with application. YES ❑ NO C. Has a wetland report been prepared? If YES., please submit with application 0 YES ❑ NO D. Type and composition of fill material (e.g., sand, etc.) Steergrow E. Material source: Local Steergrow provider F. List all soil series (type of soil) located at the project site, and indicate if they are on the county's list of hydric soils. Soils information can be obtained from the natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Silty fine sand, sandy silt, & silt G. WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS? ❑x YES ❑ NO If YES, IMPACTED AREA IS 0 ACRES OF DRAINED WETLANDS. Flooded Area = 0.92 Acres NOTE: If your project will impact greater than % of an acre of wetland, submit a mitigation plan to the Corps and Ecology for approval along with the JARPA form. NOTE: A 401 water quality certification will be required from Ecology in addition to an approved mitigation plan if your project impacts wetlands that are: a) greater than '% acre in size, or b) tidal wetlands or wetlands adjacent to tidal water. Please submit the JARPA form and mitigation plan to Ecology for an individual 401 certification if a) or b) applies. 12. Stormwater Compliance for Nationwide Permits Only: This project is (or will be) designed to meet ecology's most current stormwater manual, or an Ecology approved local stormwater manual. x❑ YES ❑ NO If YES — Which manual will your project be designed to meet? 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual If NO — For clean water act Section 401 and 404 permits only — Please submit to Ecology for approval, along with this JARPA application, documentation that demonstrates the stormwater runoff from your project or activity will comply with the water quality standards, WAC 173.201(A) 13. Will excavation or dredging be required in water or wetlands? ® YES ❑ NO If YES: A. Volume: 4,000 (cubic yards) /area 3.48 (acre) B. Composition of material to be removed: silty fine sand, sandy silt, silt, & silt loam C. Disposal site for excavated material: an approved clean soil disposal site D. Method of dredging: trackhoe & dozer 14. Has the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) been completed © YES ❑ NO SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tukwila SEPA Decision: DNS, MONS, EIS, Adoption, Exemption DNS Decision Date (end of comment period) Aug 9, 2006 SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION LETTER TO WDFW AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION 15. List other Applications, approvals or certifications from other federal, state or local agencies for any structures, construction discharges or other activities described in the application (i.e. preliminary plat approval, health district approval, building permit, SEPA review, federal energy regulatory commission license (FERC), Forest practices application, etc.). Also, indicate whether work has been completed and indicate all existing work on drawings. NOTE: For use with Corps Nationwide Permits, identify whether your project has or will need an NPDES permit for discharging wastewater and/or stormwater. TYPE OF APPROVAL ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE APPROVED COMPLETED? NPDES EcoloqV IP 404 to alter Penney site wetlands Corps of Engineers 20040082 No 401 Water Quality Ecology IP No CZM Consistency Ecology IP HPA WDFW 105528-1 6/22/06 No 16. Has any agency denied approval for the activity you're applying for or for any activity directly related to the activity described herein? ❑ YES ❑x NO If YES, explain: ECY 070-15 (Rev. 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Rec:ulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 SECTION 9 •Ilse for Shoreline and Corns of Engineers permits only: 17a Yolet coal or prgta. Tn a rtgans site fa,f trerket value of the p:O;ncl, iroeuding rnatFha:'a, labor, mace -re ientefc, ete =s1oD.000,of�o 170 It a pr.4e1 crony pOrgnn at a prelcct !4c*lvcz rvndin.l frerr, r fodw a% agar:y. t*af agency -A ."pensible tot CSA con r..dbdicn Ff"go, nd,cala of rdU yalfreca; os ItStral fo nda and Wool Nde3l r 9rn47 ► p!000•10 tha+e No-da See IraUVA+ana fa WormaLon an ESA EDE:RAL FUNMNG Ej. M ® NO If YES. Al sae loll the lMeral agerp I 19 tAcalgovernrnaBvnJhfa,nfde ttor City of Tukwtld 19 Pat ccopt, Goast Gua)d and 0NR peimlta prov+tfo na'net, sadlarJv♦ ttrd Irropltoms M mbMa at ea;o voper!y owref5. ;eeauei. i etc , R(ea## poll' Sha!ueKa hldltajjrlmOnt Gdr?li?a' *fit mty tdQVmI arhir;ranar AotitO— cc sulty"r,'Stal QavrNnmenr. j NAti!E ACiDAESSPHONE NUMOER See attached list —� ebrrtnu e+_ vw, .. o— mjgtr — en... miooA lef any aennJf crovarwd Av thlc z—BrAJlan 0 No.0 Appttcatwn 4, nefeby made for a parmll or perm.ts to outhar.:a 1'u: activdiat dd W]bed ho•r1n I ;.t:ntj Ihal I am 4fnittar with the udormalron ca WIted rn tots Appcenon, and ihat(o Irq best of my know;adge and belief, such lnfornlaban is true, complete, end accutatt:'t hsrtrw u,tN that I pcaieae too aWhOttly tC undtflOkd the Frapa7ed dt rn60i I ncleby grant to Inc egens:»u le vvhiCn IN& a0pilcal4n,a race, the f;GV to ante, life above• leacrfted ta:alion to 1,116ped Ina mpolod, In•p ogreal V oomiple;ee York. I agrea to lteti ofS Y oter all reaeasry peim'ls here bolan lecelved DATE �� 2-5 SIGNATURE :.1 . JT _DATE l %�,1'•-,a /,.. 1,,,#.�—. SIGNATURE O>: AUTHORIZED AG N( ' /66 I HEREBM OESIGNATE('P,Ad &M2Ur. Lt,C TOAGT AS UV AGENT iN !MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICAT:4N FOR P£RMIT(5l. J U STAND THAT IF A FEDEk%L I)ERMiT 1S I:;SUEO• I MUS i S!GN THE PER!trT. S'— 23—off► DAT StGNA UREE OOrXPFFLI NT E \ S!GNE OF LANDOWNER (FXCJPT PUBLIC ENTITY LANU01NNERS, E G DNR) TWIS APPtICATJOH jlg r BE SIGNED BY THE APPUCANY AND TP#C AGENT IP AN AUTN0Ar2£D AGENT !S DESIGNATED. 16 U.S C jt00t prov,de► lMI- Mower. In any mi^n2t w{Ihin !10 iVntr tflotl of anydapIM11,0111 of agency of'Aft Urlted Stake knGSv}lily W301el. t:ORCtay. Or covers up by any tf-dC 7Cn", or JevfCo a n)WAI fOd Wife. 10'VOWS, at {faUdVlent dfllCmdnts Qf repres&N;r&a !i c• makers or usel eny fate 014i tj atda:umant knoa!ng dame wi;0n'wn any talae, taulaua, or IlaWlr:bnt itetefn"t of entry, j0W ee pnee not rote than $10,000 or im0sontI not mars Item 5 yeatb 0.' bath. .:.. .` rt .�S►i�pcET>zs�Y�;t�s�,E'�J:!� �. � .. .... . A Nature or tha 6111101 ogweiine(OfI!_srlbetgli pof. VO4MIne: OW.0 tf•rtA+�e sutrJlrtl�rka t1QDDA mectft OQ8 swa+nA iltulC.: p. . Aocrtway: dwa, trpe 0-J>• C A lkxhAs 6t.011tl�.' o' mke r tdNta JidaJt a t AtJLvtl myd Gay. rock, e,prfuts mad K)4an+.m.tyF�9f bWxlly JF)rr s tf in tic 9,*t'lhtJ wrt d Ifit pfgnctUd 11q: of tJ!(!tx�,itx ytly Axct 'A he�F(t` Qt'tG tty PVa gaol 0.4oyp'th, 0 JIs+ TiA6V Qrede kYCL ndteate rAs a9ycyts+re tart an al Iota riumn�r d? rra dealt ,u kit oldetl tits po(mh+f, at ty q t>�ve ulo>r atrtd+►d;v aYr � ttinceprsr!4!'onirr.a+w�1>t.QO+wpdtat+aJ,t�norvi�?cs set tw,yr,�ntub'tjfat��aart,otthv,m�aa.A4oq'�r+we9catpryvwas_ vttft�a.:.., .___..�.�,.__.__.l�.v����.I��N.:.�r..erMAa.A•�^r4f.ei.aitfN�.hR/11'uIIIM'IAa:i,lf4lMMIwYwfISK•AieM. .. ... ___ Tr+e•a MHr;10 wra tzy+es �tsp�.'anRry rw+ea.wx!cmauw.r,)�n ac!onjfen ra ;plCdlt!Icta•RmaaW'00 macs, oh+sr touul fie •ppfap,41a rovecy In lnr !112uuaanc [Cr0)0.15tRn 11n4i ,AnPh CpArr tatc 5lrw aJ Yvari ngtJn Raan4!a•Y fa�•x!arw fw YytratvN7JanauJ Mo,'aGT•)b77w 0GCa!T.arf 4 30 0 39Vd 1tv3t�d0�31�?C �a1d3S 8h 859(3yct' IS'LI ik3FlL/E�;t0 MetroScan /King (TVA) Owner : Dayton Hudson Corporation Parcel # : 262304 9005 05 Site : 301 Strander Blvd Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 02/21/1989 Mail : 33 S 6th St Minneapolis Mn 55402 Sale Price : $4,799,745 Use : 063 Com,Shopping Center,Maj Retail Asd. V : $10,761,000 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 5 POR OF SW 1/4 Q : NE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 113,273 Ac: 8.09 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : City Of Tukwila Parcel # : 262304 9062 05 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 11/15/1993 Mail : 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila Wa 98188 Sale Price : $1,200,000 Full Use : 331 Misc,Reserve,Wilderness Area Asd. V Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 62 LOT 2 OF CITY Q :NE S : 26 T : 23N R :04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: BIdgSF: Ac: 24.77 YB: Ph: 206-433-1835 Owner : Regency Centers Lp Parcel # : 262304 9064 03 Site : 321 Strander Blvd Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 03/26/1999 Mail : PO Box 790830 San Antonio Tx 78279 Sale Price Use :061 Com,Shopping Center,Community Asd. V : $10,547,400 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 64 LOT 1 OF CITY Q :NE S : 26 T : 23N ' R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 31,600 Ac: 5.98 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Regency Centers Lp Parcel # : 262304 9064 03 Site : 321 Strander Blvd Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 03/26/1999 Mail : PO Box 790830 San Antonio Tx 78279 Sale Price Use :061 Com,ShoppingCenter,Community Asd.V : $10,547,400 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 64 LOT 1 OF CITY Q :NE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E. Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 18,819 Ac: 5.98 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Regency Centers Lp Parcel # : 262304 9064 03 Site : 321 Strander Blvd Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 03/26/1999 Mail : PO Box 790830 San Antonio Tx 78279 Sale Price Use : 061 Com,Shopping Center,Community Asd. V : $10,547,400 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 64 LOT 1 OF CITY Q :NE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 6,252 Ac: 5.98 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Regency Centers Lp Parcel # : 262304 9064 03 Site : 321 Strander Blvd Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 03/26/1999 Mail : PO Box 790830 San Antonio Tx 78279 Sale Price Use :061 Com,Shopping Center,Community Asd. V : $10,547,400 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 64 LOT 1 OF CITY Q :NE S : 26 T : 23N R :04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 B1dgSF: 3,024 Ac: 5.98 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Federated Dept Stores Inc Parcel # : 262304 9076 09 Site : 17000 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 05/15/1997 Mail : 7 W 7th St Cincinnati Oh 45202 Sale Price Use : 309 Vacant,Commercial Asd. V : $6,232,500 . Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 76 POR OF NW 1/4 Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: B1dgSF: Ac: 10.22 YB: Ph: 513-579-7000 Owner : Federated Dept Stores Inc Parcel # : 262304 9077 08 Site : 17000 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila 98188 Sale Date Mail : 7 W 7th St Cincinnati Oh 45202 Sale Price Use : 195 Ind,Warehouse Asd V : $10,426,500 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 77 POR OF NE 1/4 Q :SW S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 527,118 Ac: 9.31 YB:1968 Ph: 513-579-7000 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. MetroScan /King (WA) Owner : Everett Plaza Shopping Center Parcel # : 262304 9128 07 Site : 16700 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 05/08/2002 Mail : PO Box 5003 Bellevue Wa 98009 Sale Price : $11,700 Use : 101 Com,Retail Store Asd. V : $4,977,800 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 128 BEG SE COR Q : NW S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 B1dgSF: 50,607 Ac: 3.13 YB:1980 Ph: Owner : Everett Plaza Shopping Center Parcel # : 262304 9129 06 Site : 16800 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila 98188 Sale Date : 05/08/2002 Mail : PO Box 5003 Bellevue Wa 98009 Sale Price : $11,700 Use : 096 Com,Retail Strip Asd V : $5,955,300 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 129 BEG SE COR Q : NW S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 37,003 Ac: 3.31 YB:1980 Ph: Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002 Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use : 106 Off,Office Building Asd V :$11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bih F3H: / / Stories: 2 BIdgSF: 20,613 Ac: 7.24 YB:1978 Ph: 206-613-5300 Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002 Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use :106 Off,Office Building Asd. V :$11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 2 B1dgSF: 20,802 Ac: 7.24 YB:1978 Ph: 206-613-5300 Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002 Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use :106 Off,Office Building Asd. V :$11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 2 BIdgSF: 20,613 Ac: 7.24 YB:1978 Ph: 206-613-5300 Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002 Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use :106 Off,OfficeBuilding Asd V :$11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R :04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 2 BIdgSF: 20,802 Ac: 7.24 YB:1978 Ph: 206-613-5300 Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002 Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use :106 Off,OfficeBuilding Asd V :$11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R :04E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: 2 B1dgSF: 21,482 Ac: 7.24 YB:1978 Ph: 206-613-5300 Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002 Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use : 106 Off,Office Building Asd. V : $11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S :. 26 T : 23N R :04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 2 BIdgSF: 20,375 Ac: 7.24 YB:1979 Ph: 206-613-5300 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. MetroScan /King (WA) Owner : Washington Real Est Holdings Parcel # : 262304 9144 . 07 Site : *no Site Address* Tukwila Sale Date : 10/01/2002' Mail : 600 University St #2820 Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price Use : 106 Off,Office Building Asd. V : $11,216,900 Lgl : STR 262304 TAXLOT 144 LOT 4 OF Q : SE S : 26 T : 23N R : 04E Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BIdgSF: 576 Ac: 7.24 YB:1978 Ph: 206-613-5300 Owner : Cha Southcenter Llc Site : 16500 Southcenter Pkwy Seattle 98188 Mail : 16500 Southcenter Pkwy Seattle Wa 98188 Use :051 Res,Hotel,Motel Lgl : LOT B OUTBACK STEAK HOUSE-BSP Bedrm Bth F3H: / / Stories: 8 BIdgSF: 196,679 Parcel # : 643730 0020 00 Sale Date : 08/20/2004 Sale Price Asd.V : $14,507,300 Q : NW S : 26 T : 23N Ac:6.70 YB:1979 Ph: Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. R : 04E King County i t..� y c 73 r +a . �e ,S �` Zt� `s 4f i•P i � � . � sr 1t1 ..:•^ 1 F - 1 . 5 9�11; ti � LE � $ t.s . F `t:� } t Y 1;� , s� t ,< pC� •w'h'u i. 7 ! 7. t�5 . !+ �. ,� 4 t �' `*r} !` ,� Y° .L• L,f J^ } y-'°^ ygre `�'L two`cam-�P';,'P�"1'e'"%m's"""5'"Y i•�.r. . _ 5� ''t. 4a ;^' %r ..w %^ 1 j +"4a` "r`t. }a `r`� ` , k, 'r,,,.�>� `t 'r.s d '�;:: ky!�,,, y.i.{ `aa'a'<•*,C"3 r'° 'I'; S 'S'` 7' ''' 7 . , a •$ � � 7d t C � *¢af '`k e A""ra• �+e`��� da �'S cif - �rky#� s �� J c F'�. �'� �� � � x '51. f "" y �h Sk[%?i F Fr t !: tY y 1 •+ . �, 1 �,r<, r.� ;pr'Y` y'A+ a^`a '�.�5} a ��'2 cfP ,r ,�, f7,t'' i'9 r+� iY�d' �:j i � ° 1 ;✓t �'k i� �� � # S t.y �,� � SYC .ate n 7 :i?r f'�.L-, .f..:.'_' P�:. Sn .. -; -. r'�1 -� r 3 Tukwila Pond Site, , Y `^^a• e j rc '�3^{� Y rr4• ldY"F1ra#�tiS S Igf X rts' , J rrT 1•4X tr � 4L � -`. � �: ' 1 �i a1. C.ir�* � t s �S's ��°.. r - , - k at, `��` t � r � r5' � y ,: c .>.•, s. � w r x: r,, a �� �xY }}r i fir � J� � _ ,i T'na'�lJ:.� iYt-.. i J. f �"� 7 :, .r ! v •.�' r . Y. ! c� r r '^ '" �v�'< + �: f �'_y ' v f,: •�4 .r'F'e q ,"..r.'•�4r �' qtJ ti to - x _. e�, t3 �,•�Rnt *'r.,�� s Site 1 k Penn Vi7y er ,,�K,�? c7J ? 3rtlT �+K.�yJl iq#- aZj'sf'S7 "�.� .v-.r+s _.-.« •rm'3. $ t ��,��J� -s..J } .w.. .•t q+ 2; a ',`' 7t R a } 7 3J 2'Liv f ��r1 g_.y c #ter ,.< Z,�� I'k• '+, r „rs u# * �' : �� rt .. {�j Y�, t d. }.,r'a,'it• L7'T"..�w Y7-� "r. �'�'� rr' i fr �,,,1) 4 r� µ` t dE�k r ; �s1�id{ rn-a�hee � 4'ya l � �.,y . � i fir, �. $it•7� �,�4� � ,� �} X}r � £.�)�) .±. t _. rt i}`i-�L' 1^a5h`�' °u � x s- i,Y x s is^rk L. ,:..��w - t :"' •,fir. _ v c k. "� a 't �' -- - Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE [+J FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC 6500 126' Avenue SE Wig Properties LLC-SS Bellevue, Washington 98006 Tukwila, Washington —lw 6 Pvcoe"\r "P j 4+\"1O^ \"O\k fw% am" Mb w'Mka Protl LarB>r>rra8 fmu wrMrn� 'wwa wsoarPar Mwa w� a w+f s .+.•r our aas+ as-ar wu�+ ow n a o yjt'lrrOary Ptrq NV1d ONIGVlPJ'93tlf1011 NVId ONIOVUE) fn 3 SN:Dvdi a'd�llItiJ a+:ur rug. rcnv uvrvn �w� � N a r iz mi(1• '� SI%- �c�_,-----�_ ar _ SS �•' SS �/ oz _�--- � u.er.er lyE! �fa,aro / % 4', /1---.—Via''-�.� -� c�. ' `JNLLSIX3 y a •4' ! �' MO / /9NLLSIXIy I. I _�'f 7r /1f4!� , \l�� % ii i z.aryl3 `� or �, %%%%%%.�j//} SS MO :�i. cY'l r (•/ 4`i !/'Y"\ j f /r SLY /��`•...L'`� sam-<s•... n r as — _ I ( i i l J'j/ Imo' �Jj ' �' / /J 1 r1 II (( r /-,1"• ) r / i pi •Z"sL LSV31 1V MO 3911M 13NNVHD \.\ �...,` ! .r. m.i>rc EiL•r,l i- I' ONILSIX3 �. t oj%�� p�'JfNLLSIX3• 143 ee;eay.Mc I�' � J, / ONV'll3M Y /111 �) , r 1 ONLLSIX3 y QNOd, wlim i n3n3•ey3 ;" i10 / 0j ONILSIX3% % (10 G /11,:y' V3UY NOLLV9W11 — — — — — drd Lr7 eYV ' j 10.P�r II 1 .1-4' O {.. �111'JI ..1t I:7Ny�.r NY'C lEL't5t IEWl S90 LSLBZ Z6L Z'BL (Od)Pa{sa3o3 LS 0 ZSL ZZ BB'0 V BE EL ,Z BL L"LL (SS) 9N45-QNoS P�IIaM papea8ep 8uI1§ix3 A OZ L'LL vATrE $Tr Axo TIME Anon r o s4 ccs rat mM' EXCAVATE )NEE M AT A wE a ,2 uxER T,w, srooT euE cR srvxis, ,nsrATsr swL ,usrE srrcrazE o�R �Mssa ' x� e •onrc ,KAOCRA Moms AEL oc WMSERv BAIL a X" M OVER amx= w. dl1 • VR W, eE CWRSFLY sl Rm. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL (6' TO 6' HEIGHT) srxe Rory V2• AawE onM[ s• Aea.T: e,uoE e Ana+[ m,rtnra a ra,tt adore m7 o�iay.°Gn SOLj scaEu xoaEs dm 1... 9� GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL sour: wnE � tv o* - m»ee F7 ac p, »Kv» a � L I Fr;Ftln Wetland Class Elevation Limits Area (sf Area acres Open Water (U 15.7-17.2' _40. 70 0.92 Existing Degraded Wetland 17.T-20.0' 38,473 0.88 Emergent (EM) 17.7-17.7' 22,779 0.52 Scrub•ShruM (SS) 17.T-18.7 22,152 0.51 Forested (FO) 18.T-19.7 28,157 0.65 1 ota1 151,731 3.48 I — — — — — MI1I6AnoN AREA I ewa: eu.n Ro.e a Nw,er, tie M , G .—V\01 Z1, n ME, Qr oa Asa )¢]Ton ---.-- 1 4 I I L' SIGN DETAIL su+t rare ANo �Llw_ ,a� _ ]o• ,no dwrErot a• - ,z• LOG DETAIL CL�A?111ri LII1tTS-r- .;' / ow Al ss L L 1%4 FENCE DETAIL aarc:rore , ^� TUKWILA POND sac • xme • aKas m a A 71 raon,c roc eur »o s.wn ar HABITAT SNAG i l �t-T9n�i /. i/� ii/ 7.�i /�//�i✓> ow i ze RAi_PoA.D -irACKS) PLANTING PLAN 0 b a0 Yde l.rM Fo EXISTING m.zar • 'A.'.n N Ld lY TI E• 3]LT ) M I > 1 z �:xm•i � Q _ �" Lvn E.-'Art�S TMrr F o<•�.= . �_�rs n,,Kx w:, v,..•,-. MURE s: vVJrnrA RAN CNaU Amour, ELC My •rep�tln =—ss E90a ,laN M».n _ NY»Iq b/Jg1en aVM. yyy1� �aOJa RECEIVED T UKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Chad Armour, LLC August 25, 2006 Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188-2544 Subject: Mitigation Plan Bond Southcenter Square Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Bradshaw: In your August 22, 2006 email you asked us to estimate the cost to construct and restore the wetland in the Tukwila Pond and to monitor and maintain it for 10 years. We trust that this information meets your needs. If you have any questions about the spreadsheet, please let us know. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC C/�'" 4vbl-�— Chad Armour Principal Attachments: Attachment A — Bond Quantity Worksheet for the Tukwila Pond Wetland Restoration 6500 1261h Avenue SE (425) 641-9743 Bellevue, Washington 98006 (4251 643-3499 (Fax) www.chadarmour.corn chad@chadarmour.com pa) 06 - 1 011 Bond Quantity Worksheet for Sensitive Area Mitigations Project Name: Southcenter Square Project Address: Tukwila Pond Wetland Restoration Wetland File No. Date 23 Aug 06 Contact Person/Phone: Chad Armour (425.641 9743) Trees (includes delivery, Common Name Qty Unit Price allon 1 gal Total Qty Unit Price=2g 2 allon Unit Price 1.5" cal 1.5" cap P1 Total Total Cost Scientific Name nus ru ra re er 0 47 55. 0 2, 5 2,583 Fraxinus ati o is re on as 0. 0 0. 31 55. 1,705 1,705 Po u us tric ocar a b ac cottonwoo Total $0.00 ITotal $0.00 L Total $6,875 $6,875 Shrubs (includes delivery, installation, ana matenatsl Common Name Qty Unit Price 1 gallon 1 gal Total Qty Unit Price 2 gallon 2 gal Total Qty Unit Price 5 allon 5 al g Total Total Cost Scientific Name ICU -osier o woo00 ac twine Pacific ninebark 0.00 flo 0. 0 30.00 90 .0 90 .0 0. 0 0.00 00.00 900.00 ornus sto ont era Lonicera invo ucrata P soca us ca flatus Total $0.00 Total $11,940.00 Total $0.00 $11,940.00 r :.— V+.1— / (uttinus Scientific Name V Common Name Qty Unit Price Unit Total Cost Po ulus trichoca a Salix lasiandra Salix i eri Sallx sitchensis ac cottonwoo Pacific willow Piper's willow Sitka willow 440 124 123 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $880.00 $248.00 $246.00 snh Total $1.374.00 Page 1 Bond Quantity Worksheet.xls n..i.,... a ..t nvnrhPad and nrnfitl Unit Amount Total Cost S ecific Name Unit Price 14. 0 0 4,000 56, 00.00 of Export $3.00 4000 4,000 $12,000.00 Soil Gradin To soil -delivered & spread $12.95 1400 1,400 $18,130.00 $20.00 681 681 $13,620.00 Mulch Sub Total $99,750.00 aes.,a.., ;nctallatinn- and materialsl 1.rrdsseJit.mc.gc,.•��..........., Name ....... _-�r --------------•-- Seeding Rate Acre Unit Price - Pounds Total Cost Wet and ee Mix, me u m : 20 to 4 acre 0. 8F 2 . 5 2,728.00 Beclanannia i achne American slow h rass Descham sia ces itosa tufted hairgrass El mus elaucus blue wildrye GI seria occidentalis western manna Flordeum brachyantherum meadow barley Descham sia ces itosa Geummacro hvlh.m Gl seria randis tufted hairgrass large -leaved avens reed manna rass 1.68 1.68 1.68 1 $50.001 1 $120.00 $100.00 0.55 1 S.9 $27.50 $120.00 $590.00 Sub Total $3 465.50 Specific Name Qty Unit Price br Total Cost Carex o nu to sou sedge sed a 7039 7436 1. 5 $1.65 11 614.35 $12,269.40 Carex sti ata sawbeak Eleochris palusiris commonspike-rush 1898 $1.65 $3,131.70 Scirpus cyperinus wool- ass 950 $1.65 $1,567.50 Scirpus tabernaemontani softstem bulrush 950 $1.65 $1,567.50 $0.00 c... r . . ezn i cn da Page 2 Bond Quantity Worksheet.xls d 1' installation and materials) Habitat btructures <<ncjud es a the , f Units Total Cost Specific Name Unit Price .350.00 12 4,200.0 Woo debns, are $500.00 6 1 $3,000.00 Snags C..6 Tntal $7.200.00 installation and materials) uenerai Items kinciuucs uu1s,— Y, > S ecific Name Unit Cost Units Total Cost Fenctn , S it Rail, 4' Ht 3-rail or 3' Hi h 2-rat ** 10.00 $20.00 00 12 00000 6��S�24001 Sins. Sensitive Area Bound $9,500.00 1 $9,500.00 Irrigation, Temporary S b Total I $15 740.00 u ** may be included in construction bond instead of wetland bond with City approval COStS ivlonnoring anu Maintenance Item Unit Price ' Unit Total Cost blatntenan-e rs 8 15,650.00 5,650.00 5,3 0 $45,200.00 Maintenance -next 8 ears 5 2,500.00 $12,500.00 Monitorin annual -1st5 cars 1 3,000.00 $3,000.00 Monitorin annual - Year 7 2 3.500.00 $7,000.00 Monitorin annual -Years 9 & 10 Sub Total $94,066.00 $269,186.95 Total Construction/Maintenance/Monitoring Costs _ _ $403,780.43 _� J .-_,...... Aoencv Multiplier 150% 1 utat nm.0 Page 3 Bond Quantity Worksheet.xls Chad Armour, LLC August 24, 2006 Seattle District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch CENWS-OD-RG ATTN: Amy Klein Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Subject: NWP-27 — Tukwila Pond Wetland Mitigation Site Southcenter Square project Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Klein: We understand that you are the new project manager for this project. We also understand that Matt Bennett will assist as necessary. Suzanne Skadowski was the previous PM and T. J. Stetz assisted. Wig Properties LLC plans to create and enhance wetlands on the Tukwila Pond site. Wig will do this work in exchange for filling jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands on the Penney site (see your file no. 2004-0082 for details). In this file you will find a wetland assessment and delineation report for the Penney site and a mitigation plan for the Tukwila Pond site. The mitigation plan was designed to offset the loss of wetland area and function on the Penney site. The Permittee is: Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 1341h Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attn: Leshya Wig (425) 957-4774 leshyawig@wigproperties.com The Proposed Project is in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site west of Andover Parkway West in Sections 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The plan is to remove reed canarygrass from wetlands and uplands, remove enough soil to bring the water table closer to the soil surface, and create forest, shrub, emergent, and open water wetland classes planted with native trees, shrubs, and herbs. Enclosed is a JARPA for a NWP-27 (Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities) to create and enhance wetlands on the Tukwila Pond site. This DARPA is limited to the Tukwila Pond site and does not cover the jurisdictional wetland on the Penney site. Filling the jurisdictional wetland on the Penney site is subject to a separate nationwide permit. 6500 126th Avenue SE (425) 641-9743 Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 643-3499 (Fax) wwJw.chadarmour.com chad@chadarmour.com Southcenter Square Project JARPA for Welland Restoration August 24, 2006 We trust that the attached documentation represents a complete JARPA notification. If you have any questions about the JARPA or this letter, please let us know. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal cc: Leshya Wig, Wig Properties, LLC Attachments: JARPA NWP-27 to create and enhance wetlands on the Tukwila Pond site STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office s 3190 160th Avenue .SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008-54.52 • (425) 649-7000 September 1, 2006 REGISTERED MAIL RB 670 437 868 US Wig Properties LLC Attn: Mon Wig 4811 1.34th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Mr. Wig: RE: Administrative Order No. 3815: Administrative Order for placement of fill in 1.02 acre of isolated wetlands as part of a commercial development for Southcenter Square on Southcenter Parkway, City of Tukwila, in King County, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Reference #200400822 We have reviewed your request for an administrative order for proposed work in isolated wetlands for construction of a commercial development on Southcenter Parkway, City of.Tukwila. The State of Washington has determined that the proposed work, as condition by the enclosed Order, will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW and other appropriate requirements of State law. The Order does not authorize placement of fill in wetlands determined to be regulated by the Corps under Nationwide Permit.#39 (Corps Reference #200400822). This approval is subject to the conditions contained in the enclosed Order. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Robohm at (425) 649-4447 or (425) 649-7000. The enclosed Order may be appealed by following the procedures described in the Order. Sincerely, Geoff Tallent d Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program GT:RRcja cc: Kathy Kunz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Steve Lancaster, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Chad Armour, Chad Armour LLC Richard Robohm, Ecology Rebekah Padgett, Ecology Penny Keys, Ecology Loree' Randall, Ecology 0 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST BY ) WIG PROPERTIES LLC ) FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TO ) ORDER NO. 381 S CONDUCT WORK IN ISOLATED WETLANDS ) To: Wig Properties LLC Attn: Mon Wig 4811 134t' Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 This is an Administrative Order requiring Wig Properties LLC to comply with Chapter 90.48 RCW and the rules and regulations of the Department of Ecology (Ecology) by taking certain actions which are described below. RCW 90.48.120(1) authorizes Ecology to issue Administrative Orders requiring compliance whenever it determines that a person has violated or creates a substantial potential to violate any provision of Chapter 90.48 RCW. This Order does not authorize Wig Properties LLC to place fill in wetlands that are under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction (Corps Reference #200400822). In June 2006, Wig Properties LLC submitted a request to Ecology to fill L02 acre of isolated wetlands to enable construction of the Southcenter Square commercial development, northeast of the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard in the City of Tukwila, in King County, Washington. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with RCW 90.48.120(1): IT IS ORDERED that Wig Properties LLC shall comply with the following: 1. Wetland compensatory mitigation and monitoring for the wetland fill shall be performed as described in the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, dated July 6, 2006, by Chad Armour LLC (hereafter referred to as"Final Mitigation Plan"), except as modified.. in this Order. a) Timing: Construction of the.wetland mitigation shall begin before or concurrent with wetland impacts of the development. Construction and installation of the wetland mitigation as specked in the plan shall be completed no later than June 1 of the year following the start of construction. b) .Construction Monitoring: To ensure that proper elevations are achieved and plants are appropriately placed, monitoring of wetland mitigation grading and plant installation, as described in Section 7.2, "Construction Monitoring," shall be done by a qualified wetland ecologist. This monitoring shall be in addition to the pre- and t~ Order 43815, U.S. Ai -my Corps 9200400822, Wig Properties, LLC September 1, 2006 Page 2 of 4 c) post -construction meetings described in Section 6.5, "Installation Sequence," of the Final Mitigation Plan. d) Performance Standards: The performance of the wetland mitigation shall be measured by the standards described in Section 5.5, "Performance Standards," of the Final Mitigation Plan. e) Monitoring: Monitoring to ensure that the project performance standards are met shall be performed as specified in Section 7.3, Post -Construction Monitoring, of the Final Mitigation Plan. Copies of all monitoring reports shall be submitted to Wetland Specialist, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, 3190 — 1601h Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA, 98008-5452, identified with Order No. 3815. Monitoring reports will also be submitted to the City of Tukwila. fl Maintenance: The Applicant is responsible for maintaining the wetland mitigation site to ensure that performance standards are met. Maintenance shall be performed as described in Section 9, "Maintenance Plan," of the Final Mitigation Plan. g) Contingency Plan: The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing contingency measures if performance standards and plan objectives have not been met. Such measures may include those described in Section 10, "Contingency Plan," of the Final. Mitigation Plan. h) An "as -built" report and drawing documenting the final design of the mitigation area shall be prepared when the mitigation plan has been implemented. The "as -built" documents shall include the following: • Vicinity map showing site access; • Final site topography; • Drawings that clearly identify the, boundaries of the mitigation areas; • The installed planting scheme showing quantities, densities, sizes, and approximate locations of plants, as well as plant sources and the time of planting; • Photographs of the area taken from permanent reference points; • Locations of photopoints, sampling and monitoring sites; and • An analysis of any changes to the mitigation plan that occurred during construction. A copy of the "as -built" report and drawing shall be sent to Wetland Specialist, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, 3190 160th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 within 90 days of completing mitigation construction and planting. 2. Wig Properties LLC shall provide access to the project site upon request. by Ecology. Order #3815, U.S. Army Corps 4200400822, Wig Properties, LLC September 1, 2006 Page 3 of 4 3. This Order does not exempt and is provisional upon compliance with other statutes and codes administered by federal, state, and local agencies. 4. Copies of this Order shall be kept on the job site and readily available for reference by Ecology personnel, the construction superintendent, construction managers and foremen, and state and local government inspectors. 5. Nothing in this Order waives Ecology's authority to issue additional orders if Ecology determines further actions are necessary to implement the water quality laws of the state. Further, Ecology retains continuing jurisdiction to make modifications hereto through supplemental order, if additional impacts due to project construction or operation are identified (e.g., violations of water quality standards, downstream erosion, etc.), or if additional conditions are necessary to further protect the public interest. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the issuance of civil penalties or other actions, whether administrative or judicial, to enforce the terms of this Order. You have the right to appeal this Order to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. Pursuant to chapter 43.21B RCW, your appeal must be filed with the Pollution Control Hearings Board, and served on the Department of Ecology within thirty (30) days. of the date of your receipt of this document. To appeal this Order, your notice of appeal must contain a copy of the Ecology Order you are appealing.. Your appeal must be filed with: The Pollution Control Hearings Board 4224 - 6th Avenue SE, Rowe Six, Bldg. 2 P.O. Box 40903 Lacey, Washington 9.8504-0903 Your appeal must also be served on: The Department of Ecology Appeals Coordinator P.O. Box 47608 Olympia, Washington 98504-7608. Order 43815, U.S. Army Corps #200400822, Wig Properties, LLC September 1, 2006 Page 4 of 4 In addition, please send a copy of your appeal to: Federal Permit Appeals Coordinator Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98.504-7600 For additional information: Environmental Hearings Office Website: http://www.eho.wa.gov Your appeal alone will not stay the effectiveness of this Order. Stay requests must be submitted in accordance with RCW 43.21B.320. These procedures are consistent with Ch. 43.21B RCW. DATED September 1, 2006 Bellevue; Washington. ,- r- Geoff4Tallent Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 (360) 407-6000 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006 21 August 2006 Leshya Wig Wig Properties Inc LLC-SS 4811 134th Pl SE Bellevue WA 98006 Dear Leshya Wig: RE: Construction Stormwater General Permit Permit Number: WAR-006904 Site Name: SouthCenter Square Location: 17200 SouthCenter Blvd Tukwila King County Disturbed Acres: 11.0 Receiving Water: Green River The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has reviewed your application for coverage under the construction stormwater general permit, and has decided to issue permit coverage effective August 21, 2006. Please retain this permit coverage letter with your permit (enclosed), stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and site log book. It is the official record of permit coverage for your site. This letter explains some of the new requirements in the new construction stormwater general permit. Please take time to read the new permit, and contact Ecology if you have any questions. Inspections • You must conduct weekly visual inspections of your site to ensure your best management practices (BMPs) are functioning properly. • Beginning October 1, 2006, you must use a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) to do inspections of your site. Ecology maintains a list of training classes to obtain CESCL certification. Ecology has a list of CESCL training courses on its website. • Refer to Condition S4 (pages 10-12) for more information. Sampling and Analysis • Beginning October 1, 2006, sites five acres and greater must sample stormwater discharges for turbidity using a turbidity meter. • Beginning October 1, 2006, sites one acre and greater must sample stormwater discharges for pH, if the project involves engineered soils (cement kiln dust, etc.) or over 1000 yds3 of poured or recycled concrete. Beginning October 1, 2008, sites less than five acres must sample their stormwater discharges for turbidity using a turbidity meter or transparency tube. Leshya Wig Page 3 21 August 2006 The procedures and requirements for the appeal process are contained in RCW 43.21.13310. ("RCW" is the Revised Code of Washington). Appeals should be directed to:. Pollution Control Hearings Board PO Box 40903 Olympia, Washington 98504-0903 Department of Ecology Appeals Coordinator P.O. Box 47608 Olympia, Washington 98504-7608 Additional Information Ecology is committed to providing assistance. to you. Please review our Web page at http://www.ecy.wa.goy/i)rograms/wq/storrnwater/construction/. Now available — a stormwater sampling video that demonstrates appropriate sampling methods! Questions For questions about transfers, terminations, and other administrative issues, please contact Elaine Worthen at 360-407-7229 or ewor461@ecy.wa.gov. Ecology Regional Assistance If you have questions regarding stormwater management issues at your construction site, please contact Christopher Dew (425-649-4484),of Ecology's Northwest Regional Office in Bellevue. If you have questions regarding this letter, please call Elaine Worthen at 360-407-7229. Sincerely, fa'ncy E. Winters, Section Manager Program Development Services Section Water Quality Program Enclosure: Construction Stormwater General Permit cc: Ecology Permit Fee Unit, HQ Stormwater File, HQ WAR-006904 SouthCenter Square 17200 SouthCenter Blvd Issuance Date: November 16, 2005 Tukwila King County Effective Date: December 16, 2005 Expiration Date: December 16, 2010 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER GENERAL PERMIT National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ) and State .Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 In compliance with the provisions of The State of Washington Water Pollution Control Law Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington and . The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (The Clean Water Act) Title 33 United States Code, Section-.1251 et seq. Until this permit expires, is modified or revoked, Permittees that have properly obtained coverage under this general permit are authorized to discharge in accordance with the special and general conditions which follow. ) __� C 4"�'7 David C. Peeler, Manager Water Quality Program Washington State Department of Ecology Page 2 of 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS.....................................................................3 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED ON SITE DOCUMENTATION.....................................................3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS S1. PERMIT COVERAGE........................................................................................................4 S3. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS...............................................................................9 S4. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................10 S5. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.........................................15 S6. PERMIT FEES...................................................................................................................18 S7. SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL...'.................................................................18 S8. DISCHARGES TO 303(d) OR TMDL WATERBODIES................................................18 S9. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN...................................................21 S 10. NOTICE OF TERMINATION..........................................................................................29 GENERALCONDITIONS...........................................................................................................30 G1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS...........................................................................................30 G2. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................30 G3. RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND ENTRY.........................................................................31 G4. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION......................................31 G5. REVOCATION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE PERMIT.............................................31 G6. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION............................................................32 G7. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES.............:...............................32 G8. DUTY TO REAPPLY.......................................................................................................32 G9. TRANSFER OF GENERAL PERMIT COVERAGE.......................................................32 G10. REMOVED SUBSTANCES.............................................................................................33 G11. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION...........................................................................33 G12. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR...........................................................................33 G13. 'ADDITIONAL MONITORING........................................................................................33 G14. PENALTIES: FOR VIOLATING PERMIT CONDITIONS.............................................33 G15. UPSET...............................................................................................................................34 G16. PROPERTY RIGHTS........................................................................................................34 G17. DUTY TO COMPLY........................................................................................................34 G18. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.....................................................................................................34 G19. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING.....................................................................................35 G20. REPORTING PLANNED CHANGES..............................................................................35 G21. REPORTING OTHER INFORMATION..........................................................................35 Page 3 of 46 G22. REPORTING ANTICIPATED NON-COMPLIANCE.....................................................35 G23. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE PERMIT .......... 36 G24. APPEALS ................................ ..........................................................................................36 G25. SEVERABILITY...............................................................................................................36 G26. BYPASS PROHIBITED..................................................................:.................................36 APPENDIXA — DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................39 APPENDIX B — ACRONYMS...........................................46 .......................................................... SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS Refer to the Special and General Conditions for additional submittal requirements. Permit Section Submittal Frequency First Submittal Date S5.A High Turbidity/Transparency Phone As Necessary Within 24 hours Reporting S5.8 Discharge Monitoring Report Monthly Within 15 days after the applicable monitoring period S5.F Noncompliance Notification As necessary Immediately S51 Noncompliance Notification —'Written As necessary Within 5 Days of non - Report compliance G2. Notice of Change in Authorization As necessary G6. Permit Application for Substantive As necessary Changes to the Discharge G8. Application for Permit Renewal 1/permit cycle No later than 180 days before expiration G9. Notice of Permit Transfer As necessary G20. Notice of Planned Changes As necessary G22. Reporting Anticipated Non-compliance As necessary SUMMARY OF REQUIRED ON SITE DOCUMENTATION Permit Conditions Document Title Conditions S2, S5 Permit Coverage Letter Conditions S2, S5 Construction Stormwater General Permit Conditions S4, SS Site Log Book Conditions S9, SS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP Page 4 of 46 SPECIAL CONDITIONS S1. PERMIT COVERAGE A. Permit Area This general permit covers all areas of Washington State, except for federal and tribal lands specified in S l .D.3. B. Operators Required to Seek Coverage Under this General Permit: 1. Operators of the following construction activities are required to seek coverage under this permit: a. Clearing, grading and/or excavation which results in the disturbance of one or more acres, and discharges stormwater to surface waters of the state; and clearing, grading and/or excavation on sites smaller, than one acre which are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, if the common plan of development or sale will ultimately disturb one acre or more, and discharges stormwater to surface waters of the state. i. This includes forest practices that are part of a construction activity that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres, and discharges to surface waters of the state (i.e., forest practices which are preparing a site for construction activities); and b. Any size construction activity discharging stormwater to waters of the state which the Department of Ecology (Ecology): i. Determines to be a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the state of Washington, or ii. Reasonably expects to cause a violation of any water quality standard. 2. Operators of the following activities are not required to seek coverage under this permit, unless specifically required under Condition S I.B. Lb. (Significant Contributor): a. Construction activities which discharge all stormwater and non-stormwater to ground water, and have no point source discharge to surface water or a storm sewer system that drains to surface waters of the state; b. Construction activities covered under an Erosivity Waiver (Condition S2.C); c. Routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of a facility. Page 5 of 46 C. Authorized Discharges: 1. Sty rmwater Associated with Construction Activity. Subjectiauthorized to di compliance with the discharge terms and conditions of this permitPermittees are activity to surface waters of the state or to a stormwater associated withconstruction- storm sewer system that drains to surface waters of the state. 2. Stormthe water Associated with Construction Su ort Activity. Thiport activities related �opermit alsopermitted authorizes stormwater discharge ?TOm ss aging yards, material storage areas, construction site (e.g., off-siteequipment borrow areas, etc.) provided: a. The support activity is directly related to the permitted construction site that is required to have an NPDES permit; and b. The support activity is not a commercial operation serving multi l eeounrelated construction projects, and does not operate beyond the comp eti construction activity; and er C. Appropriate riate controls and measures are identified in the Sto rt aat vity pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)for the discharges from the support water 3. Non Storrnwater Discharges. The categories and sources of provided dinon-store discharge is discharges identified below are:conditio of authorized, consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit: a. Discharges from fire fighting activities; b. Fire hydrant system flushing; c. Potable water including uncontaminated water line flushing (de -chlorinated); d. Pipeline hydrostatic test water; e. Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate; f. Uncontaminated ground water or spring water; g. Uncontaminated excavation de -watering (in accordance with S9.D.10) h. Uncontaminated discharges from foundation or footing drains; i. Water used to control dust; j. Routine external building wash down that does not use detergents; and k. Landscape irrigation. Page 6 of 46 All authorized non-stormwater discharges, except for discharges from fire fighting activities, shall be adequately addressed in the SWPPP and comply with Special Condition S3. D. Limitations on Coverage The Director may require any discharger to apply for and obtain coverage under an individual permit or another more specific general permit. Such alternative coverage will be required when Ecology determines that this general permit does not provide adequate assurance that water quality will be protected; or there is a reasonable potential for the project to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. The following stormwater discharges are not covered by this permit: 1. Post -construction stormwater discharges that originate from the site after construction activities have been completed and the site has undergone final stabilization. 2. Nonpoint source silvicultural activities such as nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural, runoff as excluded in 40 CFR Subpart 122.27. 3. Stormwater from any federal project or project on federal land or land within an Indian Reservation except for the Puyallup Reservation. Within the Puyallup Reservation, any project that discharges to surface water on land held intrust by the federal government may be covered by this permit. 4. Stormwater from any site covered under an existing NPDES individual permit in which stormwater management and/or treatment requirements are included for all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. 5. Where an applicable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) specifically precludes or prohibits discharges from construction activity, the operator is not eligible for . coverage under this permit. S2. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Permit Application Forms 1. Notice of Intent Form/Timeline a. Operators of new or previously unpermitted construction activities shall submit a complete and accurate permit application form [Notice of Intent (NOI)] to Ecology. Applicants are encouraged to use Ecology's internet-based electronic NOI to apply for permit coverage. b. The NOI shall be submitted on or before the date of the first public notice (see Condition S2.13 below) and at least 60 days prior to the discharge of stormwater Page 7 of 46 from construction activities. The 30-day public comment period required by WAC 173-226-130(5) begins on the publication date of the second public notice. Unless Ecology responds to the complete application in writing, based on public comments, or any other relevant factors, coverage under the general permit will automatically commence on the thirty-first day following receipt by Ecology of a completed NOI, or the issuance date of this permit, whichever is later; unless a later date is specified by Ecology in writing. c. Applicants that discharge to a storm sewer system operated by Seattle, King County, Snohomish County, Tacoma, Pierce County, or Clark County shall also submit a copy of the NOI to the appropriate jurisdiction. 2. Transfer of Coverage Form Current coverage under this permit may be transferred to one or more new operators, including operators 'of sites within a Common Plan of Development, by submitting a Transfer of Coverage Form in accordance with Condition G9. Transfers do not require public notice. B. Public Notice For new or previously unpermitted sites, the applicant shall publish a public notice at least one time each week for two consecutive weeks, with a 7-day time span between dates, in a newspaper that has general circulation in the county in which the construction is to take place. The notice shall contain the following: 1. A statement that "The applicant is seeking coverage under the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit"; 2. The name, address and location of the construction site; 3. The name and address of the applicant; 4. The type of construction activity that will result in a discharge, (e.g., residential construction, commercial construction, etc.) and the number of acres to be disturbed; 5. The name of the receiving water(s) (i.e., the surface water(s) that the site will discharge to), or if the discharge is through a storm sewer system, the name of the operator of the storm sewer; and 6. The statement: "Any person desiring to present their views to the Department of Ecology regarding this application, or interested in the Department's action on this application may notify the Department of Ecology in writing within 30 days of the last date of publication of this notice. Comments can be submitted to: Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47696, Olympia, WA 98504-7696, Attn: Water Quality Program, Construction Stormwater". Page 8 of 46 C. Erosivity Waiver Operators may qualify for a waiver from the permit if the following conditions are met: 1. The site will result. in the- disturbance of less than 5 acres; and the site is not a portion of a common plan of development or sale that will disturb 5 acres or greater. 2. Calculation of Erosivity "R" Factor and Regional Timeframe: a. The project's rainfall erosivity factor ("R" Factor) must be less than 5 during the period of construction activity, as calculated using the Texas A&M University online rainfall erosivity calculator at: http:/`ei.tamu.edu/. The period of construction activity begins at initial earth disturbance.and ends with final stabilization; and, in addition: b. The entire period of construction activity must fall within the following timeframes: i. For sites west of the Cascades Crest: June 15 — September 15; or ii. For sites east of the Cascades Crest, excluding the Central Basin: June 15 — October 15; or. iii. For sites east of the Cascades Crest, within the Central Basin*: no additional timeframe restrictions apply. *Note: The Central Basin is defined as the portions of Eastern Washington with mean annual precipitation of less than 12 inches. 3. Operators must submit a complete Erosivity Waiver Certification Form at least one week prior to commencing land disturbing activities. Certification must include: a. A statement that the operator will comply with applicable.local stormwater requirements; and b. A statement that the operator will implement appropriate erosion and sediment control BA Ps to prevent violations of water quality standards. 4. This waiver is not available for facilities declared a significant contributor of pollutants as defined in Condition S I.B. Lb. 5. This waiver does not apply to construction activity which includes non-stormwater discharges listed in S 1.C.3. 6. If construction activity extends beyond the certified waiver period for any reason, the operator shall either: Page 9 of 46 a. Recalculate the rainfall erosivity "R" factor using the original start date and a new projected ending date and, if the "R" factor is still under 5 and the entire project falls within the applicable regional timeframe in S2.C.2.b, complete and submit an amended waiver certification form before the original waiver expires; or b. Submit a complete permit application to Ecology in accordance with Condition S2.A and B before the end of the certified waiver period. S3. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS A. Discharges shall not cause or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), ground water quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC), and human health -based criteria in the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR Part 131.36). Discharges that are not in compliance with these standards are not authorized. B. Prior to the discharge of stormwater and non-stormwater to waters of the state, the Permittee shall apply all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART). This includes the preparation and implementation of an adequate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), with all appropriate best management practices (BMPs) installed and maintained in accordance with the SWPPP and the terms and conditions of this permit. C. Compliance with water quality standards shall be presumed, unless discharge monitoring data or other site specific information demonstrates that a discharge causes or contributes to a violation of water quality standards, when the Permittee is: 1. In full compliance with all permit conditions, including planning, sampling, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping conditions; and 2. Fully implementing stormwater BMPs contained in stormwater management manuals published or approved by Ecology, or BMPs that are demonstrably equivalent to BMPs-contained in stormwater technical manuals published or approved by Ecology, including the proper selection, implementation, and maintenance of all applicable and appropriate BMPs for on -site pollution control. D. For sites that discharge to both surface water and ground water, all ground water discharges are also subject to the terms and conditions of this permit. Permittees who discharge to ground water through an injection well shall comply with any applicable requirements of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations, Chapter 173-218 WAC. Page 10 of 46 S4. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS The primary monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 3 (below): Table,3. Summary. of Monitoring Requirements) Size of Soil Disturbance) -Weekly.' Weekly. . Weekly Weekly. Site Sampling w/ Sampling w/ pH Inspections Turbidity.Meter Transparency sampling3 'Tube Sites which disturb less than 1 Required Not Required Not Required Not acre Re uired Sites which disturb 1 acre or Required Sampling Required — either Required more, but less than 5 acres method e Sites which disturb 5 acres or, Required Required Not Required Required more A. Site Log Book The Permittee shall maintain a site log book that contains a record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements including the installation and maintenance of BMPs, site inspections, and stormwater monitoring. - B. Site Inspections 1. Site inspections shall include all areas disturbed by construction activities, all BMPs, and all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater shall be visually examined for the t Additional monitoring requirements may apply for: 1) discharges to 303(d) listed waterbodies and waterbodies with applicable TMDLs for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorus - see Condition S8; and 2) sites required to perform additional monitoring by Ecology order — see Condition G 13. 2 Soil disturbance is calculated by adding together all areas affected by construction activity. Construction Activity means clearing, grading, excavation, and any other activity which disturbs the surface of the land, including ingress/egress from the site. 3 Beginning October 1, 2006, if construction activity involves significant concrete work or the use of engineered soils, and stormwater from the affected area drains to a stormwater collection system or other surface water, the Permittee shall conduct pH sampling in accordance with Condition S4.D. 4 Beginning October 1, 2008, sites with one or more acres, but less than 5 acres of soil disturbance, shall conduct turbidity or transparency sampling in accordance with Condition S4.C. 5 Beginning October 1, 2006,.sites greater than or equal to 5 acres of soil disturbance shall conduct turbidity sampling using a turbidity meter in accordance with Condition S4.C. Page 11 of 46 presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oil sheen. Inspectors shall evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs and determine if it is necessary to install, maintain, or repair BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. Based on the results of the inspection, the Permittee shall correct the problems identified as follows: a. Review the SWPPP for compliance with Condition S9 and make appropriate revisions within 7 days of the inspection; and - b. Fully implement and maintain appropriate source control and/or treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days of the inspection; and C. Document BMP implementation and maintenance in the site log book. 2. The site inspections shall be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any discharge from the site. The inspection frequency for temporarily stabilized, inactive sites maybe reduced to once every calendar month. 3. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The inspector shall have the skills to: a. Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and b. Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. 4. Beginning October 1, 2006, construction sites one acre or larger that discharge stormwater to surface waters of the state, shall have site inspections conducted by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). The CESCL shall be identified in the SWPPP and shall be present on -site or on -call at all times. Certification shall be obtained through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by Ecology (see BMP C 160 in the Manual). 5. The inspector shall summarize the results of each inspection in an inspection report or checklist and be entered into, or attached to, the site log book. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date and time. b. Weather information; general conditions during inspection and approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and within the last 24 hours. c. A summary or list of all BMPs which have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. locations of BMPs inspected, Page 12 of 46 ii. locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. the reason maintenance is needed, iv. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and v. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why. e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The inspector shall note the presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen, as applicable. f. Any water quality monitoring performed during inspection. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. i. Name, title, and signature of the person conducting site inspection; and the following statement: "I certify that -this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief'. C. Turbidity/Transparency Sampling Requirements 1. Sampling Methods/Effective Dates a. Beginning October 1, 2006, if construction activity will involve the disturbance of 5 acres or more, the Permittee shall conduct turbidity sampling per Condition S4.C. b. Beginning October 1, 2008, if construction activity.will involve greater than or equal to 1 acre, but less than 5 acres of soil disturbance, the Permittee shall conduct transparency sampling or turbidity sampling per Condition S4.C. 2. Sampling Frequency a. Sampling shall be conducted at least once every calendar week, when there is a discharge of stormwater (or authorized non-stormwater) from the site. Samples shall; be representative of the flow and characteristics of the discharge. b. When there is no discharge during a calendar week, sampling is not required. c. .Sampling is not required outside of normal working hours or during unsafe conditions. If a Permittee is unable to sample during a monitoring period, the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) shall include a brief explanation. Page 13 of 46 3 Sampling Locations lin is required at all discharge points where stormwater (or authorized non - a. Samp g stormwater) is discharged off -site. n point(s) shall be identified on the SWPPP site map and be clearly b. All sampling P toe stake or other visible marker. marked in the field with a flag, p 4. Sampling and Analysis Methods d turbidity meter a. Turbidity analysis shall be performed with acalibrate The results shall be recorded (turbidimeter), either on -site or at an accredited in the site log book in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU)' diameter, 60 b. Transparency an shall be performed The results hall be recorded in the site centimeter (cm) long Transparency Tube. Transparency Tubes are available from: Trans log book in centimeters (cm). P htt :%/tivaternloilitorin e ui .com' a es'stream.html Samphng `B Analyttcal enchmar Fre uenc Value .. . 1Vlethod 25 NTU Parameter ' Units SM2130 or Weekly, if Turbidity NTU discharging EPA190.1 31 cm Manufacturer Weekly, if Transparency cm instructions, or discharging Ecology Guidance 5. Turbidity/Transparency Benchmark Values e helometric Turbidity Units); and The benchmark value for turbidityis5 31 cm p the benchmark value for, transparency idi 26 — 249 N a. TurbTU or Trans arenc 30 — 7 cm: 0 NTU; or if If discharge turbidity is greater than 25 NTU, but less than 25 discharge transparency is less than 31 cm, but greater than 6 cm, the CESCL dg shall: ion S9 and make appropriate i. Review the SWPPP for compliance war h Co d texceeded the benchmark; and revisions within 7 days of the disch ge t Full implement and maintain appropriate sourceof the discharge hatlnent control and/or treat n. y P BMPs as soon as possible, but within 10 days exceeded the benchmark; and book. iii. Document BMP implementation and maintenance in the site log l:1 Page 14 of 46 If discharge turbidity is greater than or equal to 250 NTU; or if discharge transparency is less than or equal to 6 cm, the CESCL shall: i. Notify Ecology by phone in accordance with Condition S5.A.; and ii. Review the SWPPP for compliance with Condition S9 and make appropriate revisions within 1 days of the discharge that exceeded the benchmark; and iii. Fully implement and maintain appropriate source control and/or treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 10 days of the discharge that exceeded the benchmark; iv. Document BMP implementation and maintenance in the site log book; and v. Continue to sample discharges daily until: turbidity is 25 NTU (or lower); or 2. transparency is 31 cm (or greater); or 3. the CESCL has demonstrated compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity: a. no more than 5 NTU over background turbidity, if background is less than 50 NTU, or b. no more than 10% over background turbidity, if background is 50 NTU or greater; or 4. the discharge stops or is eliminated. D. pH Monitoring: Sites with Significant Concrete Work or Engineered Soils Beginning October 1, 2006, if construction activity will result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more, and involves significant concrete work or the use of engineered soils, and stormwater from the affected area drains to surface waters of the state or to a storm sewer system that drains to surface waters of the state, the Permittee shall conduct pH monitoring as set forth below: 1. For sites with significant concrete work, the pH monitoring period shall commence when the concrete is first exposed to precipitation and continue weekly until stormwater pH is 8.5 or less. a. "Significant concrete work" means greater than 1000 cubic yards poured concrete or recycled concrete. 2. For sites with engineered soils, the pH monitoring period shall commence when the soil amendments are first exposed to precipitation and shall continue until the area of engineered soils is fully stabilized. Page 15 of 46 a. "Engineered soils" means soil amendments includingbut not limited, to Portland cement treated base (CTB), cement kiln dust (CKD), Y 3. During the pH monitoring period, the Permittee shall obtain a representative sample of stormwater and conduct pH analysis at least once per week. The Permittee shall monitor pH in the sediment trap/pond(s) or other engineered cations that receive stormwater runoff fr o� 4. om the area of significant concrete work soils prior to discharge to surface waters. 5. The benchmark value for pH is 8.5 standard units. Any time sampling indicates that pH is 8.5 or greater, the Permittee shall: a. Prevent the high pH water (8.5 or above) from entering storm sewer systems or surface waters; and b. If necessary, adjust or neutralize the high pH water using an appropriate treatment BMP such as CO2 sparging or dry ice. The Permittee shall obtain written approval from Ecology prior to using any form of chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging or dry ice. 6. The Permittee shall perform pH analysis on -site with a calibrated pH meter, pH test The. Permittee shall record pH monitoring kit, or wide range pH indicator paper. results in the site log book. _ S5. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS A. High Turbidity Phone Reporting An time sampling performed in accordance with Special Condition S4.0 indicates y eater or transparency is 6 cm or less) the Permittee shall notify turbidity is 250 NTU or greater ( P the appropriate Ecology regional office by phone within 24 hours of analysis. B. Disc=rye Moni+�*gin¢ Reports pecial 1. Permittees required to conduct water quality sampling )accordanceo303() STMDL Conditions SAC (Turbidity/Transparency), S4. (p ) sampling] shall submit the results to Ecology monthly on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms provided by Ecology. Permittees are authorized and encouraged to submit electronic DMRs using the "E- DMR Form" on Ecology's Construction Stormwat er r web web 2. The Permittee shall submit DMR forms electronically or by mail to be received by Ecology within 15 days following the end of each month. If there was no discharge during a given monitoring period, the Permittee shall submit the form as required monitoring ronically, with the words "no discharge" entered in placeelectie the Permittee is unable to submit discharge monitoring reportsg Permittee may mail reports to the address listed below: Page 16 of 46 Department of Ecology Water Quality Program - Construction Stormwater PO Box 47696 Olympia, Washington 98504-7696 C. Records Retention The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information (site log book, sampling results, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of . permit coverage. Such information shall include all calibration and maintenance records, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the Permittee or when requested by Ecology. D. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken, the Permittee shall record the following information: 1. Date, place, method, and time of sampling or measurement; 2. The individual who performed the sampling- or measurement; 3. The dates the analyses were performed; 4. The individual who performed the analyses; 5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and 6. The results of all analyses E. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit using test procedures specified by Condition S4 of this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the Permittee's DMR. F. Noncompliance Notification In the event the Permittee is unable to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this permit which may cause a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall: 1. Immediately notify Ecology of the failure to comply. 2. Immediately take action to prevent the discharge/pollution, or otherwise stop or correct the noncompliance, and, if applicable, repeat sampling and analysis of any noncompliance immediately and submit the results to Ecology within five (5) days after becoming aware of the violation. Page 17 of 46 Submit a detailed written report to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. The report shall contain a description of the noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the Permittee from responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit or the resulting liability for failure to. comply. G. Access to Plans and Records 1. The Permittee shall retain the following permit documentation (plans and records) on - site, or within reasonable access to the site, for use by the operator; or on -site review by Ecology or the local jurisdiction: a. General Permit; b. Permit Coverage Letter; c. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and d. Site Log Book 2. The Permittee(s) shall address,written requests for plans and records listed above (Condition S5.G.1) as follows: a. A copy of plans and records shall be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request from Ecology. b. A copy of plans and records shall be provided to the public when requested in writing. Upon receiving a written request from the public for the Permittee's .plans and records, the Permittee shall either: i. Provide a copy of the plans and records to the requestor within 14 days of a receipt of the written request; or ii. Notify the requestor within 10 days of receipt of the written request of the location and times within normal business hours when the plans and records may be viewed, and provide access to the plans and records within 14 days of receipt of the written request; or iii. Within 14 days of receipt of the written request, the Permittee may submit a copy of the plans and records to Ecology for viewing and/or copying by the requestor at an Ecology office, or a mutually agreed upon location. If plans and records are viewed and/or copied at a location other than at an Ecology office, the Permittee will provide reasonable access to copying services for which a reasonable fee may be charged. The Permittee shall notify the Page 18 of 46 requestor within 10 days of receipt of the request where the plans and records may be viewed and/or copied. S6. PERMIT FEES The Permittee shall pay permit fees assessed by Ecology. Fees for stormwater discharges covered under this permit shall be established by Chapter 173-224 WAC. Permit fees will continue to be assessed until the permit is terminated in accordance with Special Condition S 10 or revoked in accordance with General Condition G5. S7. SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid and liquid wastes generated by construction activity such as demolition debris, construction materials, contaminated materials, and waste materials from maintenance activities, including liquids and solids from cleaning catch basins and other stormwater facilities, shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with: 1. Special Condition S3, Compliance with Standards, and 2. WAC 173-216-110, and other applicable regulations. S8. DISCHARGES TO 303(D) OR TMDL WATERBODIES A. Sampling and Numeric Effluent Limitations For Discharges to 303(d)-listed Waterbodies 1.Permittees that discharge to water bodies listed as impaired by the State of Washington under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorus, shall conduct water quality sampling. according to the requirements of this section. 2. All references and requirements associated with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act mean the most current listing by Ecology of impaired waters that exists on November 16, 2005, or the date when the operator's complete permit application is received by Ecology, whichever is later. B. Discharges to 303(d)-Listed Waterbodies (Turbidity. Fine Sediment, or Phosphorus) 1. Permittees which discharge to waterbodies on the 303(d) list for turbidity, fine sediment, or phosphorus shall conduct turbidity sampling at the following locations to evaluate compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity: a. Background turbidity shall be measured in the 303(d)-listed receiving water immediately upstream (upgradient) or outside the area of influence of the discharge; and b. Discharge turbidity shall be measured at the point of discharge into the 303(d) listed receiving waterbody, inside the area of influence of the discharge; or Page 19 of 46 Alternatively, discharge turbidity may be measured at the point where the discharge leaves the construction site, rather than in the receiving waterbody. 2. Based on sampling, if the discharge turbidity exceeds the water quality standard for turbidity (more than 5 NTU-over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or more than a 10% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU), all future discharges shall comply with a numeric effluent limit which is equal to the water quality standard for turbidity. 3. If a future discharge exceeds the water quality standard for turbidity, the Permittee shall: a. Review the SWPPP for compliance with Condition S9 and make appropriate revisions within 7 days of the discharge that exceeded the standard; b. Fully implement and maintain appropriate source control and/or treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 10 days of the discharge that exceeded the standard; c. Document BMP implementation and maintenance in the site log book; d. Notify the appropriate Ecology Regional Office by phone within 24 hours of analysis; e. Continue to sample daily until discharge turbidity meets the water quality standard for turbidity. C. Discharges to waterbodies on the 303(d) list for High pH Permittees which discharge to waterbodies on the 303(d) list for high pH shall conduct sampling at one of the following locations to evaluate compliance with the water quality standard for pH (in the range of 6.5 — 8.5): a. pH shall be measured at the point of discharge into the 303(d) listed waterbody, inside the area of influence of the discharge; or b. Alternatively, pH may be measured at the point where the discharge leaves the construction site, rather than in the receiving water. 2. Based on the sampling set forth above, if the pH exceeds the water quality standard for pH (in the range of 6.5 — 8.5), all future discharges shall comply with a numeric effluent limit which is equal to the water quality standard for pH. 3. If a future discharge exceeds the water quality standard for pH, the Permittee shall: a. Review the SWPPP for compliance with Condition S9 and make appropriate revisions within 7 days of the discharge that exceeded the water quality standard; Page 20 of 46 b. Fully implement and maintain appropriate source control and/or treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 10 days of the discharge that exceeded the standards; c. Document BMP implementation and maintenance in the site log book; d. Notify the appropriate Ecology Regional Office by phone within 24 hours of analysis; and e. Continue to sample daily until discharge meets the water quality standard for pH (in the range of 6.5 — 8.5) or the discharge stops or is eliminated. Parameter identified;; in 303:(d) fisting Parameter/Units Analytical Method Sampling Frequency VWater:Quality Standard Turbidity Turbidity/NTU SM2130 or Weekly, if If background is 50 Fine Sediment EPA180.1 discharging NTU or less: 5 NTU Phosphorus over background; or If background is more than 50 NTU: 10% over background High pH I pH/Standard I pH meter, I Weekly, if I In the range of Units discharging 6.5 — 8.5 D. Sampling and Limitations For Sites Discharging__to Applicable TMDLs_ 1. Discharges to a waterbodies subject to an applicable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorus; shall be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL. a. Where an applicable TAML sets specific waste load allocations or requirements for discharges covered by this permit, discharges shall be consistent with any specific waste load allocations or requirements established by the applicable TMDL. ii. The Permittee shall sample discharges weekly, or as otherwise specified by the TMDL, to evaluate compliance with the specific waste load allocations or requirements. iii. Analytical methods used to meet the monitoring requirements shall conform to the latest revision of the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants contained in 40 CFR Part 136. Turbidity and pH methods Page 21 of 46 need not be accredited or registered unless conducted at a laboratory which must otherwise be accredited or registered. b. Where an applicable TMDL has established a general waste load allocation for construction stormwater discharges, but no specific requirements have been identified, compliance with Conditions S4 (Monitoring) and S9 (SWPPPs) will be assumed to be consistent with the approved TMDL. c. Where an applicable TMDL has not specified a waste load allocation for construction stormwater discharges, but has not excluded these discharges, compliance with Conditions S4 (Monitoring) and S9 (SWPPPs) will be assumed to be consistent with the approved TMDL. d. Where an applicable TMDL specifically precludes, or prohibits discharges from construction activity, the operator is not eligible for coverage under this permit. 2. Applicable TMDL means a TMDL for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or ,phosphorus, which has been completed and approved by EPA prior to November 16, 2005, or prior to the date the operator's complete permit application is received by .Ecology, whichever is later:' TMDLs completed after the operator's complete permit application is received by Ecology become applicable to the Permittee only if they are imposed through an administrative order by Ecology, or through a modification of permit coverage. S9. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN An adequate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activity shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with the requirements of this permit beginning with initial soil disturbance and until final stabilization. A. The SWPPP shall meet the following objectives: 1. To implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stormwater contamination and water pollution from construction activity. 2. To prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality,. or sediment management standards. 3. To control peak volumetric flow rates and velocities of stormwater discharges. B. General Requirements 1. The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Documentation shall include: a. Information about existing site conditions (topography, drainage, soils, vegetation, etc.); Page 22 of 46 b. Potential erosion problem areas; c. The 12 elements of a SWPPP in S9.D.1-12, including BMPs used to address each element; d. Construction phasing/sequence and general BMP implementation schedule; e. The actions to be taken if BMP performance goals are not achieved; and f. Engineering calculations for ponds and any other designed structures. 2. The Permittee shall modify the, SWPPP if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is, or would be, ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The Permittee shall take the following actions: a. Review the SWPPP for compliance with Condition S9 and make appropriate revisions within 7 days of the inspection or investigation; b. Fully implement and maintain appropriate source control and/or treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days from the inspection or investigation; and c. Document BMP implementation and maintenance in the site log book. 3. The Permittee shall modify the SWPPP whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. C. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs,) BMPs shall be consistent with: 1. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (most recent edition), for sites west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains; 2. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (most recent edition), for sites east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains; or 3. Other stormwater management guidance documents or manuals which provide an equivalent level of pollution prevention and are approved by Ecology; or 4. Documentation in the SWPPP that the BMPs selected provides an equivalent level of pollution prevention, compared to the applicable Stormwater Management Manuals, including: Page 23 of 46 a. The technical basis for the selection of all stormwater BMPs (scientific, technical studies, and/or modeling) which support the performance claims for the BMPs being selected; and b. An assessment of how the selected BMP will satisfy AKART requirements and the applicable federal technology -based treatment requirements under 40 CFR part 125.3. D. SWPPP Narrative Contents and Requirements The Permittee shall include each of the 12 elements below in S9.D.1-12 in the narrative of the SWPPP and ensure that they are implemented unless site conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly justified in the SWPPP. 1. Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits a. Prior to beginning land disturbing activities, including clearing and grading, clearly mark all clearing limits, sensitive areas and their buffers, and trees that are to be preserved within the construction area. b. The duff layer, native top soil, and natural vegetation shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum degree practicable. 2. Establish Construction Access a. Construction vehicle access and exit shall be limited to one route, if possible. b. Access points shall be stabilized with a pad of quarry spalls, crushed rock, or other equivalent BMP, to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads. c. Wheel wash or tire baths shall be located on site, if the stabilized construction entrance is not effective in preventing sediment from being tracked onto public roads. d. If sediment is tracked off site, public roads shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day, or more frequently during wet weather. Sediment shall be removed from roads by shoveling or pickup sweeping and shall be transported to a controlled sediment disposal area. e. Street washing is allowed only after sediment is removed in accordance with S9.D.2.d. Street wash wastewater shall be controlled by pumping back on site or otherwise be prevented from discharging into systems tributary to waters of the state. 3. Control Flow Rates a. Properties and waterways downstream from development sites shall be protected from erosion due to increases in the velocity and peak volumetric flow rate of stormwater runoff from the project site, as required by local plan approval authority. Page 24 of 46 b. Where necessary to comply with S9.D.3.a., stormwater retention or detention facilities shall be constructed as one of the first steps in grading. Detention facilities shall be functional prior to construction of site improvements (e.g., impervious surfaces). c. If permanent infiltration ponds are used for flow control during construction, these facilities shall be protected from siltation during the construction phase. 4. Install Sediment Controls a. Stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through a sediment pond or other appropriate sediment removal BMP, prior to leaving a construction site or prior to discharge to an infiltration facility. Runoff from fully stabilized areas may be discharged without a sediment removal BMP, but shall meet the flow control performance standard of S9.D.3.a. b. Sediment control BMPs (sediment ponds, traps, filters, etc.) shall be constructed as one of the first steps in grading. These BMPs shall be functional before other land disturbing activities take place. c. BMPs intended to trap sediment on site shall be located in a manner to avoid interference with the movement of juvenile salmonids attempting to enter off - channel areas or drainages. 5. Stabilize Soils a. Exposed and.unworked soils shall be stabilized by application of effective BMPs that prevent erosion. Applicable BMPs include, but are not limited to: -temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, soil application of polyacrylamide (PAM), the early application of gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control. b. Depending on the geographic location of the project, no soils shall remain exposed and, unworked for more than the time periods set forth below to prevent erosion: West of the Cascade Mountains Crest During the dry season (May 1 - Sept. 30): 7 days During the wet season (October 1 - April 30): 2 days East of the Cascade Mountains Crest, except for Central Basin* During the dry season (July 1 - September 30): 10 days During the wet season (October 1 - June 30): 5 days The Central Basin*, East of the Cascade Mountains Crest During the dry Season (July l - September 30): 30 days During the wet season (October 1 - June 30): 15 days *Note: The Central Basin is defined as the portions of Eastern Washington with mean annual precipitation of less than 12 inches. Page 25 of 46 i. The time period may be adjusted by a local jurisdiction, if the.jurisdiction can show that local precipitation data justify a different standard. c. Soils shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on the weather forecast. d. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. 6. Protect Slopes a. Design and construct cut and fill slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, reducing continuous length of slope with terracing and diversions,. reducing slope steepness, and roughening slope surfaces (e.g., track walking). b. Off -site stormwater (run-on) or groundwater shall be diverted away from slopes and disturbed areas with interceptor dikes, pipes, and/or swales. Off -site stormwater should be managed separately from stormwater generated on the, site. c. At the top of slopes, collect drainage in pipe slope drains or protected channels to prevent erosion. West of the Cascade Mountains Crest: Temporary pipe slope drains shall handle the peak 10-minute velocity of flow from a Type IA, 10-year, 24-hour frequency storm for the.developed.condition. Alternatively, the 10-year-, 1 hour flow rate predicted by an approved continuous runoff model, increased by a factor of 1.6, may be used. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition for predicting flow rates from tributary areas outside the project limits. For tributary areas on the project site, the analysis shall use the temporary or permanent project land cover condition, whichever will produce the highest flow rates. If using the WWHM to predict flows, bare soil areas should be modeled as "landscaped area." ii. East of the Cascade Mountains Crest: Temporary pipe, slope drains shall handle the expected peak flow velocity from a 6-month, 3-hour storm for the developed condition, referred to as the short duration storm. d. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of trenches, consistent with safety and space considerations. e. Check dams shall be placed at regular intervals within constructed channels that are cut down a slope. 7. Protect Drain Inlets a. All storm drain inlets made operable during construction shall be protected so that stormwater runoff does not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or treated to remove sediment. Page 26 of 46 b. Inlet protection devices shall be cleaned or removed and replaced when sediment has filled one-third of the available storage (unless a different standard is specified by the product manufacturer). 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets a. All temporary on -site conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the following expected peak flows: i. West of the Cascade Mountains Crest: Channels shall handle the peak 10 minute velocity of flow from a Type IA, 10-year, 24-hour frequency storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10-year, 1-hour flow rate indicated by an approved continuous runoff model, increased by a factor of 1.6, may be used. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition for predicting flow rates from tributary areas outside the project limits. For tributary areas on the project site, the analysis shall use the temporary or permanent project land cover condition, whichever will produce the highest flow rates. If using the WWHM to predict flows, bare soil areas should be modeled as "landscaped area." ii. East of the Cascade Mountains Crest: Channels shall handle the expected peak flow velocity from a 6-month, 3-hour storm for the developed condition, referred to as the short duration storm. b. Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance systems. 9. Control Pollutants . a. All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. b. Cover, containment, and protection from vandalism shall be provided for all chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products, and other materials that have the potential to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On -site fueling tanks shall include secondary containment. c. Maintenance,. fueling, and repair of heavy equipment and vehicles shall be conducted using spill prevention and control measures. Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any spill incident. d. Wheel wash or tire bath wastewater shall be discharged to a separate on -site treatment system or to the sanitary sewer with local sewer district approval. e. Application of fertilizers and pesticides, shall be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers' label requirements for application rates and procedures shall be followed. Page 27 of 46 f. BMPs shall be used to prevent or treat contamination of stormwater runoff by pH modifying sources. These sources include, but are not limited to: bulk cement, cement kiln dust, fly ash, new concrete washing and curing waters, waste streams generated from concrete grinding and sawing, exposed aggregate processes, dewatering concrete vaults, concrete pumping and mixer washout waters. Permittees shall adjust the pH of stormwater if necessary to prevent violations of water quality standards. g. Permittees shall obtain written approval from Ecology prior to using chemical treatment, other than CO2 or dry ice to adjust pH. 10. Control De -Watering a. Foundation, vault, and trench de -watering water, which have similar characteristics to stormwater runoff at the site, shall be discharged into a controlled conveyance system prior to discharge to a sediment trap or sediment pond. b. Clean, non -turbid de -watering water, such as well -point ground water, can be discharged to systems tributary to, or directly into surface waters of the state, as specified in S9.D.8, provided the de -watering flow does not cause erosion or flooding of receiving waters. Clean de -watering water should not be routed through stormwater sediment ponds. C. Other de -watering disposal options may include: i. infiltration ii. transport offsite in a vehicle, such as a vacuum flush truck., for legal disposal in a manner that does not pollute state. waters, iii. Ecology -approved on -site chemical treatment or other suitable treatment technologies, iv. sanitary sewer discharge with local sewer district approval, if there is no other option, or V. use of a sedimentation bag with outfall to a ditch or swale for small volumes of localized de -watering. d. Highly turbid or contaminated dewatering water shall be handled separately from stormwater. 11. Maintain BMPs a. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs .shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function in accordance with BMP specifications. b. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Page 28 of 46 12. Manage the Project a. Development projects shall be phased to the maximum degree practicable and shall take into account seasonal work limitations. b. Inspection and Monitoring All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their.intended function. Site inspections and monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with S4. c. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP The SWPPP shall be maintained, updated, and implemented in accordance with Conditions S3, S4 and S9. E. SWPPP — Map Contents and Requirements The SWPPP shall also include a vicinity map or general location map (e.g. USGS Quadrangle map, a portion of a county or city map, or other appropriate map) with enough detail to identify the location of the construction site and receiving waters within one mile of the site. The SWPPP shall also include a legible site map (or maps) showing the entire construction site. The following features shall be identified, unless not applicable due to site conditions: 1. The direction of north, property lines, and existing structures and roads; 2. Cut and fill slopes indicating the top and bottom of slope catch lines; 3. Approximate slopes, contours, and direction of stormwater flow before and after major grading activities; 4. Areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed; 5. Locations of structural and nonstructural controls (BMPs) identified in the SWPPP 6. Locations of off -site material, stockpiles, waste storage, borrow areas, and vehicle/equipment storage areas; 7. Locations of all surface water bodies, including wetlands; 8. Locations where stormwater or non-stormwater discharges off -site and/or to a surface water body, including wetlands; 9. Location of water quality sampling station(s), if sampling is required by state or local permitting authority; and Page 29 of 46 10. Areas where final stabilization has been accomplished and no further construction - phase permit requirements apply. S10. NOTICE OF TERMINATION A. The site is eligible for termination when either of the following conditions have been met: 1. The site has undergone final stabilization, all temporary BMPs have been removed, and all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity have been eliminated; or 2. All portions of the site which have not undergone final stabilization per S10.A.1 have been sold and/or transferred (per Condition G9), and the Permittee no longer has operational control of the construction activity. B. When the site is eligible for termination, the Permittee shall submit a complete and accurate Notice of Termination (NOT) form, signed in accordance with General Condition G2, to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program - Construction Stormwater PO Box 47696 - Olympia, Washington 98504-7696 C. The termination is effective on the date the NOT form was received by Ecology, unless the Permittee is notified by Ecology within 30 days that termination request is denied because the eligibility requirements in Condition S 10.A have not been met. Page 30 of 46 GENERAL CONDITIONS G1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS All discharges and activities authorized by this general permit shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this general permit. Any discharge of any pollutant more frequent than or at a level in excess of that identified and authorized by the general permit shall constitute'a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. G2. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS A. All permit applications. shall.bear a certification of correctness to be signed: 1. In the case of corporations, by a responsible corporate officer of at least the level of vice president of a corporation; 2. In the case of a partnership, by a general partner of a partnership; 3. In the case of sole proprietorship, by the proprietor; or 4. In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. B. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by Ecology shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: - 1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the Ecology. 2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having.responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility,. or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters. C. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph G2.13.2 above is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph G2.13.2 above shall be submitted to Ecology prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. D. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following certification: "I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated Page 31 of 46 the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." G3. RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND ENTRY The Permittee shall allow an authorized representative of Ecology, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law: A. To enter upon the premises where a discharge is located or where any records shall be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit. B. To have access to and copy - at reasonable times and at reasonable cost - any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit. C. To inspect - at reasonable times - any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, methods, or operations regulated or required under this permit. D. To sample or monitor - at reasonable times - any substances or parameters at any location for purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act. G4. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 173-226 WAC. Grounds for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination include, but are not limited to, the following: A. When a change which occurs in the technology or practices for control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this permit; B. When effluent limitation guidelines or standards are promulgated pursuant to the CWA or Chapter 90.48 RCW, for the category of dischargers covered under this permit; C. When a water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this permit is approved; or D. When information is obtained which indicates that cumulative effects on the environment from dischargers covered under this permit are unacceptable. G5. REVOCATION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE PERMIT Pursuant with Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC, the Director may terminate coverage for any discharger under this permit for cause. Cases where coverage may be terminated include, but are not limited to, the following: Page 32 of 46 A. Violation of any term or condition of this permit; B. Obtaining coverage under this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; C. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge; D..Failure or refusal of the Permittee to allow entry as required in RCW 90.48.090; E. A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment, or contributes to water quality standards violations; F. Nonpayment of permit fees or penalties assessed pursuant to RCW 90.48.465 and Chapter 173-224 WAC; G. Failure of the Permittee to satisfy the public notice requirements of WAC 173-226- 130(5), when applicable. The Director may require any discharger under this permit to apply for and obtain coverage under an individual permit or another more specific general permit. Permittees who have their coverage revoked for cause according to WAC 173-226-240 may request temporary coverage under this permit during the time an individual permit is being developed, provided the request is made within ninety (90) days from the time of revocation and is submitted along with a complete individual permit application form. G6. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION The Permittee shall submit a new application,- or a supplement to the previous application, whenever a material change to the construction activity or in the quantity or type of discharge is anticipated which is not specifically authorized by this permit. This application shall be submitted at least sixty (60) days prior to any proposed changes. The filing of a request by the Permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not relieve the Permittee of the duty to comply with the existing permit until it is modified or reissued. G7. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES Nothing in this permit shall be construed as excusing the Permittee from compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G8. DUTY TO REAPPLY The Permittee shall apply for permit renewal at least 180 days prior to the specified expiration date of this permit. G9. TRANSFER OF GENERAL PERMIT COVERAGE Coverage under this general permit is automatically transferred to a new discharger, including operators of lots/parcels within a common'plan of development or sale, if. Page 33 of 46 A. A written, signed agreement (Transfer of Coverage Form) between the current discharger (Permittee) and new discharger containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability is submitted to the Director; and B. The Director does not notify the current discharger and new discharger of the Director's intent to revoke coverage under the general permit. If this notice is not given, the transfer is effective on the date specified in the written agreement. When a current discharger (Permittee) transfers a portion of a permitted site, the current discharger shall also submit an updated application form (NOI) to the Director indicating the remaining permitted acreage after the transfer. When a current discharger (Permittee) transfers all portions of a permitted site to one or more new dischargers, the current discharger shall also submit a notice of termination (NOT) form to the Director. G10. REMOVED SUBSTANCES Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of stormwater shall not be resuspended or reintroduced to the final effluent stream for discharge to state waters. G11. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION The Permittee shall submit to Ecology, within -a reasonable time, all information which Ecology may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this permit. The Permittee shall also submit to Ecology upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit [40 CFR 122.41(h)]. G12.OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR All other requirements of 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this permit by reference. G13. ADDITIONAL MONITORING Ecology may establish specific monitoring requirements in addition to those contained in this permit by administrative order or permit modification. G14. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING PERMIT CONDITIONS Any person who is found guilty of willfully violating the terms and conditions of this permit shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Each day upon which a willful violation occurs may be deemed a separate and additional violation. Any person who violates the terms and conditions of a waste discharge permit shall incur, in addition to any other penalty as provided by law, a civil penalty in the amount of up to ten Page 34 of 46 thousand dollars ($10,000) for every such violation. Each and every such violation shall be a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, every day's continuance shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct violation. G15. UPSET Definition — "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology -based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology -based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of the following paragraph are met. A Permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence that: 1) an upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; 2) the permitted facility was being properly operated at the time of the upset; 3) the Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in condition S51; and 4) the Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under this permit. In any enforcement proceeding, the Permittee seeking to establish the. occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. G16. PROPERTY RIGHTS This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. G17.DUTY TO COMPLY. The Permittee shall comply with all conditions of this'permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application. G18. TOXIC POLLUTANTS The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if this permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. Page 35 of 46 G19. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this Condition, punishment shall be a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than four (4) years, or both. G20. REPORTING PLANNED CHANGES The Permittee shall, as soon as possible, give notice to Ecology of planned physical alterations, modifications or additions to the permitted construction activity, which will result in: A. The permitted facility being determined to be a new source pursuant to 40 CFR. 122.29(b); B. A significant change in the nature or an increase in quantity of pollutants discharged, including but not limited to: for sites 5 acres or.larger, a 20% or greater increase in acreage disturbed by construction activity; C. A change in or addition of surface water(s) receiving stormwater or non-stormwater from the construction activity; or D. A change in the construction plans and/or activity that affects the Permittee's monitoring requirements in Special Condition S4. Following such notice, permit coverage may be modified, or revoked and reissued pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62(a) to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited. Until such modification is effective, any new or increased discharge in excess of permit limits or not specifically authorized by this permit constitutes a violation. G21. REPORTING OTHER INFORMATION Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to Ecology, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. G22. REPORTING ANTICIPATED NON-COMPLIANCE The Permittee shall give advance notice to Ecology by submission of a new application or supplement thereto at least forty-five (45) days prior to commencement of such discharges, of any facility expansions, production increases, or other planned changes, such as process modifications, in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit limits or conditions. Any maintenance of facilities, which might necessitate Page 36 of 46 unavoidable interruption of operation and degradation of effluent quality, shall be scheduled during non -critical water quality periods and carried out in a manner approved by Ecology. G23. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE PERMIT Any discharger authorized by this permit may request to be excluded from coverage under the general permit by applying for an individual permit. The discharger shall submit to the Director an application as described in WAC 173-220-040 or WAC 173-216-070, whichever is applicable, with reasons supporting the request. These reasons shall fully document how an individual permit will apply to the applicant in a way that the general permit cannot. Ecology may make specific requests for information to support the request. The Director shall either issue an individual permit or deny the request with a statement explaining the reason for the denial. When an individual permit is issued to a discharger otherwise subject to the construction stormwater general permit, the applicability of the construction stormwater general permit to that Permittee is automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual permit. G24. APPEALS A. The terms and conditions of this general permit, as they apply to the appropriate class of dischargers, are subject to appeal by any person within 30 days of issuance of this general permit, in accordance with Chapter 43.2113 RCW, and Chapter 173-226 WAC. B. The terms and conditions of this general permit, as they apply to an individual discharger, are appealable in accordance with Chapter 43:21B RCW within 30 days of the effective date of coverage of that discharger. Consideration of an appeal of general permit coverage of an individual discharger is limited to the general permit's applicability or nonapplicability to that individual discharger. C. The appeal of general permit coverage of an individual discharger does not affect any other dischargers covered under this general permit. If the terms and conditions of this general permit are found to be inapplicable to any individual discharger(s), the matter shall be remanded to Ecology for consideration of issuance of an individual permit or permits. G25. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. G26. BYPASS PROHIBITED A. Bypass Procedures Bypass, which is the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility, is prohibited for stormwater events below the design criteria for Page 37 of 46 stormwater management. Ecology may take enforcement action against a Permittee for bypass unless one of the following circumstances (1, 2, 3 or 4) is applicable. 1. Bypass of stormwater is consistent with the design criteria and part of an approved management practice in the applicable stormwater management manual. 2. Bypass for essential maintenance without the potential to cause violation of permit limits or conditions. Bypass is authorized if it is for essential maintenance and does not have the potential to cause violations of limitations or other conditions of this permit, or adversely impact public health. 3. Bypass of stormwater is unavoidable, unanticipated, and results in noncompliance of this permit. This bypass is permitted only if. a. Bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass; b. There are no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime (but not if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in. the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance), or transport of untreated wastes to another treatment facility; and c. Ecology is properly notified of the bypass as required in Special Condition,S51 of this permit. 4. A planned action that would cause bypass of stormwater and has the potential to result in noncompliance of this permit during a storm event. The Permittee shall notify Ecology at least thirty (30) days before the planned date of bypass. The notice shall contain: a. a description of the bypass and its cause; b. an analysis of all known alternatives which would eliminate, reduce, or mitigate the need for bypassing; c. a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives including comparative resource damage assessment; d. the minimum and maximum duration of bypass under each alternative; e. a recommendation as to the preferred alternative for conducting the bypass; Page 38 of 46 f. the projected date of bypass initiation; g. a statement of compliance with SEPA; h.. a request for modification of water quality standards as provided for in WAC 173- 201A-110, if an exceedance of any water quality standard is anticipated; and i. steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. 5. - For probable construction bypasses, the need to bypass is to be identified as early in the planning process as possible. The analysis required above shall be considered during preparation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and shall be included to the extent practical. In cases where the probable need to bypass is determined early, continued analysis is necessary up to and including the construction period in an effort to minimize or eliminate the bypass. Ecology will consider the following prior to issuing an administrative order for this type bypass: a. If the bypass is necessary to perform construction or maintenance -related activities essential to meet the requirements of this permit. b. If there are feasible alternatives to bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, stopping production, maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time, or transport of untreated wastes to another treatment facility. c. If the bypass is planned and scheduled to minimize adverse effects on the public and the environment. After consideration of the above and the adverse effects of the proposed bypass and any other relevant factors, Ecology will approve, conditionally approve, or deny the request. The public shall be notified and given an opportunity to comment on bypass incidents of significant duration, to the extent feasible. Approval of a request to bypass will be by administrative order issued by Ecology under RCW 90.48.120. B. Duty to Mitiizate The Permittee is required to take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. Page 39 of 46 APPENDIX A — DEFINITIONS AKART is an acronym for "all known, available, and reasonable m t that can be reasonably control, and.treatment." o reatment." AKART represents the most current methodology required for preventing, controlling, or abating the pollutants and controlling pollution associated with a discharge. A licable TMDL means a TMDL for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorus, which pp 2005, or prior to the date the has been completed and approved by EPA prior to November 1 , operator's complete permit application is received by Ecology, whichever is later. Applicant means an operator seeking coverage under this permit. s schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, Best Management Practices (BMPs) mean maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural Jude treatment tur systems, operatingerial practices to revent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMP procedures, and practices to control: stormwater ass aw material storagection activity, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from Buffer means an area designated by a local jurisdiction that is contiguous to and intended to protect a sensitive area ass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. Bv. n - Calendar Week (same as Week) means a period of seven consecutive days starting on Sunday. rent Certi ied Erosion and Sediment Control and sediment ontrol training program tha . (CESCL) means a person who has at meets the certification through an approved erosion minimum training standards established by Ecology (see BMP C160 in the enacted )Public Law ct Clean Water Act (C y means Laws 95-217 95e Federal t 5 6, 96-483 and 97er Pollution Control 117; USC 1251 et seq. 92-500, as amended by Pub Combined Sewer means a sewer which has been designed to serve as a sanitary sewer and a storm sewer, and into which inflow is allowed by esi e and Common lan of development or sale meansa site where multiple on diffepenttscheduleslbut still construction activities may be taking place at different times under a single plan. Examples include: 1) phased projects and projects with constructed under eparatet contract or by le filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be ) a development separate owners (e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate builders); 2 plan that may be phased over.multiple years, but is still that may under unrelated butestill under the an for same development; and 3) projects in a contiguous areaY contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility. Page 40 of 46 If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit requirements. Composite Sample A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May be "time - composite" (collected at constant time intervals) or "flow -proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increases while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots. Construction Activity means land disturbing operations including clearing, grading or excavation which disturbs the surface of the land. Such activities may include road construction, construction of residential houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity. Demonstrably Equivalent means that the technical basis for the selection of all stormwater BMPs is documented within a SWPPP, including: 1. The method and reasons for choosing the stormwater BMPs selected; 2. The pollutant removal performance expected from the BMPs selected; 3. The technical basis supporting the performance claims for the BMPs selected, including any available data concerning field performance of the BMPs selected; 4. An assessment of how the selected BMPs will comply with state water quality standards; and 5. An assessment of how the selected BMPs will satisfy both applicable federal technology -based treatment requirements and state requirements to use all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART). Department means the Washington State Department of Ecology. Detention means the temporary storage of stormwater to improve quality and/or to reduce the mass flow rate of discharge. De -watering. means the act of pumping ground water or stormwater away from anactive construction site. Director means the Director of the Washington Department of Ecology or his/her authorized representative. Discharger means an owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to regulation under Chapter 90.48 RCW or the Federal Clean Water Act. Domestic Wastewater means water carrying human wastes, including kitchen, bath, and laundry wastes from residences, buildings, industrial establishments, or other places, together with such ground water infiltration or surface waters as may be present. Page 41 of 46 Engineered soils The use of soil amendments including, but not limited, to Portland cement treated base (CTB), cement kiln dust (CKD), or fly ash to achieve certain desirable soil characteristics. Equivalent BMPs means operational, source control, treatment, or innovative BMPs which result in equal or better quality of stormwater discharge to surface water or to ground water than BMPs selected from the SWMM. Erosion means the wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs means BMPs that are intended to prevent erosion and sedimentation, such as preserving natural vegetation, seeding, mulching and matting, plastic covering, filter fences, sediment traps, and ponds. Erosion and sediment control BMPs are synonymous with stabilization and structural BMPs. Final Stabilization (same as fly stabilized or full stabilization) means the establishment of a permanent vegetative cover, or equivalent permanent. stabilization measures (such as riprap, gabions or geotextiles) which prevents erosion. Ground Water means water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or a surface water body. Iniection well means a "well" that is used for the subsurface emplacement of fluids. (see Well) Jurisdiction means a political unit such as a city, town or county; incorporated for local self- government. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters.,of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology.. Notice o Intent (NOI) means the application for, or a request for coverage under this general permit pursuant to WAC 173-226-200. Notice of Termination (NOT) means a request for termination of coverage under this general permit as specified by, Condition S 10 of this permit. Operator means any party associated with a construction project that meets either of the following two criteria: 1. The party has operational control over construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications; or Page 42 of 46 2. The party has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project which are necessary to ensure compliance with a SWPPP for the site or other permit conditions (e.g., they are authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the SWPPP or comply with other permit conditions). Out all means the location where stormwater leaves the site. It also includes the location where stormwater is discharged to a surface waterbody within a site, but does not include discharges to on -site stormwater treatment/infiltration devices or storm sewer systems. Permittee means individual or entity that receives notice of coverage under this general permit. pH means a liquid's acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral. Large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic life. pH Monitoring Period means the time period in which the pH of stormwater runoff from a site shall be tested a minimum of once every seven days to determine if stormwater is above pH 8.5. Point Source means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, and container from which pollutants are or may be discharged to surface waters of the state. This term does not. include return flows from irrigated agriculture. (See Fact Sheet for further explanation.) Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, domestic sewage sludge (biosolids), munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste. This term does not include sewage from vessels within the meaning of section 312 of the CWA, nor does it include dredged or fill material discharged in accordance with a permit issued under section 404 of the CWA. Pollution means contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of waters of the state; including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters; or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive or other substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare; or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses; or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life. ReceivinjzWater means the waterbody at the point of discharge. If the discharge is to a storm sewer system, either surface or subsurface, the receiving water is the waterbody that the storm sewer system discharges to. Systems designed primarily for other purposes such as for ground water drainage, redirecting stream natural flows, or for conveyance of irrigation water/return flows that coincidentally convey stormwater are considered the receiving water. Representative means a stormwater or wastewater sample which represents the flow and characteristics of the discharge. Representative samples may be a grab sample, a time - proportionate composite sample, or a flow proportionate sample. Ecology's Construction Stormwater Monitoring Manual provides guidance on representative sampling. Page 43 of 46 Sanitary Sewer means a sewer which is designed to convey domestic wastewater. Sediment means the fragmented material that originates from the weathering and erosion of rocks or unconsolidated deposits, and is transported by, suspended in, or deposited by water. Sedimentation means the depositing or formation of sediment. Sensitive area means a waterbody, wetland, stream, aquifer recharge area, or channel migration zone. SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) means the Washington State Law, RCW 43.21C.020, intended to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. Significant Amount means an amount of a pollutant in a discharge that is amenable to available and reasonable methods of prevention or treatment; or an amount of a pollutant that has a reasonable potential to cause a violation of surface or ground water quality or sediment management standards. Significant Concrete Work means greater than 1000 cubic yards poured concrete or recycled concrete. Significant Contributor of Pollutants means a facility determined by Ecology to be a contributor of a significant amount(s) of a pollutants)"to waters of the state of Washington. Site means the land or water area where any "facility or activity" is physically located or conducted. Source Control BWs means physical, structural or mechanical devices or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. A few examples of source control BMPs are erosion control practices, maintenance of stormwater facilities, constructing roofs over storage and working.areas, and directing wash water and similar discharges to the sanitary sewer or a dead end sump. Stabilization means the application of appropriate BMPs to prevent the erosion of soils, such as, temporary and permanent seeding, vegetative covers, mulching and matting, plastic. covering and sodding. See also the definition of Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs. Storm Drain means any drain which drains directly into a storm sewer ssy tem, usually found along roadways or in parking lots. Storm Sewer System means a means a conveyance, or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. This does not include systems which are part of a combined sewer or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. Page 44 of 46 Stormwater means that portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a stormwater drainage system into a defined surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility. Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM1 or Manual means the technical manual -published by Ecology for use by local governments that contain descriptions of and design criteria for BMPs to prevent, control, or treat pollutants in stormwater. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) means a documented plan to implement measures to identify, prevent, and control the contamination of point source discharges of stormwater. Surface Waters of the State includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Total Maximum Daily Load (D�) means a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet state water quality standards. Percentages of the .total maximum daily load are allocated to the various pollutant sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The TMDL calculations shall include a "margin of safety" to ensure that the waterbody can be protected in case there are unforeseen events or unknown sources of the pollutant. The calculation shall also account for seasonable variation in water quality. Treatment BMPs means BMPs that are intended to remove pollutants from stormwater. A few examples of treatment BMPs are detention ponds, oil/water separators, biofiltration, and constructed wetlands. Transparency means a measurement of water clarity in centimeters (cm), using a 60 cm. transparency tube. The transparency tube is used to estimate the relative clarity or transparency of water by noting the depth at which a black and white Secchi disc becomes visible when water is released from a value in the bottom of the tube. A transparency tube is sometimes referred to as a "turbidity tube". Turbidity The clarity of water expressed as nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and measured with a calibrated turbidimeter. Waste Load Allocation (WLA) means the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution. WLAs constitute a type of water quality based effluent limitation (40 CFR 130.2(h)). Water Quality means the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually with respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. Waters of the State includes those waters as defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State and "waters of the state" as Page 45 of 46 defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Well means a bored, drilled or. driven shaft, or dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension. (see Injection Well) Page 46 of 46 APPENDIX B — ACRONYMS AKART All Known, Available, and Reasonable Methods of Prevention, Control, and Treatment BMP Best Management Practice CESCL Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead CFR Code of Federal Regulations CKD Cement Kiln Dust cm Centimeters CTB Cement Treated Base CWA Clean Water Act DMR Discharge Monitoring Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESC Erosion and Sediment Control NOI Notice of Intent NOT Notice of Termination NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit RCW Revised Code of Washington SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SWMM Stormwater Management Manual SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load UIC Underground Injection Control USC United States Code USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WAC Washington Administrative Code WQ Water Quality WWHM Western Washington Hydrology Model Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard ^^$ FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 WILDLIFE (425) 775-1311 Issue Date: June 23, 2006 Project Expiration Date: June 22, 2011 PERMITTEE Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 134th PI. SE Bellevue, WA 98006 425-957-4774 Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: 105528-1 N/A AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Chad Armour, LLC 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 425-641-9743 Project Name: Tukwila Pond Wetland Mitigation Project Description: Mitigate for wetlands impacted at the Penny site at 17200 Southcenter Parkway by creating and enhancing wetlands at Tukwila Pond at 16900 Andover Parkway W PROVISIONS 1. Wetland grading work shall only occur between June 1 and September 30. 2. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) entitled, 'REVISED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN TUKWILA POND.Tukwila, Washington", dated May 2006, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 3. Disturbance of the watercourse and its associated vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project. Affected watercourse and buffers shall be restored to preproject or improved habitat configuration. Prior to December 31 of the year of project fill installation, the approved mitigation plan (Provision 2) shall be implemented. Plantings shall be maintained as necessary for a minimum of three years to ensure 80 percent or greater survival of each species or a contingency species approved by the AHB. 4. Equipment used for this project shall be free of external petroleum -based products while working around the watercourse. Accumulation of soils or debris shall be removed from the drive mechanisms (wheels, tires, tracks, etc.) and undercarriage of equipment prior to its working at the mitigation site. Equipment shall be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be completed prior to commencing work activities at the site. 5. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the watercourse. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 6. Prior to starting work, the selected erosion control methods (Provision 5) shall be installed. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the erosion control methods after completion of work. Page 1 of 4 Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 WILDLIFE (425) 775-1311 Issue Date: June 23, 2006 Project Expiration Date: June 22, 2011 Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: 105528-1 N/A 7. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward of the watercourse to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the watercourse. 8. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be deposited above the limits of floodwater in an approved upland disposal site. 9. If adverse weather conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the weather improves. 10. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the watercourse. PROJECT LOCATIONS Location #1 Tukwila Pond Site WORK START: June 23, 2006 WORK END: . June 22, 2011 WRIA: 09.0001 Waterbody: IDuwarnish River/Green River Tributary to: Elliott Bay 1/4 SEC: All Section: 26 Township: �23 N Range: 104 E Latitude: N 47.45300 Longitude: W 122.25637 County: King Location #1 Driving Directions NOTES APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work. This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Page 2 of 4 Washington Department of FISH and '_`H WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Issue Date: June 23, 2006 Project Expiration Date: June 22, 2011 Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 105528-1 N/A Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.021 (EXCEPT agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization projects) or 77.55.141 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.021 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 77.55.301. APPEALS INFORMATION If you wish to appeal the issuance or denial of, or conditions provided in a Hydraulic Project Approval, there are informal and formal appeal processes available. A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS. TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021, 77.55.141, 77.55.181, and 77.55.291: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval; or (B) An order imposing civil penalties. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30 days of the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an order imposing civil penalties. If agreed to by the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party is the Hydraulic Project Approval applicant, resolution of the concerns will be facilitated through discussions with the Area Habitat Biologist and his/her supervisor. If resolution is not reached, or the aggrieved party is not the Hydraulic Project Approval applicant, the Habitat Technical Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or his/her designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed. B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021 (EXCEPT agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization projects) or 77.55.291: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request a formal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval; (B) An order imposing civil penalties; or (C) Any other'agency action' for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW. A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, shall be plainly labeled as 'REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL' and shall be RECEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021 (agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization only), 77.55.141, 77.55.181, or 77.55.241: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 3601459-6327. Page 3 of 4 Washington North Puget Sound Department of HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL 16018M9Creek Boulevard FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 WILDLIFE (425) 775-1311 Issue Date: June 23, 2006 Control Number: 105528-1 Project Expiration Date: June 22, 2011 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A D. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 43.21 L RCW: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The FORMAL APPEAL shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21 L RCW and Chapter 199-08 WAC. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board at Environmental Hearings Office, Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, P.O. Box 40903, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327. E. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS results in forfeiture of all appeal rights. If there is no timely request for an appeal, the department action shall be final and unappealable. ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P3 Habitat Biologist Q.✓ for Director Larry Fisher 425-649-7042 C""'""a''`"" WDFW CC: Page 4 of 4 Chad Armour, LLC August 10, 2006 Leshya Wig Wig Properties 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Southcenter Square Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Wig: Enclosed is a copy of the Revised Final Mitigation Plan for the Southcenter Square project. The plan answers the issues raised by the City of Tukwila in their July 25, 2006 internal memorandum. 1. We made the noted change. 2. We changed the sentence to clarify the methods used to evaluate wetland functions. 3. We changed the wetland functional assessments as requested. 4. We added a note to the Grading Plan to clarify this issue. 5. The text says that topsoil will be added as necessary. We plan to collect several soil samples from within 6 inches of the estimated final grade later this month or in September. We will submit these samples to an approved agricultural laboratory for analysis. If the analysis indicates that the sampled soil lacks the specified organics, then Wig will add top soil according to the Plan. 6. We changed the text and will submit a JARPA to the Corps to alter the wetlands present in the Tukwila Pond. 7. We clarified this sentence. We trust that the Revised Final Wetland Mitigation plan meets your needs. If you have any questions about the Plan or this letter, please let us know. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC ;4'0".� Chad Armour Principal cc: Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwila 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 www.chadarmour.com RECEIVED AUG 14 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 (Fax) chad@chadarmour.com REVISED FINAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN TUKWILA POND Tukwila, Washington Prepared for Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 SE 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Prepared by. Chad Armour LLC 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 RECEIVED AUG 14 2006 August 2006 bcoMMUNI y EVELOPMENT Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................ 3 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................... 3 2.2 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.................................................................................. 3 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE OVERALL PROJECT....................................................... 3 3. BASELINE INFORMATION..............................................................................4 3.1 WETLANDS ON THE PENNEYSITE.................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Wetland A..................................................................................................................4 3.1.2 Wetland B..................................................................................................................4 3.1.3 Wetland C..................................................................................................................4 3.1.4 Wetland D..................................................................................................................4 3.1.5 Wetland E..................................................................................................................5 3.1.6 Wetland F..................................................................................................................5 3.1.7 Wetland Ratings.......................................................................................................5 3.1.8 Wetland Functions...................................................................................................5 3.1.9 Fauna Associated with the Penney Wetlands........................................................5 3.2 TUKW/LA POND SITE...........................................................•..........•............... 5 3.2.1 Existing Vegetation..................................................................................................6 3.2.2 Existing Soils............................................................................................................6 3.2.3 Existing Hydrology...................................................................................................6 3.2.4 Wetland Ratings.......................................................................................................7 3.2.5 Wetland Functions...................................................................................................7 3.2.6 Tukwila Pond Fauna.................................................................................................7 3.3 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS............................................................................... 7 4. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT ...................8 4.1 SHORELINE PROTECTION................................................................................ 8 4.2 HYDROLOGICSUPPORT.................................................................................. 8 4.3 STORM/FLOOD WATER ABATEMENT............................................................... 9 4.4 GROUNDWATER EXCHANGE............................................................................ 9 4.5 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT................................................................... 10 4.6 BIOLOGICAL SUPPORT................................................................................. 10 5. MITIGATION APPROACH..............................................................................11 5.1 CODE COMPLIANCE...................................................................................... 11 5.1.1 Permitted Alterations.............................................................................................11 5.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing...........................................................................................12 5.1.3 Mitigation Plans......................................................................................................12 5.1.4 Mitigation Location................................................................................................13 5.2 RATIONALE FOR CHOICE............................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Case Study..............................................................................................................13 5.2.2 Projected Conditions of the Mitigation Site..........................................................14 C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc ii 08/10/06 Chad Armour LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 5.3 CONSTRAINTS..............................................................................................14 5.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MITIGATION PLAN ....................................... 14 5.4.1 Goals.......................................................................................................................14 5.4.2 Objectives...............................................................................................................14 5.5 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS......................................................................... 15 5.5.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................15 5.5.2 Soil..........................................................................................................................16 5.5.3 Vegetation...............................................................................................................16 5.5.4 Structure.................................................................................................................17 6. CONSTRUCTION PLAN.................................................................................17 6.1 HYDROLOGY................................................................................................ 18 6.2 SOILS..........................................................................................................18 6.3 VEGETATION................................................................................................ 18 6.4 HABITAT STRUCTURES................................................................................. 19 6.5 INSTALLATION SEQUENCE............................................................................ 19 7. MONITORING PLAN.......................................................................................20 7.1 PRE -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING................................................................ 20 7.2 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING....................................................................... 20 7.3 POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.............................................................. 20 7.3.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................21 7.3.2 Soils........................................................................................................................21 7.3.3 Vegetation...............................................................................................................21 7.3.4 Fauna......................................................................................................................21 7.3.5 Habitat Structures..................................................................................................21 7.3.6 Water Quality..........................................................................................................21 7.3.7 Buffers....................................................................................................................21 8. SITE PROTECTION........................................................................................22 9. MAINTENANCE PLAN...................................................................................22 10. CONTINGENCY PLAN.................................................................................22 10.1 POST A BOND............................................................................................ 23 10.2 INSTALL PLANTS SUITED TO SEASONAL FLOODING ..................................... 23 10.3 ANNUAL MONITORING FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS ........................................... 23 10.4 REMOVE ALL REED CANARYGRASS............................................................ 23 10.5 INSTALL ADDITIONAL PLANTS AS NECESSARY ............................................. 23 11. SCHEDULE................................................................................................... 24 12. PERFORMANCE BOND...............................................................................24 13. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................24 C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc iii 08/10/06 Chad Armour LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington REFERENCES TABLES Table 1 Wetland Functional Assessment of Various Wetlands Table 2 Pre- and Post -Construction Water Detention and Water Quality Comparison Table 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations in the Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area Table 4 Comparative Analyses of Precipitation Records Table 5 Functional Wildlife Habitat of Various Wetlands Table 6 Plants to be Installed on the Mitigation Site FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Wetlands on the Penney Site Figure 3 Upland Location Plan Figure 4 Comparative Precipitation Analyses Figure 5 Grading Plan Figure 6 Planting Plan APPENDIX A U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Jurisdictional Determination of Wetlands on the Penney site U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation Washington Department of Ecology Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Nationwide Permit 39 Notification APPENDIX B Wetland Rating for the Penney site Wetland Rating for the Tukwila Pond site Wetland Rating for the Mitigation site — Existing Conditions Wetland Rating for the Mitigation site — Projected Conditions C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc iv 08/10/06 Chad Armour LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wig Properties LLC-SS (Wig) plans to construct the Southcenter Shopping center on the 18.77- acre Penney warehouse distribution site in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). To do so, Wig proposes to fill 1.16 acres of wetlands that developed on fill soil placed on the Penney site in the late 1960s (Figure 2). Based on the City of Tukwila's (Tukwila) wetland rules, four of the six Penney site wetlands meet the criteria for Type 3 wetlands. The other two are unregulated. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corp) determined that only one of the six wetlands on the Penney site is jurisdictional and therefore regulated by the Corps (Appendix A). All six of the Penney site wetlands are regulated by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). As a whole the wetlands on the Penney site exhibit low wetland functions because they are small and support immature plant communities that developed on imported fill soils (Table 1). Upon closer inspection, the Penney site wetlands exhibit high water quality functions and low hydrologic and habitat functions. The road ruts that support wetlands store water that would otherwise be released quickly to the lower Green River. They also provide limited water quality improvement and biological support. To mitigate for filling the Penney site wetlands, Wig proposes to create and enhance a total of 3.48 acres of lacustrine emergent and open water wetland dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The mitigation site is located in the southeast quadrant of the 24-acre Tukwila Pond site. It is surrounded by open water, scrub -shrub and forested wetland, forested upland, and upland shrubs. The Tukwila Pond site as a whole, rates at the low end of Category II wetlands (Appendix B). Its water quality functions rate high and it's hydrologic and habitat functions are rated as moderate. The mitigation site currently rates as a solid Category III wetland. It has a moderate rating for water quality and hydrologic functions and a low habitat function. Following completion of mitigation and at the end of the 10-year monitoring and maintenance effort, the Mitigation site is projected to function as a high end Category II wetland. The Tukwila Pond site is located about 1,000 feet northeast of the Penney site. The Tukwila Pond was selected for mitigation for the following reasons: • The quality of the existing wetland at the Tukwila Pond site can be substantially improved (Tablet); • Both Ecology and the Corps prefer that mitigation occur off site (Appendix A); • The sensitive areas regulations allow for off site mitigation; • Tukwila's long-term plans include enhancing degraded portions of the Tukwila Pond site; • The mitigation site is located in the same drainage basin as the Penney site; and • The mitigation site is bounded by existing open water and forested wetlands as well as upland forest and shrub plant communities. In addition to providing compensation for wetland loss, the benefits of the wetland mitigation plan include: C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc1 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington • Increasing the complexity of the Tukwila Pond site; and • Increasing the detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. In addition to providing these benefits, the wetland mitigation plan is designed to more than replace the wetland functions that will be lost on the Penney site. Filling the Penney site wetlands will have minimal impact on the hydrological support function because their contribution to base flow is very small. Conversely it will have a positive effect on floodwater abatement and water quality improvement. The shopping center's stormwater management system together with the new detention capacity on the Mitigation site represents a 574 percent increase over existing conditions (Table 2). Similarly, the shopping center's water quality system and landscaping together represents a 1,345 percent increase in water quality treatment capacity. Replacing the immature forest and meadow habitat present on the Penney site with four wetland classes, including open water, will more than offset the lost habitat functions (Table 1). Wig recognizes that it is likely that some of the plants installed on the Mitigation site will not survive the seasonal flooding typical of the Tukwila pond. Wig also recognizes that seasonal flooding tends to favor reed canarygrass. To reduce these potentials Wig will: • Install plants that tolerate seasonal flooding; • Monitor the Mitigation site for 10 years — annually for the first 5 years; • Install new plants annually to replace those that are lost; and • Post a bond sufficient to cover the cost of replanting the Mitigation site. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc2 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This plan presents information about the proposed Southcenter Square Shopping Center project (Proposed Development), the wetlands that are present on the Penney site, the land present in the southeast quadrant of the Tukwila Pond site, and the mitigation plan designed to compensate for lost wetland functions due to the Proposed Development. 2.1 Project Location The Proposed Development is located in Tukwila, Washington (King County) in Sections 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East (Willamette Meridian) (Figure 1). It is bounded by Southcenter Parkway to the west, Minkler Boulevard to the south, the Bon distribution warehouse to the north, and a business park to the east. The Mitigation site is located within a larger parcel typically referred to as the Tukwila Pond. The Mitigation site is located west of Andover Parkway West (Andover). 2.2 Responsible Parties The following key people are responsible for this project: Ms. Leshya Wig, Project Manager Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 957-4774 Ms. Moira Bradshaw, Sr. Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188-2544 (206) 431-3651 Mr. Chad Armour, Principal Chad Armour LLC 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-6743 Mr. Armour prepared this wetland mitigation plan and delineated the wetlands on the Penney site and the central uplands on the Mitigation site (Figure 3). 2.3 Description of the Overall Project Wig plans to construct a commercial shopping center on the 18.77-acre Penney site. There are currently two buildings on the western 13.55 acres of the Penney site. The eastern 5.22 acres is the location of immature deciduous forest and meadow plant communities that developed on fill soils. These soils were placed on the site some 35 years ago (Armour, 2004). To build the shopping center, Wig proposes to fill 1.16 acres of low quality emergent and forested wetlands. To mitigate for filling these wetlands, Wig proposes to enhance and/or create 3.48 acres of existing upland and wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site. This includes creating wetland at a ratio of 1.5:1, enhancing degraded wetland at a ratio of 3:1, and enhancing degraded wetland at a ratio of 1:1. At the end of the 10-year monitoring the functional value of the created and C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc3 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS enhanced wetlands on the Mitigation site will be considerably greater than the functions of the existing wetlands on both the Penney and Tukwila Pond sites (Tables 1 and 2). 3. BASELINE INFORMATION Chad Armour LLC (Armour) delineated the wetlands on the Penney site in April 2004. Armour installed and measured the water levels in 14 shallow groundwater monitoring wells on the Mitigation site from October 2004 to the present. Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. (BRH) is Wig's civil engineering consultant. BRH surveyed the delineated wetland boundaries on the Penney site, calculated pre- and post -development stormwater runoff on the same, and prepared the grading plan for the Mitigation site. 3.1 Wetlands on the Penney Site There are six wetlands located on the Penney site (Figure 2). 3.1.1 Wetland A Wetland A is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 13,718 square feet (0.32 acre). Its most notable feature is a rutted road. Grasses and herbs dominate most of Wetland A, including the road. Trees dominate a small portion of this wetland. The forested portion of Wetland A occupies 2,698 square feet; almost 20 percent of the wetland. During the rainy season standing water about 6 inches deep is present on about 75 percent of the wetland. 3.1.2 Wetland B Wetland B is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 24,461 square feet (0.57 acre). Trees dominate the western half of Wetland B. Emergent herbs typically growing in a deeply rutted road dominate the remaining wetland. During the rainy season standing water averages about 6 inches deep; however, can be up to 1.5 feet deep in places. 3.1.3 Wetland C Wetland C is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers a total of 6,305 square feet (0.15 acre). It includes a forested area that covers 40 percent of the wetland and a rutted road. The road contains standing water during the rainy season and supports emergent vegetation. The understory of the forested area is generally devoid of vegetation, presumably as a result of standing water. During the rainy season 100 percent of this wetland is covered with about 6 inches of standing water. 3.1.4 Wetland D Wetland D is a Type 3 wetland that covers 3,943 square feet (0.09 acre). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) shrubs, grasses, and herbs dominate it. Surface water accumulates in this wetland during the rainy season. This water discharges west to the asphalt apron and associated stormwater drain located on the developed portion of the distribution center. After the water enters the catch basin, it flows into a series of pipes (sizes range from about 6 inches to 66 inches in diameter) and swales before being discharged into a King County regional stormwater detention pond. This water is then pumped into the Green River (Clark, 2004). Wetland D is the only wetland considered jurisdictional by the Corps (Appendix A). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc4 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 3.1.5 Wetland E Wetland E covers 179 square feet (<0.01 acre) and is dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus). The slight grade of this wetland precludes standing water during the rainy season. This isolated wetland is too small to be regulated by Tukwila, but is regulated by Ecology. 3.1.6 Wetland F Wetland F is an isolated wetland that covers 1,971 square feet (0.05 acre). Trees dominate the central 40 percent of this wetland. The remainder of Wetland F is dominated by emergent plant species. Like all of the other Penney site wetlands, a rutted road represents a significant portion of this wetland. During the rainy season standing water about 6 inches deep is present on about 50 percent of the wetland. As with Wetland E, this isolated wetland is too small to be regulated by Tukwila, but is regulated by Ecology. 3.1.7 Wetland Ratings Based on Tukwila's criteria (Tukwila, 2005), the wetlands individually and collectively are rated as Type 3 wetlands. The wetlands are classified as a Category III wetland using Ecology's wetland rating system (Appendix B). 3.1.8 Wetland Functions Based on the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004), the Penney site wetlands are rated at the low end of Category III wetlands (Table 1). As a whole the wetlands on the Penney site exhibit low functions because they are small and support immature plant communities that developed on imported fill soils. When the wetland functions are partitioned, the Penney site wetlands exhibit moderate water quality and habitat functions and low hydrologic functions. They rated high for water quality because very little surface water flows off of the site and the wetlands are surrounded by urban development. The road ruts on the site that are wetlands store water that would otherwise be released quickly to the lower Green River. We assume that this stored water infiltrates into the soil and contributes to the regional groundwater system. These open water areas also provide some habitat for waterfowl, and the trees and shrubs provide some nesting opportunities for small birds. 3.1.9 Fauna Associated with the Penney Wetlands During one of our site visits we recall observing mallard (Anas platyrhycos) and American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos). The Penney site likely attracts and supports a number of bird species typically attracted to western Washington's urban and suburban habitats. Small mammals could also be present. There are three listed threatened species reported to be located in the vicinity of the Penney site. They are Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The salmonids are present in the Green River. An abandoned bald eagle nest was reported about 2 miles southwest of the Penney site (WDFW, 2004). 3.2 Tukwila Pond Site The Tukwila Pond site is located about 1,000 feet north northeast of the Penney site (Figure 1). It occupies approximately 24 acres, more than 19 acres of which are open water. The Tukwila Pond site is bounded by uplands and urban development. Its buffers are narrow, confined to short steep slopes, and support trees and shrubs. Relatively tall (-75 foot) black cottonwood C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc5 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington (Populus balsamifera) trees are rooted in the buffer along the east side of the Tukwila Pond site. The southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site is the location of the Mitigation site. This area covers a total of 3.48 acres. 3.2.1 Existing Vegetation There are five plant communities in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site. A forest dominated by black cottonwood is located along the eastern perimeter of the Tukwila Pond site. The southern boundary is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Both of these plant communities function as uplands. Most of the Tukwila Pond site is dominated by a monoculture of reed canarygrass (meadow). A portion of this meadow functions as upland (Figure 3). A Himalayan blackberry thicket is present at the south end of this upland. A forest composed of Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) and red -osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) separate the meadow from the pond proper. The steep slopes of the railroad grade along the southern site boundary are covered with a tangle of blackberry and the flats with red -osier dogwood in two places. A depression near the southeast corner of the Mitigation site supports rooted floating vegetation. 3.2.2 Existing Soils A 1986 geotechnical engineering report on the Mitigation site described the near -surface soils as silty fine sand and sandy silt (Dames and Moore, 1986). When Tukwila delineated the wetlands on the Tukwila Pond site, they described the near -surface soils as silt loam. 3.2.3 Existing Hydrology Permanent open water is present in the Tukwila Pond site throughout the year. We understand that the pond is groundwater fed and know that there are seasonal inputs from precipitation and runoff from adjacent built up areas. On occasion Green River flood water is routed to the pond. We understand that the pond is relatively shallow, averaging about 2 to 3 feet deep, with the deepest point about 6 feet below the surface (Partee, 2004). A 1988 construction drawing for a site to the north indicated a static pond water level of ±13.0 feet (Barghausen, 1988). The same drawings indicate that the flood elevation is 25.8 feet. In 2005 and 2006 we found the pond elevation to range from 19.2 to 19.3 feet in April (Table 3). The elevation of the water in the pond is controlled by a 15 inch corrugated metal culvert (CMP) fitted with a flap gate located on the east side of the Mitigation site adjacent to Andover. When the lower Green River is in flood, Tukwila opens the flap gate to allow flood water to enter the pond for temporary storage. This stored water is released back into the river after the flood crest has passed (Howat, 2004). The invert elevation of this CMP is18.8 feet (BRH, 2004). We have observed that a significant portion of the Mitigation site can be flooded during the rainy season (Figure 3). The southeast corner of the Mitigation site is flooded with water as much as 5 feet deep. Standing water in this depression extends from the area southeast of the upland to the flap gate CMP (Figure 3). The pond proper floods the western edge of the Mitigation site. In April 2005 and 2006 we measured the elevation of the pond to be about 19.2 feet (Table 3). During the same month the elevation of the standing water in the southeast corner of the Mitigation site was about 18.1 feet in 2005 and 18.4 feet in 2006. Apparently the flap gate CMP allows the smaller body of water to drain quickly, and retards pond drainage. When the mitigation area is flooded the surface of the water is covered with pieces of reed canarygrass. We assume that this flotsam includes reed canarygrass seed. C:/JobsNVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc6 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 3.2.4 Wetland Ratings There are several lacustrine wetland classes present on the Tukwila Pond site. A portion of the proposed Mitigation site is emergent and open water seasonally flooded wetland. To the west is a forested wetland and beyond that is open water (Cowardin et al., 1979). Based on Ecology's wetland rating system for western Washington, the wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site is classified as a Category II wetland (Appendix B). 3.2.6 Wetland Functions The Tukwila Pond site wetland as a whole, rates at the low end of Category II wetlands (Table 1). It is completely surrounded by impervious surfaces associated with retail and commercial development. The Tukwila Pond wetland has a good mixture of open water, emergent, scrub - shrub, and forested wetland habitat, as well as unmanaged upland buffers. Its water quality functions rate high because it temporarily stores untreated stormwater prior to discharge to the Green River. It's hydrologic and habitat functions are rated as moderate (Appendix B). Because the pond is not regularly flushed, is shallow, has a limited outflow, and during the dry season the size of the pond shrinks, the quality of the water is poor. This is particularly so in the summer when algal blooms rob the water of oxygen. The pond can be flushed during the rainy season. When viewed independently of the Tukwila Pond site, the Mitigation site rates as a Category III wetland (Table 1). The thick mat of reed canarygrass prevents other species of plants — including woody shrubs and trees — from becoming established. This persistent monoculture is unattractive to most animals. It has a moderate rating for water quality because it is covered solely with herbaceous vegetation. It exhibits moderate hydrologic functionality because it temporarily stores untreated stormwater during the rainy season. It provides low habitat functions because of the predominance of the reed canarygrass monoculture. 3.2.6 Tukwila Pond Fauna Many different animal species have been reported on the Tukwila Pond site. Waterfowl are attracted to the Tukwila Pond in an otherwise highly urbanized area. It is reported to be used as permanent habitat for some animals and as a migratory stopover for others (Watershed Dynamics, 1994). During periods of low water in the fall and winter, mudflats form on the southern end of the pond. These mudflats provide foraging opportunities for waterfowl. And the pond provides foraging opportunities for diving birds such as pied -billed grebe (Podylimbus podiceps) and double-breasted cormorant (Phalocrocorax auritus). During the summer the limited diversity afforded by thick vegetation limits the value to waterfowl and marsh birds. Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) is present in the pond. Few mammals are reported for the Tukwila Pond site. Muskrat (Onodantra zibethica) haul -out sign was reported in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site. Bull frog (Rana catesbeiana) is found near the edge of open water. The only reported priority species on the site is the great blue heron (Ardea herodias). A report prepared by the WDFW for the Penney site also covers the Tukwila Pond and Mitigation sites. The WDFW report indicates that no priority species are present on or near the Tukwila Pond site. 3.3 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS As indicated in Section 3.3.2, the surface water elevation of the Tukwila Pond is affected by groundwater, runoff from surrounding areas, and on occasion flood water from the Green River. All of these factors are related to precipitation. As shown on Figure 4 the 2004/2005 water C:/JobsMig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc7 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington years was somewhat drier than normal for the first 5 months (October through February), normal in March and June, and somewhat wetter than normal in April and May (Table 4). The 2005/2006 water year began normally (October and November) but quickly became wetter than normal in December and January, particularly in January when nearly twice the amount of expected rain fell on the region (Seattle Times, 2004, 2005, & 2006). The following two months of the 2005/2006 water year (February and March) were drier than normal and April exhibited a near normal amount of precipitation. 4. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT Wetlands have several physical, chemical, and biological processes or attributes that are important to the ecosystem. These wetland functions include shoreline protection, hydrologic support, storm/flood water abatement, groundwater exchange, water quality improvement, and biological support. Each of these functions and the probable impact of site development are discussed in detail in the following subsections. 4.1 Shoreline Protection Wetlands provide shorelines protection from erosion caused by tidal action along coasts, currents in rivers and streams during flooding, and wind or wake generated erosion along coastlines. Wetlands reduce shoreline erosion by absorbing or dissipating wave energy, by binding and stabilizing shoreline substrates, and by enhancing suspended sediment deposition (Hammer, 1992). None of the wetlands on the Penney site are located adjacent to shorelines. Therefore, filling these wetlands will have no impact on shoreline functions. We anticipate that limited areas of soil adjacent to the Tukwila Pond shoreline will be exposed as part of mitigation. As such, a limited amount of erosion from wave action will likely occur the first couple of years following construction. 4.2 Hydrologic Support Hydrology is the single most important factor for establishing and maintaining wetlands and wetland processes. Hydrologic inputs include precipitation, surface water runoff, groundwater, tides, and flooding. Water inputs are almost always the major source of nutrients to wetlands. Water outflows often remove biotic and abiotic material from wetlands. These physiochemical modifications of the environment have a direct impact on the biotic response in wetlands (Mitsch and Grosselink, 1986). During the winter rainy season surface water from Wetland D (one of the Penney site wetlands) flows into a nearby catch basin. From this parking lot catch basin, water flows through a man- made storm water conveyance system into a detention pond where it is pumped into the Green River. The other five wetlands at the Penney site are isolated depressions with no direct connection to nearby streams. We assume that the water that accumulates in these depressional wetlands percolates through the soil profile and contributes to the base flow of the Green River. Filling the Penney site wetlands will have a minimal impact on the hydrological support function because the contribution to Green River base flow is extremely small. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc8 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 4.3 Storm/Flood Water Abatement Wetlands can have an effect on the peak flows of floodwaters in streams and on their base flows during dry periods. Floodwater modification is most often identified with bottomland hardwood swamps. Forested wetlands in river floodplains can reduce the height of downstream floodwater peaks by acting as natural reservoirs and directly obstructing and slowing flows. By retaining stormwater and releasing them at a controlled rate, wetlands augment base flows (Hammer, 1992). Tukwila's stormwater management strategy is to release stormwater into the Green River before flood flow reaches Tukwila. This strategy limits the potential for high water in the river from blocking runoff generated in the city and reduces the potential for flooding beyond the river's levees. In support of this strategy, Tukwila will require no detention for the existing impervious surfaces on the Penney warehouse distribution site, but will require Wig to detain runoff from the pervious surfaces currently present on this site. The development plan has these pervious surfaces — which cover 5.8 acres of the Penney distribution site — being converted to impervious surfaces. Based on visual observations over a period of two winters, we estimate that the wetlands on the Penney site provide approximately 16,875 cubic feet (cf) of detention capacity (Table 2). This capacity assumes that all but one of the wetlands stores water averaging 6 inches deep throughout the rainy season. It also assumes that standing water represents 100 percent of the surface area of Wetlands C and D, 75 percent of Wetland A, and 50 percent of Wetlands B and F. Wetland E is located on a slight slope and retains no surface water. The wetland mitigation plan includes removing a significant quantity of soil from the Mitigation site (Figure 5). This action will increase the detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond site by about 46,900 cf (BRH, 2006). Using the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) method for estimating runoff, Tukwila will require 26,200 cf of storage for the additional 5.8 acres of impervious surfaces that will be created by the Planned Development (BRH, 2004). This is a conservative estimate because the model assumes that the impervious surfaces are occupied by a mature Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh) forest. The impervious surfaces are actually represented by 0.6 acre of mowed lawn and 5.22 acres of immature forest and meadow. The volume of water to be detained on the Planned Development is somewhat less than three times the stormwater holding capacity of the Penney site wetlands (50,000cf/16,875cf). When the added capacity on the Mitigation site is also factored into the equation, the increase stormwater holding capacity of the Planned Development represents nearly a 575 percent increase over existing conditions (Table 2). Thus the mitigation plan compensates for the lost stormwater holding capacity of the Penney site wetlands many times over. 4.4 Groundwater Exchange Groundwater recharge has been shown to occur in isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes, cypress domes, and floodplain forests. A few wetlands in Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Florida were shown to have direct connections and contributed significantly to groundwater. But other wetlands have been shown to have little influence on groundwater or, in some cases, the wetland is present because of surfacing groundwater (Hammer, 1992). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc9 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington It is likely that the Penney site wetlands do not owe their existence to surfacing groundwater. Rather the precipitation that accumulates in these wetlands seasonally likely contributes to the regional groundwater system. This phenomenon is thought to be largely due to the original soil being covered some 35 years ago with up to 10 feet of imported fill soil (Armour, 2004). 4.5 Water Quality Improvement Wetlands have the ability to remove pollutants from water, through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. Water purification functions of wetlands are dependent on four principal components — vegetation, water column, substrates, and microbial populations. With respect to water quality improvement, the principal function of vegetation in wetlands is to provide environments for microbial populations. Not only do plants in the water column obstruct flow and facilitate sedimentation they also provide habitat for microbes. In addition to attachment surfaces for microbes, substrates provide physical support for plants, and surfaces for chemical reactions. The water column transports substances and gasses to microbial populations, carries off by-products, and provides matrix for biochemical processes (Hammer, 1992). No surface water flows onto the eastern 5.22 acres of the Penney warehouse distribution site. Only surface water from Wetland D flows off of this area. As such, sediment retention is limited and most of the water quality improvement capacity of Penney site wetlands is provided by microbes attached to vegetation and to soil particles. The water flowing from Wetland D receives some water quality treatment when it flows through grass -lined ditches and is detained in the regional stormwater pond adjacent to the Green River. The water quality treatment capacity of the Penney wetlands is 1.16 acres. The Planned Development specifies treating approximately 14 acres of pollution -generating surfaces (i.e., asphalt). Surface water runoff from the asphalt will be directed to a water quality treatment system. The water quality treatment system will be designed and maintained in accordance with Tukwila engineering standards. The Penney site currently has 7.1 acres of untreated pollution -generating surfaces (BRH, 2006). In addition to the water quality treatment system, the Planned Development will have about 1.5 acres of landscaping. Most of the landscaping will be located around the perimeter of the shopping center. This landscaping represents pervious surface directly connected to the regional groundwater system. The microbes attached to soil particles in the landscaped areas will treat water that falls on these areas. Wig will provide water quality treatment far in excess of that provided by the Penney site wetlands (Table 2). The water quality treatment system, together with the landscaped areas, represents about a 1345 percent increase in water quality treatment capacity relative to these wetlands. The total increase is even larger when the relatively clean water entering the Penney site wetlands is compared to the water entering the treatment system, which contain petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. 4.6 Biological Support Wetlands produce many diverse forms of life and provide habitat for countless others. Wetlands are dynamic, transitional, and dependent on disturbance. Wetlands receive, hold, and recycle nutrients continually washed from upland regions. The combined interactions of abiotic and biotic factors create a diversity and abundance of habitats that make wetlands the most C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc10 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS important wildlife habitat. Basic productivity of many wetlands far exceeds the most fertile farm fields (Hammer, 1992). The Penney site wetlands offer limited biological support functions because they are small and support immature or simple plant communities. Ducks use the wetlands seasonally during periods of prolonged precipitation. Other animals likely utilize the wetlands when they are dry. Filling the Penney site wetlands will have very little impact on the biological support function of these wetlands. Listed salmonids cannot access the wetlands and bald eagles are not known to be present on the Penney site. The immature black cottonwood trees on the Penney warehouse distribution site are too small (<12 inches in diameter and 70 feet tall) to support nesting and/or roosting bald eagles. 5. MITIGATION APPROACH After carefully evaluating several scenarios, Wig concludes that filling 1.16 acres of wetlands on the Penney site is unavoidable. With the exception of the Tukwila Pond site, options for mitigating for lost wetland functions are limited. In exchange for filling the Penney site wetlands, Wig proposes to create and/or enhance 3.48 acres of degraded upland and wetland located at the Tukwila Pond site. Off -site mitigation makes the most sense in this case because: • The quality of the existing wetland at the Tukwila Pond site can be substantially improved (Table1); • Both Ecology and the Corps prefer that mitigation occur off site (Appendix A); • Tukwila's rules allows for off site mitigation; • Tukwila's long-term plans include enhancing degraded portions of the Tukwila Pond site; • The Mitigation site is located in the same drainage basin as the Penney site; and • The Mitigation site is bounded by existing open water and forested wetlands as well as upland forest and shrub plant communities. 5.1 Code Compliance 5.1.1 Permitted Alterations Per Tukwila's sensitive area regulations, any use or development of wetlands requires the review and approval of the Director of Community Development (TMC 18.45.090). Requests may be approved if the alteration does not adversely affect water quality; fish, wildlife, or their habitat; drainage or stormwater detention capabilities; lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard; be materially detrimental to any other property; and have an adverse effect on any other sensitive areas (TMC 18.45.090.B.1). Isolated wetlands exhibiting low functions that formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions may be altered (TMC 18.45.090.B.6). Per these requirements, the Penney wetlands clearly qualify as wetlands that may be altered (Tukwila, 2005). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc11 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 5.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing Tukwila requires that development proposals demonstrate a reasonable effort to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and their buffers. If avoidance and minimization are not possible, the preferred order of compensation is: • Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands; • Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands; • Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites (TMC 18.45.090.C). Wig cannot avoid or minimize filling the wetlands on the Penney site because Wig's tenant - driven key criteria are that the land be at least 18 acres in size and be located on the main strip of Southcenter Parkway. There are no other properties that meet these criteria. Wig evaluated off site options including the Macadam site, River Bend site, and a site off of Strander Boulevard. The Macadam site was too steep and not large enough to be considered a viable option. The River Bend site was too small and as much as 15 feet of soil would need to be removed to create wetlands. The Strander site is owned by the Boeing Corporation and is not readily available for sale. None of these three options represented upland sites that were formerly wetlands. The Mitigation site is a significantly degraded wetland with the potential to be enhanced. Enhancing this degraded wetland is supported by the Corps, Ecology, and Tukwila staff. Here Wig can create four wetland classes where only one wetland class now exists. Enhancement will significantly increase the functional value of the degraded wetland. There is no opportunity to create wetlands on disturbed upland sites in Tukwila. After evaluating the attributes of four potential mitigation sites, Wig concluded that enhancing the degraded wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site was the only reasonable available option. Further, on site mitigation has been discouraged by both the Corps and Ecology (Appendix A). 5.1.3 Mitigation Plans Per section 18.45.090.D of the wetland regulations, "wetland and/or buffer relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions." Further, the plan shall "show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved." The close proximity of available degraded upland and wetland adjacent to a large expanse of open water, scrub -shrub and forested wetland, and upland in an urban environment provide a unique opportunity to mitigate for impacts to wetlands. The enhanced wetland area will improve the habitat function of the existing wetland (Table 1) and be composed of four wetland classes — open water, forested, scrub -shrub, and emergent wetland (Figure 6). The existing Mitigation site wetland is composed of two wetland classes. The enhanced wetland will be bordered on the east by upland forest, on the south by wetland and upland shrubs, and on the northwest by a combination of existing open water and forested wetland. The resultant plant communities in conjunction with open water will provide excellent habitat for wildlife (Table 5). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc12 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 6.1.4 Mitigation Location According to Section 18.45.090.E of the wetland regulations, on -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the application can demonstrate that: a) On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors; or b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or c) Existing functional values created at the site of proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. On -site mitigation is not preferred because the Penney site wetlands are very small, surrounded by asphalt and concrete, and generally isolated from the closest wetland — the Tukwila Pond. Wig qualifies for off -site mitigation under provisions b) and c). Table 1 demonstrates that the functional values of the Tukwila Pond site are significantly greater than the function values of the Penney site wetlands. Further, the Penney site wetland functions can be more than compensated for by converting degraded upland to wetland and enhancing degraded wetland on the Tukwila Pond site. Wetland functions currently present on the Mitigation site are projected to increase from the current rating of a Category III wetland to a Category II wetland by 2015. When considering wildlife habitat functions in isolation, the created and enhanced wetland (score = 70) is projected to out perform the existing wetland (score = 15) as well as the Penney site wetlands (score = 42) (Table 5). Tukwila requires that off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the loss occurred. The Tukwila Pond site is located in the same basin as the Penney site and therefore meets this requirement. Finally, the regulation lists an order of preference for off site mitigation. The Tukwila Pond site contains existing degraded upland and wetland. Degraded upland areas are listed as the second and degraded wetlands the fourth preference for off site mitigation. All of the other sites considered but the unavailable Strander site fall into the third preference. These sites were deemed unsuitable because they were either too small or contained excess overburden. 5.2 Rationale for Choice The 24-acre Tukwila Pond site was selected because it is the only suitable area available in the drainage basin. Also, the degraded area of the Tukwila Pond site has been identified by Tukwila as an area suitable for enhancement. Tukwila owns the site. 5.2.1 Case Study A 6.3-acre monoculture of reed canarygrass in Auburn was converted to a wetland complex possessing open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland classes (Raedeke Associates, 2002). This wetland was identified by Ecology as an example of a successful reed canarygrass conversion project. C:/JobsNNig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc13 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 5.2.2 Projected Conditions of the Mitigation Site At the end of the 10-year monitoring period the monoculture of reed canarygrass currently present on the Tukwila Pond site is projected to have been transformed into a wetland complex composed of open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested habitats. All three wetland functions will improve relative to existing conditions (Table 1). Similarly Wig projects that they will exceed the functions exhibited by the Tukwila Pond site as a whole (Appendix B). The improved Mitigation site is projected to enhance water quality and habitat functions largely by adding complexity and structure where little previously existed. The Mitigation site ten years after it is improved would rate at the high end of the Category II wetlands. As shown on Table 1 the restored wetland (Projected Mitigation site) scored higher than the Tukwila Pond site for habitat largely because of added complexity. The Projected Mitigation site will have more plant communities and habitat amenities as well as fewer weeds than the existing Tukwila Pond site. 5.3 Constraints It appears that potential constraints can be adequately mitigated. The 3.48 acre wetland will be designed so that seasonal flooding and near -surface groundwater will support and maintain wetland plant communities. It will be vegetated with native plants that typically tolerate temporary seasonal flooding during the dormant season. The plan includes removing reed canarygrass. If the grass were not treated it would create a maintenance challenge during the monitoring and maintenance period. Its seed will be distributed throughout much if not all of the Mitigation site during flood events. As such Wig will remove the reed canarygrass, including its stolon mat, at the time of site grading. The resultant bare soil will be revegetated with native plants. A robust monitoring and maintenance plan will limit invading weeds, including reed canarygrass. Tukwila will protect the Mitigation site in perpetuity. In the event Tukwila alters other parts of the Tukwila Pond site to enhance its water quality or to increase its capacity to store stormwater, a deed restriction or some other site development -limiting instrument will protect the enhanced wetland. 5.4 Goals and Objectives of the Mitigation Plan To meet Tukwila's no net loss of wetland functions requirement, Wig proposes to improve the functions of 3.48 acres of degraded wetland and upland on the Tukwila Pond site. 5.4.1 Goals The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88 acre and enhance 2.6 acres of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. 5.4.2 Objectives Hydrology • Open Water Wetland — water at least 2 feet deep into the late growing season; C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc14 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS • Existing Degraded Wetland — seasonally flooded with saturated soil within 12 inches of the ground surface into the late growing season; • Emergent Wetland — seasonally flooded with saturated soil within 12 inches of the ground surface into the late growing season; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — seasonally flooded with saturated soil within 12 inches of the ground surface into the middle of the growing season; and • Forested Wetland — saturated soils within 12 inches of the ground surface in the early growing season. Wetland Classes • Open Water — occupy approximately 0.92 acre; • Existing Degraded Wetland — occupy approximately 0.88 acre and contain at least 3 native plant species (Table 6); • Emergent — occupy approximately 0.52 acre and contain at least 3 native plant species; • Scrub -shrub — occupy approximately 0.51 acres and contain at least 2 native plant species; and • Forested — occupy approximately 0.65 acre and contain at least 2 native plant species. Habitat Attributes • 6 hardwood snags ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall and 6 to 12 inches in diameter; and • 12 hardwood logs ranging from 10 to 30 feet long and 6 to 12 inches in diameter. 5.5 Performance Standards Performance standards provide a basis for measuring the success of the mitigation plan. The target for meeting the performance standards is within 10 years of installation. Comparing actual results of the interim monitoring events (i.e., Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9) with the performance standards will determine whether contingency actions are warranted. The following standards will apply. 6.5.1 Hydrology • Open Water Wetland — 0.92 acre of open water from 0 to more than 7 feet deep (constructed bottom 15.2 feet elevation) November through May; • Existing Degraded Wetland — 0.88 acre of emergent wetland with saturated soil between 17.7 and 20.0 feet elevation November through June; • Emergent Wetland — 0.52 acre of emergent wetland with saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7 feet elevation November through June; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — 0.51 acres of scrub -shrub wetland with saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2 feet elevation November through May; and • Forested Wetland — 0.65 acre of forested wetland with saturated soil between18.2 and 19.2 feet elevation November through April. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc15 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 5.5.2 Soil At final grade, the upper 6 inches of soil will contain 20 to 25 percent organic matter, as validated by an approved agricultural testing laboratory. This requirement will be reflected in final plan specifications. 5.5.3 Vegetation • Emergent Wetland — 0.52 acre of emergent wetland that contains at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native emergent plant cover. The total native emergent plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 25% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10. • Existing Degraded Wetland — 0.88 acre of emergent wetland that contains at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native emergent plant cover. The total native emergent plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 25% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10. • Scrub -shrub Wetland — 0.51 acres of scrub -shrub wetland that contains at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native shrub plant cover. The total native shrub plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 20% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc16 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10. • Forested Wetland — 0.65 acre of forested wetland that contains at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native tree plant cover. The total native tree plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year 1, • 10% in Year 2, • 15% in Year 3, • 20% in Year 4, • 30% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10; and _ • No more than 20 percent of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. This includes Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and all other Class A, B, and C weeds on the state noxious weed list. 5.5.4 Structure • Emergent Wetland — vegetation ranging from 1 to 4 feet tall by Year 3; • Existing Degraded Wetland — vegetation ranging from 1 to 2 feet tall by Year 3; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — vegetation ranging from 4 to 8 feet tall by Year 5; and • Forested Wetland — vegetation ranging from 8 to 20 feet tall by Year 7. 6. CONSTRUCTION PLAN This section of the plan describes the strategies that will be used to achieve the objectives described in Section 5.4.2. The plan is to remove all of the reed canarygrass and replace it with native trees, shrubs, and herbs adapted to seasonally flooded and saturated soil conditions. We reviewed the file, visited the site, and interviewed the designer of what appears to be a successful reed canarygrass conversion project in the City of Auburn. As indicated in Section 5.2.1, the 6+-acre Goedeke wetland enhancement project was transformed from a monoculture of reed canarygrass to a diverse wetland composed of four wetland classes. To achieve this result, the reed canarygrass was mowed and the stolon mat was excavated, buried and covered with fabric and soil. In 2004 this precipitation driven wetland contained a wide variety of native trees, shrubs, and herbs, with very little reed canarygrass. Based on results of the Goedeke project, it appears that the reed canarygrass can successfully be converted to a wetland complex possessing increased water quality, hydrologic, and habitat values. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.dod7 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 6.1 Hydrology Wig installed 14 shallow groundwater monitoring wells and 2 staff gauges in late 2004 to characterize the hydrology of the Mitigation site. Based on April measurements the central ridge of the Mitigation site is upland covering 0.88 acre (Figure 3). A significant portion of the area surrounding the upland is flooded in the winter and spring. The flooded area west of the upland drains slowly, presumably because the flap gate CMP is small relative the volume of water in the pond proper. We believe that the flooded area east of the upland drains more quickly because it represents a much smaller volume of water. 6.2 Soils Wig will grade the finished elevation of the Mitigation site according to the grading plan prepared by BRH (Figure 5). The grading plan is based on the results of the groundwater monitoring program during April 2005 & 2006. At a minimum, the upper ±6 inches of soil will be excavated and exported. Exporting the upper layer of soil removes the canarygrass' subsurface reproductive parts. More than a 6-inch-deep scoop will be required to eliminate reed canarygrass' subsurface reproductive parts on occasion. Wig will take every precaution to avoid or minimize impacts to existing stormwater control structures, including the flap gate CMP. If the flap gate and/or the associated berm are disturbed, Wig will repair these structures to Tukwila standards. We understand that the Tukwila Pond is considered a jurisdictional wetland by the Corps. As such a permit to export soil from the Mitigation site and if necessary import topsoil onto the same will require a permit from the Corps (Whiting, 2006). With respect to Wetland D on the Penney site, Wig must notify the Corps within 30 days after it is filled (Appendix A). Wig will match grades along the edge of the existing forested and scrub -shrub wetlands, the edge of the pond, and/or the upland buffers to the south and east. The slopes of the excavated channel will be nearly vertical. The intent is to encourage fish and wildlife that are attracted to open water to utilize these habitats and discourage emergent vegetation. Our hope is that the channel will promote water circulation from, the Tukwila pond. The flow and the resultant mixing action could help improve the quality of the water in the Tukwila pond. To facilitate this flow, Wig will excavate the edge of the Tukwila pond at the entrance to the channels to match the bottom elevation of the channel. To augment the organic content of soils subject to excavation, Wig will rotovate three inches of fertile mulch (organic compost) into the upper 8 inches of the subgrade as necessary. 6.3 Vegetation As shown on Figure 6, at least four wetlands classes are proposed — open water, forested, scrub -shrub, and emergent. These new wetland classes will be juxtaposed with three existing wetland classes and two upland classes. The existing open water, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland classes and upland plant communities have been incorporated in the design to compliment the created/enhanced wetland area. Wig will vegetate the Mitigation site as indicated in Table 6. Several of the herbaceous plant species will be broadcast seeded throughout the emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested habitats. Larger herbs will be installed in the emergent wetland between 17.2 and 17.7 feet elevation. Selected herbs and the indicated shrubs will be installed in the scrub -shrub wetland between 17.7 and 18.2 feet elevation. The forested wetland will be vegetated with he shrubs, and trees between 18.2 and 19.2 feet elevation. A mixture of grass species will be broadcast C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc18 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington seeded throughout the Existing Degraded Wetland: The seed will be covered with about '/z inch of soil to minimize the potential for the seed to float away during subsequent flood events. Mulch will be placed around the base of all installed trees and shrubs for weed control and moisture retention in the spring after the threat of flood has past. Wig will install a temporary irrigation system designed to deliver up to 1 inch of water per week in the mitigation area for at least one growing season after the plants are installed. 6.4 Habitat Structures Wig will place 12 medium-sized (6 to 12 inches in diameter and 10 to 30 feet long) hardwood logs on the Mitigation site as habitat amenities. To reduce the potential for these logs to float away during anticipated periods of high water, Wig will anchor the logs to the ground. Wig will also install 6 hardwood snags — ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall and 6 to 12 inches in diameter on the Mitigation site. 6.5 Installation Sequence During a pre -construction meeting, the grading contractor, Wig, the project biologist, and appropriate regulatory agency staff will review the grading plan and best management practices (BMP), including stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP), temporary erosion and sediment control plans (TESC), and spill control and prevention plans. In addition, components of the mitigation plan will be reviewed with the landscaping contractor at this meeting. Based on the outcome of the pre -construction meeting, the grading contractor will flag the construction limits consistent with the grading plan and BMPs, and will install temporary filter fabric fences as necessary. A temporary fence will also be installed between the construction area and the Sitka willow trees along the northwest boundary of the Mitigation site. Temporary fence will also be placed around existing clumps of red -osier dogwood shrubs along the southern Mitigation site boundary. Track hoe excavators, dump trucks, and/or dozers will be used to grade the Mitigation site. Machines will enter and leave the site via temporary construction entrances off Andover Parkway West. Because road drainage may contain soil and mud from construction vehicles and since the associated catch basins ultimately discharge to the Green River, filter fabric sediment traps will be installed and maintained at each catch basin. In addition, Andover will be swept as dirt or mud accumulates. Dust abatement measures, such as site watering during grading, will be instituted as necessary. As indicated previously, prior to site grading the reed canarygrass will be mowed and the cuttings will be disposed off site. Following mowing the reed canarygrass mat will be excavated and exported. If the results of the soil chemical analysis indicate that organic augmentation is warranted, approximately three inches of fertile organic mulch will be rotovated into the upper top 8 inches of soil. Next the contractors will install the habitat amenities, the temporary irrigation system, fence, sign, etc. In the spring after floodwaters have subsided, seed from residual weedy plants that likely are distributed over most of the Mitigation site will sprout. As such the landscaping contractor will likely have to treat the Mitigation site for weeds prior to planting. After the weeds are treated the landscaping contractor will broadcast seed the Mitigation site that is not designated open water C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc19 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS habitat. About 'h inch of soil will be raked over the seed. Landscapers walking all over the site will also help "set" the seed. Following seeding the landscaping contractor will install the plants specified on Table 6. Following construction and plant installation, the project biologist and landscaping contractor's representative will meet with Tukwila staff to develop a punch list of deficiencies. After the punch list items are addressed by Wig, Wig will seek approval for concluding the construction phase of the mitigation plan and seek Tukwila's approval to initiate the start of the ten-year monitoring period. Wig will develop an as -built plan that will be used as a basis for evaluating future results. 7. MONITORING PLAN The purpose of the monitoring plan is to assess the existing Mitigation site and the results of the mitigation measures. Monitoring the water regime prior to final design and construction increases the probability of success. Post -construction monitoring provides an index for measuring the performance of the mitigation plan, the extent and timing of remedial actions (if necessary), and ultimately the length of the monitoring period. The monitoring plan consists of three separate but equally important steps; pre -construction monitoring, construction monitoring, and post -construction monitoring. 7.1 Pre -Construction Monitoring Wig has been monitoring the hydrology of the Mitigation site since October 2004. 7.2 Construction Monitoring Wig will maintain quality assurance by monitoring grading and landscaping contractors during construction. This aspect of the monitoring plan is particularly important because the final design elevation of the wetland is critical to establish and maintain the appropriate wetland hydrology. Similarly the methods and techniques used to install the plants are important because in many cases survival is dependent on the quality of the installation. Tukwila will be responsible for final approval of construction. Wig will consult with Tukwila to assess deviations from the approved plan. After construction is completed, Tukwila will evaluate the installation and develop a punch list as necessary. Wig will address punch list items and prepare a post -installation report for review and approval by Tukwila. The post - installation report will be the basis for comparing future monitoring reports. 7.3 Post -Construction Monitoring Hydrology monitoring will commence immediately following construction to characterize the modified hydrologic conditions. The pre -construction shallow groundwater monitoring wells and staff gauges will be replaced and incorporated as part of the post -construction monitoring plan. Their position will be located by survey and shown on the As -Built Plan. Wig will monitor the mitigation area for 10 years following installation. A qualified biologist will be engaged for this effort. To document the results of the mitigation measures and to ensure that reed canarygrass and other incompatible weeds do not invade and take over the Mitigation site, Wig will monitor the Mitigation site annually for the first 5 years following installation as well as in Years 7, 9, and 10. Post -construction monitoring will include hydrology monitoring as well as vegetation monitoring. Wig will submit a detailed report comparing actual versus expected C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc20 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington performance standards to Tukwila for review and approval by December 31 each year the Mitigation site is monitored. 7.3.1 Hydrology Wig will measure the water levels at least four times a year (April, May, June, and August) during the growing season with an electronic water level meter. 7.3.2 Soils Wig will not monitor soils after post -installation sampling, provided that the performance standard is met at that time. 7.3.3 Vegetation To measure the success of the vegetation effort, Wig will install permanent photographic and vegetation monitoring points in the Mitigation site. The monitoring points will be established by installing a permanent structure such as rebar, wood, fence post, plastic pipe, etc. Wig will characterize the vegetation in August in 1/100-acre circular plots. The monitoring biologist will also informally assess the vegetation when on site to monitor hydrology. The intent of informal vegetation monitoring is to identify areas where undesirable weeds (e.g., reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, etc.) are present. These observations will be relayed to the maintenance contractor for timely removal action. Photographs will be taken facing a predetermined direction for consistency to provide a visual record of the Mitigation site throughout the monitoring period. The vegetation monitoring will assess: • Species composition; • Percent cover of each plant stratum and species; • Stand height; and • The health of the vegetation. 7.3.4 Fauna Wig will record site observations of fish and wildlife during vegetation and groundwater monitoring activities. 7.3.5 Habitat Structures After the habitat amenities are installed and their location noted on the As -Built Plan, it will not likely be necessary to monitor them again. However, as indicated in Section 5.4.4, Wig will characterize the average height of the plants present in the emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested habitat types. Wildlife habitat is determined by the interspersion of plant communities, by the structure of the plant communities, and by the mixture of species within a community. Although all of these are important, most species of wildlife respond more to structure of the plant community than to the plant species making up a community (Hall, et al., 1985). 7.3.6 Water Quality Wig will not monitor water quality. 7.3.7 Buffers Wig will not monitor the buffers. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc21 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 8. SITE PROTECTION To discourage human intrusion, a permanent post -and -rail fence at least 4 feet tall will be installed along the eastern boundary of the Mitigation site adjacent to Andover Parkway West. The eastern and southern perimeter of the Mitigation site will be posted with Habitat Conservation Area signs (Figure 6). Tukwila will be responsible for protecting the Mitigation site. In accordance with Section 18.48.090.0 of the sensitive areas regulations, the Mitigation site shall remain undeveloped and be protected from development in perpetuity. As such, Tukwila shall protect the Mitigation site via deed restriction, conservation easement, or other legally binding instrument. After Wig's monitoring and maintenance obligation is completed, the installed vegetation should be protected against any impacts from mowing, cutting, dredging, or other adverse activities to the Mitigation site. 9. MAINTENANCE PLAN Wig will maintain the Mitigation site during the 10-year monitoring period. Maintenance includes irrigating recently installed plants to promote their establishment and survival. One inch of water per week shall be applied to the Mitigation site from the time the plants are installed to mid - September the first year of plant installation. Irrigation is not required in subsequent years. Maintaining the Mitigation site is paramount to prevent unwanted plant species — particularly reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife —from expressing dominance during the 10-year monitoring period. Maintenance measures beyond the required monitoring period will become the responsibility of Tukwila. In addition to collecting hydrologic and vegetative data as specified in Section 7.3, the monitoring biologist will also note physical and biological features on the Mitigation site that need attention, are of note, or reflect the ecological health of the mitigation area. These features include, but are not necessarily limited to, wildlife use, trash, plant mortality, weeds, and predation by herbivores, etc. When reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, or another aggressive undesirable weed is observed, Wig will instruct the maintenance contractor to treat the offending plants within 14 days. Manual weeding is the preferred method for removing the plants. However, on occasion it may be necessary to spot spray clumps with an approved herbicide. Rodeo is an herbicide approve for use in aquatic environments 10. CONTINGENCY PLAN Wig recognizes that there is a chance that some of the installed plants will not survive the seasonal flooding typical of the Tukwila pond. Wig also recognizes that seasonal flooding tends to favor reed canarygrass. To reduce these potentials Wig will: • Post a bond sufficient to cover the cost of replanting the Mitigation site; • Install plants that tolerate seasonal flooding during the dormant season; • Monitor the installed plants annually for the first 5 years; • Remove all reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife plants present on the Mitigation site; and • Install new plants annually to replace those that expired. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc22 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 10.1 Post a Bond As indicated in Section 12, Wig will provide Tukwila with a surety instrument in the amount of 150 percent of the estimated cost to install plants on the mitigation site. 10.2 Install Plants Suited to Seasonal Flooding Wig will install plants native to Western Washington that are adapted to seasonal inundation during the winter rainy season. Many wetland plants survive seasonal inundation during the winter rainy season because these plants are dormant at the time of flooding. As indicated on Table 6 these plants include: • Trees - black cottonwood and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and to a limited extent red alder (Alnus rubra); • Shrubs - Pacific willow, Piper's willow (Salix hookeriana), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and red -osier dogwood; and • Herbs such as slough sedge (Carex obnupta), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris), wool -grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis). The Mitigation site can be subject to flooding events during the rainy season. We observed inundation in both 2005 and 2006. The duration of these events can be as long as 4 months. The plants selected to replace reed canarygrass typically survive short -duration inundation during the winter rainy season when plants are typically dormant. 10.3 Annual Monitoring for the First 5 Years Plant succession on bare ground is fairly predictable. A number of weeds, including reed canarygrass, are expected to invade the bare areas initially. Bare areas are common on mitigation sites the first couple of years following plant installation. That is, bare soil is typical between installed trees and shrubs as well as locally where seeded grasses and herbs are removed by herbivory, flowing water, etc. To minimize the potential for reed canarygrass to become established in these bare areas, Wig will monitor the mitigation site several times a year (April, May, June, and August) during the first 5 years following plant installation. 10.4 Remove All Reed Canarygrass If reed canarygrass (and purple loosestrife) is observed during monitoring visits by the project biologist, its location will be marked in the field by the biologist. Initially, the biologist will accompany the maintenance contractor when they treat the offending plants to ensure that all of these plants are treated. Once the biologist feels comfortable with the maintenance contractor's ability to identify and treat offending weeds, it will no longer be necessary to accompany the maintenance contractor when weeds are observed. Wig will make every attempt to treat volunteer reed canarygrass plants before they go to seed. The entire plant, including stolons will be treated. This action will increase the potential that reed canarygrass plants represent a small fraction of the plant community. 10.5 Install Additional Plants as Necessary Typically 80 percent of the installed trees and shrubs survive installation. As such, Wig assumes that installing additional trees and shrubs and quite possibly herbs will be necessary near the end of the first growing season. If during subsequent years the monitoring biologist C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc23 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS concludes that additional plantings are required, Wig will install additional plants as necessary. The selected replacement plants will include the most robust plant species growing on the site at the time of site evaluation. 11. SCHEDULE Wig anticipates executing the construction plan in 2007 and upon receipt of permits and/or approvals from Tukwila and/or Ecology. Site grading will be limited to the drier months when groundwater elevations are at their lowest. Wig anticipates installing the plant material the following spring after flood waters have subsided. It is important that the surface soil (i.e., upper 12 inches) is moist at the time of plant installation. Monitoring will commence immediately following acceptance of plant installation by Tukwila. 12. PERFORMANCE BOND Wig will post a bond or other surety in the amount of 150 percent of the value of the expected cost to install plants on the Mitigation site. 13. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this plan prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and its assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This plan is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. It should be noted that Chad Armour, LLC relied on information provided by others indicated previously. Chad Armour can only relay this information and cannot be responsible for its accuracy or completeness. Also note that wetland mitigation planning is an inexact science. Biological professionals may disagree on the nature and extent of mitigation plans. Final acceptance of this wetland mitigation plan is the responsibility of the permitting authority. Accordingly, this wetland mitigation plan should be reviewed by the appropriate permitting authority prior to committing to detailed planning and design activities. L,-iioos/vwg/Kevisea rmai wetland Mitigation Plan.doc24 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC References Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington REFERENCES Armour, Chad, LLC. 2004. Wetland Assessment and Delineation Services. J. C. Penney Distribution Center. Tukwila, Washington. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1988. Grading/Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan for Southcenter Plaza. Prepared for Spieker Properties. BRC (Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc.) 2004. Offsite Wetland Remediation, Southcenter Square, Wig Properties LLC. BRC. 2006. Personal Communication. Jay Decker, P. E., Senior Project Manager. Clark, D. 2004. Personal communication. Engineer II, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Stormwater Services Section, Drainage Investigation and Inspection Services. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Dames and Moore. 1986. Preliminary Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation report for the Proposed Target Department Store. Prepared for The Cafaro Company. Hall, F.C, L.W. Brewer, J.F. Franklin, and R.L. Werner. 1985 Chapter 2 — Plant Communities and Stand Conditions. In Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. R6-F&WL-192-1985. Hammer, D. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, and London. 298 pp. Howat, J. 2004. Personal communication. City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Hruby. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System — Western Washington Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Grosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 539pp. Partee, R. 2004. Personal communication. Fisheries Biologist, City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Raedeke Associates. 2002. Wetland Mitigation First -Year Monitoring Report. Building D — Emerald Corporate Park Off -site Mitigation. City of Auburn, Washington. Seattle Times. 2004, 2005, & 2006. Weather wrap-up. National Weather Service provided information taken at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Tukwila, City of. 2005. Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Watershed Dynamics. 1994. Tukwila Pond Wildlife Utilization and Habitat Evaluation. Prepared for the City of Tukwila Department of Recreation. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Habitats and Species Report and Map in the Vicinity of T23R04E Section 26. Whiting, S. 2006. Personal communication. Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. C:/JobsNVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Tables D.F AKES; TIE AT 3 TO 02F TREE WITH�R.EXIBLE RUBBER PTIE INl/FIGURE 1EIGHf HEIGHT PATTERN. STAKES AND TREE PLUMB 3" DEEP SAUCER FOR WATER REMOVE ALL TIES. WRAP CONTAINERS. FIR N PERIMETER ROOTS FROM NURSERY BALL _ EXCAVATE TREE PR AT A MIN. OF 12 INCHE �� I LARGER THAN ROOT BALL �I PIT SPOILS, NURSERY BALL WASTE BACKFILL SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADF- " OR COMPACTED SOIL o WORK PERIMETER ROOTS FREE OF NURSERY BALL do SPREAD OVER EXCAVATED PIT. BALL & PIT TO BE COURSELY SCARIFIED. __-- DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL (6' TO 8' HEIGHT) SCALE NONE 1/2- ABOVE GRADE NA5R.4T' CONSERVATIONAREA ' I 00 NOT DISTURB I I I I -- _...-i. 71 ___. ...: I ' �--Ground Swface 1" ABOVE GRADE Arir. san cc tha Est vidh meL:s;ire. it .. . PREPPR TYPICAL NOTES: " ' PLANTING a REMOVE CONTAINER & WORK ROOTS BE 17 FREE OF SOIL; SPREAD ROOTS INTO EXCAVATION o BACKFILL TO BE SETTLED USING WATER ONLY LIMB MINI t GAL 1nALOONrMMWAL4F4ffis GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL R L SCALE: NONE ' :3 rle [ §,, fa ne ..um imn fan a Emergern S tf-h W ore<tsd jSpacimg Sz i.cn 0�o NYIa1J 4'N fl..R1 'NsIO ] I " JA" red alder 47 '5' CC 1.5 Cal , L&b ic :1' of 5 > S -a— tat f - C ,lcn ash 47 ,' CC 1 cal; [Ab 1 rZ's ty Wff d black cottnoorl- 3130'CC 15'cal; u3b w _. .. _ -. 311R as rYi Pacific 111 440 9 OC, 3 m brtl I ,1 . .aa. N } ..+,"h, 1, ..•. �?, ''.x . 'kB7Jrt;A75:' ..L, . <'t `.' x ,t r ^5� it �sf / ed.—1 , iogrocd 338 1E`56 CC L a g-11- 2) gallo clustered ' a m .A 1 dIz k tni, 4em/ - 6 OC 9 ally I" tps of -hy,xory>s •p a_„r r 3.Ifi.. nl led:rk _ 30 OC 9a Ion h ><a o 10 U - c�v Plrxfs r/Ila'/ 124 i CC. .f 4 runlr� x, aten.LVNI ales' a,lia srtd�u•o - Silka e.illo.+ _ 13 . 8' OC S - 4 Wh;'p 50 o steu bg It � .. a/e ob elz 91 '.Ik)a 03 4.X.. tf `I arcs st pa'a a •LYak sedce _ 1 n08 _ 5 538 4'0C tr X- 1'anps p" asa nF d na •mass r 15 02 02 7rad =. —1 c 1eodhas paf 6 moron spk h 1 ai3 24'CC h adjacert to oper water ly=aia gran ,aed magass 013 03 04 ed b—sta um any ^Ath I 8N 18 23 seed _ adcasts seed: co er .0'1,2 o, soil _. - xrrc;ac;�r,r,us - nrul-grays ::Sol 240C U c rp s tab—oadoidotarj sotstaw hu ,t.Eh 9501 24 CC tr 3a^k rasyklla An can slo ang ass 086 acre Deg deeter esadmVur trca sl eed 201. 401t� :es�hd Sa -p— t"'..10 t@ITe'. O.RP eDug^aded VJPtla id seed n%tIJ lY ed! -1 aed il)Il gI71Yh rM"sg + - hl[a vild:ye 088a re Deoaded VJetlard s ed ni t,se Lxcad st seed; 20 t�40 lto ac IY�.naoCINda^ais a stem —a .grass 0.H acr Deg ded.W Ll. 1 d lure li^ d ca[ 2atl 4n Ib5 a, ierr. 5 h -than m ad ,v [>< e• _ u_3E De�redetl_N tl L s 'mtv —lades .d 0 tc 4n Its a:_ :° sand Class Elek ation Limits A3 A ea (acre. Open Water (OW) Existing Degraded Wetland _ 15.2'-17.2' 17.7'-20.0' 40,170 ! 0.92 38,473 0.88 Emergent (EM) 17.2'-17.7' 22,779 i 0,52 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 17.7'-18.2' 22,152 Forested (FO) 18.2' 19.2' 28,157 0.65 Total l 3-4. ^� MITIGATION AREA I SIGN DETAIL SCALE NONE METAL WIRE _!!� AND ANCHOR LOG LENGTH: 10' — 30' LOG DIAMETER: 6" — 12' LOG DETAIL SCALE: NONE jFINAL GRADE TU K W I L A DIRECT BURY SNAG IN D[CAVATION SOL BAq(FlLL COMPACTED TO ._.I. 95& NOTE I • SNAGS TO BE A VARIETY OF SPECIES INCLUDING LIVE CUT AND SNAGS OF SEVERAL YEARS WITH SOLID WOOD. HABITAT SNAG SCALE: NONE 0 21�nu". SIGN (TYP.) FENCE DETAIL SCALE: NONE POND OW 'EXISTING FO EXISTING -` DEGRADIEDIr `tea WETLAND t • K ; " EXISTING" t`�* rf ✓ d A OW F0 + + f r / F ow " + _ XiSUN_G — �+v...�:..:.- 19` I c' PLANTING PLAN 0 40 6o Sable In Feet N: M FENCE tP GATE CMP O :kt -.. .. .;-..... �. FIGURE 6: PLANTING PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC—SS 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 Source: Bush, Roed & Hatchings, Inc. -DWG NAME: G:\project\CIients\qrnnour\Vi9 Praperties\wigO09.dwg DATE: 07/06706 10:37am 0 09 P-2 19 P-1 Wetland F Vetland D S(1,971 sfl 3,-94,3 st P-3 Wetland E Forest (179 sfl P-7/ 27 — P-5\1 . . . ................ SP�3,' ....................... ................. . Wetland A For (13,718 s1 P-Q& -)9* F6F6st* - 0 Wetland C . . . . • . . (6,305 s� C.4 C f 0 Wetland B (24,461 sfl P-9 5 & H SPA 0 P-12 ............. 26. ..... . .... ...... .... - - ........ ....... . . . ....... .............. 24 ............. 23 ... ....... ..... % . ...... ... .............. ........... MINKLER BOULEVARD .... . . ....... P-1 Monitoring Well Designation and Location 0 SP-1 Plot ID Designation and Approximate Location 0 80 160 (D. Photograph Number and Direction - Survey Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Scale in Feet FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN (REVISED) Wig Properties Tukwila, Washington Chad Armour, LLC 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 DATE. )WG NAME: Properfies\wiq0D2.dwc3 MfCAA, A* 1 i jo ; n ,^¢ '_� r`kgtfilY C a' 3Lj. i� 4 I 't SR i jNsf . 3g"+il�Fi ¢_T�4 t��1 `.�fe�li7-� 4�%✓,YSt-6'� `"-i* '� :.a:'11a� ;s r i 6 a .; AIT WE ON a � s. i .. � u: �� �;�.' 4%. 0 S < , gA"4-.vs y� .fflKI r C#4 ..:ST 1'u x11 Fn` Cox MU i4A dTukwila Pond Site 414 -Afwro '� �• �7i�r: Pennv SiteT-� .777 iSTe�aj �sg'" i Or jr . � '. �ia;[� S � tSA zt�_ 3!e,s ask r't i 1 i Y t `., f�`tb'4�'` Y' ', s 1t ¢ J .'�y/��(y{ '�• < „ ��9I � �E. •'z, ; 'w", '7 ,?i§'tit'b` } i ,�t �. % {„Y(� f y� 3 i r #....,-`.,: ,�.��'' [ Y LA s Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE E I FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126' Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 Revised Final Wetland Mitigati n Plan Tukwila, Washington Table 1 — Wetland Functional Assessment of Various Wetlandsa Wig Properties LLC-SS Water Quality 16 22 18 30 Hydrologic 4 14 14 14 Habitat 11 16 10 25 Total ;31 52 42 69 a Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington Category I - score >70 Category II - score 51-69 Category III - score 30-50 Category IV - score <30 Table 2 — Pre- and Post -Construction Water Detention and Water Quality Com Detention 16,875cfa 96,900cfb +574% Water Quality 1.16ac° 15.6acd 1+1345% a Wetland A is covered with 6 inches of water over 75% of its surface Wetland B is covered with 6 inches of water over 50% of its surface Wetland C is covered with 6 inches of water over 100% of its surface Wetland D is covered with 6 inches of water over 100% of its surface Wetland E retains no surface water Wetland F is covered with 6 inches of water over 50% of its surface b Detention vault capacity is approximately 50,000cf Detention capacity of the created/enhanced wetland on the Mitigation site is 46,900cf ° Treatment surface area of the Penney site wetlands d New asphalt area with water quality treatment is 14ac Eliminated asphalt pavement is 1.6ac i� C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations in the Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area G-1 19.7 15.6 ...ram 17.4 G-2 18.9 19.3 19.3 Flooded; west of upland G-3 19.1 15.6 17.0 G-4 18.7 19.3 19.3 Flooded; west of upland G-5 21.8 17.6 18.0 G-6 20.7 19.2 19.1 G-7 18.4 19.2 19.2 Flooded; west of upland G-8 18.5 19.2 19.2 Flooded; west of upland G-9 20.0 16.0 17.5 G-10 17.5 18.1 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-11 13.5 17.9 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-12 16.6 17.5 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-13 18.0 18.1 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-14 16.7 18.1 18.5 Flooded; east of upland S-1 16.5 18.1 18.5 Flooded; east of upland S-2 19.0 19.2 19.2 Flooded; west of upland G-12 water elevation interpolated because the 2006 measurement "off' Invert elevation of the flap gate -fitted culvert is18.8 feet C:/JobsM/ig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington co M ~ cM 00 M 0) CO 1 to M N N O to m M N cM O to co N to - (V '1' to N ti to N M 00 t0 O tr tO to U Q' a co •,_, tN '•V ' ; M to tO N O 04 ca O CO T-- 0) L NV.- Oc- p N M cM N C'' Q O O N N W- r-; (JDJ U) c- E 6 F ' 6 U C O O J (n Wig Properties LLC-SS C:/JobsNVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Table 5 — Functional Wildlife Habitat of Various Wetlands Wig Properties LLC-SS 7 8 3 11 Plant Diversity Vegetation Height 4 7 1 6 Canopy Volume 4 7 1 6 Canopy Closure 4 8 1 6 Structural Diversity 5 5 1 7 Herbage production 8 10 5 12 Browse Production 4 7 1 9 Animal Diversity 6 8 2 11 Woody Debris 01 1 1 0 1 2 Total 42 61 15 70 a Hall et al, 1985 Penney site: grass-forb and open -sapling pole stand conditions Tukwila Pond site: open water, grass-forb, shrub, closed sapling -pole stand conditions Existing Mitigation site: grass-forb stand condition Mitigation site in 2015: open water, grass-forb, shrub, and open sapling -pole stand conditions C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC 00 s� Table 6 - Plants to be Installed on the Mitigation site 6.6 . Scientific Name Common Name Forested Spacing Size Comments < Dv�, "EmergentScrub-shrub et and WetlandCE a Anus rubra red alder Z ... 47 15' OC 1.5" cal.; Mb v in clumps of 15 < Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 47 15' OC 1.5" cal.; Mb in clumps of 15 n m Popu/us ba/samifera black cottonwood 31 30' OC 1.5" cal.; Mb cQ m T Sala lasiandra Pacific willow 440 8 OC 3' - 4' cuttings 50% stem burial S v a Corpus stolonifera red -osier dogwood 338 195 6' OC br & 2-gallon 25% 2-gallon; clustered m— Lonicera involucrata black twinberry 30 6' OC 2-gallon in clumps of 15 Physocarpos capitatus Pacific ninebark 30 6' OC 2-gallon in clumps of 15 n Salix piperi Piper's willow 124 6' OC 3' - 4' cuttings 50% stem burial; clustered 0 Salix sitchensis Sitka willow 123 6' OC 3' - 4' cuttings 50% stem burial; clusteredca -v 6' Carex obnupta slough sedge 7,039 24"OC br :2 Carex stipata sawbeak sedge 1,898 5,538 24"OC br Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass 0.15 0.2 0.2 seed broadcast seed; cover with 1/2" of soil o E/eochris palustris common spike-rush 1,898 24"OC br adjacent to open water Geum macrophyl/um large -leaved avens 0.3 0.3 0.4 seed broadcast seed; cover with 1/2" of soil G/yseria grandis reed mannagrass 1.8 1.8 2.3 seed broadcast seed; cover with 1/2" of soil Scirpus cyperinus wool -grass 950 24"OC br Scirpus tabemaemontani softstem bulrush 950 24"OC br Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass 0.88 acre Degraded Wetland seed mixture broadcast seed; 20 to 40 Ibs/ac Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass 0.88 acre Degraded Wetland seed mixture broadcast seed; 20 to 40 Ibs/ac E/ymus g/aucus blue wildrye 0.88 acre Degraded Wetland seed mixture broadcast seed; 20 to 40 Ibs/ac occidentalis western mannagrass 0.88 acre Degraded Wetland seed mixture broadcast seed; 20 to 40 Ibs/ac lGlyseria Hordeum brach antherum meadow barley 0.88 acre Degraded Wetland iseed mixture I broadcast seed; 20 to 40 Ibs/ac cn' 0 CD CD' v, o co rn Cn Figures 14.00 12.00 r c 10.00 c 8.00 - 2004/2005 o �- Long -Term Average ' 6.00 -■- 2005/2006 4.00 •� as a 2.00 0.00 z` z� �ap ter& Ord astir P��` �a� OP � � O Month FIGURE 4: COMPARATIVE PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126'Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 Appendix A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination of the Wetlands on the Penney Site DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF D i 200A `t Regulatory Branch Wig Properties LLC Mr. Mon. Wig 4811 — 134th P1ace.Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Mr. Wig: Reference: 200400822 Wig Properties LLC On July 29, 2004, we inspected the property at Tukwila, King County, Washington in response to your iequest for verification of the wetlands delineation presented in the wetlands delineation report dated. July 2004, prepared by Chad Armour LLC. Your wetland delineation indicated that you believed some of the wetlands in question were "isolated" and outside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction. We have confirmed that wetlands, indicated on the enclosed drawing, exist on your property and that some of these areas are not isolated wetlands and some are isolated wetlands. Our inspection revealed that for wetland "D" there is. an existing surface hydrology connection with. the Green River (via stormwater facilities), a regulated water of the U.S. This delineated wetland appears to flow off site through an ,existing stormwater drain on the western edge of the property to the local stormwater system. This conveyance (stormwater system) has replaced the historic natural drainage for the area and is considered to be a surface water connection to the Green River (approximately 0.5 miles downstream from the site). As such, this wetland is regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For wetlands "A", "B", "C", "E", and "F", there is no existing surface hydrology connection with stormwater facilities or any other water of the U.S that we can verify at this time. These wetlands are considered to be "isolated" and do not fall under Section 404 jurisdiction. Please note that only the Corps makes the determination if a wetland or water -body is a "water of the United States Other state and.local regulations may still apply to these isolated wetlands. For example, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulates isolated wetlands. The enclosed Ecology letter and Ecology Focus sheet explain how Ecology regulates isolated wetlands. You should contact Ecology's Permit Assistance Center at. (900) 917-0043 or ecvnacOecy.wa.gov for more information on how to obtain State approval for your project. We are -sending a copy of this letter to Ecology and to the Environmental Protection Agency's Aquatic Resources Unit. -2_ This approved jurisdictional determination is valid for a period of 5 years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of our determination. You have the right to appeal this determination (for wetland'V) pursuant to the requirements of the enclosed Administrative Appeal Rule package. A copy of this letter with enclosures will.be furnished to Chad Armour LLd 6500 — 126 h Avenue, Bellevue, Washington 98006. If you have any questions about this letter or any aspect of our regulatory program, please contact please contact Suzanne Skadowski, at telephone (206) 764=6984 or email Suzanne.A.SkadowskiOnws02.usace.army mil . Sincerely, Thomas F. Mueller Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures J M- § Corps J(V'&S It*oQ cu+ta l I Soiated B P-2 _1 Wetland F Wetland D (1,971 so rn so ! to P-3 Grmar.. h l Wetland E Forest (179 so ! ..1Sola ed i P-7 ! S j • ' ' Fore j. Wetland A (13,718 so . 0 TtBp _ l••'t l id etland B ,461 sQ ISO co( P-s I etland C • • 4y (3,953 sQ .j ;• • SP-2 X. • I i '1 .(ZOO. P 12 2• — B P•1 Piezometer Designation and Location MINKLER BOULEVARD • Sp-1 Plot ID Designation and Approximate Location p 80 160 Photograph Number and Direction Survey Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Scale in Feet FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN ar s of- ; cers 10py00gZ2 P 1 e{. No. Chad Armour, LLC .Wig Properties 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 0AiE 00 /04 Z *Itn L 0WC NAME C roiecl\tlknts\armour\Wig PraperUes\wi9b01,dwg shee& 2 of 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98s04-7600 (360) 407.6000 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006 August 21, 2001 RE: Isolated Wetlands Dear Interested Parties: A U.S. Supreme Court decision last January regarding how isolated wetlands are regulated by federal agencies has generated a lot of questions by landowners and developers. I wanted to let you know how this Court decision affects state regulations. The court ruled that the federal Clean Water Act does not apply to "isolated" wetlands where the only interstate -commerce connection is use by migratory birds. Isolated wetlands are those that are not adjacent or connected to a navigable water body, such as a river, lake or marine waters. However, they still perform the same important environmental functions as other wetlands, including recharging streams and aquifers, storing flood waters, filtering pollutants from water, and providing habitat for a host of plants and animals. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no longer has regulatory oversight of most isolated wetlands — although a. Corps permit is still required for isolated wetlands with other interstate -commerce use (e.g., recreation, industrial, etc.) and for wetlands that are connected to a navigable water. body. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not change Washington state laws. on wetlands.. The state Clean Water Act makes -no distinction between types of wetlands. All "waters of the state" are covered by the law, and that includes isolated wetlands. Additionally, isolated wetlands in Washington also are regulated under the state's Growth Management Act (GMA). Thus, most projects that affect isolated wetlands should be regulated by the applicable city or. county. It's not always easy to tell if a wetland is isolated. Landowners who want to develop a wetland they believe is isolated should contact the Corps of Engineers and request a formal "jurisdictional determination" to avoid future legal problems and fines. The state Department of Ecology (Ecology) will continue regulating all wetlands — including isolated wetlands -- and applying the water quality standards called for in the state law. However, the department's process for reviewing projects involving isolated wetlands will now be different from the process for other types of wetlands. 0 Isolated Wetlands August 21, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Instead of using the 401 Water Quality Certification process (triggered by a 404 permit from the Corps),. Ecology will use administrative orders to regulate projects involving isolated wetlands. An administrative order is a written document that specifies what must be done to comply with the state water quality standards. The basic review standards will remain the same as with a 401 certification, but the process will be more streamlined, since federal agencies will not be involved in reviewing the projects. To seek -an administrative order for a project that will affect isolated wetlands, . . landowners should contact the Permit Assistance Center at the Department of Ecology after receiving a written determination from the Corps that the wetland is, in fact, isolated. The phone number is 800-917-0043 or 360-407-7037, and the e-mail address is ecypac@ecy.wa.gov. More information is available on our web site at www.go.wa.gov/programs/sea/pac. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues in more detail please contact Andy McMillan on my staff at 360/407-7272 or anmc461 @ecy.wa.gov or contact me at 360/407-6977 or gwhi461 @ecY wa.ggv. Sincerely, Arte Program Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Focus IIII:6111 61Atf E`c`o'L'o'V'1 Isolated Wetlands - Changes in the Regulatory Process g Y . Supreme Court Decision A U.S. Supreme Court decision last January regarding how wetlands are regulated has generated a lot of questions by landowners and developers. The court ruled that the federal Clean Water Act does not apply to those "isolated" wetlands where the only interstate commerce connection is use by migratory birds. This ruling overturned 15 years of regulation of isolated wetlands by the U.S. -Army Corps of Engineers. While the court did not define the term "isolated," the Corps has previously considered isolated wetlands to be those that are not adjacent to or connected via surface water to a navigable water body, such as a river, lake or marine waters. in Reguiatory Process Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, federal agencies no longer have regulatory oversight of these important environmental resources: More specifically, landowners no longer need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill in most isolated wetlands - although a Corps permit is still required for isolated wetlands with other interstate commerce use (recreation, industrial, etc.) as well as wetlands that are connected to a navigable water body. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not change Washington state laws on wetlands. The state Clean Water Act (90.48 RCW) makes no -distinction between types of wetlands. Rather, all "waters of the state" are covered by the law, and isolated wetlands are considered waters of the state. It's not always easy to tell if a wetland is isolated. Landowners who want to develop an isolated wetland should contact the Corps of -Engineers and request a formal jurisdictional determination to avoid arty future legal problems and fines. Why Regulate Isolated Wetlands? Isolated wetlands in Washington perform many of the same important environmental functions as other wetlands, including recharging streams and aquifers, storing•flood waters, filtering pollutants from water, and providing habitat for a host of plants and animals. Many wildlife species, including amphibians and waterfowl, are particularly dependent on isolated wetlands for breeding and.foraging. June 2001 Publication #00-06-020 ... State Process •;• Any project that calls for filling or altering a wetland determined by the Corps to be isolated will still be subject to regulation by the state. The states process for reviewing projects that involve isolated wetlands. will be different from the 401 Water Quality Certification process that is triggered by the Corps' 404 permit. Rather, Ecology will use administrative orders to regulate projects that will have impacts to isolated wetlands. The standards of review will remain the same as under 401 water -quality certifications - that is, the state water -quality standards for surface waters (WAC 173-201A): Anyone who wants more information about the review standards should obtain the following two publications: Water Quality Guidelines for Wetlands, Publication # 96-06; and How Ecology Regulates Wetlands, Publication # 97-112. These can be obtained by contacting Jean Witt at 360407-7472 or jewi461@ecy.wa.gov. To seek an administrative order for a project that involves isolated wetlands, landowners should contact the Permit Assistance Center at the Department of Ecology, where our staff will guide you through the regulatory process. The phone number is 800-917-0043 or 360-407-7037, and the e-mail address is ecypac@ecy.wa.gov: GMA Regulations Additionally, applicants should be aware that isolated wetlands in Washington also are regulated under the state's Growth Management Act. Thus, projects with impacts to isolated wetlands typically_will require approval from the applicable city or county. June 2001 Publication #01-06-020 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation Chad Armour From: "Chad Armour' <chad@chadarmour.com> To: "Stetz, Theodore J NWS" <Theodore.J.Stetz@NWS02. usace.army. mil>; "Skadowski, Suzanne A NWS" <Suzanne.A. Skadowski@NWS02. usace. army.mil> Cc: "Mon Wig" <monwig@wigproperties.com>; "Leshya Wig" <leshyawig@wigproperties.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Wig Properties Thanks TJ. ---- Original Message ---- From: Stetz. Theodore J NWS To: 'Chad Armour"; Skadowski. Suzanne A NWS Cc: Stetz, Theodore J NWS ; 'riro461 ecy.wa.gov' Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: RE: Wig Properties Chad - yes that is correct if the Penney property is the Wig property in South Center that we looked at. Storm water and water quality functions should be dealt with on site, but compensatory mitigation for other functions, like habitat, should be done offsite to avoid creating a postage stamp mitigation area in. a development. TJ -----Original Message ----- From: Chad Armour (mailto:chad@chadarmour.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:30 PM To: Skadowski, Suzanne A Cc: Stetz, Theodore J Subject: Wig Properties Hi Suzanne - We would like to reference the Corps in the final version of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Wig Properties. The reference I refer to is a comment made by T.J. when we were on the Penney site this past July. If I recall correctly, T. J. said in effect that the Corps would prefer that Wig Properties mitigate for impacts to wetlands on a site other than the Penney. site. Is this a correct interpretation of T. J.'s remark? Thanks, Chad Armour 6500126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 fax www.chadarmour.com 10/13/2004 Washington Department of Ecology Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation Chad Armour From: "Robohm, Richard" <RIR0461@ECY.WA.GOV> To: "'Chad Armour"' <chad@chadarmour.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:44 PM Subject: RE: Penney Mitigation ratio Chad, This is to confirm that a 3 to 1 ratio of rehabilitation -enhancement to wetland fill would be adequate (although minimal) for the J.C. Penney site. This is acceptable for the following reasons: 1) The wetlands to be filled: • are Category IV, • are of low quality; • are surrounded by development and partially isolated hydrologically; and • developed on fill. 2) The wetlands to be enhanced: • will be substantially rehabilitated; and • will be monitored for 10 years to ensure mitigation success. 3) Onsite stormwater detention and treatment will provide a significant and demonstrable lift in ecological benefit over the predevelopment condition. Regards, Richard K. Robohm Wetland Specialist Department of Ecology 425-649-4447 ----Original Message ---- From: Chad Armour [mailto:chad@chadarmour.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:46 AM To: Robohm, Richard Cc: Mon Wig; Leshya Wig Subject: Penney Mitigation ratio Hello Richard - Thanks again for meeting with John Weed and myself the other day. I think that you will find the revise mitigation plan will be more robust than the initial one. Can you in a separate email confirm that Ecology supports the 3:1 mitigation ratio for the Wig project. Refer to the table to see the 'lift' we are providing for detention and water quality. Thanks, Chad Armour 6500126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 10/13/2004 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 39 Notification Chad Armour From: "Skadowski, Suzanne A NWS" <Suzanne.A. Skadowski@nws02. usace. army.mil> To: "'Chad Armour"' <chad@chadarmour.com> Cc: "Stetz, Theodore J NWS" <Theodore.J. Stetz@nws02. usace. army. mil> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:49 PM Subject: RE: Penney Site - US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 39 Notification Hi Chad, I concur with your assessment. Please note that the applicant is ultimately responsible for determining that the proposed work meets all of the NWP 39 regional and national terms and conditions, if you choose not to submit a request for NWP verification from the Corps. However, from your description, it seems that you would meet the general terms of the NWP 39 and the post -construction notification. Suzanne Skadowski Project Manager, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Telephone: 206 764-6984 -----Original Message ---- From: Chad Armour [maiito:chad@chadarmour.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:40 PM To: Suzanne Skadowski Subject: Penney Site - US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 39 Notification Hi Suzanne - According to the Federal Register that describes the permitting rules for Nationwide Permits, Section 39.' Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments, subsection i states "For discharges causing the loss of 1/10 acre or less of waters of the United States, the permittee must submit a report, within 30 days of completion of the work, to the District Engineer that contains the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; (2) The location of the work; (3) A description of the work; (4) The type of acreage of the loss of waters of the United States (e.g., 1/12 acre of emergent wetlands); and (5) The type of acreage of any compensatory mitigation used to offset the loss of waters of the United States (e.g., 1/12 acre of emergent wetland created on -site)". Because the Corps ruled on September 15, 2004 that only Wetland D on the Penney site is jurisdictional (i.e., regulated by the Corps), and Wetland D covers 3,943 square feet (which is less than 1/10 acre), Wig Is required to notify the District Engineer according to Section 39, subsection i. That is, Wig is required to notify the Corps of their Penney site Wetland D alteration activities within 30 days after the work is completed. Do you concur? Chad Armour 6500126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 fax www.chadarfnour.com 10/13/2004 Appendix B Wetland Rating for the Mitigation Site Existing Conditions WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): (fi. k wl f D w — l� ��''� `�'`'`�`,"5`wS �/ Location: SEC: �TWNSHP: _ RNGE: _ (attach map with out 'ne of wetland to rating form) tvt Person(s) Rating Wetland: Affiliation: t4 Date of site visit: _ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNC IONS provided by wetland I II III IV Score for Water Quality Functions 1 Category I =Score >=70 Score for Hydrologic Functions d Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for functions '4 7— Category based on SPECIAL CHA 7 TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Mature Forest blo e Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form — western Washington I August 2004 Cc�-%dLc 7t�c Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SPI. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal 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 been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland 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 Hydro eg� omorphic 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 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: 1. A water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? (tow,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. Is a opography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. 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 wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? OFgo to 4 YES —The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 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). �o to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is nZaflooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 YES - he wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 4 August 2004 D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out 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 > %s total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text or indicators of seasonal andpermanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity 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 of pollutants. —�irazing in the wetland or within 150 ft ✓ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland %Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Z — Other YES multi lier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 ` Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 "k fif dM r y7ii {p E � ^i^✓U" i '+. '"'� I -< C � A .. 1 i `f 1 Ya G 4rinrY. L+� Y if•� deK • L D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? see p.46 D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 i Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 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. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. —jGVetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems 12 Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Z ther YES multi lier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 f T Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or Y4 acre. ,Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 types or more points = 4 3 types points = 2 2 types points = 1 1 type points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) �rmanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 asonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 occasi onalyflooded or inundated 2 types present point= 1 aturated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = I < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (see P. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. a,� u None = 0 points Low = l point Moderate = 2 points f riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and oven water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream 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 At least ''/e 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 H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat s� Add the scores in the column above o� Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species?kzsS1. H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistu and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed r ' or as in the question above? (YES 52 Doints (go toH2.3) NO=H2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is t et and: 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 ; NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. 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. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 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 %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- ZI fringe wetland within %2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within '/z mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0 I H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I I Add the scores in the column above ITotal Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on I ' Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = CateQory I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least '/a of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland 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 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating UII 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 being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (t is question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact NHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO V1 SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) 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 wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland 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)? 4. YES = Category I No /Isnot a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO ✓ SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO ✓ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least'/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called th Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO _ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Gray land -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. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III Wetland Rating for the Mitigation Site Conditions as Projected in 2015 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): ('t.. W i I "i, .a w 9,3A] 4 6- Location: SEC: 2J,:)TWNSHP: _ RNGE: — (attach map with outline of wetland to rating form) Person(s) Rating Wetland:✓v,/, Affiliation: Ll._L ��� Date of site visit: SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on UNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV Category I =Score >=70 Score for Water Quality Functions 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 6 Category based on SPECIAL CHARA TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine De ressional LA Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 r� Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. To complete the next part of the data sheet You will need to determine the HYdrogeomoMhic 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 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: 1. Ar a water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? O 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. Is a opography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. NO go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats f your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); QAt least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 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). (� go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is n oding. O go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. his means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 (�YE�S-The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES Ow (1^Ir.A '%e—t� points =4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > %a total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < �/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text for indicators o seasonal and permanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity rtunirtuni 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 followin conditions provide the sources of pollutants. 1—razing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other Z YES multi tier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 sk4 D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? z� K,�" see .46 • D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 2— Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = I Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 • D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 Q The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above • D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 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. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. VI!Ietland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems 2 ther YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable k s L.. '•�, J ra....�'. wa ..vlh ,. xzi':1S ..gym. • _ r�..a,��� . a � H 1. Does the wetland have the otential to provide habitat for many species?r H 1.1 Veizetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers afore than 10% of the area of the wetland or % acre. / quatic bed _5fnergent plants 1Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) rested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 types or more points = 4 / 3 types points = 2 2 types points = 1 = 1 e points 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y4 acre to count. (see text for dexriptions of hydroperiods) ✓ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 _�leasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 25 Qccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 �turated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep- 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. �� �`�,y��c•� ems. � u,, � ��� •i" �':�{�� � None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points K � 13 J js f.7 t� � \ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". 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. rge, 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 /dxtends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream for at least 33 ft (1 Om) V Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for enning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants I H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above uommencs Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water' > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). — YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistu and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbe or as in the question above? YES points (go to H2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is a 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 NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. 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. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within %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 %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetland within '/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within Y2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on i n_ 1 Z� Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least % 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 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II 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 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 w�VHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _✓✓ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) 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 wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland 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)? 4. YES = Category I No v Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions, — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO 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 measured7not r the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO 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'/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 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the estern Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Gray land -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. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III Mk Wetland Rating for the Penney Site DRAFT WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): Location: SEC: _,?�WNSHI''��R�GE: - 4; tach map with outline of wetland to rating form) Person(s) Rating Wetland: &I 41(*',, "`� Affiliation: Date of site visit: !�'' l f' P )"" v.. ,v0.5 DRAFT SUNINIARY OF RATI.NG Category based on. FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I fI III IV Scare for Water Quality ruriclions Category I =Score ->70 ! Category U = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Fruictions Category ITI = Score 30-50 Scone for. Habitat Functions Catekory IV = Score < 30 TOTAL scare .for functions 3 Category based on SPECIAL C.HAit% TF.RlSTICS of wetland l II Does not Apply Final C;i teoory (et►oose: the "highest'' category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine 1 1 lie ressionai Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine --H Un" Lake Fringe Mature Forest Ito e Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La oon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 1 April 2004 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the H,ydrogeomoohic 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 DRAFT 2 April 2004 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: t z vN `N .e Date: � � � f e Jl s eee T0001. Ar water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except duringt? l_ O 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. Is the topography within th et d flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. NO —go to 3 YES he wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 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). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 3 April 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 ES The wetland class is DepressionalC�' 07 f) 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. Slope + Riverine Slope + Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within Depressional + Lake Fringe Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Riverine Depressi Lake Fri Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 4 April2004 that wetland functions to improve D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 37) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: points = 3 Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet D Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet, or outlet is a ditch Dints D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES �foresc NO D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D �; 7 ,., points q Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area. b Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has nersistent, un razed ve etation <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least D 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition S out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > %2 total area of wetland .� S-� �. points 40 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text or indicators of seasonal and permanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 43) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, /esidential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -� Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland Other YE_ S militinly score in D 1. b 2 NO multiply score in D 1. by l D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 5 April 2004 0 25 multiplier to D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetlan Wetland has no surface water outlet ( �1 �-�� points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 Wetland is flat and drains by surface flow or a ditch points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet (see text for description of measuring height). Marks of ponding are at least 3 ft above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks are at least 2 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 6 in. ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 No marks of ponding above 6 in., or wetland has only saturated soils points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 l.! The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 48) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other (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 ' om groundwater) YES multiply score in D 3 by 2 NO multiply score in D 3 by 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 4- Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 6 April 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable HABITAT 1:UNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 68) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or % acre. ,Aquatic bed 3mergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) _/Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 r more points = 4 3 types ' points = 2 ypes points = 1 t tvne noints = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 69) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) ermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated )-b1perpresent points = 2 ccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types resent point = 1 Saturated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 71) 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 - List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points - < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 13 April 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 72) Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = I point Ez Moderate = 2 points 7 r i ti,wrs [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 73) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream for at least 33 ft (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present At least'/ acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present 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 (� H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat I r Add the scores in the column above Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 14 April 2004 0 H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 75) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively -undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the three criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 Yvy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 etated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference .tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetlandPoints = 0. er does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 76) 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 301/o cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undis and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe,wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) 3NOH 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (81am) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi o greater than 20 acres? YES oint NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 15 April 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to otherpriority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 77) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (loom) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. 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. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5% during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). 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 habi s = 0 oin Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 16 April 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 79) There are at least 3 other wetlands within %z 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 '/z mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ''/Z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 ^ The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- fringe wetland within '/s mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland withinile. poin 2 ''/z m There are no wetlands within '/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 17 April 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. - :.. j category l�rvi[ii�iXx ia%Et!'fin irel the a ro riclte Cate Q PP P SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 81) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II 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 (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least '/< of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC 2.0 Natural heritage Wetlands (seep. 82) SC 2. Is the wetland on record with the Washington Natural Heritage Program as a Cat. I high quality native wetland? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Checked data CD from DNR Appendix E_ Letter from DNR YES = Category I NO _ Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 18 April 2004 Wetland Rating for the Tukwila Pond Site WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): ! v (' Ec. yo K e� I 'e Location: SEC: oCrWNSHP:�3RNGE: 4 (attach map�wPith outline of wetland to rating form) � LL�e, Person(s) Rating Wetland:Ay-�-�Lkl*" Affiliation: Date of site visit: _ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on UNCTIONS provided by wetland I II V 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 Cateszory IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARA TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal 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 been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands 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 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: q / 1. Ar water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? 0 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. I topography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. 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 wetland meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks( depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than I foot deep). ONOgo to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is 0oding. NO go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland locate in'a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 .:,�✓ h z'�� v � }u < r �� fir:... c.. � s, s. ��„t D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) x D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. f Area seasonally ponded is > %2 total area of wetland points = 4 11� Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text or indicators o seasonal and permanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity 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. razing in the wetland or within 150 ft :211Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland tiled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES mnitinlieris2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on . I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 s '. may, T Xa`72 •'� s°?=� yt7 in }'` n�k-: , 31 tt{ r �'tw a t``,xw115 'Ax'Y (_ ate ts� � D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?`�w' (seep. 46 D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 �(J The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 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. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. AWetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YE multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add to table I j 4 score on p. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable �� y,A' SC y'3, =,, f ✓' "� d T �➢ d'ks � J 4F3'ygx z f FAY bl a r�1 ttd� _o � _0..._ &"tx� �'°i�Min H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? = H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or % acre. Aquatic bed mergent plants crub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ✓ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualms. If you have: 4 types or more points = 4 3 types points = 2 2 types points = 1 1 type points = 0 H 1.2. Hydro erp iods (Seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for de criptions of hydroperiods) 7seasonally7 ermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 Saturated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle � If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep.. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point N Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "hiiah". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation /,extends at least 3.3 ft (l m) over a stream for at least 33 ft (l Om) ,_/Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for 'enning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present ✓ At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) _ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat ` Add the scores in the column above Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 Z H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? z ;, H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference,. Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > I 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 — egetated 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 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 =4points (go toH2.3) NO —go toH2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undist nd unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbe corn or as in the question above? YES 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 I tland: 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 NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - o 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within %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''/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetland within''/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within''/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0 I H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I� Add the scores in the column above I Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on / P. 1 /p Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO jzo to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/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 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating UII 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 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�NHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D_ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO _ SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) 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 wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a fe a to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No o to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland 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)? 4. YES = Category I No Y Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. / YES = Category I NO 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 ynar t of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured 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'/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 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO _ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III u� REVISED FINAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN TUKWILA POND Tukwila, Washington Prepared for Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 SE 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Prepared by: Chad Armour LLC 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 RECEIVED AUG 14 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 2006 Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................ 3 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................... 3 2.2 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.................................................................................. 3 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE OVERALL PROJECT....................................................... 3 3. BASELINE INFORMATION..............................................................................4 3.1 WETLANDS ON THE PENNEY SITE.................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Wetland A..................................................................................................................4 3.1.2 Wetland B..................................................................................................................4 3.1.3 Wetland C..................................................................................................................4 3.1.4 Wetland D..................................................................................................................4 3.1.5 Wetland E..................................................................................................................5 3.1.6 Wetland F..................................................................................................................5 3.1.7 Wetland Ratings.......................................................................................................5 3.1.8 Wetland Functions...................................................................................................5 3.1.9 Fauna Associated with the Penney Wetlands........................................................5 3.2 TUKWILA POND SITE...................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Existing Vegetation..................................................................................................6 3.2.2 Existing Soils............................................................................................................6 3.2.3 Existing Hydrology...................................................................................................6 3.2.4 Wetland Ratings.......................................................................................................7 3.2.5 Wetland Functions...................................................................................................7 3.2.6 Tukwila Pond Fauna.................................................................................................7 3.3 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS............................................................................... 7 4. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT ...................8 4.1 SHORELINE PROTECTION................................................................................ 8 4.2 HYDROLOGICSUPPORT.................................................................................. 8 4.3 STORM/FLOOD WATER ABATEMENT............................................................... 9 4.4 GROUNDWATER EXCHANGE............................................................................ 9 4.5 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT................................................................... 10 4.6 BIOLOGICAL SUPPORT................................................................................. 10 5. MITIGATION APPROACH..............................................................................11 5.1 CODE COMPLIANCE...................................................................................... 11 5.1.1 Permitted Alterations.............................................................................................11 5.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing...........................................................................................12 5.1.3 Mitigation Plans......................................................................................................12 5.1.4 Mitigation Location................................................................................................13 5.2 RATIONALE FOR CHOICE............................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Case Study..............................................................................................................13 5.2.2 Projected Conditions of the Mitigation Site..........................................................14 C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc ii 08/10/06 Chad Armour LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 5.3 CONSTRAINTS ..............................................................................................14 5.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MITIGATION PLAN ....................................... 14 5.4.1 Goals.......................................................................................................................14 6.4.2 Objectives...............................................................................................................14 5.5 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS......................................................................... 15 5.5.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................15 6.5.2 Soil ..........................................................................................................................16 5.5.3 Vegetation.................:.............................................................................................16 6.5.4 Structure.................................................................................................................17 6. CONSTRUCTION PLAN.................................................................................17 6.1 HYDROLOGY................................................................................................ 18 6.2 SOILS..........................................................................................................18 6.3 VEGETATION................................................................................................ 18 6.4 HABITAT STRUCTURES................................................................................. 19 6.5 INSTALLATION SEQUENCE............................................................................ 19 7. MONITORING PLAN.......................................................................................20 7.1 PRE -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING................................................................ 20 7.2 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING....................................................................... 20 7.3 POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.............................................................. 20 7.3.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................21 7.3.2 Soils........................................................................................................................21 7.3.3 Vegetation...............................................................................................................21 7.3.4 Fauna.......................................................................................................................21 7.3.5 Habitat Structures..................................................................................................21 7.3.6 Water Quality..........................................................................................................21 7.3.7 Buffers....................................................................................................................21 8. SITE PROTECTION........................................................................................ 22 9. MAINTENANCE PLAN...................................................................................22 10. CONTINGENCY PLAN.................................................................................22 10.1 POST A BOND............................................................................................ 23 10.2 INSTALL PLANTS SUITED TO SEASONAL FLOODING ..................................... 23 10.3 ANNUAL MONITORING FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS ........................................... 23 10.4 REMOVE ALL REED CANARYGRASS............................................................ 23 10.5 INSTALL ADDITIONAL PLANTS AS NECESSARY ............................................. 23 11. SCHEDULE...................................................................................................24 12. PERFORMANCE BOND............................................................................... 24 13. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................24 C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc iii 08/10/06 Chad Armour LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington REFERENCES TABLES Table 1 Wetland Functional Assessment of Various Wetlands Table 2 Pre- and Post -Construction Water Detention and Water Quality Comparison Table 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations in the Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area Table 4 Comparative Analyses of Precipitation Records Table 5 Functional Wildlife Habitat of Various Wetlands Table 6 Plants to be Installed on the Mitigation Site FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Wetlands on the Penney Site Figure 3 Upland Location Plan Figure 4 Comparative Precipitation Analyses Figure 5 Grading Plan Figure 6 Planting Plan APPENDIX A U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Jurisdictional Determination of Wetlands on the Penney site U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation Washington Department of Ecology Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Nationwide Permit 39 Notification APPENDIX B Wetland Rating for the Penney site Wetland Rating for the Tukwila Pond site Wetland Rating for the Mitigation site — Existing Conditions Wetland Rating for the Mitigation site — Projected Conditions C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc iv 08/10/06 Chad Armour LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wig Properties LLC-SS Wig Properties LLC-SS (Wig) plans to construct the Southcenter Shopping center on the 18.77- acre Penney warehouse distribution site in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). To do so, Wig proposes to fill 1.16 acres of wetlands that developed on fill soil placed on the Penney site in the late 1960s (Figure 2). Based on the City of Tukwila's (Tukwila) wetland rules, four of the six Penney site wetlands meet the criteria for Type 3 wetlands. The other two are unregulated. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corp) determined that only one of the six wetlands on the Penney site is jurisdictional and therefore regulated by the Corps (Appendix A). All six of the Penney site wetlands are regulated by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). As a whole the wetlands on the Penney site exhibit low wetland functions because they are small and support immature plant communities that developed on imported fill soils (Table 1). Upon closer inspection, the Penney site wetlands exhibit high water quality functions and low hydrologic and habitat functions. The road ruts that support wetlands store water that would otherwise be released quickly to the lower Green River. They also provide limited water quality improvement and biological support. To mitigate for filling the Penney site wetlands, Wig proposes to create and enhance a total of 3.48 acres of lacustrine emergent and open water wetland dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The mitigation site is located in the southeast quadrant of the 24-acre Tukwila Pond site. It is surrounded by open water, scrub -shrub and forested wetland, forested upland, and upland shrubs. The Tukwila Pond site as a whole, rates at the low end of Category II wetlands (Appendix B). Its water quality functions rate high and it's hydrologic and habitat functions are rated as moderate. The mitigation site currently rates as a solid Category III wetland. It has a moderate rating for water quality and hydrologic functions and a low habitat function. Following completion of mitigation and at the end of the 10-year monitoring and maintenance effort, the Mitigation site is projected to function as a high end Category II wetland. The Tukwila Pond site is located about 1,000 feet northeast of the Penney site. The Tukwila Pond was selected for mitigation for the following reasons: • The quality of the existing wetland at the Tukwila Pond site can be substantially improved (Tablet); • Both Ecology and the Corps prefer that mitigation occur off site (Appendix A); • The sensitive areas regulations allow for off site mitigation; • Tukwila's long-term plans include enhancing degraded portions of the Tukwila Pond site; • The mitigation site is located in the same drainage basin as the Penney site; and • The mitigation site is bounded by existing open water and forested wetlands as well as upland forest and shrub plant communities. In addition to providing compensation for wetland loss, the benefits of the wetland mitigation plan include: C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc1 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila. Washington • Increasing the complexity of the Tukwila Pond site; and • Increasing the detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. In addition to providing these benefits, the wetland mitigation plan is designed to more than replace the wetland functions that will be lost on the Penney site. Filling the Penney site wetlands will have minimal impact on the hydrological support function because their contribution to base flow is very small. Conversely it will have a positive effect on floodwater abatement and water quality improvement. The shopping center's stormwater management system together with the new detention capacity on the Mitigation site represents a 574 percent increase over existing conditions (Table 2). Similarly, the shopping center's water quality system and landscaping together represents a 1,345 percent increase in water quality treatment capacity. Replacing the immature forest and meadow habitat present on the Penney site with four wetland classes, including open water, will more than offset the lost habitat functions (Table 1). Wig recognizes that it is likely that some of the plants installed on the Mitigation site will not survive the seasonal flooding typical of the Tukwila pond. Wig also recognizes that seasonal flooding tends to favor reed canarygrass. To reduce these potentials Wig will: • Install plants that tolerate seasonal flooding; • Monitor the Mitigation site for 10 years — annually for the first 5 years; • Install new plants annually to replace those that are lost; and • Post a bond sufficient to cover the cost of replanting the Mitigation site. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc2 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This plan presents information about the proposed Southcenter Square Shopping Center project (Proposed Development), the wetlands that are present on the Penney site, the land present in the southeast quadrant of the Tukwila Pond site, and the mitigation plan designed to compensate for lost wetland functions due to the Proposed Development. 2.1 Project Location The Proposed Development is located in Tukwila, Washington (King County) in Sections 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East (Willamette Meridian) (Figure 1). It is bounded by Southcenter Parkway to the west, Minkler Boulevard to the south, the Bon distribution warehouse to the north, and a business park to the east. The Mitigation site is located within a larger parcel typically referred to as the Tukwila Pond. The Mitigation site is located west of Andover Parkway West (Andover). 2.2 Responsible Parties The following key people are responsible for this project: Ms. Leshya Wig, Project Manager Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 134th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 957-4774 Ms. Moira Bradshaw, Sr. Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188-2544 (206) 431-3651 Mr. Chad Armour, Principal Chad Armour LLC 6500 126t' Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-6743 Mr. Armour prepared this wetland mitigation plan and delineated the wetlands on the Penney site and the central uplands on the Mitigation site (Figure 3). 2.3 Description of the Overall Project Wig plans to construct a commercial shopping center on the 18.77-acre Penney site. There are currently two buildings on the western 13.55 acres of the Penney site. The eastern 5.22 acres is the location of immature deciduous forest and meadow plant communities that developed on fill soils. These soils were placed on the site some 35 years ago (Armour, 2004). To build the shopping center, Wig proposes to fill 1.16 acres of low quality emergent and forested wetlands. To mitigate for filling these wetlands, Wig proposes to enhance and/or create 3.48 acres of existing upland and wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site. This includes creating wetland at a ratio of 1.5:1, enhancing degraded wetland at a ratio of 3:1, and enhancing degraded wetland at a ratio of 1:1. At the end of the 10-year monitoring the functional value of the created and C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc3 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington enhanced wetlands on the Mitigation site will be considerably greater than the functions of the existing wetlands on both the Penney and Tukwila Pond sites (Tables 1 and 2). 3. BASELINE INFORMATION Chad Armour LLC (Armour) delineated the wetlands on the Penney site in April 2004. Armour installed and measured the water levels in 14 shallow groundwater monitoring wells on the Mitigation site from October 2004 to the present. Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. (BRH) is Wig's civil engineering consultant. BRH surveyed the delineated wetland boundaries on the Penney site, calculated pre- and post -development stormwater runoff on the same, and prepared the grading plan for the Mitigation site. 3.1 Wetlands on the Penney Site There are six wetlands located on the Penney site (Figure 2). 3.1.1 Wetland A Wetland A is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 13,718 square feet (0.32 acre). Its most notable feature is a rutted road. Grasses and herbs dominate most of Wetland A, including the road. Trees dominate a small portion of this wetland. The forested portion of Wetland A occupies 2,698 square feet; almost 20 percent of the wetland. During the rainy season standing water about 6 inches deep is present on about 75 percent of the wetland. 3.1.2 Wetland B Wetland B is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 24,461 square feet (0.57 acre). Trees dominate the western half of Wetland B. Emergent herbs typically growing in a deeply rutted road dominate the remaining wetland. During the rainy season standing water averages about 6 inches deep; however, can be up to 1.5 feet deep in places. 3.1.3 Wetland C Wetland C is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers a total of 6,305 square feet (0.15 acre). It includes a forested area that covers 40 percent of the wetland and a rutted road. The road contains standing water during the rainy season and supports emergent vegetation. The understory of the forested area is generally devoid of vegetation, presumably as a result of standing water. During the rainy season 100 percent of this wetland is covered with about 6 inches of standing water. 3.1.4 Wetland D Wetland D is a Type 3 wetland that covers 3,943 square feet (0.09 acre). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) shrubs, grasses, and herbs dominate it. Surface water accumulates in this wetland during the rainy season. This water discharges west to the asphalt apron and associated stormwater drain located on the developed portion of the distribution center. After the water enters the catch basin, it flows into a series of pipes (sizes range from about 6 inches to 66 inches in diameter) and swales before being discharged into a King County regional stormwater detention pond. This water is then pumped into the Green River (Clark, 2004). Wetland D is the only wetland considered jurisdictional by the Corps (Appendix A). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc4 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 3.1.5 Wetland E Wetland E covers 179 square feet (<0.01 acre) and is dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus). The slight grade of this wetland precludes standing water during the rainy season. This isolated wetland is too small to be regulated by Tukwila, but is regulated by Ecology. 3.1.6 Wetland F Wetland F is an isolated wetland that covers 1,971 square feet (0.05 acre). Trees dominate the central 40 percent of this wetland. The remainder of Wetland F is dominated by emergent plant species. Like all of the other Penney site wetlands, a rutted road represents a significant portion of this wetland. During the rainy season standing water about 6 inches deep is present on about 50 percent of the wetland. As with Wetland E, this isolated wetland is too small to be regulated by Tukwila, but is regulated by Ecology. 3.1.7 Wetland Ratings Based on Tukwila's criteria (Tukwila, 2005), the wetlands individually and collectively are rated as Type 3 wetlands. The wetlands are classified as a Category III wetland using Ecology's wetland rating system (Appendix B). 3.1.8 Wetland Functions Based on the revised Washington State Wetland Rating Svstem for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004), the Penney site wetlands are rated at the low end of Category III wetlands (Table 1). As a whole the wetlands on the Penney site exhibit low functions because they are small and support immature plant communities that developed on imported fill soils. When the wetland functions are partitioned, the Penney site wetlands exhibit moderate water quality and habitat functions and low hydrologic functions. They rated high for water quality because very little surface water flows off of the site and the wetlands are surrounded by urban development. The road ruts on the site that are wetlands store water that would otherwise be released quickly to the lower Green River. We assume that this stored water infiltrates into the soil and contributes to the regional groundwater system. These open water areas also provide some habitat for waterfowl, and the trees and shrubs provide some nesting opportunities for small birds. 3.1.9 Fauna Associated with the Penney Wetlands During one of our site visits we recall observing mallard (Anas platyrhycos) and American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos). The Penney site likely attracts and supports a number of bird species typically attracted to western Washington's urban and suburban habitats. Small mammals could also be present. There are three listed threatened species reported to be located in the vicinity of the Penney site. They are Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The salmonids are present in the Green River. An abandoned bald eagle nest was reported about 2 miles southwest of the Penney site (WDFW, 2004). 3.2 Tukwila Pond Site The Tukwila Pond site is located about 1,000 feet north northeast of the Penney site (Figure 1). It occupies approximately 24 acres, more than 19 acres of which are open water. The Tukwila Pond site is bounded by uplands and urban development. Its buffers are narrow, confined to short steep slopes, and support trees and shrubs. Relatively tall (-75 foot) black cottonwood C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc5 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington (Populus balsamifera) trees are rooted in the buffer along the east side of the Tukwila Pond site The southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site is the location of the Mitigation site. This area covers a total of 3.48 acres. 3.2.1 Existing Vegetation There are five plant communities in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site A forest dominated by black cottonwood is located along the eastern perimeter of the Tukwila Pond site. The southern boundary is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Both of these plant communities function as uplands. Most of the Tukwila Pond site is dominated by a monoculture of reed canarygrass (meadow). A portion of this meadow functions as upland (Figure 3). A Himalayan blackberry thicket is present at the south end of this upland. A forest composed of Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) and red -osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) separate the meadow from the pond proper. The steep slopes of the railroad grade along the southern site boundary are covered with a tangle of blackberry and the flats with red -osier dogwood in two places. A depression near the southeast corner of the Mitigation site supports rooted floating vegetation. 3.2.2 Existing Soils A 1986 geotechnical engineering report on the Mitigation site described the near -surface soils as silty fine sand and sandy silt (Dames and Moore, 1986). When Tukwila delineated the wetlands on the Tukwila Pond site, they described the near -surface soils as silt loam. 3.2.3 Existing Hydrology Permanent open water is present in the Tukwila Pond site throughout the year. We understand that the pond is groundwater fed and know that there are seasonal inputs from precipitation and runoff from adjacent built up areas. On occasion Green River flood water is routed to the pond. We understand that the pond is relatively shallow, averaging about 2 to 3 feet deep, with the deepest point about 6 feet below the surface (Partee, 2004). A 1988 construction drawing for a site to the north indicated a static pond water level of t13.0 feet (Barghausen, 1988). The same drawings indicate that the flood elevation is 25.8 feet. In 2005 and 2006 we found the pond elevation to range from 19.2 to 19.3 feet in April (Table 3). The elevation of the water in the pond is controlled by a 15 inch corrugated metal culvert (CMP) fitted with a flap gate located on the east side of the Mitigation site adjacent to Andover. When the lower Green River is in flood, Tukwila opens the flap gate to allow flood water to enter the pond for temporary storage. This stored water is released back into the river after the flood crest has passed (Howat, 2004). The invert elevation of this CMP is18.8 feet (BRH, 2004). We have observed that a significant portion of the Mitigation site can be flooded during the rainy season (Figure 3). The southeast corner of the Mitigation site is flooded with water as much as 5 feet deep. Standing water in this depression extends from the area southeast of the upland to the flap gate CMP (Figure 3). The pond proper floods the western edge of the Mitigation site. In April 2005 and 2006 we measured the elevation of the pond to be about 19.2 feet (Table 3). During the same month the elevation of the standing water in the southeast corner of the Mitigation site was about 18.1 feet in 2005 and 18.4 feet in 2006. Apparently the flap gate CMP allows the smaller body of water to drain quickly, and retards pond drainage. When the mitigation area is flooded the surface of the water is covered with pieces of reed canarygrass. We assume that this flotsam includes reed canarygrass seed. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc6 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS 3.2.4 Wetland Ratings There are several lacustrine wetland classes present on the Tukwila Pond site. A portion of the proposed Mitigation site is emergent and open water seasonally flooded wetland. To the west is a forested wetland and beyond that is open water (Cowardin et al., 1979). Based on Ecology's wetland rating system for western Washington, the wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site is classified as a Category II wetland (Appendix B). 3.2.5 Wetland Functions The Tukwila Pond site wetland as a whole, rates at the low end of Category II wetlands (Table 1). It is completely surrounded by impervious surfaces associated with retail and commercial development. The Tukwila Pond wetland has a good mixture of open water, emergent, scrub - shrub, and forested wetland habitat, as well as unmanaged upland buffers. Its water quality functions rate high because it temporarily stores untreated stormwater prior to discharge to the Green River. It's hydrologic and habitat functions are rated as moderate (Appendix B). Because the pond is not regularly flushed, is shallow, has a limited outflow, and during the dry season the size of the pond shrinks, the quality of the water is poor. This is particularly so in the summer when algal blooms rob the water of oxygen. The pond can be flushed during the rainy season. When viewed independently of the Tukwila Pond site, the Mitigation site rates as a Category III wetland (Table 1). The thick mat of reed canarygrass prevents other species of plants — including woody shrubs and trees — from becoming established. This persistent monoculture is unattractive to most animals. It has a moderate rating for water quality because it is covered solely with herbaceous vegetation. It exhibits moderate hydrologic functionality because it temporarily stores untreated stormwater during the rainy season. It provides low habitat functions because of the predominance of the reed canarygrass monoculture. 3.2.6 Tukwila Pond Fauna Many different animal species have been reported on the Tukwila Pond site. Waterfowl are attracted to the Tukwila Pond in an otherwise highly urbanized area. It is reported to be used as permanent habitat for some animals and as a migratory stopover for others (Watershed Dynamics, 1994). During periods of low water in the fall and winter, mudflats form on the southern end of the pond. These mudflats provide foraging opportunities for waterfowl. And the pond provides foraging opportunities for diving birds such as pied -billed grebe (Podylimbus podiceps) and double-breasted cormorant (Phalocrocorax auritus). During the summer the limited diversity afforded by thick vegetation limits the value to waterfowl and marsh birds. Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) is present in the pond. Few mammals are reported for the Tukwila Pond site. Muskrat (Onodantra zibethica) haul -out sign was reported in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site. Bull frog (Rana catesbeiana) is found near the edge of open water. The only reported priority species on the site is the great blue heron (Ardea herodias). A report prepared by the WDFW for the Penney site also covers the Tukwila Pond and Mitigation sites. The WDFW report indicates that no priority species are present on or near the Tukwila Pond site. 3.3 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS As indicated in Section 3.3.2, the surface water elevation of the Tukwila Pond is affected by groundwater, runoff from surrounding areas, and on occasion flood water from the Green River. All of these factors are related to precipitation. As shown on Figure 4 the 2004/2005 water C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc7 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington years was somewhat drier than normal for the first 5 months (October through February), normal in March and June, and somewhat wetter than normal in April and May (Table 4). The 2005/2006 water year began normally (October and November) but quickly became wetter than normal in December and January, particularly in January when nearly twice the amount of expected rain fell on the region (Seattle Times, 2004, 2005, & 2006). The following two months of the 2005/2006 water year (February and March) were drier than normal and April exhibited a near normal amount of precipitation. 4. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT Wetlands have several physical, chemical, and biological processes or attributes that are important to the ecosystem. These wetland functions include shoreline protection, hydrologic support, storm/flood water abatement, groundwater exchange, water quality improvement, and biological support. Each of these functions and the probable impact of site development are discussed in detail in the following subsections. 4.1 Shoreline Protection Wetlands provide shorelines protection from erosion caused by tidal action along coasts, currents in rivers and streams during flooding, and wind or wake generated erosion along coastlines. Wetlands reduce shoreline erosion by absorbing or dissipating wave energy, by binding and stabilizing shoreline substrates, and by enhancing suspended sediment deposition (Hammer, 1992). None of the wetlands on the Penney site are located adjacent to shorelines. Therefore, filling these wetlands will have no impact on shoreline functions. We anticipate that limited areas of soil adjacent to the Tukwila Pond shoreline will be exposed as part of mitigation. As such, a limited amount of erosion from wave action will likely occur the first couple of years following construction. 4.2 Hydrologic Support Hydrology is the single most important factor for establishing and maintaining wetlands and wetland processes. Hydrologic inputs include precipitation, surface water runoff, groundwater, tides, and flooding. Water inputs are almost always the major source of nutrients to wetlands. Water outflows often remove biotic and abiotic material from wetlands. These physiochemical. modifications of the environment have a direct impact on the biotic response in wetlands (Mitsch and Grosselink, 1986). During the winter rainy season surface water from Wetland D (one of the Penney site wetlands) flows into a nearby catch basin. From this parking lot catch basin, water flows through a man- made storm water conveyance system into a detention pond where it is pumped into the Green River. The other five wetlands at the Penney site are isolated depressions with no direct connection to nearby streams. We assume that the water that accumulates in these depressional wetlands percolates through the soil profile and contributes to the base flow of the Green River. Filling the Penney site wetlands will have a minimal impact on the hydrological support function because the contribution to Green River base flow is extremely small. C:/JobsAVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc8 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 4.3 Storm/Flood Water Abatement Wetlands can have an effect on the peak flows of floodwaters in streams and on their base flows during dry periods. Floodwater modification is most often identified with bottomland hardwood swamps. Forested wetlands in river floodplains can reduce the height of downstream floodwater peaks by acting as natural reservoirs and directly obstructing and slowing flows. By retaining stormwater and releasing them at a controlled rate, wetlands augment base flows (Hammer, 1992). Tukwila's stormwater management strategy is to release stormwater into the Green River before flood flow reaches Tukwila. This strategy limits the potential for high water in the river from blocking runoff generated in the city and reduces the potential for flooding beyond the river's levees. In support of this strategy, Tukwila will require no detention for the existing impervious surfaces on the Penney warehouse distribution site, but will require Wig to detain runoff from the pervious surfaces currently present on this site. The development plan has these pervious surfaces — which cover 5.8 acres of the Penney distribution site — being converted to impervious surfaces. Based on visual observations over a period of two winters, we estimate that the wetlands on the Penney site provide approximately 16,875 cubic feet (cf) of detention capacity (Table 2). This capacity assumes that all but one of the wetlands stores water averaging 6 inches deep throughout the rainy season. It also assumes that standing water represents 100 percent of the surface area of Wetlands C and D, 75 percent of Wetland A, and 50 percent of Wetlands B and F. Wetland E is located on a slight slope and retains. no surface water. The wetland mitigation plan includes removing a significant quantity of soil from the Mitigation site (Figure 5). This action will increase the detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond site by about 46,900 cf (BRH, 2006). Using the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) method for estimating runoff, Tukwila will require 26,200 cf of storage for the additional 5.8 acres of impervious surfaces that will be created by the Planned Development (BRH, 2004). This is a conservative estimate because the model assumes that the impervious surfaces are occupied by a mature Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh) forest. The impervious surfaces are actually represented by 0.6 acre of mowed lawn and 5.22 acres of immature forest and meadow. The volume of water to be detained on the Planned Development is somewhat less than three times the stormwater holding capacity of the Penney site wetlands (50,000cf/16,875cf). When the added capacity on the Mitigation site is also factored into the equation, the increase stormwater holding capacity of the Planned Development represents nearly a 575 percent increase over existing conditions (Table 2). Thus the mitigation plan compensates for the lost stormwater holding capacity of the Penney site wetlands many times over. 4.4 Groundwater Exchange Groundwater recharge has been shown to occur in isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes, cypress domes, and floodplain forests. A few wetlands in Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Florida were shown to have direct connections and contributed significantly to groundwater. But other wetlands have been shown to have little influence on groundwater or, in some cases, the wetland is present because of surfacing groundwater (Hammer, 1992). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc9 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS It is likely that the Penney site wetlands do not owe their existence to surfacing groundwater. Rather the precipitation that accumulates in these wetlands seasonally likely contributes to the regional groundwater system. This phenomenon is thought to be largely due to the original soil being covered some 35 years ago with up to 10 feet of imported fill soil (Armour, 2004). 4.5 Water Quality Improvement Wetlands have the ability to remove pollutants from water, through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. Water purification functions of wetlands are dependent on four principal components — vegetation, water column, substrates, and microbial populations. With respect to water quality improvement, the principal function of vegetation in wetlands is to provide environments for microbial populations. Not only do plants in the water column obstruct flow and facilitate sedimentation they also provide habitat for microbes. In addition to attachment surfaces for microbes, substrates provide physical support for plants, and surfaces for chemical reactions. The water column transports substances and gasses to microbial populations, carries off by-products, and provides matrix for biochemical processes (Hammer, 1992). No surface water flows onto the eastern 5.22 acres of the Penney warehouse distribution site. Only surface water from Wetland D flows off of this area. As such, sediment retention is limited and most of the water quality improvement capacity of Penney site wetlands is provided by microbes attached to vegetation and to soil particles. The water flowing from Wetland D receives some water quality treatment when it flows through grass -lined ditches and is detained in the regional stormwater pond adjacent to the Green River. The water quality treatment capacity of the Penney wetlands is 1.16 acres. The Planned Development specifies treating approximately 14 acres of pollution -generating surfaces (i.e., asphalt). Surface water runoff from the asphalt will be directed to a water quality treatment system. The water quality treatment system will be designed and maintained in accordance with Tukwila engineering standards. The Penney site currently has 7.1 acres of untreated pollution -generating surfaces (BRH, 2006). In addition to the water quality treatment system, the Planned Development will have about 1.5 acres of landscaping. Most of the landscaping will be located around the perimeter of the shopping center. This landscaping represents pervious surface directly connected to the regional groundwater system. The microbes attached to soil particles in the landscaped areas will treat water that falls on these areas. Wig will provide water quality treatment far in excess of that provided by the Penney site wetlands (Table 2). The water quality treatment system, together with the landscaped areas, represents about a 1345 percent increase in water quality treatment capacity relative to these wetlands. The total increase is even larger when the relatively clean water entering the Penney site wetlands is compared to the water entering the treatment system, which contain petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. 4.6 Biological Support Wetlands produce many diverse forms of life and provide habitat for countless others. Wetlands are dynamic, transitional, and dependent on disturbance. Wetlands receive, hold, and recycle nutrients continually washed from upland regions. The combined interactions of abiotic and biotic factors create a diversity and abundance of habitats that make wetlands the most C:/JobsNVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.dod 0 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS important wildlife habitat. Basic productivity of many wetlands far exceeds the most fertile farm fields (Hammer, 1992). The Penney site wetlands offer limited biological support functions because they are small and support immature or simple plant communities. Ducks use the wetlands seasonally during periods of prolonged precipitation. Other animals likely utilize the wetlands when they are dry. Filling the Penney site wetlands will have very little impact on the biological support function of these wetlands. Listed salmonids cannot access the wetlands and bald eagles are not known to be present on the Penney site. The immature black cottonwood trees on the Penney warehouse distribution site are too small (<12 inches in diameter and 70 feet tall) to support nesting and/or roosting bald eagles. 5. MITIGATION APPROACH After carefully evaluating several scenarios, Wig concludes that filling 1.16 acres of wetlands on the Penney site is unavoidable. With the exception of the Tukwila Pond site, options for mitigating for lost wetland functions are limited. In exchange for filling the Penney site wetlands, Wig proposes to create and/or enhance 3.48 acres of degraded upland and wetland located at the Tukwila Pond site. Off -site mitigation makes the most sense in this case because: • The quality of the existing wetland at the Tukwila Pond site can be substantially improved (Table1); • Both Ecology and the Corps prefer that mitigation occur off site (Appendix A); • Tukwila's rules allows for off site mitigation; • Tukwila's long-term plans include enhancing degraded portions of the Tukwila Pond site; • The Mitigation site is located in the same drainage basin as the Penney site; and • The Mitigation site is bounded by existing open water and forested wetlands as well as upland forest and shrub plant communities. 5.1 Code Compliance 5.1.1 Permitted Alterations Per Tukwila's sensitive area regulations, any use or development of wetlands requires the review and approval of the Director of Community Development (TMC 18.45.090). Requests may be approved if the alteration does not adversely affect water quality; fish, wildlife, or their habitat; drainage or stormwater detention capabilities; lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard; be materially detrimental to any other property; and have an adverse effect on any other sensitive areas (TMC 18.45.090.B.1). Isolated wetlands exhibiting low functions that formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions may be altered (TMC 18.45.090.B.6). Per these requirements, the Penney wetlands clearly qualify as wetlands that may be altered (Tukwila, 2005). C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc11 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 5.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing Tukwila requires that development proposals demonstrate a reasonable effort to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and their buffers. If avoidance and minimization are not possible, the preferred order of compensation is: • Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands; • Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands; • Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites (TMC 18.45.090.C). Wig cannot avoid or minimize filling the wetlands on the Penney site because Wig's tenant - driven key criteria are that the land be at least 18 acres in size and be located on the main strip of Southcenter Parkway. There are no other properties that meet these criteria. Wig evaluated off site options including the Macadam site, River Bend site, and a site off of Strander Boulevard. The Macadam site was too steep and not large enough to be considered a viable option. The River Bend site was too small and as much as 15 feet of soil would need to be removed to create wetlands. The Strander site is owned by the Boeing Corporation and is not readily available for sale. None of these three options represented upland sites that were formerly wetlands. The Mitigation site is a significantly degraded wetland with the potential to be enhanced. Enhancing this degraded wetland is supported by the Corps, Ecology, and Tukwila staff. Here Wig can create four wetland classes where only one wetland class now exists. Enhancement will significantly increase the functional value of the degraded wetland. There is no opportunity to create wetlands on disturbed upland sites in Tukwila. After evaluating the attributes of four potential mitigation sites, Wig concluded that enhancing the degraded wetland present on the Tukwila Pond site was the only reasonable available option. Further, on site mitigation has been discouraged by both the Corps and Ecology (Appendix A). 5.1.3 Mitigation Plans Per section 18.45.090.D of the wetland regulations, "wetland and/or buffer relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions." Further, the plan shall "show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved." The close proximity of available degraded upland and wetland adjacent to a large expanse of open water, scrub -shrub and forested wetland, and upland in an urban environment provide a unique opportunity to mitigate for impacts to wetlands. The enhanced wetland area will improve the habitat function of the existing wetland (Table 1) and be composed of four wetland classes — open water, forested, scrub -shrub, and emergent wetland (Figure 6). The existing Mitigation site wetland is composed of two wetland classes. The enhanced wetland will be bordered on the east by upland forest, on the south by wetland and upland shrubs, and on the northwest by a combination of existing open water and forested wetland. The resultant plant communities in conjunction with open water will provide excellent habitat for wildlife (Table 5). C:/JobsMig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc12 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 6.1.4 Mitigation Location According to Section 18.45.090.E of the wetland regulations, on -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the application can demonstrate that: a) On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors; or b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or c) Existing functional values created at the site of proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. On -site mitigation is not preferred because the Penney site wetlands are very small, surrounded by asphalt and concrete, and generally isolated from the closest wetland — the Tukwila Pond. Wig qualifies for off -site mitigation under provisions b) and c). Table 1 demonstrates that the functional values of the Tukwila Pond site are significantly greater than the function values of the Penney site wetlands. Further, the Penney site wetland functions can be more than compensated for by converting degraded upland to wetland and enhancing degraded wetland on the Tukwila Pond site. Wetland functions currently present on the Mitigation site are projected to increase from the current rating of a Category III wetland to a Category II wetland by 2015. When considering wildlife habitat functions in isolation, the created and enhanced wetland (score = 70) is projected to out perform the existing wetland (score = 15) as well as the Penney site wetlands (score = 42) (Table 5). Tukwila requires that off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the loss occurred. The Tukwila Pond site is located in the same basin as the Penney site and therefore meets this requirement. Finally, the regulation lists an order of preference for off site mitigation. The Tukwila Pond site contains existing degraded upland and wetland. Degraded upland areas are listed as the second and degraded wetlands the fourth preference for off site mitigation. All of the other sites considered but the unavailable Strander site fall into the third preference. These sites were deemed unsuitable because they were either too small or contained excess overburden. 5.2 Rationale for Choice The 24-acre Tukwila Pond site was selected because it is the only suitable area available in the drainage basin. Also, the degraded area of the Tukwila Pond site has been identified by Tukwila as an area suitable for enhancement. Tukwila owns the site. 5.2.1 Case Study A 6.3-acre monoculture of reed canarygrass in Auburn was converted to a wetland complex possessing open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland classes (Raedeke Associates, 2002). This wetland was identified by Ecology as an example of a successful reed canarygrass conversion project. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc13 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 5.2.2 Projected Conditions of the Mitigation Site At the end of the 10-year monitoring period the monoculture of reed canarygrass currently present on the Tukwila Pond site is projected to have been transformed into a wetland complex composed of open water, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested habitats. All three wetland functions will improve relative to existing conditions (Table 1). Similarly Wig projects that they will exceed the functions exhibited by the Tukwila Pond site as a whole (Appendix B). The improved Mitigation site is projected to enhance water quality and habitat functions largely by adding complexity and structure where little previously existed. The Mitigation site ten years after it is improved would rate at the high end of the Category II wetlands. As shown on Table 1 the restored wetland (Projected Mitigation site) scored higher than the Tukwila Pond site for habitat largely because of added complexity. The Projected Mitigation site will have more plant communities and habitat amenities as well as fewer weeds than the existing Tukwila Pond site. 5.3 Constraints It appears that potential constraints can be adequately mitigated. The 3.48 acre wetland will be designed so that seasonal flooding and near -surface groundwater will support and maintain wetland plant communities. It will be vegetated with native plants that typically tolerate temporary seasonal flooding during the dormant season. The plan includes removing reed canarygrass. If the grass were not treated it would create a maintenance challenge during the monitoring and maintenance period. Its seed will be distributed throughout much if not all of the Mitigation site during flood events. As such Wig will remove the reed canarygrass, including its stolon mat, at the time of site grading. The resultant bare soil will be revegetated with native plants. A robust monitoring and maintenance plan will limit invading weeds, including reed canarygrass. Tukwila will protect the Mitigation site in perpetuity. In the event Tukwila alters other parts of the Tukwila Pond site to enhance its water quality or to increase its capacity to store stormwater, a deed restriction or some other site development -limiting instrument will protect the enhanced wetland. 5.4 Goals and Objectives of the Mitigation Plan To meet Tukwila's no net loss of wetland functions requirement, Wig proposes to improve the functions of 3.48 acres of degraded wetland and upland on the Tukwila Pond site. 5.4.1 Goals The goal of the mitigation plan is to create 0.88 acre and enhance 2.6 acres of degraded lacustrine emergent and open water wetland habitat by converting it to a diverse wetland complex composed of four wetland classes. This action will considerably improve the habitat for indigenous and migratory wildlife. It will also increase the stormwater detention capacity of the Tukwila Pond. 5.4.2 Objectives Hydrology • Open Water Wetland —water at least 2 feet deep into the late growing season; C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc14 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington • Existing Degraded Wetland — seasonally flooded with saturated soil within 12 inches of the ground surface into the late growing season; • Emergent Wetland — seasonally flooded with saturated soil within 12 inches of the ground surface into the late growing season; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — seasonally flooded with saturated soil within 12 inches of the ground surface into the middle of the growing season; and • Forested Wetland — saturated soils within 12 inches of the ground surface in the early growing season. Wetland Classes • Open Water — occupy approximately 0.92 acre; • Existing Degraded Wetland — occupy approximately 0.88 acre and contain at least 3 native plant species (Table 6); • Emergent — occupy approximately 0.52 acre and contain at least 3 native plant species; • Scrub -shrub — occupy approximately 0.51 acres and contain at least 2 native plant species; and • Forested — occupy approximately 0.65 acre and contain at least 2 native plant species. Habitat Attributes • 6 hardwood snags ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall and 6 to 12 inches in diameter; and • 12 hardwood logs ranging from 10 to 30 feet long and 6 to 12 inches in diameter. 5.5 Performance Standards Performance standards provide a basis for measuring the success of the mitigation plan. The target for meeting the performance standards is within 10 years of installation. Comparing actual results of the interim monitoring events (i.e., Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9) with the performance standards will determine whether contingency actions are warranted. The following standards will apply. 5.5.1 Hydrology • Open Water Wetland — 0.92 acre of open water from 0 to more than 7 feet deep (constructed bottom 15.2 feet elevation) November through May; • Existing Degraded Wetland — 0.88 acre of emergent wetland with saturated soil between 17.7 and 20.0 feet elevation November through June; • Emergent Wetland — 0.52 acre of emergent wetland with saturated soil between 17.2 and 17.7 feet elevation November through June; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — 0.51 acres of scrub -shrub wetland with saturated soil between 17.7 and 18.2 feet elevation November through May; and • Forested Wetland — 0.65 acre of forested wetland with saturated soil between18.2 and 19.2 feet elevation November through April. C:/JobsNVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc15 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 5.5.2 Soil At final grade, the upper 6 inches of soil will contain 20 to 25 percent organic matter, as validated by an approved agricultural testing laboratory. This requirement will be reflected in final plan specifications. 5.5.3 Vegetation • Emergent Wetland — 0.52 acre of emergent wetland that contains at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native emergent plant cover. The total native emergent plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 25% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10 • Existing Degraded Wetland — 0.88 acre of emergent wetland that contains at least 3 or more native emergent plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native emergent plant cover. The total native emergent plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 25% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10. • Scrub -shrub Wetland — 0.51 acres of scrub -shrub wetland that contains at least 2 or more native shrub plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native shrub plant cover. The total native shrub plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year1, • 20% in Year 2, • 30% in Year 3, • 40% in Year 4, • 50% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, C:/JobsNVig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc16 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10. Wig Properties LLC-SS • Forested Wetland — 0.65 acre of forested wetland that contains at least 2 or more native tree plant species each consisting of at least 20 percent of total native tree plant cover. The total native tree plant cover will be at least: • 5%in Year 1, • 10% in Year 2, • 15% in Year 3, • 20% in Year 4, • 30% in Year 5, • 70% in Year 7, • 80% in Year 9, and • 90% in Year 10; and • No more than 20 percent of the vegetation will consist of non-native invasive plant species at any time during the monitoring period. This includes Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and all other Class A, B, and C weeds on the state noxious weed list. 6.5.4 Structure • Emergent Wetland — vegetation ranging from 1 to 4 feet tall by Year 3; • Existing Degraded Wetland — vegetation ranging from 1 to 2 feet tall by Year 3; • Scrub -shrub Wetland — vegetation ranging from 4 to 8 feet tall by Year 5; and • Forested Wetland — vegetation ranging from 8 to 20 feet tall by Year 7. 6. CONSTRUCTION PLAN This section of the plan describes the strategies that will be used to achieve the objectives described in Section 5.4.2. The plan is to remove all of the reed canarygrass and replace it with native trees, shrubs, and herbs adapted to seasonally flooded and saturated soil conditions. We reviewed the file, visited. the site, and interviewed the designer of what appears to be a successful reed canarygrass conversion project in the City of Auburn. As indicated in Section 5.2.1, the 6+-acre Goedeke wetland enhancement project was transformed from a monoculture of reed canarygrass to a diverse wetland composed of four wetland classes. To achieve this result, the reed canarygrass was mowed and the stolon mat was excavated, buried and covered with fabric and soil. In 2004 this precipitation driven wetland contained a wide variety of native trees, shrubs, and herbs, with very little reed canarygrass. Based on results of the Goedeke project, it appears that the reed canarygrass can successfully be converted to a wetland complex possessing increased water quality, hydrologic, and habitat values. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.dod 7 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 6.1 Hydrology Wig installed 14 shallow groundwater monitoring wells and 2 staff gauges in late 2004 to characterize the hydrology of the Mitigation site. Based on April measurements the central ridge of the Mitigation site is upland covering 0.88 acre (Figure 3). A significant portion of the area surrounding the upland is flooded in the winter and spring. The flooded area west of the upland drains slowly, presumably because the flap gate CMP is small relative the volume of water in the pond proper. We believe that the flooded area east of the upland drains more quickly because it represents a much smaller volume of water. 6.2 Soils Wig will grade the finished elevation of the Mitigation site according to the grading plan prepared by BRH (Figure 5). The grading plan is based on the results of the groundwater monitoring program during April 2005 & 2006. At a minimum, the upper t6 inches of soil will be excavated and exported. Exporting the upper layer of soil removes the canarygrass' subsurface reproductive parts. More than a 6-inch-deep scoop will be required to eliminate reed canarygrass' subsurface reproductive parts on occasion. Wig will take every precaution to avoid or minimize impacts to existing stormwater control structures, including the flap gate CMP. If the flap gate and/or the associated berm are disturbed, Wig will repair these structures to Tukwila standards. We understand that the Tukwila Pond is considered a jurisdictional wetland by the Corps. As such a permit to export soil from the Mitigation site and if necessary import topsoil onto the same will require a permit from the Corps (Whiting, 2006). With respect to Wetland D on the Penney site, Wig must notify the Corps within 30 days after it is filled (Appendix A). Wig will match grades along the edge of the existing forested and scrub -shrub wetlands, the edge of the pond, and/or the upland buffers to the south and east. The slopes of the excavated channel will be nearly vertical. The intent is to encourage fish and wildlife that are attracted to open water to utilize these habitats and discourage emergent vegetation. Our hope is that the channel will promote water circulation from the Tukwila pond. The flow and the resultant mixing action could help improve the quality of the water in the Tukwila pond. To facilitate this flow, Wig will excavate the edge of the Tukwila pond at the entrance to the channels to match the bottom elevation of the channel. To augment the organic content of soils subject to excavation, Wig will rotovate three inches. of fertile mulch (organic compost) into the upper 8 inches of the subgrade as necessary. 6.3 Vegetation As shown on Figure 6, at least four wetlands classes are proposed — open water, forested, scrub -shrub, and emergent. These new wetland classes will be juxtaposed with three existing wetland classes and two upland classes. The existing open water, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland classes and upland plant communities have been incorporated in the design to compliment the created/enhanced wetland area. Wig will vegetate the Mitigation site as indicated in Table 6. Several of the herbaceous plant species will be broadcast seeded throughout the emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested habitats. Larger herbs will be installed in the emergent wetland between 17.2 and 17.7 feet elevation. Selected herbs and the indicated shrubs will be installed in the scrub -shrub wetland between 17.7 and 18.2 feet elevation. The forested wetland will be vegetated with herbs, shrubs, and trees between 18.2 and 19.2 feet elevation. A mixture of grass species will be broadcast C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc18 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila. Washinaton seeded throughout the Existing Degraded Wetland. The seed will be covered with about % inch of soil to minimize the potential for the seed to float away during subsequent flood events. Mulch will be placed around the base of all installed trees and shrubs for weed control and moisture retention in the spring after the threat of flood has past. Wig will install a temporary irrigation system designed to deliver up to 1 inch of water per week in the mitigation area for at least one growing season after the plants are installed. 6.4 Habitat Structures Wig will place 12 medium-sized (6 to 12 inches in diameter and 10 to 30 feet long) hardwood logs on the Mitigation site as habitat amenities. To reduce the potential for these logs to float away during anticipated periods of high water, Wig will anchor the logs to the ground. Wig will also install 6 hardwood snags — ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall and 6 to 12 inches in diameter on the Mitigation site. 6.5 Installation Sequence During a pre -construction meeting, the grading contractor, Wig, the project biologist, and appropriate regulatory agency staff will review the grading plan and best management practices (BMP), including stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP), temporary erosion and sediment control plans (TESC), and spill control and prevention plans. In addition, components of the mitigation plan will be reviewed with the landscaping contractor at this meeting. Based on the outcome of the pre -construction meeting, the grading contractor will flag the construction limits consistent with the grading plan and BMPs, and will install temporary filter fabric fences as necessary. A temporary fence will also be installed between the construction area and the Sitka willow trees along the northwest boundary of the Mitigation site. Temporary fence will also be placed around existing clumps of red -osier dogwood shrubs along the southern Mitigation site boundary. Track hoe excavators, dump trucks, and/or dozers will be used to grade the Mitigation site. Machines will enter and leave the site via temporary construction entrances off Andover Parkway West. Because road drainage may contain soil and mud from construction vehicles and since the associated catch basins ultimately discharge to the Green River, filter fabric sediment traps will be installed and maintained at each catch basin. In addition, Andover will be swept as dirt or mud accumulates. Dust abatement measures, such as site watering during grading, will be instituted as necessary. As indicated previously, prior to site grading the reed canarygrass will be mowed and the cuttings will be disposed off site. Following mowing the reed canarygrass mat will be excavated and exported. If the results of the soil chemical analysis indicate that organic augmentation is warranted, approximately three inches of fertile organic mulch will be rotovated into the upper top 8 inches of soil. Next the contractors will install the habitat amenities, the temporary irrigation system, fence, sign, etc. In the spring after floodwaters have subsided, seed from residual weedy plants that likely are distributed over most of the Mitigation site will sprout. As such the landscaping contractor will likely have to treat the Mitigation site for weeds prior to planting. After the weeds are treated the landscaping contractor will broadcast seed the Mitigation site that is not designated open water C:/JobsNNig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.dod9 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington habitat. About 'h inch of soil will be raked over the seed. Landscapers walking all over the site will also help "set" the seed. Following seeding the landscaping contractor will install the plants specified on Table 6. Following construction and plant installation, the project biologist and landscaping contractor's representative will meet with Tukwila staff to develop a punch list of deficiencies. After the punch list items are addressed by Wig, Wig will seek approval for concluding the construction phase of the mitigation plan and seek Tukwila's approval to initiate the start of the ten-year monitoring period. Wig will develop an as -built plan that will be used as a basis for evaluating future results. 7. MONITORING PLAN The purpose of the monitoring plan is to assess the existing Mitigation site and the results of the mitigation measures. Monitoring the water regime prior to final design and construction increases the probability of success. Post -construction monitoring provides an index for measuring the performance of the mitigation plan, the extent and timing of remedial actions (if necessary), and ultimately the length of the monitoring period. The monitoring plan consists of three separate but equally important steps; pre -construction monitoring, construction monitoring, and post -construction monitoring. 7.1 Pre -Construction Monitoring Wig has been monitoring the hydrology of the Mitigation site since October 2004. 7.2 Construction Monitoring Wig will maintain quality assurance by monitoring grading and landscaping contractors during construction. This aspect of the monitoring plan is particularly important because the final design elevation of the wetland is critical to establish and maintain the appropriate wetland hydrology. Similarly the methods and techniques used to install the plants are important because in many cases survival is dependent on the quality of the installation. Tukwila will be responsible for final approval of construction. Wig will consult with Tukwila to assess deviations from the approved plan. After construction is completed, Tukwila will evaluate the installation and develop a punch list as necessary. Wig will address punch list items and prepare a post -installation report for review and approval by Tukwila. The post - installation report will be the basis for comparing future monitoring reports. 7.3 Post -Construction Monitoring Hydrology monitoring will commence immediately following construction to characterize the modified hydrologic conditions. 'The pi=e=construction shallow groundwater monitoring -wells and staff -gauges -will be replaced and incorporated as part of the post -construction monitoring plan. ' f Their position will be located by survey and shown on the'As-Built-Plan. Wig will monitor the mitigation area for 10 years following installation. A qualified biologist will be engaged for this effort. To document the results of the mitigation measures and to ensure that reed canarygrass and other incompatible weeds do not invade and take over the Mitigation site, Wig will monitor the Mitigation site annually for the first 5 years following installation as well as in Years 7, 9, and 10. Post -construction monitoring will include hydrology monitoring as well as vegetation monitoring. Wig will submit a detailed report comparing actual versus expected C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc20 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington performance standards to Tukwila for review and approval by December 31 each year the Mitigation site is monitored. 7.3.1 Hydrology Wig will measure the water levels at least four times a year (April, May, June, and August) during the growing season with an electronic water level meter. 7.3.2 Soils Wig will not monitor soils after post -installation sampling, provided that the performance standard is met at that time. 7.3.3 Vegetation To measure the success of the vegetation effort, Wig will install permanent photographic and vegetation monitoring points in the Mitigation site. The monitoring points will be established by installing a permanent structure such as rebar, wood, fence post, plastic pipe, etc. Wig will characterize the vegetation in August in 1/100-acre circular plots. The monitoring biologist will also informally assess the vegetation when on site to monitor hydrology. The intent of informal vegetation monitoring is to identify areas where undesirable weeds (e.g., reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, etc.) are present. These observations will be relayed to the maintenance contractor for timely removal action. Photographs will be taken facing a predetermined direction for consistency to provide a visual record of the Mitigation site throughout the monitoring period. The vegetation monitoring will assess: • Species composition; • Percent cover of each plant stratum and species; • Stand height; and • The health of the vegetation. 7.3.4 Fauna Wig will record site observations of fish and wildlife during vegetation and groundwater monitoring activities. 7.3.6 Habitat Structures After the habitat amenities are installed and their location noted on the As -Built Plan, it will not likely be necessary to monitor them again. However, as indicated in Section 5.4.4, Wig will characterize the average height of the plants present in the emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested habitat types. Wildlife habitat is determined by the interspersion of plant communities, by the structure of the plant communities, and by the mixture of species within a community. Although all of these are important, most species of wildlife respond more to structure of the plant community than to the plant species making up a community (Hall, et al., 1985). 7.3.6 Water Quality Wig will not monitor water quality. 7.3.7 Buffers Wig will not monitor the buffers. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc21 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 8. SITE PROTECTION To discourage human intrusion, a permanent post -and -rail fence at least 4 feet tall will be installed along the eastern boundary of the Mitigation site adjacent to Andover Parkway West. The eastern and southern perimeter of the Mitigation site will be posted with Habitat Conservation Area signs (Figure 6). Tukwila will be responsible for protecting the Mitigation site. In accordance with Section 18.48.090.0 of the sensitive areas regulations, the Mitigation site shall remain undeveloped and be protected from development in perpetuity. As such, Tukwila shall protect the Mitigation site via deed restriction, conservation easement, or other legally binding instrument. After Wig's monitoring and maintenance obligation is completed, the installed vegetation should be protected against any impacts from mowing, cutting, dredging, or other adverse activities to the Mitigation site. 9. MAINTENANCE PLAN Wig will maintain the Mitigation site during the 10-year monitoring period. Maintenance includes irrigating recently installed plants to promote their establishment and survival. One inch of water per week shall be applied to the Mitigation site from the time the plants are installed to mid - September the first year of plant installation. Irrigation is not required in subsequent years. Maintaining the Mitigation site is paramount to prevent unwanted plant species — particularly reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife —from expressing dominance during the 10-year monitoring period. Maintenance measures beyond the required monitoring period will become the responsibility of Tukwila. In addition to collecting hydrologic and vegetative data as specified in Section 7.3, the monitoring biologist will also note physical and biological features on the Mitigation site that need attention, are of note, or reflect the ecological health of the mitigation area. These features include, but are not necessarily limited to, wildlife use, trash, plant mortality, weeds, and predation by herbivores, etc. When reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, or another aggressive undesirable weed is observed, Wig will instruct the maintenance contractor to treat the offending plants within 14 days. Manual weeding is the preferred method for removing the plants. However, on occasion it may be necessary to spot spray clumps with an approved herbicide. Rodeo is an herbicide approve for use in aquatic environments 10. CONTINGENCY PLAN Wig recognizes that there is a chance that some of the installed plants will not survive the seasonal flooding typical of the Tukwila pond. Wig also recognizes that seasonal flooding tends to favor reed canarygrass. To reduce these potentials Wig will: • Post a bond sufficient to cover the cost of replanting the Mitigation site; • Install plants that tolerate seasonal flooding during the dormant season; • Monitor the installed plants annually for the first 5 years; • Remove all reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife plants present on the Mitigation site; and • Install new plants annually to replace those that expired. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc22 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington 10.1 Post a Bond As indicated in Section 12, Wig will provide Tukwila with a surety instrument in the amount of 150 percent of the estimated cost to install plants on the mitigation site. 10.2 Install Plants Suited to Seasonal Flooding Wig will install plants native to Western Washington that are adapted to seasonal inundation during the winter rainy season. Many wetland plants survive seasonal inundation during the winter rainy season because these plants are dormant at the time of flooding. As indicated on Table 6 these plants include: • Trees - black cottonwood and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and to a limited extent red alder (Alnus rubra); • Shrubs - Pacific willow, Piper's willow (Salix hookeriana), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and red -osier dogwood; and • Herbs such as slough sedge (Carex obnupta), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris), wool -grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis). The Mitigation site can be subject to flooding events during the rainy season. We observed inundation in both 2005 and 2006. The duration of these events can be as long as 4 months. The plants selected to replace reed canarygrass typically survive short -duration inundation during the winter rainy season when plants are typically dormant. 10.3 Annual Monitoring for the First 5 Years Plant succession on bare ground is fairly predictable. A number of weeds, including reed canarygrass, are expected to invade the bare areas initially. Bare areas are common on mitigation sites the first couple of years following plant installation. That is, bare soil is typical between installed trees and shrubs as well as locally where seeded grasses and herbs are removed by herbivory, flowing water, etc. To minimize the potential for reed canarygrass to become established in these bare areas, Wig will monitor the mitigation site several times a year (April, May, June, and August) during the first 5 years following plant installation. 10.4 Remove All Reed Canarygrass If reed canarygrass (and purple loosestrife) is observed during monitoring visits by the project biologist, its location will be marked in the field by the biologist. Initially, the biologist will accompany the maintenance contractor when they treat the offending plants to ensure that all of these plants are treated. Once the biologist feels comfortable with the maintenance contractor's ability to identify and treat offending weeds, it will no longer be necessary to accompany the maintenance contractor when weeds are observed. Wig will make every attempt to treat volunteer reed canarygrass plants before they go to seed. The entire plant, including stolons will be treated. This action will increase the potential that reed canarygrass plants represent a small fraction of the plant community. 10.5 Install Additional Plants as Necessary Typically 80 percent of the installed trees and shrubs survive installation. As such, Wig assumes that installing additional trees and shrubs and quite possibly herbs will be necessary near the end of the first growing.season. If during subsequent years the monitoring biologist C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc23 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington concludes that additional plantings are required, Wig will install additional plants as necessary. The selected replacement plants will include the most robust plant species growing on the site at the time of site evaluation. 11. SCHEDULE Wig anticipates executing the construction plan in 2007 and upon receipt of permits and/or approvals from Tukwila and/or Ecology. Site grading will be limited to the drier months when groundwater elevations are at their lowest. Wig anticipates installing the plant material the following spring after flood waters have subsided. It is important that the surface soil (i.e., upper 12 inches) is moist at the time of plant installation. Monitoring will commence immediately following acceptance of plant installation by Tukwila. 12. PERFORMANCE BOND Wig will post a bond or other surety in the amount of 150 percent of the value of the expected cost to install plants on the Mitigation site. 13. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this plan prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties LLC-SS and its assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This plan is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. It should be noted that Chad Armour, LLC relied on information provided by others indicated previously. Chad Armour can only relay this information and cannot be responsible for its accuracy or completeness. Also note that wetland mitigation planning is an inexact science. Biological professionals may disagree on the nature and extent of mitigation plans. Final acceptance of this wetland mitigation plan is the responsibility of the permitting authority. Accordingly, this wetland mitigation plan should be reviewed by the appropriate permitting authority prior to committing to detailed planning and design activities. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc24 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC References Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington REFERENCES Armour, Chad, LLC. 2004. Wetland Assessment and Delineation Services. J. C. Penney Distribution Center. Tukwila, Washington. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1988. Grading/Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan for Southcenter Plaza. Prepared for Spieker Properties. BRC (Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc.) 2004. Offsite Wetland Remediation, Southcenter Square, Wig Properties LLC. BRC. 2006. Personal Communication. Jay Decker, P. E., Senior Project Manager. Clark, D. 2004. Personal communication. Engineer II, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Stormwater Services Section, Drainage Investigation and Inspection Services. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Dames and Moore. 1986. Preliminary Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation report for the Proposed Target Department Store. Prepared for The Cafaro Company. Hall, F.C, L.W. Brewer, J.F. Franklin, and R.L. Werner. 1985 Chapter 2 — Plant Communities and Stand Conditions. In Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. R6-F&WL-192-1985. Hammer, D. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, and London. 298 pp. Howat, J. 2004. Personal communication. City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Hruby. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System — Western Washington Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Grosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 539pp. Partee, R. 2004. Personal communication. Fisheries Biologist, City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Raedeke Associates. 2002. Wetland Mitigation First -Year Monitoring Report. Building D — Emerald Corporate Park Off -site Mitigation. City of Auburn, Washington. Seattle Times. 2004, 2005, & 2006. Weather wrap-up. National Weather Service provided information taken at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Tukwila, City of. 2005. Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Watershed Dynamics. 1994. Tukwila Pond Wildlife Utilization and Habitat Evaluation. Prepared for the City of Tukwila Department of Recreation. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Habitats and Species Report and Map in the Vicinity of T23R04E Section 26. Whiting, S. 2006. Personal communication. Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. C:/JobsM/ig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Tables Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila. Washington Table 1 — Wetland Functional Assessment of Various Wetlands' a Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington Category I - score >70 Category II - score 51-69 Category III - score 30-50 Category IV - score <30 Wig Properties LLC-SS Table 2 — Pre- and Post -Construction Water Detention and Water Quality Comp i Detention 16,875cfa 96,900cfb +574% Water Qualit 1.16acc 15.6acd +1345% a Wetland A is covered with 6 inches of water over 75% of its surface Wetland B is covered with 6 inches of water over 50% of its surface Wetland C is covered with 6 inches of water over 100% of its surface Wetland D is covered with 6 inches of water over 100% of its surface Wetland E retains no surface water Wetland F is covered with 6 inches of water over 50% of its surface b Detention vault capacity is approximately 50,000cf Detention capacity of the created/enhanced wetland on the Mitigation site is 46,900cf Treatment surface area of the Penney site wetlands d New asphalt area with water quality treatment is 14ac Eliminated asphalt pavement is 1.6ac C:/JobsWig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Table 3 - Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations in the Tukwila Pond Mitigation Area BAN aslawm � G-1 t 19.7 15.6 17.4 G-2 18.9 19.3 19.3 Flooded; west of upland G-3 19.1 15.6 17.0 G-4 18.7 19.3 19.3 Flooded; west of upland G-5 21.8 17.6 18.0 G-6 20.7 19.2 19.1 G-7 18.4 19.2 19.2 Flooded; west of upland G-8 18.5 19.2 19.2 Flooded; west of upland G-9 20.0 16.0 17.5 G-10 17.5 18.1 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-11 13.5 17.9 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-12 16.6 17.5 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-13 18.0 18.1 18.4 Flooded; east of upland G-14 16.7 18.1 18.5 Flooded; east of upland S-1 16.5 18.1 18.5 Flooded; east of upland S-2 19.0 19.2 19.2 Flooded; west of upland G-12 water elevation interpolated because the 2006 measurement "off' Invert elevation of the flap gate -fitted culvert is18.8 feet C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington LO(0 (0 00 M 0') (o rl- to ('MNN C7 to M N cM u7 OD to 7 N IT N r- to N CM co (o U 't (o u7 'O -` (D N O O 'a N CO r- 0) L6 N �-OV- p N M M N (0 .: Q O � N N a r"�it E > a) O I Q ` to (o E aa) '(us o o 1- 07 ;N_ N_ I - a) ,^ a) O YC) 0 0 O F-:: N N J (A C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Table 5 — Functional Wildlife Habitat of Various Wetlands b� C1 #". Y�u 4• Sri Xt� n r ad� ,1EV� 4Y § .r.-�`^"' 3 Y �ticattol e F kp � t� 1te n }' r t C rs � ti g l 04 Rob � r�o1 1 K 1 Y,xYv AO - F" sTR Plant Diversity 7 8 3 11 Vegetation Height 4 7 1 6 Canopy Volume 4 7 1 6 Canopy Closure 4 8 1 6 Structural Diversity 5 5 1 7 Herbage production 8 10 5 12 Browse Production 4 7 1 9 Animal Diversity 6 8 2 11 Woody Debris 0 1 1 1 0 2 Total 1 42 1 61 1 15 1 70 a Hall et al, 1985 Penney site: grass-forb and open -sapling pole stand conditions Tukwila Pond site: open water, grass-forb, shrub, closed sapling -pole stand conditions Existing Mitigation site: grass-forb stand condition Mitigation site in 2015: open water, grass-forb, shrub, and open sapling -pole stand conditions C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS C:/Jobs/Wig/Revised Final Wetland Mitigation Plan.doc 08/10/06 Chad Armour, LLC Figures Oki nti_, '� �" -itS � � '>� I� ,S�f {�i � �� � t � i 4�' � sr I��,�ST � Vu Ne '..' r,.,ct jz ` Yyj y a •`F 4, J ; '�s � �.�•,xa a.�'�x"W'�,,.-�,�"'�`._,l d6TfR x fi �'Ilrf.? ge' tt�&y,r 1F ,�. ,ic c, TOW 4,'TM�,$` T r ,';iap ...tb F�. 'rC x IF�is S1 fi '' Ji y„ 1i615r s .,� f. i....'.f 'I+�tK'. �_ [ •� 5- i.'JT ] �� t ti fi. ky� 4'.tH1 ' ; ,'j. "—c * ;�.'�.-.,. t.... ;T.f6ft b "iil . ,fir »`ir."+K�k�6-n. '�•• fi �[{'.L^k }. �..'.. }/'��' 1� � AIC +,'"'l"wCY`.g M Tukwila Pond Site CC <' ' �ti"4ti 3�T1N `.itl` '�ygi` A `h°1' )'}'t� Itltilj 5 ta' �" r • d # • �! d r Pennv SiteY S [ W h ti Jam. t SF` c:.'i ✓. v,�' .CIA Y i {7 p�j�¢.�t� •�i Y�1{f%TtYAT�y�I I ;. AT Y.y .. lK!?U .i'.:. = A i. �fr. 'f "'^j YI }jy{}{� �. ,}�ay�,.. x.p z-�Y�"�#`f! +�.� �((# ::' �d"� �il.��n+we .✓-._nl.. -,N -L�s r t iiiti Sn S v ; aY ' IiLIi'IfYfi Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126 h Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 ,., . ............._. . _.........._.._............. ............. 9P2 Wetland F Wetland D (1,971 st) ,.._._....................... , C3;94,3 s1 j P-3 • - � Wetland E "��-.., Forest s{{ ' (179 si � / O P-5 �. : •' m' N Olt J • ' ' . ' ' �' Wetland A Forest' 1 • (13,718 st rye. •: � •FOFeSt+-+,����' iiiryK` ,.�.�'+ . i •,•" l • Wetland C ' (6,305 sfl f L'•'•' Wetland j 461 P9?�0� ° ::.-/* Forest 1• t "II • • • 11 P i i iJf; © t I I; ............. i.............. .... . : r w.—._ _� 24 _.__ .. •_.._._._sR INKLER BOULEVARD ------`- O P-1 Monitoring Well Designation and Location • SPA Plat ID Designation and Approximate Location 0 80 160 Photograph Number and Direction Survey Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Scale in Feet FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN (REVISED) Wig Properties Tukwila, Washington Chad Armour, LLC 6500 126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 DATE: DWG NAME: Propert ies\wiaDD2.dwo MM �1 . ........ r *G-1 Monitoring Well Number and Location 0 100 200 Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Scale in Feet FIGURE 3: UPLAND LOCATION PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 ft— —me M� DINGNAME:6:'Vr.'j;jt\Ci:i'e'n-t's-\"a'rmour\Vig ProperVe9\wiq010.dw9 14.00 12.00 r c 10.00 c 8.00 — 2004/2005 ° -e- Long -Term Average 6.00 2005/2006 4.00 •� a>' a` 2.00 0.00 eVQ� se� ��c1 �aA aSor PQ�` ��A 4 �0 �� �0 l Month FIGURE 4: COMPARATIVE PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS [6500 ad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 126Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington llevue, Washington 98006 F. 02d TREE WITH�FLDOBLE RUBBER APPROX. TIE IN FIGURE 1E EIGHT HEIGHT PATTERN. STAKES AND TREE PLUMB 3" DEEP SAUCER FOR WATER J> �C REMOVE ALL TIES, WRAP & CONTAINERS. FRE c PERIMETER ROOTS FROM NURSERY BALL EXCAVATE TREE PIT AT A MIN. OF 12 INCHE LARGER THAN ROOT BALL _ PR SPOILS, NURSERY BALL WASTE BACKFILL -� SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE, OR COMPACTED SOIL. o WORK PERIMETER ROOTS FREE OF NURSERY BALL & SPREAD OVER EXCAVATED PIT. BALL & PIT TO BE COURSELY SCARIR _ ___- DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL (6' TO 8' HEIGHT) SCALE: NONE 1/2" ABOVE GRADE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA I IIiT i � DO NOT DISTURB vrnv�s:s M.c x..,rrcrmro � rrr,rt .- i I i I � '----1l4" Hola 1" ABOVE GRADE Atr, sign to the p-t a?h metal wire. �— � PREPARED TYPICAL NOTES: PLANING o REMOVE CONTAINER & WORK R60TS B®7 _ FREE OF SOIL: SPREAD ROOTS INTO ,( EXCAVATION OBACKFILL TO BE SETTLED USING WATER ONLY LPBB 7FNN 11iA1_ i GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL I Z SCALE: NONE :,&w Name omnwn lane Em rgera ScrubsY W —t,J Srj irl Sz ✓v r I w fla it "Nt1 7 iti' z, S:�','k"r�_ ks .rh.e$P'.;v-S°ti"•.%;,.i...'ee.:�.. < 5 tLh.a rvJ alCd: 4-1 -us tat "Ja Crego r s C- 1 a a1 lxib `,>s t am faa d ck otar+md 3 0' CC 1 S cal C?.b .. _ 440 x 3' "b c -b I rn 1 --- aI rus stermter zd i� aog-r'd 3S 5 ix c ? g_!iu Ilan u.lelc-d s• rrvU..c as G k fvlrrGer/ 3G 6' x gafiu I"nn d a rpos copiP 'ru i'aci:c'ie30 x ga an tkrk <,'.',/. P T.ers /Ilrn•I 124 - ' CX' 4 .irGs i scam l*.fHl I ISICr6. z Ik315' Slk dll 1:. _. C*C ,> c t: w7 :Is LJWI IVs"_eel ob w a dy- 03. 24 n': [. 4, axstpUa sankrea':cs dae 1a..8 5538 24 G(: tr I ::IB ps a espi,csa trsed K- •rJ _ (` 15 u2 '1. sax Ima�N:zs SPPd I r. s xtmsr ustri om mon Sp nsh_ 1894 _ 24'0C k I dj rt >ona +arlr� xr ma^ gahN cr•r I g^ leer eel a ern 0.3 O.3 0 4 sepal ^-v>cast eed v er -4th 1 ail - - h 1 7 a u _ena 9rar,.tis r d rti� grb ., 1 8 1 B 2 3 asl ad ar.er , 7rs cy)rur s nr 1 a s 950 _ t arts aR err hu rt�n 950 x a us at>emaa'r .. t E •3 sJ ..'ems km xis syzrg clu>z Am scan r e sl whg ass 06 1Ycy d d VJetla d t Oad zs seed �G 1 401� a Cllal'i'Jsa LaSpli('S3 rIF'etl tG LJ2en GBd aC rieg deC �UP[aIA I ,Y 1, 20l0401[ N. rnve gl u.us hltti +rldrve 0.80 a ra Deg cded Wedard sec ,.,_ e caa' cst eW 20 to 401 ac saver occMercaris wesrem mannagrass 0.68 aorp Cey �O.d VJeLarcr eeC m ur r aca ad' 2, to 40 I1x' I t 'rr.rhynlnanm maadev tE 2" 0.b2 cr C�rztled lUatlard �mv.� 1 ^a :cos ead 0iu_401ts Vvetland ' _ _- u atinn Limits _ s ; Area (a Open Water (OW) _. _ _.... ... -- Existing Degraded Wetland 15.2'-17.2' .._.. - --- 17.7'-20.0' 40 170 38 473 0.92 ._.._ I 0.88 Emergent (EM) 17.2'-17.7' 22,779 j 0.52 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 17.7'-18.2' 22.152 0.51 Forested (FO) 18.2'-19.2' 287157 I 0.615 total 1 MITIGATION AREA "iK r•L-tdry "EX IS 0 l-- Grrnmd Surface I i I SIGN DETAIL SCALE: NONE METAL WIRE AND ANCHOR LOG LENGTH: 10' - 30' LOG DIAMETER: 6" - 12" LOG DETAIL SCALE: NONE FENCE DETAIL SCALE: NONE FINAL GRADE TUKWILA DIRECT BURY SNAG IN EXCAVATION SOIL BACKFlLL COMPACTED TO 95%. NOTE I0 SNAGS TO BE A VARETY OF SPECIES 94CLWIMG LIVE CUT AND SNAGS OF SEVERAL YEARS WITH SOW WOOD. HABITAT SNAG SCALE: NONE STIN i fi Ir 3 �111�: t EXISTING r r fl` FO .� EXISTING ,•' "' DEGRADER 'f ° WETLAND' f .. ll?.. I' AT� .1a t 1 -EXISTING r+ { • , - „ OW F9- + r OW ig2 A - + < a + -- 7 pa2T3ry �`tvF�_� OW — EXISTING 17� --` `` �.. 18XETING _ _ 1 r _ — �7 _•.,E d _ _ — ra--- a".� +.Jj_'t z - -" _ + SIGN (TYP.) PLANTING PLAN 0 40 so Scale In Feet -- FENCE TFT i !.'t' .' FLAP GATE CMP JOHEI 18.81 V W " I 1 l ITIi to *! 9 all f _:Q � LLJ I > O I Z I Q i F Pi. P, -:. ARD a PL-44Y 'rV H FIGURE 6: PLANTING PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC—SS 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 LSource: Bush, Roed & H•Itchings, Inc. DWG NAME: G: ,�pproject\Clients\armour\Wig Properties\wig009.dwg DATE: 07%06,706 10:37am Appendix A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination of the Wetlands on the Penney Site DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF S` 20-04 Regulatory Branch Wig Properties LLC Mr. Mon. Wig 4811 — 134th P1ace.Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Mr. Wig: Reference: 200400822 Wig Properties LLC On July 29, 2004, we inspected the property at Tukwila, King County, Washington in response to your request for verification of the wetlands delineation presenter) in the wetlands delineation report dated July 2004, prepared by Chad Armour LLC. Your wetland delineation indicated that you believed some of the wetlands in question were "isolated" and outside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction. We have confirmed that wetlands, indicated on the enclosed drawing, exist on your property and that some of these areas are not isolated wetlands and some are isolated wetlands. Our inspection revealed that for wetland "D" there is an existing surface hydrology connection with. the Green River (via stormwater facilities), a regulated water of the U.S. This delineated wetland appears to flow off site through an .existing stormwater drain on the western edge of the property to the local stormwater system. This conveyance (stormwater system) has replaced the historic .natural drainage for the area and is considered to be a surface water connection to the Green River (approximately 0.5 miles downstream from the site). As such, this wetland is regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For wetlands "A", "B", "C", "B", and "F", there is no existing surface hydrology connection with stormwater facilities or any other water of the U.S that we can verify at this time. These Wetlands are considered to be "isolated" and do not fall under Section 404 jurisdiction. Please note that only the Corps makes the determination if a wetland or waterbody is a "water of the United States". Other state and. local regulations may still apply to these isolated wetlands. For example, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulates isolated wetlands. The enclosed Ecology letter and Ecology Focus sheet explain how Ecology regulates isolated wetlands. You should contact Ecology's Permit Assistance Center at. 800 917-0043 or ec ( ) ypacna,ecy wa•gov for more information on how to obtain State approval for your project. We are sending a copy of this letter to Ecology and to the Environmental Protection Agency's Aquatic Resources Unit. -2- This approved jurisdictional determination is valid for a period of 5 years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of our determination. You have the right to appeal this determination (for wetland "D") pursuant to the. requirements of the enclosed Administrative Appeal Rule package. A copy of this letter with enclosures will.be furnished to Chad Armouu� 6500 — 126t' Avenue, Bellevue, Washington 98006. If you have any questions about this letter or any aspect of our regulatory program, please contact please contact Suzanne Skadowski, at telephone (206) 764-6984 or email Suzanne.A.SkadowskiOnws02 usace army mil . Sincerely, Thomas F. Mueller Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures 5257 a- r:a 2 a c w i 35 ,Ridge. I 60 ark Y feeY APP: h) oroper-t CS I -LC Ref 200e/00822- d-46-e IS: of Sotdk en +-, Pkwy -4 Mihk w (tj ,4. 1 /iiit, Counfy, , W x rk7r. qw- 4%1. Y7- 2( - S8. -5 Lori . •//aA - / 5 -2 Y. 5 Scc. 26 Se T. 23N A.ZIF Aqua: 29 Tu(y 2ooy $'%teat'`' / of 2- 11 • Southconier Mall -- If 61 27 30" 5256 TEcT SITE 5 55 ■15254 T23N L22N ,:?53 eSG-S AS MOMe-S G&tAd . )Corr TV'kSdj*0Q 3 © ~ (Solaced &P-2 Wetland F Wetland D (1,971 so lAia.{Zr 3, SO .1 -, to P.3 R ;vim: - r Wetland E Forest (179 sQ / P/7 Wetland AFore i 'F:'SA.• •. ! (13,718so . y 'Forest' • ::. f , . .' . • . - c° z-BP-Iti : :. a F • 'I. etland B P-s. •d - Lv g ! • (24,461 sQ ISa 2 cai . f etland C • • (3,953 sQ era • 0 SP-2 P-11 •r . , - - •l\`_ i X -1- M '' l ..-. © -1 .© P-12,9 &P-1 Piezometer Designation and location MINKLER BOULEVARD • SP-1 Plot ID Designation and Approximate Location 0 80 160 0 Photograph Number and Direction Survey Source: Bush, Roed & I-1ftchings, Inc. Scale in Feet FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN pr s 0 ;Z-tee-s No j aYo,OfZ2 P Chad Armour, LLC . .Wig Properties' 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 DATE OB/29/0 4 2 59pm DWG NAME: G.\prukcl \C2JU \amourVAg PraperGes\wigbo1,dw9 -Shea& 2 of 2 tea` STAr.. O,(, O d i J _ S t S �f Z n 3h< fee➢ a°~ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington ! 8SO4-7600 (360) 407-6000 • TOD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006 August 21, 2001 RE: Isolated Wetlands Dear Interested Parties: A U.S. Supreme Court decision last January regarding how isolated wetlands are regulated by federal agencies has generated a lot of questions by landowners and developers. I wanted to let you know how this Court decision affects state regulations. The court ruled that the federal Clean Water Act does not apply to "isolated" wetlands where the only interstate -commerce connection is use by migratory birds. Isolated wetlands are those that are not adjacent or connected to a navigable water body, such as a river, lake or marine waters. However, they still perform the same important environmental functions as other wetlands, including recharging streams and aquifers, storing flood waters, filtering pollutants from water, and providing habitat for a host of plants and animals. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no longer has regulatory oversight of most isolated wetlands — although a. Corps permit is still required for isolated wetlands with other interstate -commerce use (e.g., recreation, industrial, etc.) and for wetlands that are connected to a navigable water body. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not change Washington state laws. on wetlands.. The state Clean Water Act makes -no distinction between types of wetlands. All "waters of the state" are covered by the law, and that includes isolated wetlands. Additionally, isolated wetlands in Washington also are regulated under the state's Growth Management Act (GMA). Thus, most projects that affect isolated wetlands should be regulated by the applicable city or. county. It's not always easy to tell if a wetland is isolated. Landowners who want to develop a wetland they believe is isolated should contact the Corps of Engineers and request a formal "jurisdictional determination" to avoid future legal problems and fines. The state Department of Ecology (Ecology) will continue regulating all wetlands — including isolated wetlands -- and applying the water quality standards called for in the state law. However, the department's process for reviewing projects involving isolated wetlands will now be different from the process for other types of wetlands. 0 Isolated Wetlands August 21, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Instead of using the 401 Water Quality Certification process (triggered by a 404 permit from the Corps),. Ecology will use administrative orders to regulate projects involving isolated wetlands. An administrative order is a written document that specifies what must be done to comply with the state water quality standards. The basic review standards will remain the same as with a 401 certification, but the process will be more streamlined, since federal agencies will not be involved in reviewing the projects. To seek an administrative order for a project that will affect isolated wetlands, landowners should contact the Permit Assistance Center at the Department of Ecology after receiving a written determination from the Corps that the wetland is, in fact, isolated. The phone number is 800-917-0043 or 360-407-7037, and the e-mail address is ecypac@ecy.wa.gov. More information is available on our web site at www.ecy. wa. gov/programs/sea/pac. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues in more detail please contact Andy McMillan on my staff at 360/407-7272 or anmc461 @ecy.wa.gov or contact me at 360/407-6977 or gwhi461 @ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, AdOoVnW-Ohlite Program Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Focus tS SIIISIII TIS c'o'�`0IY Isolated Wetlands -Changes in the Regulatory Process Supreme Court Decision A U.S. Supreme Court decision last January regarding how wetlands are regulated has generated a lot of questions by landowners and developers. The court ruled that the federal Clean Water Act does not apply to those "isolated" wetlands where the only interstate commerce connection is use by migratory birds.. This ruling overturned 15 years of regulation of isolated wetlands by the U.S. -Army Corps of Engineers. While the court did not define the term "isolated," the Corps has previously considered isolated wetlands to be those that are not adjacent to or connected via surface water to a navigable water body, such as a river, lake or marine waters. Changes in Regulatory Process Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, federal agencies no longer have regulatory oversight of these important environmental resources. More specifically, landowners no longer need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill in most isolated wetlands - although a Corps permit is still required for isolated wetlands with other interstate commerce use (recreation, industrial, etc.) as well as wetlands that are connected to a navigable water body. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not change Washington state laws on wetlands. The state Clean Water Act (90.48 RCW) makes no rdistinction between types of wetlands. Rather, all "waters of the state" are covered by the law, and isolated wetlands are considered waters of the state. It's not always easy to tell if a wetland is isolated. Landowners who want to develop an isolated wetland should contact the Corps of Engineers and request a formal jurisdictional determination to avoid arty future legal problems and fines. Why Regulate Isolated Wetlands? Isolated wetlands in Washington perform many of the same important environmental functions. as other wetlands, including recharging streams and aquifers, storing.flood waters, filtering pollutants from water, and providing habitat for a host of plants and animals. Many wildlife species, including amphibians and waterfowl, are particularly dependent on isolated wetlands for breeding and foraging. June 2001 Publication #00-06-020 State Process •;• Any project that calls for filling or altering a wetland determined by the Corps to be isolated will still be subject to regulation by the state. The state's process for reviewing projects that involve isolated wetlands. will be different from the 401 Water Quality Certification process that is triggered by the Corps' 404 permit. Rather, Ecology will use administrative orders to regulate projects that will have impacts to isolated wetlands. The standards of review will remain the same as under 401 water -quality certifications - that is, the state water -quality standards for surface waters (WAC 173-201A): Anyone who wants more information about the review standards should obtain the following two publications: Water Quality Guidelines for Wetlands, Publication # 96-06; and How Ecology Regulates Wetlands, Publication # 97-112. These can be obtained by contacting Jean Witt at 360-407-7472 or jewi461@ecy.wa.gov. To seek an administrative order for a project that involves isolated wetlands, landowners should contact the Permit Assistance Center at the Department of Ecology, where our staff will guide you through the regulatory process. The phone number is 800-917-0043 or 360-407-7037, and the e-mail address is ecypac@ecy.wa.gov: GMA Reeulations Additionally, applicants should be aware that isolated wetlands in Washington also are regulated under the state's Growth Management Act. Thus, projects with impacts to isolated wetlands typically will require approval from the applicable city or county. lune2001 Publication #01-06-020 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation Chad Armour From: "Chad Armour' <chad@chadarmour.com> To: "Stetz, Theodore J NWS" <Theodore.J.Stetz@NWS02.usace.army.mil>; "Skadowski, Suzanne A NWS" <Suzanne. A. Skadowski@NWS02. usace. army.mil> Cc: "Mon Wig" <monwig@wigproperties.com>; "Leshya Wig" <leshyawig@wigproperties.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Wig Properties Thanks TJ. --- Original Message ---- From: Stetz. Theodore J NWS To: 'Chad Armour; Skadowski. Suzanne A NWS Cc: Stetz, Theodore J NWS ; 'riro461 ecy.wa.gov' Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: RE: Wig Properties Chad - yes that is correct if the Penney property is the Wig property in South Center that we looked at. Storm water and water quality functions should be dealt with on site, but compensatory mitigation for other functions, like habitat, should be done offsite to avoid creating a postage stamp mitigation area in a development. TJ -----Original Message ----- From: Chad Armour [mailto:chad@chadarmour.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:30 PM To: Skadowski, Suzanne A Cc: Stetz, Theodore 3 Subject: Wig Properties Hi Suzanne - We would like to reference the Corps in the final version of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Wig Properties. The reference I refer to is a comment made by T.J. when we were on the Penney site this past July. If I recall correctly, T. J. said in effect that the Corps would prefer that Wig Properties mitigate for impacts to wetlands on a site other than the Penney site. Is this a correct interpretation of T. J.'s remark? Thanks, Chad Armour 6500126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 fax www.chadarmour.com 10/13/2004 Washington Department of Ecology Recommendation for Off -Site Mitigation i46V i u1L Chad Armour From: "Robohm, Richard" <RIR0461@ECY.WA.GOV> To: "'Chad Armour"' <chad@chadarmour.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:44 PM Subject: RE: Penney Mitigation ratio Chad, This is to confirm that a 3 to 1 ratio of rehabilitation -enhancement to wetland fill would be adequate (although minimal) for the J.C. Penney site. This is acceptable for the following reasons: 1) The wetlands to be filled: • are Category IV; • are of low quality; • are surrounded by development and partially isolated hydrologically; and • developed on fill. 2) The wetlands to be enhanced: • will be substantially rehabilitated; and • will be monitored for 10 years to ensure mitigation success. 3) Onsite stormwater detention and treatment will provide a significant and demonstrable lift in ecological benefit over the predevelopment condition. Regards, Richard K. Robohm Wetland Specialist Department of Ecology 425-649-4447 -----Original Message ----- From: Chad Armour [mailto:chad@chadarmour.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:46 AM To: Robohm, Richard Cc: Mon Wig; leshya Wig Subject: Penney Mitigation ratio Hello Richard - Thanks again for meeting with John Weed and myself the other day. I think that you will find the revise mitigation plan will be more robust than the initial one. Can you in a separate email confirm that Ecology supports the 3:1 mitigation ratio for the Wig project. Refer to the table to see the 'lift' we are providing for detention and water quality. Thanks, Chad Armour 6500126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 10/13/2004 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 39 Notification Chad Armour From: "Skadowski, Suzanne A NWS" <Suzanne.A. Skadowski@nws02. usace. army.mil> To: "'Chad Armour"' <chad@chadarmour.com> Cc: "Stetz, Theodore J NWS" <Theodore.J.Stetz@nws02.usace. army. mil> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:49 PM Subject: RE: Penney Site - US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 39 Notification Hi Chad, I concur with your assessment. Please note that the applicant is ultimately responsible for determining that the proposed work meets all of the NWP 39 regional and national terms and conditions, if you choose not to submit a request for NWP verification from the Corps. However, from your description, it seems that you would meet the general terms of the NWP 39 and the post -construction notification. Suzanne Skadowski Project Manager, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Telephone: 206 764-6984 -----Original Message ---- From: Chad Armour (mailto:chad@chadarmour.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:40 PM To: Suzanne Skadowski Subject: Penney Site - US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 39 Notification Hi Suzanne - According to the Federal Register that describes the permitting rules for Nationwide Permits, Section 39. Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments, subsection i states "For discharges causing the loss of 1/10 acre or less of waters of the United States, the permittee must submit a report, within 30 days of completion of the work, to the District Engineer that contains the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; (2) The location of the work; (3) A description of the work; (4) The type of acreage of the loss of waters of the United States (e.g., 1/12 acre of emergent wetlands); and (5) The type of acreage of any compensatory mitigation used to offset the loss of waters of the United States (e.g., 1/12 acre of emergent wetland created on -site)". Because the Corps ruled on September 15, 2004 that only Wetland D on the Penney site is jurisdictional (i.e., regulated by the Corps), and Wetland D covers 3,943 square feet (which is less than 1/10 acre), Wig is required to notify the District Engineer according to Section 39, subsection i. That is, Wig is required to notify the Corps of their Penney site Wetland D alteration activities within 30 days after the work is completed. Do you concur? Chad Armour 6500126th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 (425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 fax www.chadarmour.com 10/13/2004 Appendix B Wetland Rating for the Penney Site DRAFT WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): 'e—v, h 51 1 1:!�, Location: SEC:, Persons) Rating Wetland: �2AWAffiliation: Date of v NsHP?�_UAGE: Attach map with outline of wetland to rating form) �� �� f siteisit: 1^1 -1 i n /Zi:U .�5 f �/ U�c DRAFT SU]�7:MARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I fI III IV Score for Water Quality Functions Category I = Score :>70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hvdrologic FUnctions Category III = Score 30-50 Score for H.abiiat Functions � Catekory IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for functions 3 Category based on SPECIAL CHAR% TI+:RIS'I'!CS of �ietland I II Does not Apply Final Category° (choose the " higiiesel ��ategory from above)El Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Rna Lake Fringe Mature Forest 5to e Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form —western Washington DRAFT I April 2004 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Al. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the x appropriate state or federal database. A2. Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. A3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? %( A4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions. For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands 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 DRAFT 2 April 2004 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: i ► "� t' Date: 7j 1. As water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during oods)? O 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. Is the topography within th et d flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. NO — go to 3 YES he wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than I foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope S. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 3 April 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 ES The wetland class is Depressional�MU f) 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomotphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. + Riverine + Depressional + Lake Fringe ssional + Riverine along stream within ssional + Lake Fringe Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Riverine Lake F Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT April 2004 that wetland functions to improve .. - .�77-; -. have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 37) D D 1. Does the wetland D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet p Dints = 3 D Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet, or outlet is a ditch oints D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). point = 4 D YES Dints = 0 NO E LIJ Q 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or fores c ass): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area;✓�; 7 `,points Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 _ Wetland has persistent, ungraz A vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/Z total area of wetland .� 5-4 points Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text for indicators of seasonal and permanent inundation.. Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 43) 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. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 f2 — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, Zes,idential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging esidential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland YES Other multiply score in D 1 by 2 NO multiply score in D 1. 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT S April 2004 u 5 multiplier to D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetlan Wetland has no surface water outlet q ( b �-�` �' ` points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 Wetland is flat and drains by surface flow or a ditch points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet (see text for description of measuring height). Marks of ponding are at least 3 ft above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks are at least 2 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 6 in. ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 No marks of ponding above 6 in., or wetland has only saturated soils points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 l'l �1 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 48) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other (Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such l as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland ' om groundwater) YES multiply score in D 3 by 2 NO multiply score in D 3 by 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 , I �f Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 6 April 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable HABITAT )+UNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 68) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or V, acre. quatic bed -44mergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) rested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualms. If you have: 4 r more points = 4 3 types points = 2 types points = 1 1 tvne Mints = 0 H 1.2. Hydrogeriods_(See p. 69) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y4 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) ermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 resent points = 2 ccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types resent point = 1 Saturated only 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 _Yreshwater tidal wetland = 2 points H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 71) 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 - List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points - < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 13 April 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (Seep. 72) Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels) High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 73) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream 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 At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present 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 H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat I Add the scores in the column above Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 14 April 2004 H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 75) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively,undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the three criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 fe.g. grazing in buffer. Points =1 ated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference lled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetlandPoints = 0. does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 76) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively uridis and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands i that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an I undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) 3NOH 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 ofArtakq greater than 20 acres? YES oint NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form - western Washington DRAFT 15 April 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 77) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or fortis form the natural climax plant community. 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. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5% during the period of average annual low now. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). 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 habi s = 0 oin Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 16 April 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (see p. 79) 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 '/z mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetland within '/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within %2 mile. poin 2 There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I 4 I Add the scores in the column above Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on I D. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 17 April 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. ........._ �af�gQry �7 rt thti a21 j� C3 am'6.7" ...'ircl7': t3te C#PprOptF�ite �'aleg4l = SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 81) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO _ SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II 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 (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least '/, of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 82) SC 2. Is the wetland on record with the Washington Natural Heritage Program as a Cat. I high quality native wetland? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Checked data CD from DNR Appendix E_ Letter from DNR YES = Category I NO _ Wetland Rating Form — western Washington DRAFT 18 April 2004 Wetland Rating for the Tukwila Pond Site WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): i-� t v (� �. 0 K 0� S / r Location: SEC: P-6rWNSHP: — RNGE: (attach map with outline of wetland to rating form) r C_.fit of / 1 �wo�.� l L1_e— Person(s) Rating Wetland:Ay-Kk k Affiliation: Date of site visit: _ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on UNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV Score for Water Quality Functions Category 1=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 Category based on SPECIAL CHARA TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) [Jr] Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Depressi Riverine Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 Category based on SPECIAL CHARA TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) [Jr] Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Depressi Riverine Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal 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 been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland 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 H dy rogeomorphic 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 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: q //C5 1. Ar water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? O 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. I topography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Q.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 wetland meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 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). ONOgo to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is qo1Xqoding. NO go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland loca(teU In a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO —go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic 1( D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). lI YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 DI A Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/z total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text or indicators o seasonal andpermanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity 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 of pollutants. —�irazing in the wetland or within 150 ft :/ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Iled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES ulti Tier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 2— 2— - Add score to table on . 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 �j} r�e�, jyFL`> 0-, rs Jav':.ri�gi,•lN OR'';. D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?w see .46 -e D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points = 5 '57- Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 �(J The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 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. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. AWetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems ✓ Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YE multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add to table 1 j 4 score on p. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable i i F� m Sot i �..,"r tk) „Y H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species?*a$ H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or '/4 acre. Aquatic bed v mergent plants Grub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ✓ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 types or more points = 4 3 types points = 2 2 types points = 1 1 type points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for de criptions of hydroperiods) Zermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 7seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 Saturated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = I < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points ............ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation /extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream for at least 33 ft (l Om) ,_/Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for enning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present At least''/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 Z H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunityto provide habitat for many species? ' H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 - egetated 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 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO — go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undist nd unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbe corrt or as in the question above? YES 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 I tland: 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 oint - . NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - O 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat =1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within %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 %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetland within '/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within '/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/2 mile. points = 0 I H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above I Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on / P. 1 / Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = NO Ro to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/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 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating UII 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 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 .HP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO _ SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. l . Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a fiel e to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No(ygo to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland 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)? 4. YES = Category I No Y Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO ✓ 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 ynar t of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NOot 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 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II I Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES.- go to SC 6.1 NO _ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Gray land -Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 1.09 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. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Fonn — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III u� Wetland. Rating for the Mitigation Site Existing Conditions WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): 6— Location: SEC: 4/0TWNSHP: _ RNGE: _ (attach map with out 'ne of wetland to rating form) Person(s) Rating Wetland: Affiliation: Date of site visit: _ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNC IONS 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 j Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions a Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for functions e� Z Category based on SPECIAL CHAR7TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not -Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Estuarine Ue resswnai Natural Heritage Wetland I I Riverine Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form — western Washington I August 2004 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal 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 been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of'the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland beingrated ated. 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 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: 1. A water levels in the wetland 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. Is a opography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. 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 wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 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). 0!o to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is n ooding. NO -)go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES — he wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) , D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out 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 > '/x total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text or indicators o seasonal and permanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity 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 of pollutants. razing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland %Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland —/ A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen —2- - Other YES -multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL_- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 ` c/ Add score to table on P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? see .46 D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = i Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 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. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. /Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems �e Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems 2 -,---Other YES multi Tier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or Y4 acre. Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 types or more points = 4 3 types points = 2 2 types points = 1 1 tvne points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) �rmanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 asonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 o-oasi onally flooded or inundated 2 types present point= 1 aturated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below ifyou want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (see A 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = I point N ' Moderate = 2 points .a r✓ t � Mai [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (see p. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>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 (I m) over a stream for at least 33 ft (I 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 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 H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat s� Add the scores in the column above o� Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistu and to 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 ' or as in the question above? ES — 2 oints (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is t et and: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. 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. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within %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''/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- ZI fringe wetland within %2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within '/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I I Add the scores in the column above I Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on I / I P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Catep-ory I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/a of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington is August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II 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 being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (t is question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact NHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES_ — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. I. Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland 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)? 4. YES = Category I No 11snot a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO ✓ SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO ✓ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least'/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called th Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO _ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III Wetland Rating for the Mitigation Site Conditions as Projected in 2015 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Name of wetland (if known): (�t� � W 11.0, . vcia eQ I `�'l 4 1c"-t �'e. �Ip fv3 e4l;e-, Z,mj 4 r apt -i) Location: SEC: 2-/0TWNSHP: _ RNGE: — (attach map with outline of wetland to rating form) Person(s) Rating Wetland: Affiliation:�q Q� Date of site visit: SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on UNCTIONS 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 6 Category based on SPECIAL CHARA TERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 r� Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP 1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal 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 been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland 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. Ll To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands 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 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: Date: 1. Ar a water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? O 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. Is a opography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. NO go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats f your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a Swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 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). ("_go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is n oding. O go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. his means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 (�YESThe wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. 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. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic D (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). \) YES C 0'\N e l^ N N ei� E, J points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland haspersistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 D I A Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > %z total area of wetland points = 4 I Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 % Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 NOTE: See text for indicators o seasonal and permanent inundation.. D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above !� D D 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity 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 followin conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. razing in the wetland or within 150 ft —✓✓✓ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland ::%Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ftof wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other Z YES multi lier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 E301 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seen. 46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland 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 itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5 The the basin is 10 100 Q area of to times the area of the wetland points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0 Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland, by definitionpoints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. 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. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. �etland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Z ther YES multiplier is 2 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 Pages 7 through 12 are not applicable H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? j. H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers afore than 10% of the area of the wetland or % acre. ,A/ quatic bed _Yifnergent plants ,,//Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) rested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) J' Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 types or more points = 4 /r 3 types points = 2 2 types points = 1 1 e oints = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for dewrtptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 S/ easonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 V(ccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 / turated only 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 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (see p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. r= z ..........Y,x NEW None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points \ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is / the number of points you put into the next column. �Stnding , downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). 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 xtends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream for at least 33 ft (I Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for nning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present /At' least''/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by ,eimphibians) _ / Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants I H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 14 August 2004 H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. 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 developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water' > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistu and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbe or as in the question above? YES 1.2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is a 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 : NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland? (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. 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. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within % 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 %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within'/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetland within %2 mile points = 3 There is at least I wetland within %2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within % mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on i Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. / YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 R 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 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating UII 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 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 i,NNP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _VV or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) 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 wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland 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)? 4. YES = Category I No Y Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I T 7I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO 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 measured ne� r the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO r/not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the estern Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores -Copal is- 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. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III Nlk CHAD ARMOUR, LLC 65001261hAvenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941 (425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 Fax chad@chadarmour.com July 2, 2004 Job No. 04-0004 Mr. Mon Wig Wig Properties LLC-SS 4811 134'h Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Wetland Assessment and Delineation Services J.C. Penney Distribution Center Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Wig: We are pleased to present the results of our wetland assessment and delineation efforts for the above -referenced property. The work was accomplished in accordance with our proposal (No. 108) dated April 17, 2004 and your verbal request when we spoke in the field on April 20, 2004. The purpose of the work was to identify the location, class, and buffer requirements of on -site wetlands as well as likely permitting requirements. The report is organized in sections and includes: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents a synopsis of the pertinent issues related to wetlands; SITE DESCRIPTION of the subject property and adjacent properties; PROJECT UNDERSTANDING that summarizes your intent; BACKGROUND INFORMATION that presents existing information about the site; SITE CONDITIONS that presents our site observations; ON -SITE WETLANDS describes the wetlands present on the site; ON -SITE UPLANDS describes the uplands present on the site; REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS presents some of the regulatory issues that may affect site development; CONCLUSIONS that summarizes our findings; and LIMITATIONS of this project. A list of references, tables, figures, and appendices follow the text. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the precipitation reported by a nearby weather station. Table 3 is a list of the plants observed on the site. Depth to groundwater is presented in Table 4. Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map showing the location of the site. Figure 2 is a Site Plan that shows the location of wetlands, sampling points, and other pertinent site features. The soil type mapped for the site is shown on Figure 3. Appendix A contains our sensitive areas assessment methods and field data forms. Groundwater charts are presented in Appendix B. C:/Jobs/... nMg/Wetland Report.doc 1 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Wig Properties is considering purchasing the J. C. Penney's (Penney) 18.77-acre (ac) Tukwila distribution center. The western approximately 13.77 ac is the location of the distribution center. The eastern approximately 5 ac is the location of immature deciduous forest and meadow plant communities that developed on fill soils. These soils were placed on the site some 35 years ago. Six isolated wetlands covering 1.11 ac are located on Penney property. Based on the City of Tukwila's (Tukwila) proposed wetland regulations, four of these wetlands meet the criteria for Type 3 wetlands and two wetlands are unregulated. The four regulated wetlands occupy 1.06 ac and are to be protected by a buffer at least 25-feet wide. The Penney wetlands exhibit low wetland functions. According to Tukwila's proposed sensitive areas regulations, isolated Type 3 wetlands can be altered. However, compensatory mitigation is required. Mitigation is allowed either on or off of the site. The replacement ratio for creating new wetlands in lieu of altering wetlands is1.5:1. If the enhancement alternative is selected, then the replacement ratio is 3:1. It is possible that a permit to alter wetlands may be required by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). SITE DESCRIPTION The Penney property is the location of a warehouse distribution center and under developed land. It is located on the corner of SouthCenter Parkway and Minkler Road in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). We understand that the under developed portion of the distribution center (site) occupies about 5 acres. Today the site is the location of small patches of immature deciduous trees, dense shrubs, and open fields of grass. It is also the location of piles of pea gravel, pallets, and waste concrete and asphalt. The site is completely surrounded by concrete or asphalt, with the closest natural area being the Tukwila Pond, which is located about 800 feet to the north. Precipitation appears to be the sole source of hydrology for the site. Seasonal standing water is common in deep ruts gouged into the fill soil by all terrain vehicles and motorcycles. It is also common in one area dominated by trees. No surface water flows on to the site, but it does flow from Wetland D into a regional detention pond following prolonged periods of precipitation. No surface water flows off of the site from the other on -site wetlands. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that Wig Properties LLC-SS is considering purchasing the Penney distribution center in Tukwila. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In February 2003, under contract with Penney, we visited the site to conduct a wetland reconnaissance. The results of the reconnaissance were inconclusive although hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology appeared to be present on portions of the site (Armour, 2003). C:/Jobs/... /Wg/Wetland Report.doc 2 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Shortly after completing the reconnaissance and prior to conducting hydrology monitoring we studied historical aerial photographs (Walker & Associates, 2003) and soil maps (Moseman, 1952) to more fully understand the history of the site. Based on this information we discovered that: • From at least 1936 through 1960 the site was the location of an agricultural operation; • A former channel of the Green River looped through the site; • Most of the site soils were previously mapped as hydric; and • The site was filled by 1969. In the mid- to late-1960s, Penney developed their Tukwila distribution center and in the process, filled the entire property, including the 5-acre site. The fill, some of which likely buried native hydric soil, raised the grade of the site as much as 10 feet. In 2003 we installed 12 piezometers distributed throughout the site to assess shallow groundwater on the site. Beginning March 31 and ending April 28, we measured the water level in the piezometers 5 times. In western Washington it is typically wet from November through April and dry from July through September. As indicated in Table 1, the 2002/2003 rainy season was slightly drier than normal — with both excessively dry and excessively wet periods (Seattle Times, 2003). If not for the 5-inch rain event that occurred in October 2003, the 2003/2004 rainy season would be considerably drier than it was (Table 2). The three- month period February through April alone represented a deficit of more than 5 inches of precipitation (Seattle Times, 2004). SITE CONDITIONS For our February 2003 reconnaissance -level of observation, we assessed the vegetation, soils, and hydrology at three locations on the site (Figure 2). One observation point occurred in the meadow plant community. Two additional observation points were located in forested areas — areas that support trees greater than 20 feet tall. A partial list of plant species observed on the site is presented in Table 3. Meadow Plant'Community The vegetation in the area adjacent to Minkler Road is dominated by bentgrass (Agrostis sp., FAC) (Appendix A — Plot ID SP-1). In addition to bentgrass, plants typically present in the meadow plant community that exhibit wetland conditions include soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW), other rush species (Juncus sp.), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii, FACW), and Watson's willow -herb (Epilobium watsonii, FACW). We observed standing water in a nearby rut and observed saturated soils beginning 9 inches below the ground surface (saturated soil to the ground surface is typically indicative of wetland hydrology). The soil was obviously fill, but had hydric soil characteristics (e.g., low chroma color and mottling to the soil surface). Forested Plant Community Slightly to the north of Plot ID SP-1, black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC) trees averaging about 6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) (range 1 to 12 inches dbh) C:/Jobs/... lWgMetland Report.doc 3 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington and bentgrass dominate. Other plant species present in lesser amounts include willow (Salix sp., FAC), soft rush, water foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus, OBL), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) and orchard -grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU) (Plot ID SP-2). The upper couple of inches of soil were saturated but the deeper soil was only damp. One tenth of an inch of rain was recorded at SeaTac International Airport (SeaTac) for the 14-day period February 1 through February 14, 2003. Over an inch of rain (1.08 in) was recorded at SeaTac for the 3-day period immediately prior to our February 18 site reconnaissance. The olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) soil possessed distinct mottles at depth imbedded within a relatively light colored soil. We assessed another grove of trees dominated by black cottonwood near the east central portion of the site. Other plant species present at this location in limited quantities include red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera, FACW), bentgrass, hawthorn (Crataegus sp., FACU+), Himalayan blackberry, Pacific madrona (Arbutus menziesii, NI), English ivy (Hedera helix, NI), and Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU) (Plot ID SP-3). Here the upper 3 inches of soil (decomposed and undecomposed leaves) was saturated, but like the soil observed in the previously described grove of black cottonwoods, the soil below was only damp. Similarly, the soil exhibited some hydric (mottles) and non-hydric (bright color) characteristics (2.5Y 4/3). Excavation with a shovel was difficult because of the presence of non -soil components (i.e., concrete, asphalt, and wood pallets). Hydrology Data Hydrology monitoring in the early 2003 growing season indicates that the static water level in areas represented by Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-5, P-7, and P-12 was typically greater than 1 foot below the ground surface (Appendix B). In three of these piezometers (P-5, P-7, and P-12), the water level was within 1 foot of the surface following a significant rain; however, when the rain slackened, as it did in late April, the water levels fell. In the remaining areas of the site, the water level was typically less than 1 foot below ground surface, or in some instances (e.g., P-4 and P-6) the area was saturated to the surface or inundated. We measured depth to water on two other occasions — October 2003 and May 2004. In October 2003 the depth to water in two of the 12 piezometers (P-6 and P-10) was within a foot of the ground surface (Table 4). Over 5 inches of rain was recorded at SeaTac 7 days before. In May 2004 groundwater was present in only Piezometer P-6. A trace of precipitation was recorded at SeaTac the week before. ON -SITE WETLANDS A total of 1.11 ac of wetlands are present on the site (Figure 2). Using the proposed sensitive areas regulations, a total of 1.06 ac are represented by Type 3 wetlands. The remaining wetland areas are unregulated by Tukwila. Wetland A Wetland A is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 13,718 square feet (0.32 ac) of the site. Its most notable feature is a rutted road. Grasses and herbs dominate most of Wetland A, including the road. Trees dominate a small portion of this wetland. The forested portion of Wetland A occupies 2,698 square feet (sf) or somewhat less than 20 percent of the wetland. Under the existing code this wetland would be classified as a C:/Jobs/... MigMetland Report.doc 4 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Type 3 wetland. The wetland exhibited low functions because it is isolated and relatively small (Appendix A - Field Rating Form for Wetland Functional Evaluation). Wetland B Wetland B is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 24,461 sf (0.57 ac) of the site. Trees dominate the western 52 percent of Wetland B. Emergent herbs typically growing in a deeply rutted road dominate the remaining 48 percent of Wetland B. During the rainy season standing water up to 1.5 feet deep is present in the road. Under the existing code this wetland would be classified as a Type 2 wetland. The wetland exhibited low functions because it is isolated and relatively small (Appendix A). Wetland C Wetland C is a rutted road that contains standing water during the rainy season. Emergent herbaceous vegetation dominates this isolated Type 3 wetland. Wetland C covers a total of 3,953 sf (0.09 ac). Under the existing code this wetland would be classified as a Type 3 wetland. The wetland exhibited low functions because it is isolated and relatively small (Appendix A). Wetland D Wetland D is an isolated Type 3 wetland that covers 3,943 sf (0.09 ac). Himalayan blackberry shrubs, grasses, and herbs dominate it. Surface water accumulates in this wetland during the rainy season. This water discharges to the asphalt apron and associated stormwater drain located on the developed portion of the distribution center to the west. After the water enters the catch basin, it flows into a series of pipes (sizes range from -6 in to 66 in) and a swale before being discharged into King County's Tukwila Pond - a regional stormwater detention pond. Stormwater collected in Tukwila Pond is then pumped into the Green River (Clark, 2004). Under the existing code this wetland would be classified as a Type 3 wetland. The wetland exhibited low to moderate functions because it is isolated and relatively small (Appendix A). Wetland E Wetland E covers 179 sf (0.004 ac) and is dominated by soft rush. This isolated wetland is too small to be regulated by Tukwila. Under the existing code this wetland would also be unregulated. The wetland exhibited low functions because it is isolated and relatively small. Wetland F Wetland F is also an isolated unregulated wetland that covers 1,971 sf (0.05 ac) of the site. Trees dominate the central 41 percent of this wetland. The reminder of Wetland F is dominated by emergent plant species. Like all of the other on -site wetlands, a rutted road represents a significant portion of Wetland F. Under the existing code this wetland would be unregulated. Wetland F exhibited low functions because it is isolated and relatively small. ON -SITE UPLANDS Upland plant communities represent about 3.89 ac. of the site. The meadow plant community is dominated by sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum, FACU), hairy C:/Jobs/... MiglWetland Report.doc 5 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington cat's-ear (Hypochaeris radicata, FACU), Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood seedlings, Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius, NI), and to a lesser extent, Pacific madrona. Trees dominate the remainder of the site. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Tukwila and other jurisdictions in Washington State are in the process of updating their critical areas regulations. The new regulations are to be in place by the end of the year. For this reason we present existing code requirements as well as anticipated code requirements concerning wetlands. Be advised that the proposed regulations have not yet been approved and could change. Existing Tukwila Wetland Code Tukwila's current sensitive areas code is relatively strict when it comes to wetlands. No development may occur in Type 1 or Type 2 wetlands. Only isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered. Type 2 wetlands include wetlands greater than one acre in size and wetlands less than one acre that have a forested class occupying greater than 20 percent of the wetland area. The standard buffer for Type 2 wetlands is 50 feet and 25 feet for Type 3 wetlands (Tukwila, 2003). Under the current code, if Type 3 wetlands were proposed to be altered, then the applicant would need to demonstrate that mitigation would improve wetland functions. The minimum replacement ratio is 1.5 to 1. That is, for every acre of wetland altered 1.5 acres of compensation would be required. Both enhancement of an existing wetland and creating new wetland areas are allowed. On -site mitigation is preferred, however, off -site mitigation is possible. Proposed Tukwila Wetland Code Tukwila's proposed sensitive areas code appears to be somewhat more flexible with respect to wetlands. Development continues to be prohibited in Type 1 wetlands. However, up to 0.1 acre of Type 2 wetlands may be altered when the location or configuration of the wetland is problematic and can be resolved through modification. Isolated Type 3 wetlands that formed on fill material on highly disturbed sites having low wetland functions may be altered or relocated. Type 3 wetlands are wetlands greater than 2,500 square feet and less than 1 acre with two or fewer wetland classes (Tukwila, 2004). The standard buffer width for Type 2 wetlands is 80 feet and 50 feet for Type 3 wetlands. The standard buffer width may be reduced up to 50 percent but no less than 25 feet wide if: • Additional protection to the wetland will be provided by enhancing the buffer; • The condition of the buffer is degraded; and • Buffer enhancement includes removing non-native plant species, installing vegetation that increases the value of fish and wildlife habitat, and installing habitat amenities such as snags. On -site mitigation is preferred, however, off -site mitigation is possible. Under the proposed code, creating new wetland areas and enhancing existing wetlands are C:/Jobs/... /WigMetland Report.doc 6 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington allowed. The minimum replacement ratio to create new wetlands remains 1.5:1. A 3:1 ratio is required for enhancement. Federal Wetland Regulations Only the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) can issue a permit to alter jurisdictional wetlands. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Corps cannot regulate isolated wetlands. The Corps reserves the right to determine whether and if a wetland is isolated (Tukwila's definition of isolated is not the same as the Corps definition). If the Corps were to exert jurisdiction over all the on -site wetlands, up to Y2 acre of wetland could be altered under their Nationwide Permitting (NWP) process. In this instance, the permittee is required to notify the Corps of their intention to alter wetlands and submit a wetland delineation report and mitigation plan prior to altering the wetland. The NWP process likely would take up to 6 months after the Corps receives a complete permit application. If altering more than'/ acre of wetland were proposed an Individual Permit would be required. The Individual Permitting process is more complicated and can take longer. A biological evaluation to assess the potential to affect threatened and/or endangered plant and animal species as well as an alternatives analysis is required. Finally, if the Corps limits their jurisdictional claim to Wetland D, then the permitting process will be considerably streamlined. In this instance, since Wetland D is smaller than 1/10 ac, the permittee is required to notify the Corps of the alteration after the fact. CONCLUSIONS Wetlands A, B, C, and D cover about 1 ac of the site and satisfy Tukwila's technical criteria for Type 3 wetlands. Wetland E and F are too small to be regulated by Tukwila. The remainder of the approximately 5-ac site is upland. For wetlands to be present, hydric soil needs to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation as well as be saturated to the surface or inundated typically for 30 consecutive days during a normal year. Seasonal standing water is common in portions of Wetlands A, B, C, D, and F. Most of the standing water we observed occurs in deep ruts that developed during unsanctioned off -road vehicle racing Based on the hydrology data, the area represented by Piezometers P-6 and P-10 (Wetland B) clearly meets the hydrology criteria. Piezometers P- 3 and P-4 (Wetland F), P-8 (Wetland A), and P-11 (Wetland B) represent other areas that most likely exhibit wetland hydrology during a normal rainy season. Areas represented by Piezometers P- 1, P-2, P-5, P-7, and P-12 did not exhibit wetland hydrology during the relatively wet 2003 observation period and represent upland areas. Based on the lack of surface soil saturation in the area represented by Piezometers P-9, we do not expect wetland hydrology to be present during a normal rainy season. Piezometer P-9 is located adjacent to Wetland C, which contained standing water during the 2003 hydrology observation period. The water level in most of the piezometers fell sharply in response to slackening rain (e.g., see Piezometer P-3). This phenomenon suggests that most of the soil present on the site has good drainage. Typically wetlands have poor drainage. Based on the hydrology data, the wetlands present on the site owe their existence to precipitation that is temporarily trapped in the soil during the rainy season. C:/Jobs/... Wg/Wetland Report.doc 7 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington The wetlands present on the site represent an artificial system isolated from other natural ecosystems. The presence of mottles imbedded within a relatively light-colored soil, particularly mottles to the surface of the soil, suggests that it is possible that these mottles were present in the soil that was placed on the site some 35 years ago. In soils with a near -surface water table that fluctuates seasonally, mottles are typically not present to the soil surface. The lack of a well defined A horizon (topsoil), together with the presence of mottles at or near the surface of the soil suggests that the subsoil was placed on the site rather than formed on the site. Regulations Based on Tukwila's proposed sensitive area regulations for wetlands, Wetlands A, B, C, and D are to be protected by a 50-foot wide buffer. The buffer could be reduced to as little as 25 feet under Tukwila's buffer reduction provisions. No buffer would be required for Wetlands E and F because they are unregulated. Assuming that Tukwila's proposed sensitive area regulations for wetlands are adopted, it is possible to alter all of the on -site wetlands (under the current rules, Wetland B could not be altered). Tukwila will require compensatory mitigation if Wetlands A, B, C, or D are altered. Mitigation can either occur on or off of the site. Wetlands E and F are unregulated and as far as Tukwila is concerned can be altered without compensatory mitigation. The Corps could claim jurisdiction over some or all of the on -site wetlands. If they consider Wetland D to be jurisdictional, then the permitting process is simple. If the Corps asserts jurisdiction over all of the wetlands, then the permitting process to alter up to Y2 acre of wetland is relatively simple. Altering more than 'h acre of wetland is more complicated and time consuming. LIMITATIONS Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Wig Properties and their assigns for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. It should be noted that Chad Armour relied on information provided by others indicated previously. Chad Armour can only relay this information and cannot be responsible for its accuracy or completeness. Note that delineating wetland boundaries and assessing functional values are inexact sciences. Professional biologists may disagree on the precise location of wetland boundaries, wetland hydrology, or the functional value of a wetland. The final determination of these parameters is the responsibility of the permitting authority. C:/Jobs/... /MgMetland Report.doc 8 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information, and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the undersigned. Sincerely, Chad Armour, LLC Chad Armour Principal Attachments: References Table 1 — Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2002 through April 2003 Table 2 — Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2003 through April 2004 Table 3 — Plants Identified on the Penney site Table 4 — Depth to groundwater in feet on October 27, 2003 and May 20, 2004 Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Soils Map Appendix A — Wetland Assessment Methods, Wetland Field Data Forms, and Field Rating Form for Wetland Function Evaluation Appendix B — Piezometer and Precipitation Charts C:/Jobs/... WgMetland Report.doc 9 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC References Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington REFERENCES Armour, Chad, LLC. 2003. Wetland Reconnaissance. J. C. Penney Distribution Center. Tukwila, Washington. Clark, D. 2004. Personal communication. Engineer 11, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Stormwater Services Section, Drainage Investigation and Inspection Services. Cooke, S. S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. University of Washington Press. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. 88 pages plus appendices. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Moseman, A. H. 1952. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. USDA Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering in cooperation with Washington Agricultural Experiment Station and the Washington State Planning Council. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(26.9). 89 pages. Seattle Times. 2003. Weather wrap-up. National Weather Service provided information taken at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. Seattle Times. 2004. Weather wrap-up. National Weather Service provided information taken at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. Snyder, D. E., P. S. Gale, and R. F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 100+ pages plus maps. Tukwila, 2003. Tukwila Municipal Code. Chapter 18.45, Sensitive Areas Overlay. Tukwila, 2004. Tukwila Municipal Code. Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Draft regulations for Planning Commission review. C:/Jobs/... /NgMetland Report.doc 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS Walker & Associates. 2003. Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area. 1936 Prints 410 and 411; A46, Prints 379 and 380; S56-7S Prints 17 and 18 (dated 4/10/56); KC60-18 Prints 39 and 40 (dated 6/23/60); KC69-7 Prints 23 and 24; KC74-1-7 Prints 25 and 25 (dated 3/20/74); KC80A-5534-13N Prints 34 and 35 (dated 5/4/80); SKP85-14 Prints 37 and 38 (dated 3/3/85); KC90-13 Prints 40 and 41 (dated 7/10/90); KC95-7 Prints 17 and 18 (dated 9/22/95); and KC00-7 Prints 18 and 19 (dated 10/7/00). C:/Jobs/... /MgMetland Report.doc Chad Armour, LLC 07/02/04 Tables Wetland Assessment & Delineation Tukwila, Washington Wig Properties LLC-SS Table 1 - Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2002 through April 2003 October 0.66 3.23 (2.57) (2.57) November 3.71 5.90 (2.19) (4.76 December 5.98 5.62 0.36 (4.40) January 7.95 5.13 2.82 (1.58) February 1.80 4.18 (2.38) (3.96) March 6.49 3.75 2.74 (1.22) April 2.74 2.59 0.15 (1.07) Table 2 - Precipitation measured at SeaTac from October 2003 through April 2004 Flo _ t� Norrl� De ai �multl� rffi arty October 8.95 3.19 5.76 5.7 November 6.77 5.90 0.87 6.6 December 3.88 5.62 (1.74) 4.8 January 6.36 5.13 1.23 6.1 February 2.44 4.27 (1.83) 4.2 March 2.13 3.75 (1.62) 2.6 April 0.65 2.59 (1.94) O.Tgl Table 3 - Plants identified on the Penney site .orniion�Narpe :'Scientic„ame�indicator,Statu „ ..., . bentgrass sp. Agrostis sp. FAC black cottonwood Populus balsamifera FAC English ivy Hedera helix NI hairy cats -ear Hypochaeris radicata FACU hardhack Spiraea douglasii FACW hawthorn sp. Crataegus sp. FACU+ Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor FACU Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis FACU orchard -grass Dactylis glomerata FACU Pacific madrona Arbutus menziesii NI red -osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera FACW rush sp. Juncus sp. -- Scot's broom Cytisus scoparius NI soft rush Juncus effusus FACW sweet vernalgrass Anthoxanthum odoratum FACU tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC- water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus OBL Watson's willow -herb Epilobium watsonii FACW willow sp. Salix sp. FAC C:/Jobs/... WgMetland Report.doc 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington Table 4 — Depth to Groundwater in feet on October L/, 2006 and May LU, LUU4. e c 4 = a. 20 1 Dry Dry 2 Dry Dry 3 1.10 Dry 4 Dry Dry 5 Dry Dry 6 0.50 1.4 7 1.08 Dry 8 2.47 Dry 9 Dry Dry 10 0.75 Dry 11 1.6 D 12 1.36 D C:/Jobs/... MigMetland Report.doc 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Figures -o U t oST S 144 Sj PLf /sac us .t + fJAJ ST LG iN # i24 4t` RN 3 IiLX! K AN s ism V STir t � T $W?AaV ST 4r�« IV iiil rt�,r +n . tAKEk �4 r 7trid'ttA ,x 27 STROOER If 8LHA.A Y0 aa_T r Z6 av= T tY sT � �._.,.�..�.» 7 rE�R:1 � t Vart*utt psi �a a wee `°` Y'Q S tJtgD 5 ST St " 3V »i,I ST 4 1Jlynx FIN7 ST PACWY PJAZA ST MJC44� o .d ! i 83ic"1 tt pwe J t17787n Sf 1 ^ 178111 "o ,�{, * L�1. 1 � �•+g C,y1j� J L i i "�^� � E '�}1 {+ I '4 TV Source: The Thomas Guide, 2002, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties; Page 655. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties 6500 126' Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 roi�i � O P-2 i P"1 Wetland F We and D P-3 - f,-.._. jet �� •••,•,-,- ��-- .a• =--T..-�=—�----- � Wetland E Forest 3 O L a) CU 0 0 SIP-5 f} •. .P��.:1..i . . -Forest' • • i .f: .eP.1ar..•. a F Forest/ Wetland A �• •f • SP-1 P-12S p P-1 Piezometer Designation and Location MINKLER BOULEVARD 0 80 • SPA Plot ID Designation and Approximate Location Survey Source: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Scale in Feet FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 DATE: 06/29/04 2:59pm DWG NAME: G:\project\CHents\ormour\Vig Properties\wig001.dwg 21; ; HirRht , .. •Riyv;ton .23 / ,.t•F i, -Y.y •? ;fir—! r ! `� CCtYCiIi 4' it 1. . i VI�� ;., J y "� era f I 1 j ! •1 • VnnITE- 6 27 ` g i bm 14 • i Ai.r 4 ! 1" %• Ur - Urban Land 0 2000 4000 Source: Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington, Sheet No. 10 Scale in Feet FIGURE 3: SOILS MAP Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties 6500 126' Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington I Bellevue, Washington 98006 Appendix A Wetland Assessment Methods Wetland Assessment & Delineation Wig Properties LLC-SS Tukwila, Washington WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHODS Chad Armour reviewed historical aerial photographs and the soil survey for the site and surrounding area to better understand the history of the site. For the wetland reconnaissance, we traversed the site to look for indicators of wetlands. We used the Routine On -site Determination method detailed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997). We identified plant species using the Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist, 1973) and A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon (Cooke, 1997). The associated indicator status for each plant species was determined using the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 91(Reed 1988, updated in 1993). For the hydrology assessment, we installed 12 piezometers distributed throughout the site. They consisted of open -bottomed 2.5-inch schedule 40 PVC pipe with alternating slots spaced 6 inches apart. We installed the piezometers in holes drilled with a portable power auger as extended with a hand auger. The piezometers typically extended about 1.75 to 5 feet below grade and 2 feet above the ground surface. To minimize the potential for surface water entering the piezometers, we back filled the holes with soil cuttings capped with six -inches of bentonite. We measure the depth to water using an electronic water level meter. We reviewed existing and proposed City of Tukwila regulations to assess applicable issues associated with wetlands. Soils were identified using the Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Moseman, 1952 and Snyder et. al, 1973). We marked the location of the wetland boundaries with a unique identifying number on pink- and orange -colored flagging. Following our site visit, Bush, Roed, & Hitchings, Inc. fixed the location of the flagged wetland boundaries and piezometers and calculated the size of the wetlands. Brick Tudor Studios produced the figures, including the estimated location of the sampling points. Wetland determination and wetland rating forms completed by Chad Armour follow. Indicator categories shown on the field data forms are defined as follows: OBL (obligate) >99% FACW (facultative wetland) 67% — 99% FAC (facultative) 34% - 66% FACU (facultative upland) 1 % - 33% UPL (upland) <1 % NI No Indicator Category Assigned A positive or negative sign more specifically defines the regional frequency of occurrence for FACW, FAC, and FACU species. A positive sign (+) indicates a frequency toward the higher end of the category. Conversely, a negative sign (-) indicates a frequency toward the lower end of the category. C:/Jobs/... /WigMetland Report.doc 07/02/04 Chad Armour, LLC Wetlands Rating Field Data Forms DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1QR7 f nrnc Wetland nvlin"flnn Maminb Project/Site: �-f Date: 211 b Applicant/owner: 1 w'5 Pro P-.e-.s 4- e g 1. (. C County: State: ,I � ``� Investi ator(s): .0 A. Ar ✓ LL4- S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? yes no Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes no Transect ID: P Is the area a potential Problem Area? es no Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Wt�S h5 ,lib`%t4 rp4,—' pa,� B $fJt S SGt� # cxS -5 Al l HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0/0 Check all indicators that apply & explain below: / Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) ✓ OTHER Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? es not Rationale for decision/Remarks: GC 1 / 4` t5l-^_e '\ I/'!^. P d'P�. Q-J '2 dlj✓�� 8...,5 �1� V1� � � � ✓'e. Q.�J 8� � ( �'Gi u.-f � ✓Q. � �,.� , .ti �,�.e � � � C� 'f -� S (..5 ,� K � �.� �l S� is I a f , HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? yes. no Water Marks: yes Sediment Deposits: e. no Based on: �T Drift Lines: es o Drainage Patterns: es o Dept. of inundation: nches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes o Channels <12 in. yes no Depth to free water in pit: ? //-inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water -stained Leaves: yes Depth to saturated soil: inches. Check all that apply & explain below: Other: P2 r5 c3 al K ►-� o ���� -¢ D f %ig Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Other: �-e . ► `^ Wetland hydrology present? yes a551 bl o LBck 6 ay. �i �e ✓oat e I.� �.H e �S Rationale for decision/Remarks: . � 5 �, � ,v �o� y Hof P✓ es e � t GQ a f, TLe- / �e�you,, i�l�fh�s J, e1 ati off. r.I- a 4I1a ✓j DD 1 1 f e ✓,, f 711'L1 /1 kC)7/ "-' &' e A' -(Z'- b f � C Q SS (� ✓�G� ��Q F' �� 1 /�1�-� A,' It, SOILS Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes No mapped type? Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structurej etc. profile moist) moist) (match description) Y '7'.5o,SZ- IIydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) - Histosol Concretions - Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils - Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils - Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List - Reducing Conditions --,Zfisted on National Hydric Soils List - Gleyed or Low-Cbroma Colors V Other (explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: LA- , Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation no present? Hydric, soils present? yes no Is the, sampling point yes no Wetland hydrology present?, yes no within a wetland? Rati.onale/Remarkg: Y 41014A-71a V aK 0-4 f4te_ z);v-, 4A z,,eJ ,o >4 a LA ".P 5 _;5 NOTES: 5 4z) a e-tr, P Ito 146 V -o DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1 QQ7 ("nrne Woflanrl llolinoafinn Mnnttnll Project/Site: Qz 3,, ,n -e Dater .Q Applicant/owner: PQ-vr'tr �� Pr D �� ✓ 41 County: }�► `^ j State: JA/ Investi ator(s): S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es no Community ID, Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? es no Transect ID: Z- Is the area a potential Problem Area? es o Plot ID: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ✓�L B-l) s ,5 % s -de. IQ2 h s - ry4e-1,,, rAe-&� Ae, 5 S ;2�/t� �L H OPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: JbO O Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Regional knowledge of. plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? es no Rationale for decision/Remarks:�� HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? yes. no Water Marks: es no Sediment De sits: es no. Based on: Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns:. es o . Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes Channels <12 in. yes' no FAC Neutral: yes no Water -stained Depth to free water in pit: inches Leaves: yes Depth to saturated soil: O inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: e,�5� �) �� ►�'0��2 �� f�. Stream, Lake or gage data: - ►re-��`� Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes no 55► b Rationale for decision/Remarks: / b t / 1L eXAZ-eX12 >s SOILS Map Unit Name /j_Y"64aV1 (Series & Phase) Drainage Class Field observations confirm es No mapped type? Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abund . ance Texture, concretions; Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) (match description Z'sy Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic 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) Hydric soils present? yes no o Rationale for decision/Remarks-, :1:-- 0 1 Z5 P i -fill ke — dZSIP I-L' . f on" Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? <oCes) no f Hydric soils present? yes no Is the sampling point yes no Wetland hydrology present?_ yes nol within.a wetland? Rationale/Remarks: ✓like) 44, . .0-1 h k-p- NOTES:,►mot'5LV-V-0LA1K AK-'e,Q..v 2_� -7 .7, 1 o a- 4 7in U '45 _SIV 0 "e_" I I'/ a- A", L k' DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or, 1097 C'm-ne WPtlanA nPlinaatinn Mnrnanll Project/Site: -0- h V1-e Date: Applicant/owner: �.� ' . pe-.p �C1` e_5 �,4�, c-✓ 0 County: K ^� State: vt Investi ator(s): W- LLB, S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? no Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? gesno Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? es no Plot ID: S 3 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator II-- % D 01%, Eel i �,. 's O 9ip�' i B V 0.� S tp a VGA ►�. ��d� Ce rr� 5 f 15 5 rca5 f s s � 1-4 Al HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: Check all indicators that apply & explain below: / ✓ Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat' 1 or regional) OTHER Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technical Literature - Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: s �l�fS-J2 t.`�n�.P✓�reau��^ /f���` ���� o�-'� �y f7��� HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? yes. o Water Marks: es no Sediment Deposits: es no f- Based on: T Drift Lines: yes A on Drainage Patterns: yes o: Dept. of inundation: AVA inches Oxidized Root (live roots Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. yes o Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water -stained Leaves: yes r►o Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other: {%�So a1 Stream, Lake or gage data: / Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes no D5 110 1 Rationale for decision/Remarks: ,�-- Vs "ti e1s _ b.5-e.\t-,&,k . 15. 3 1 n, -es -S ` � J>ec4 N 4 & % --,r SOILS Map Unit Name (Series & Phase) su Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes No mapped type? Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance 'Texture, concretions;. Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell size & contrast structure, etc. profile moist) moist) (match descriptiony _X6 Gk-V 5 6L 5 Y Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High -Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions fisted on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ::Other (explain in 'remarks) Hydric soils present? . . yes no (V055 I 't, �t 'C -49 5_,, P,1 Rationale for decision/Remarks: 0AE -51, lL,e)ya -ft fay 0 14 1<6 Wetland Determination (circle) 6�) Hydrophytic vegetation present? es no Hydric soils present? yes no Is e sampling point yes no Wetland hydrology present? yes no within a wetland? Rationale/Remarks: Po 04- j- NOTES: 5 T, 2- 3 OF5/ Field Rating Form for Wetland Function Evaluation Field Rating Form for Wetland Function Evaluation Wetland No. e 1 Project: + Criteria for m Criteria for 00 Low Value Moderate Value Shoreline Protection Hydrologic Support Storm/Flood Water Abatement Groundwater Exchange Water Quality Improvement Natural Biologic Support r e� �� ► ,e s Date: Criteria for c > Nin6 i/�1„n [;Psparse herbaceous layer or no vegetation sp ' w or dense herbaceous vegetation �Wetlaxtends <100 yards from shore an ds 100 - 200 yards from shore undeveloped shoreline cat g moderately undeveloped shoreline isolated depression _ open drainage system ' temporary saturation or inundation seasonally flooded dense woody vegetation Rr AndOZIPne�0nn."FGl.:..,._..,,,,FPlong located on highly developed shoreline open tidal system permanent saturation or inundation size <5 acresV;i,,e 5 - t0 acres size >10 acresin remote setting ural setting in urban setting <10% woody vegetation - 30% woody vegetation >30% woody vegetation size <5 acres isolated depressions temporarily saturated or inundated impermeable substrate size 5 - 10 acres _ size > 10 acres easonally flooded open system permanently flooded system permanent shallow inundation deep inundation semipermeable substrate J permeable substrate ermittentiy flooded <50% vegetation density size < 10 acres no proximity to non -point discharge retains <25% of overland runoff fakes 5 - WIG vegetation density "ze 10 - 100 acres Zdownstream from non -point discharge tains 25 - 50% of overland runoff estuary or perennial stream >80% vegetation density size > 100 acres downstream from municipal point discharge retains >50% 01 overland runoff vegetation lacking isolated system associated with ephemeral streams plant community diversity single layer special habitat features lacking o unique species no water dependent species relatively small size adjacent to minor fishery Y s b/forested swamp peer tidal marsh sociated with intermittent streams moderate plant community diversity several layers id habitat features present unique species potentially present water dependent species potential relatively medium size adjacent to minor fishery marsh or bog intertidal marshes associated with permanent streams high plant community diversity many layers complex habitat features present unique species present water dependent species present relatively large size adjacent to significant fishery V VO v FU cores\41 Field Rating Form for Wetland Function Evaluation Wetland No. .� Project: 1� 07 Criteria for 0 0 Low Value Shoreline sparse herbaceous layer or no vegetation Protection r" P " s <10o yards trom e/ located along undeveloped shoreline Hydrologicisolated --i�6 Support depression temporarysaturation or inundation — Storm/Flood size <5 acres Water Abatement _ in remote setting <10% woody vegetation Groundwater size <5 acres isolated depressions Exchange temporarily saturated or inundated •impermeable substrate Water Quality Improvement Natural Biologic Support V termittently flooded <50% vegetation density size <10 acres no proximity to non -point discharge retains <25% of overland runoff vegetation lacking isolated system associated with ephemeral streams low plant community diversity, Iiingle layer special habitat features tacking o unique species no water dependent species relatively small size adjacent to minor fishery Z m Criteria for 0 Moderate Value RZO woody or dense herbaceous vegetation t extends 100 - 200 varr*g frnm sh- %/ �, le.S Date .Ui 6 Criteria for 0 0 High Value _T_J dense woody vegetation oca+eo along moderately undeveloped shoreline M located on highly developed shorel _ open drainage system " open tidal system seasonally flooded permanent saturation or inundation size 5 -10 acres in rural setting 10 - 30% woody vegetation .......... size 5 - 10 acres seasonally flooded open system Permanent shallow inundation _., semipermeable substrate 7 takes P0 - 80% vegetation density size 10 - 100 acres downstream from non -point discharge fetains 25 - 50% of overland runoff shrub/forested swamp flipper tidal marsh Asociated with intermittent streams moderate Plant community diversity several layers ,special habitat features present unique species potentially present water dependent species potential relatively medium size adjacent to minor fishery size > 10 acres in urban setting >30% woody vegetation _ size > 10 acres permanently flooded system deep inundation permeable substrate Z 1/D estuary or perennial stream >80% vegetation density size > 100 acres downstream from municipal point discharge retains >50% of overland runoff marsh or bog intertidal marshes associated with permanent streams _ high plant community diversity many layers complex habitat features present unique species present water dependent species present relatively large size adjacent to significant fishery Field Rating Form for Wetland Function Evaluation Wetland No.--- fZ��A in tV, Project_ i Shoreline Protection Hydrologic Support Storm/Flood Water Abatement Groundwater Exchange Water Quality Improvement Natural Biologic Support Criteria for 06 Low Value Criteria for o Moderate Value toiD�-rti�5 Date: Criteria for �> o 0 High Value sparse herbaceous layer or no vegetation Rdextendsr woody odense herbaceous vegetation dense woody vegetation wetland PxWnds <100 yards from shore 100 - 200 yards from shore El wetland ext nd > 00 yards fry m shn Fed along undeveloped shoreline along moderate y undeveloped shoreline located on highly developed F��ternporary 9 ty oiled shoreline solated depression open drainage system] open tidal system saturation or inundation seasonally flooded 1B permanent saturation or inundation -' ize <5 acres size 5 - 10 acres - E]Ysize > 10 acres in remote setting Ifl in rural setting in urban setting 10%woody vegetation i0 - 30%woody vegetation >30% woody vegetation �te <5 acres isolated depressions temporarily saturated or inundated 4ermeab4e substrate intermittently flooded <50% vegetation density size <10 acres no proximity to non -point discharge retains <25% of overland runoff vegetation lacking isolated system associated with ephemeral streams plant community diversity ,-single layer special habitat features lacking o unique species no water dependent species relatively small size adjacent to minor fishery size 5 - 10 acres asonally flooded open system permanent shallow inundation semipermeable substrate takes 50 - 80% vegetation density size 10 - 100 acres downstream from non -point discharge retains 25 - 50% of overland runoff shrub/forested swamp upper tidal marsh associated with intermittent streams moderate plant community diversity several layers pecial habitat features present unique species potentially present water dependent species potential relatively medium size adjacent to minor fishery size > 10 acres permanently flooded system deep inundation permeable substrate estuary or perennial stream >80%vegetation density size > t 00 acres downstream from municipal point discharge ins >50% of overland runoff marsh or bog intertidal marshes associated with permanent streams high plant community diversity many layers complex habitat features present unique species present water dependent species present relatively large size adjacent to significant fishery core)\41 Field Raffinner Form for Wetland Function Evaluation Wetland No. Iry �� et, vt 'd_ 9� J D Project: V�1 1 rr-, ,r- ✓ i Date: 2 6 Criteria for 2 � Criteria for d O 0 o Low Value o o Moderate Value Criteria for 00 High Value Shoreline _ sparse herbaceous Layer or no vegetationflpe se or dense herbaceous vegetation dense woody vegetation ►-80.yc3ctjs from shore Protection He ends 100 - 200 yards !r p, ua a u, snow e located along undeveloped shorelined ong moderately undeveloped shoreline located on highly developed .... . . _...... ._..". 9 IY oiled shoreline roto tcY g isolated depression n drainage systemSupport ary saturation or inundation mopen tidal system seasonally flooded (_L permanent saturation or inundation Storm/Mood size <5 acres Vp 5 -10 acres ie >10 acres Water Abatement _ in remote setting ral setting in urban selling 10% woody vegetation 30% woody vegetation >30%woody vegetation rzl <5 acres size 5 - 10 acres size > 10 acres Groundwater isolated depressions asonally flooded open system Exchange temporarily saturated dx inundated _ permanently Hooded system Permanent shallow inundation de inundation impermeable substrate semipermeable substrate permeable substrate orltmittently flooded akes estuary Or perennial stream Water Quality vegetation density 50 - 80% vegetation densityo size <10 acres >80% vegetation density iRipfOVemeAt 10 - 100 acres size > 100 acres no proximity to non -point discharge downstream from non -point discharge downstream from municipal retains <25% of overland runoff P Pint discharge retains 25 - 50% of overland runoff ns >50% of overland runoff vegetation stemming shrub/forested swamp marsh or frog ,wpeirisolated system tidal marsh Intertidal marshes associated with ephemeral streams a sociated with intermittent streams associated with permanent streams plant community diversity moderate plant community diversity high plant community diversity Natural ngle layer several layers Biologic Support special habitat features lackingmany layers eclat habitat features present complex habitat features present o unique species unique species potentially present no water dependents i unique species present species water dependent species potential water dependent species present relatively small size relatively medium size relatively large size adjacent to minor fishery adjacent to minor fishery adjacent to significant fishery 10 l0 y Appendix B APPENDIX B Piezometer and Precipitation Charts 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 a c. L 0.40 a 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Piezometer P1 r: Date ).00 "f ll 2.00 a� R 3 _ 3.00 0 CD a d 4.00 5.00 ® Precipitation —s Depth to Water •l 0.70 0.60 c 0.50 _a 0.40 IL 0.30 0.20 0.10 Piezometer P2 Date 11 ?, 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 L m w c� 3 2.00 c o Precipitation —�— Depth to Water 2.50 L C. 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 c 0.50 R a 0 0.40 a 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 -4- a Piezometer P3 ,"� Date NZ-1 NNjN% NZ �1 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 ` d w 3 0.80 c o Precipitation -+- Depth to Water, 1.00 s a d 1.20 1.40 fiVIII 1.80 Piezometer P4 0.90 -0.15 0.80 ♦ -0.10 0.70 -0.05 0.60 m 0.50 • 0.00 w o f® Precipitation --s.— Depth to Water a 0.40 0.05 = • a m 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.20 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�PQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�PQPQ QPQPQ Date Piezometer P5 0.90 0.00 0.80 0.50 ♦ 0.70 ♦ 1.00 0.60 1.50 � 3 0.50 c :° 2.00 c ® Precipitation �. _+ Depth to Water 0.40 0 a r 2.50 m 0.30 3.00 0.20 0.10 3.50 0.00 4.00 cc �a�a�a c c <<c tt���cct�cccctccc�c<<��c�cc<< aka a���a�a���a�a�a�a��QPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�P�P�PQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQ Date 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 ea c. 42 0.40 a 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 IA I�V� Piezometer P6 Date II fIlEs 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 0.20 r w a as 0 0.25 0.30 0.35 ® Precipitation --s Depth to Water 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 a 2 0.40 a 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 N �V� Piezometer P7 Date P< 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 d 0.80 3 c 1.00 0 1.20 Q, d O 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 ® Precipitation �— Depth to Water Piezometer P8 0.90 0.00 0.80 ♦ 0.20 0.70 ♦ 0.40 0.60 m a 0.60 0.50 ♦ c ® Precipitation --� Depth to Water 0.40 w 0.80 IL Q. d 0.30 1.00 0.20 1.20 0.10 0.00 1.40 C �a���a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a��QPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�P�PQPQP�PQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�PQPQ C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Date 0.90 0.80 Piezometer P9 0.00 0.20 0.70 0.40 0.60 ♦ 0.60 c 0.50 ♦ 3 _ ® Precipitation c. ♦ 0.80 ° 0 — 0 Depth to Water 0.40 a ,c ♦ 1.00 d 0.30 • 1.20 0.20 0.10 ♦ 1.40 0.00 1.60 �a c c � cccccccc�cc<<<c�ccc<<cc�c�cc�c a s a� a a a a�a�a�a�a���a�QPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�PQPQ QP�PQ Date 0.90 0.80 Piezometer P10 0.00 0.10 0.70 0.20 0.60 d 0.50 a 0.30 a o ® Precipitation s Depth to Water 0.40 IL • 0.40 L ♦ m 0.30 0.50 0.20 0.60 0.10 0.00 0.70 �a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�a�aPQPQPQPQPQP�PQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�P� Date 0.90 0.80 Piezometer PI 0.00 0.10 0.70 0.60 0.20 ` �a :.. 0.50 V c a ° Precipitation 0.30 0 Depth to Water Q 0.40 a CD 0.30 ♦ 0.40 0.20 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.60 �a a a�a�a�a��a�a�a�a�a�a�a��QPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQP�PQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQ Date 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 a ;.' 0.40 a 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Piezometer P12 Nv 1\I �\VNIJ Nr Jll�V K". p, Date WE 0.50 1.00 1.50 = 0 0 0 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 CL m 0 ® Precipitation —*—Depth to Water Jpp� STRANDER BOULEVARDNOTES - A _ CONTOUR MTERv4L . I' 1 ' U C1 d •rp r�IKY6 Y Oglru�p(r[l. R.L• wK O[d OGIniSD 1/tlra uc.i o[rwn[al ry �•>O r{/(AVO t0 M MCLn•nOn H YN+rm x M[ f»ia 6 9G515 OF E]EARMG I . I•L•w Ylfr Dn WYWtlpI 0>1Qi GJ d •. JOD nP. L-p. )) [.ss�+r[ .ra ua:r, opuwrnr e.fm d.w) ...awrr+ nrL[ w•+oa •rin PIV(w ala »•aoa ua rL •L w[pwr o.rm.GN'C[n 4 r]aa • Y•a•wrow rowrr d Ir.lr;..o a o[warP u wuc.[. ♦Jw:g. 6 . .-I —A Ynler.l..i >IO. Y- s•fa w[cGlofo You aOr) d UK d 1WIM1• Ytlw/ rt•r M9. Y-D-la ., waGGlom Yoew . ' wuoloYn.•rrfu aam.•Yn Jaa[ilYO M1•Gf al -a avp Y+O a0ee>Gi nPaO. rwau rover rur eO liO,:•W\LIO,drth-f CGMrY.YYW>YirOl c � . • I VERTICAL DATU-I ewo.w. •eow..r>d s.lpn Yn.cd euXP d a** d u la�crom woYe w.fno.n weave aw•»n�a ro fuf*Is1T •.ro vdrroa vrra.m Y ooa)r�(I Iefcalexo You a•wacao.o.e.]ef� :,' w +rrr row wc+[,a .w fu[» ou.K rououo oaxxuo nuc eau...+c .i iw.lowrwesr rew-en v r.a gorinuar owroe v r+. ron.w VGreM w..ae . we Yn. ��Q� • awru d acer>PI n. v i )a,.+.a Tw,rci eu![]er .acr•o M, .[.er>eur L.(e rle,�c..:a re[T I . I I an da�(rd (wwaw •I,.d[crroeufrwr..ocn..olrrw Yealr.u�r=GGa]wraseowPm ralPew •�uoTYeny1ian>eurcY.'etYMi o:[rv;.awdr•4 a.o wwrw.esr • BENCH nnraes I n[r' wa[w •ncoL )a YaweT ro *[w+f. eww..ln. eowrldw.>oole Ino.rYaa edrueo H wfr m Yo[R r��ao.a .la mo:uwa. I a[or[a �.w.ua. ro rove «a.Mua. uu o• rr s•o wrw[s: ,Y)nwrn•s e>•IelYa m ae.i iP IK .[,rasa. a..] d am .rrawt,i owwru v n+e ,a,n:[ur ouwre^ ao ner ro r>e wlr v •. � . o� r.n af�• n �wa a Ir ew.sa wac u wlKae.rY�'rfw•icrr..(d au.Jrc ar .'�lo.air .:uai >Ia..1•Y. 6N•ild . �I u rdacr ro um�.r� mama rolr•.ao .I rza..r.r weraan uo[R �o t Y aueeci TO T[RY. fG.11MRf. faalna>ra. •ro aEfrwlcrna u Cu(ra•,a0 Y ® "f"a "'°leru[la...aan: s•o wma. uc elnulseu '�^o na tIw >Ipwr>eq,n r aC[T d rwi rowrrc•I d M Itlwr>eui oJ.=,er[w C•. aOJrwe]I OJMrew d aaGrlPl n, rCVNY•/ })>e]wM ai•Ki . [•ar. Yvt liW [UrKndrV[rO,bO.. �aNrlei wl+O� R= �� _ 1 ® T 4 rOrY Ow•% WSC Y GdCaa:r[ I'q. ]O pwrV Mf►NGOIOIO YORIeCLnWGrQ a]CN•Wa p,� �p OlYirO M1.eG• e . G•IeY 1OYlL YN•r= frrvatlVM•Yft, CITa' d rYNa• \[[`�71-�111�-Q,1=,I r•wTa. G . d wer>r w•t wne oC.we •r 2..+oalew r•wC eels .e.w ae raeorw. Bowe rLe..ro.l • ).Ja ®ran ). GYM[D a!J=a4'? M Se Cdffw A?4R rR•NYOga[R .r .ear ace d .w.r- an.o.[sr d r.,raer arowe rro werw • ww-urnalYv[ euere(r aow ae.Paue •uwro�a. oKa) yo .aeoe• JI, Y+VECJem l0 a{]yi eR pwIILM d M ee,! w rl2r P LOI I P Lpi l•e�� Op(i p, a•-•-M.• Tail• pO.,fLO`Om VO]w R=r_oa7.. fC> •u. I .arw.rrr w mm I.�ai�raow�„a [en ,ono: r..eo YT.Y I E << P4RCEL C - d wowM earo•wr. r w•rov . ]•x LECAO SCALE: 1� -W YTur[ Y *>e ralsrrn d w.o, x.r[ d auY.nrd �' P - >a1,•f>ciylee aes.anr rue K..aaa a••W�a PIT.OKw ••.p •G•VJ• r IYYYGrrlm b YDf rVraldd TY[ � - - •R . • n. n•nE 0 ]]- b 00 � -c yl J � g pWT� P LOt I d epr LK •pyanaM GPI . COirdfOW ® rioT � , W u n ouo�c 1 R-IOfGIOMi WTR:'+Wr++aCOro[O wD[l lt14 r14 •)olTc•O (K•. IfGK O]aGo�ndr I ,' P�nall (NI eGG[PaaRrO 1 I � 4 0 r >o Vu Fil Lli Jj I w z N ;I 1 ;1 TU<WILA POND PARCEL A :Y •n> 1 x•Coi , aETLfND AREA D N- >- ( uEiTLaaD�1-1ZE<c =_� a I ' ab \\D 'Jl . rar Z I _l �•mr w mr = C �_r euaes(r row. � ouw Laec R� I rrw[ - ( •� �.-I - I u�'I �r�yuae+ar� rf.`r-•L wfoannY , .. »•- I Yfuvfs• ,RI liG•L P.aa..nda RREP RAILROAD TRACKS A Jew. I .' .eoaaTn.r1. .=a :Oi rw' I pyre V.lyi, RUW Yru (yttJap mrrr ®ror M•aa paG e.feP Y GOlroare i i LEGEND Wetland Class Area (SF) Area (Acres) Forested (FO) 58,866 1.35 Scrub -Shrub (SS) 22,868 0.52 Emergent (EM) 37,778 0.87 Open Water (OW) 32,849 0.75 152,361 3.50 - - - - - - - - - - MITIGATION BOUNDARY LWD 11, ,ray C� I �'--: ------------ - ♦♦ ♦♦I / ♦ 9e ♦ i q MONITOR WELL S-2 = 1 \ 1 5" ':;C- I y Cl El18.81 4 11 v tiff �Jl i AP 4) / t /MONITOR WELL G-101 i f I� M'. ,i' w-OG/ I / EXISTING F0 TUKWILA POND -- MONITOR W ILL G- 3 1 j II R_O.I\O. elf 497 MONITOR WELL G-2 / W t I�1 Q co / MONITOR '—. WELL G-4 ' � ^� - f, `, ; i I l�i 710_05'._ � / 1 7;Cc.�SC?o3 w Emerg t . , / / - ra f IIj I > - - -- MONITOR WELL G-105, MONITOR WELL G-14� r 1 c 1',` ICI all, 1\ SS /r ��� G I11 Q `! MONITOR WELL G-106 a � \F1 / `'� FYIs+Inn Forest . OFO Scrub ShrubEmergent iEXISTING ` MONITOR WELL G-OjOWi MONITOR WELL G-8 EAsting, f-1 ¢--f T _E VA LT '-For"est li €q 1 / I MONITOR WELL S-1 MONITOR WELL G-115 / ' I C T1'' \ '6' CD- jF MONITOR WELL G-113 Open 1 FO EDGE OF WATER Water 11 MONITOR WELL 109 ' 14 ffift7p=l POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN 0 40 80 Scale In Feet Source: Bush, Road 8 Hitchings,Inc. SS FO Assumed Edge of OV 1 MONITOR WELL G-12 I e 11 I: Ial 10, MONITOR WELL G-10 , ,MONITOR WELL G 'II I I �� j' '6' AND z _ \- I .. W/-,Jl 'dAUL'S -LUS1� W -I .,=i3J'.0 POST -CONSTRUCTION PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties LLC-SS 65M 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington --dghk Bellevue, Washington 98M DWG NAME: G: \project\CII DATE: 10/22/08 3: COMPLETE SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 for MON WIG WIG PROPERTIES, LLC-SS 4811-134TH PLACE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006 by FRED C. STRICKLAND, MAI, SRA WILLIAM N. GENSCHOW, ASSOCIATE STRICKLAND, HEISCHMAN & HOSS, INC. 6419 LAKEWOOD DRIVE WEST TACOMA, WA 98467-3354 253-564-3230 RECEVED A�IUNIrY .ap�EPVr i*oss, rickland ischman Inc.H REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSUITANTS September 19, 2005 Mon Wig Wig Properties, LLC-SS 4811 — 134`h Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Re: Summary Appraisal Report Tukwila Pond Mitigation Parcel, Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 SHH File 7900 -05 Dear Mr. Wig: At your request, we are providing you with a complete appraisal relevant to the above referenced property. This appraisal is prepared in a summary appraisal report format. The purpose of this appraisal is to prepare and submit a supported opinion of the value of the right to use the above referenced property for a period of ten years. The report is prepared in accordance with, and is intended to conform to, the standards and reporting requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as formulated by the Appraisal Foundation. In addition, this report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it presents summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraisers' opinions of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraisers' file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client stated within this report. The property to be encumbered by the ten year easement is a non -segregated parcel of land with an area of approximately 2.88 acres located on the southeasterly corner of the City of Tukwila's Tukwila Pond Park property in King County, Washington. Tukwila Pond Park includes a total area of 24.77 acres, of which about 19.0 acres is open water. No survey map of the property was provided. Per documentation provided to us that was prepared by the client's wetland expert, Chad Armour, LLC, the property area to be 6419 Lakewood Drive West Tacoma, Washington 98467 Tacoma (253) 564-3230 Fax (253) 564-3143 encumbered consists of "degraded lacustrine emergent wetland habitat"' which has no developmental potential. The proposed easement is for purposes of wetland enhancement in accordance with an approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, in order to mitigate wetlands on a nearby site, which is not the subject of this report. The function of the appraisal is to serve as the basis for establishing the present value of the annual consideration required by a prospective easement agreement encumbering the subject. Copies of the draft agreement and the Grant of Easement are included in the appraisal's Addenda. This easement will obligate the easement holder to pay annual compensation to the City, to improve the wetlands, and to monitor the enhanced wetlands on the property for a period of ten years. The subject of this report is the valuation of the right to utilize the subject site area for a fixed period, by way of an easement. The period is ten years. The question to be answered is, "What is the value of the use of this site area for ten years?" The answer requires several steps: 1. The valuation of the site area, hypothetically assuming that it is segregated and can be sold. 2. Apply a reasonable capitalization rate to derive an annual rent amount to be paid over the ten year holding period. 3. Analyze the proposed ten year income stream to estimate its present value. 4. The present market value of the ten years of income allocated to the use of this site area for a finite period equals the market value of the mitigation easement. The opinion of value of the prospective subject easement interest in the encumbered site area, effective as of August 26, 2005, is estimated to be $60,000. SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $60,000 The estimated value is $60,000, indicating a per unit value of the subject easement interest of ($60,000 / 2.88 acres) = $20,833 per acre. t Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, Chad Armour, LLC, October 2004, page 14. As in the case of any appraisal, the reader's attention is directed to the underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions that are included in the accompanying report. submitted, MAI, SRA State of Washington Certification 1100429 � L illiam N. Genschow, Associate State of Washington Certification 1100861 TABLE OF CONTENTS TitlePage........................................................................................................................... i Letter of Transmittal Tableof Contents.............................................................................................................. v SubjectPhotographs......................................................................................................... vi Factual Description Intended Use and User of the Appraisal...........................................................................1 PropertyIdentification...................................................................................................... 2 LegalDescription..............................................................................................................2 Purposeof the Appraisal................................................................................................... 3 MarketValue.................................................................................................................... 3 Scope................................................................................................................................. 3 LocationDescription......................................................................................................... 6 PropertyDescription......................................................................................................... 9 Zoning............................................................................. ................................................13 Taxesand Assessments...................................................................................................14 Analysis of Data & Opinions of Appraisers Highestand Best Use......................................................................................................15 PropertyValuation..........................................................................................................16 Sales Comparison Approach...........................................................................................18 Reconciliation................................................................................................................. 36 Certification.................................................................................................................... 47 Qualifications and References........................................................................................ 49 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions.............................................................................. 53 Extraordinary Assumptions and/or Hypothetical Conditions ......................................... 56 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS t �.�;L:s'3 � l wj .K�. .. y . .. . �. � /` Tr s i� �.r t . t + v y ;r t s s§'t t' VA fief -, � r ' � � � ''�s•'+';�Y�" � �. '. -��•µ,x �ivaf� �T y • �i� r� �tu�,� 3- ,^'• •,eta-c .t F +µ �3 •ap s � G �. r v � r �h '��` _ .-4f` •`Z'.hr. ``'''',' 'F, rE g, i-t lt,. s:; t*��#+•.�"��S �,qL$ " \ :fit'"' r "`Zo-` �_� E•. =F'.,Lt� ?`ram � � V�`4'''..�r+���A� MVP r.� ,�4• � �', A� � f -F� e i + ag4{r r 1 i : 1 � t t 'L � / to � yl i � �. Y '\n+�.�}�.� . • f.''F '' ,f + �'���' C t FACTUAL DESCRIPTION This is a Summary Appraisal Report that is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraisers' opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraisers' file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client stated within this report. APPRAISERS: Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate Strickland, Heischman, & Hoss, Inc. 6419 Lakewood Drive West Tacoma, WA 98467-3354 CLIENT: Mon Wig Wig Properties, LLC-SS 4811-134`h Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 INTENDED USE AND USER OF THE APPRAISAL: This is a Complete Appraisal presented in a Summary Appraisal Report format which is intended to be used by the client relevant to the prospective easement. Intended Use is defined as: "The use or uses of an appraiser's reported appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment opinions and conclusions, as identified by the appraiser based on communication with the client at the time of the assignment.112 2 Appraisal Standards Board, The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2005 Edition, Definitions, page 3. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 1 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Intended User is defined as: "The client and any other party as identified, by name or type, as users of the appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting report, by the appraiser based on communication with the client at the time of assignment." 3 A Client is defined as: "The party or parties who engages an appraiser (by employment or contract) in a specific assignment.114 This report is intended for use only by the client and any other users as authorized by the client. The appraisers do not intend use of this report by others. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: Tukwila Pond Mitigation Parcel, Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: None provided. SALES HISTORY: The parent tract of the site to be encumbered has been under the ownership of the City of Tukwila for over three years. The property is not currently listed for sale, or subject to any option, or purchase and sale agreement. INTEREST APPRAISED: The value of the proposed easement use for a period of ten years. An Easement is defined as: Easement: An interest in real property that conveys use, but not ownership, of a portion of an owner's property.5 3 Ibid., page 3. 4 Ibid., page 2. 5 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition, Appraisal Institute, Page 90. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 2 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVE VALUATION DATES: Date of Report: September 19, 2005 Date of Appraisal (Physical Inspection): August 26, 2005 EXPOSURE TIME / MARKETING TIME: Twelve months or less. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL: The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the present value of the payments relevant to the prospective ten year easement to be placed on the Tukwila Pond Mitigation Parcel effective as of August 26, 2005, the date of our physical inspection. MARKET VALUE: The definition of Market Value is as follows: The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress. Source: The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition, The Appraisal Institute, page 22. SCOPE: The scope of the assignment relates to the field work, inspection, research, and analysis conducted for preparation and valuation of the subject property's estimated Market Value. This complete appraisal, prepared in a summary appraisal report format, included a physical inspection of the hypothetical subject property (including an offer to the owner for an inspection in the company of the property owner representative, which was accepted), interviews with various individuals familiar with the subject and the subject market area, and research of sales and listings of similar properties in the market area to arrive at an estimate of value for the subject property. Financial and statistical data was gathered using various informational systems such as Costar Comps, MetroScan, and the TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 3 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Northwest Multiple Listing Service. Comparable information relating to sales of similar type properties in the subject's market area was confirmed directly with individuals who were involved in the specific transactions. Within this appraisal we have considered all three approaches (Income, Cost, and Sales Comparison) to value. As the Highest and Best use of the subject property site is attributed to the site's use potential, a Sales Comparison Approach as it relates to land is considered to be the only appropriate method for valuing the fee simple interest in the subject property. To develop the opinion of value, the appraisers performed a complete appraisal process, as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. This means than that no departures from Standard 1 were invoked. This Summary Appraisal Report is a brief recapitulation of the appraisers' data, analyses, and conclusions. Supporting documentation is retained in the appraisers' file. Subsequent to ascertaining the market value of the non -segregated site area, annual rent was estimated, and the proposed ten year cash flow was utilized to delineate the current market value of the proposed easement. PERSONAL PROPERTY: The value conclusion for this appraisal does not include any personal property. UNAVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: The appraisers were not provided a title report, any environmental reports for the subject property,. nor any soils or geotechnical reports relevant to the site. For purposes of appraisal, it is assumed that the property is not atypically encumbered by easements or encroachments, that the subject site is not impacted by the presence of any hazardous contamination, that the soil conditions present at the subject site can support the highest and best use of the property. Should these assumptions prove to be incorrect or inaccurate, the value conclusions herein may be impacted. CONFORMANCE WITH USPAP: It is the intention of the appraisers that this report does not depart from USPAP requirements and conforms to generally accepted appraisal standards. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 4 SITU File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION DEDUCTIONS AND DISCOUNTS: The appraisal reports the value estimate of the fee simple interest of the subject property. No deductions and/or discounts were necessary in formulating a market value estimate of the hypothetical subject (discounting is required by USPAP when five or more units or properties are held under one ownership). Therefore, no additional discounting of market value cash flows beyond that applied in the analysis was deemed necessary to achieve the market value estimate. STATE LICENSED APPRAISERS: Fred Strickland, MAI, SRA, and William N. Genschow are Certified General Real Estate Appraisers in the state of Washington. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 5 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate net 4 'Vicfi)ria 1 ~`/ O nt Vernon Sauk f— Gak Hirboref S�nr Gla�tr _ + t ` f " So BaNt All I ,Sora:ofa Pa::rve Pant' Port An eles_ 'ti- row fend J �' 9 Glacier HlJklake Glacier,. •,1-.1 I �Pdrt t J1 Saida", - Glacier IIAA full(. l b. S kl . Colwxbia z { . Glacier 1 U homish Cameron 1 _/ Glacitrs AW II 1. Andaran 3� °' Glacier y r r� Y� i ends edfnan`d Cm�If.,• SUBJECT PROPERTY a ••� - ',.1. / rPort OrChar_d J ,s rK J FmjalYI"y t �11u u101 ���,,,,�yP� k FireMs a s Y 7 ' nUP Enumclaw �^ yT ���) stellaccom u -J,512 syanav ay. 1- r - TUnMrato 1 �. Gla GI, R ✓ Centralia J Chehalis G r cLr Glacier ftwr �u . AREA MAP FACTUAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION DESCRIPTION: The site relevant to the subject property is located within the southerly area of the city of Tukwila. Tukwila is surrounded by four cities: on the north by Seattle; on the east by Renton; on the southwest by SeaTac; and on the west by Burien. The three smaller cities of Tukwila, Burien, and SeaTac are bisected by Interstate 5 and are situated about midway between Seattle and Tacoma. The northerly limits of Tukwila extend to Boeing Field and the southerly limits are at about South 190`h Street. The easterly side of the city and the boundary of the subject neighborhood is the Green River. The city has an area of 8.6 square miles and has an estimated 2005 population of 17,110, which represents a slight decrease from the 2000 Census. A map showing the subject's more immediate location is reproduced on the facing page. The dominant feature of the cities of Tukwila, Burien, and SeaTac is the Seattle -Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), located in the heart of SeaTac. The Port of Seattle began development of this airport in what was predominantly rural South King County in 1942. Within two decades the airport had expanded to an area of 1,400 acres and was surrounded by a prosperous suburban community. The city of SeaTac, named after the airport, was incorporated in February 1990, with an estimated 2005 population of 25,140 (a decrease from the 2000 Census), while Burien was incorporated in 1993, and has an estimated 2005 population of 31,040 (also a decrease from the 2000 Census). Most of the city of Tukwila lies easterly of the airport while Burien area lies northerly, westerly, or southerly of the airport. Sea-Tac International Airport is a full service facility with total air passengers, arrivals and departures of over 28.8 million. Airport travel is estimated to bring in an average of 13,000 visitors daily to the city of SeaTac. Consequently, SeaTac has over 4,000 hotel and motel rooms, the highest concentration in the state of Washington. Tukwila and Burien are primarily residential communities occupied by many of the SeaTac Airport and Boeing Company employees as well as people employed throughout the Puget Sound region, due to the convenient access to the region's freeway system. The city of SeaTac, adjacent to Tukwila and Burien, is headquarters for Alaska and Horizon Airlines, and it has a 720,000 square foot Boeing Spares Facility that distributes Boeing parts worldwide. In June 1999 the Port of Seattle Commission approved spending an additional $186 million to complete Sea-Tac Airport's third runway, originally pegging the total price at $773 million with an anticipated completion date during 2006. The most recent cost estimate for the runway is between $1.1 and $1.2 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 6 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate s I LqH S T -IT Ei Tuk S !177HST % _,J > S 11-6 ST 111 SUM 8 IWTH ST .1 6 w 6 95TH S IVIH PIL pi. Ja 13RD ST MONSTER RD SW N V t SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION MAP FACTUAL DESCRIPTION billion, with a revised completion date of late 2008. Progress on the new runway has been waylaid by court challenges and environmental issues, which have led to the increased cost and delay in progress. The major arterials running north -south through the city include International Boulevard/Pacific Highway South (State Route 99) and Interstate 5, both easterly of the airport, as well as State Route 167/Valley Freeway, which traverses the Kent Valley. East -west arterials include Interstate 405 and State Route 518, both northerly of the airport, which access Tukwila's commercial district, located in the southeasterly quadrant of the junction of Interstate 5 and Interstate 405. Due to its accessibility and central location, this immediate area has become the retail heart of the surrounding communities. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (formerly the Southcenter Mall) is one of the four largest malls in the state. The mall is surrounded by a vast variety of service and retail outlets. The southeasterly portion of the neighborhood is dominated by distribution warehouses, while office projects are situated along the Green River. In 1991 the Boeing Company purchased the Longacres Race Track site located easterly of Southcenter on I-405. Boeing is in the long term process of developing a 212 acre business park campus which includes their 500,000 sq.ft. training center and employment center, along with 42 acres of open space and wetlands. This campus is the headquarters of Boeing's airplane manufacturing division. As for housing, the majority of residential units are represented by single-family residences, most of which have been developed within the past 50 years. There are also multi -family sales (condominiums) and rental apartment complexes in this market. Residential growth in the area is slowing as it becomes fully built -out. Older, smaller commercial uses are being gradually supplanted by modern, larger redevelopments. An example of this is the late 1990s redevelopment of the 700,000 sq.ft. Parkway SuperCenter located just southerly along Southcenter Parkway from the subject, which replaced the outdated Pavilion Mall and Parkway Plaza shopping centers. The center includes a variety of retail tenants, restaurants, and a 12 screen multiplex theater. Major tenants include Best Buy, Old Navy, Babies `R' Us, Ross Dress for Less, Michael's, Pier 1 Imports, and Red Robin; the redeveloped shopping center sold in 2003 for in excess of $88 million. WKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 7 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION The subject neighborhood is also a furniture retailing district, anchored by warehouse stores including Levitz Furniture, the Bon Marche Clearance Furniture warehouse, Dania, Nationwide, and Ikea, in Renton. Other more typical furniture outlets in the immediate area include Furniture Mart, Bon Marche Furniture Gallery, Krause's Furniture, Ethan Allen, and specialty dealers in leather and rattan furniture. Overall, the general neighborhood is expected to benefit from continuing redevelopment. As the population in the extended area grows, which it is projected to do, more intensive development is likely to occur. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 8 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate 4• IN AKC Q� ('A"CEL- A f ofindary / / .wro/, B/ `q. 1 / DP 1 I OP 10 0 v I � L R 0 AD TRACKS ---_ _....._-- ------- � A N * Lt Cross Section Location and Designation 0 100 200 Scale in Feet FIGURE 4: UPLAND LOCATION PLAN Chad Armour, LLC Wig Properties 6500 126th Avenue SE Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006 FACTUAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Site Description The site relevant to the subject property is a non -segregated site with an approximate area of 2.88 acres, according to a wetlands expert, Chad Armour. No survey map of the property was provided. The land area is prospectively to serve as an off -site mitigation site. It is inclusive of a portion of the southeasterly corner of City of Tukwila's Tukwila Pond Park (Assessor's Parcel Number 2623049062). The site fronts on the 400 block of Andover Park West between Strander Boulevard to the north and Minkler Boulevard to the south. Its specific location is southerly of Burger King, across Andover Park West from the Courtyard by Marriott hotel, and northerly of the railroad tracks that define the southerly extent of Tukwila Pond Park.. Further details of the site are provided as follows: Area: 2.88 acres. Shape: Irregular. The northwesterly boundary of the area to be mitigated is delineated by the open water and shoreline of Tukwila Pond. The easterly boundary is the right of way of Andover Park West, and the southerly boundary is the right of way of the adjacent rail line. The site surrounds, but does not include the area designated "upland" on the facing page map, which lies at the center of the triangular outline of the mitigation site. Access: The area to be mitigated has frontage on the westerly side of Andover Park West, a four lane commercial street improved with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, and other infrastructure. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 9 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate KING COUNTY'S SHADED RELIEF MAP FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Abutting Properties/Uses: The Tukwila Pond property is surrounded by retail, service, and industrial development in a mature, built out commercial district. Utilities: All public utility services are available to the property. Topography/Cover: The site exhibits generally level topography, ranging from water level on the edge of the pond, to a margin of higher ground on the easterly and southerly perimeters of the site. As shown on the shaded relief map on the facing page, the central uplands are somewhat discernable as a slightly higher area trending in a northeast -southwest direction. Per Armour, "a curvilinear mound of soil covering 1.2 acres in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond is upland —the mound is nearly surrounded by standing water during the rainy season. During periods of slightly grater than average precipitation, water from the pond and water standing in the former stream channel join to form a larger pond. A thin neck of high ground on the eastern edge of the site makes the mound a peninsula rather than an island during even heavier than normal rainfall events. " As to cover, per Armour7, "There are four plant communities in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond site. A forest dominated by black cottonwood is located along the eastern perimeter of the Tukwila Pond site. The southern boundary is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Both of these plant communities function as uplands. A large portion of the Tukwila Pond site is dominated by a monoculture of reed canarygrass. Within this plant community is a depression that supports some cattail. Between the grass and open water is a forest dominated by Pacific Willow. Hooker's willow grows along the perimeter of this forest, at the forest/grass interface. Red- 6 Tukwila Pond Upland Delineation, June 9, 2005 letter to Carol Lumb, Chad Armour, LLC. 7 Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, October 2604, Chad Armour, LLC, page 6. TUKWII,A POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 10 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION osier dogwood shrubs grow beneath the willow canopy. Both of these plant communities function as wetlands. " Soils: We were not provided with any soils reports or studies relevant to the subject property. According to Armour8, "A 1986 geotechnical engineering report on the Mitigation site describe the near -surface soils as silty fine sand and sandy silt (Dames and Moore, 1986). When Tukwila delineated the wetlands on the Tukwila Pond site, they described the near -surface soils as silt loam. " Flood Plain: The site is not located within the 100-year flood plain, as per Flood Hazard Map 530091 0959F, effective date May 16, 1995. However, per Armour9, "Data indicates that two areas in the southeast corner of the Tukwila Pond flood during the rainy season — the area adjacent to the pond and the low spot in the southeast corner. We understand that the low spot in the southeast corner of the site is the former location of a stream. This depression fills seasonally with water as much as 5 feet deep. " Wetlands: The aforementioned Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tukwila Pond, prepared in October 2004 by Chad Armour, LLC, serves as a wetlands delineation. A copy of this document is retained in our files. Armour describes the wetlands on the site as consisting of "degraded lacustrine emergent wetland habitat. " (Lacustrine wetlands are related to lakes.) Environmental Issues: We were not provided any environmental site assessment of the property. We are not experts in the area of hazardous waste. We have assumed, for purposes of appraisal, that the site is free from any hazardous waste problems. 8 Ibid., page 6. 9 Tukwila Pond Upland Delineation, June 9, 2005 letter to Carol Lumb, Chad Armour, LLC. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 11 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FIGURE 3: WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Chad Armour, LLC 0Wig Properties LLC-SS Bollo ue, Washington 08006 Tukwila, Washington FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Geotechnical Hazards: No site -specific geotechnical study has been provided as to any landslide, seismic, or volcanic hazard. We are not experts in the area of geotechnical hazards. We have assumed, for purposes of appraisal, that the site is free from any geotechnical hazards. Easements: No title report was provided to us. We assume that the property is not impacted by any easements or restrictions that would effect the highest and best use of the property. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA . Page 12 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Zoning The site is zoned TUC, Tukwila Urban Center, by the City of Tukwila (Chapter 18.28, Tukwila Municipal Code). This classification is intended to provide for a variety of high - intensity commercial, retail, office, warehousing, and light industrial establishments. In addition to the plethora of uses permitted outright, within this zone, there are a variety of conditionally permitted and `unclassified' uses in the zone. A more overriding issue related to zoning is the City of Tukwila Environmentally Sensitive Areas ordinance (Title 18.45, as revised by Ordinance 2074 in 2004), which relates to the site to be encumbered and its parent tract, the Tukwila Pond. As discussed in the Site Description section of this report, based on the Armour studies, there are significant areas of wetlands -impacted land comprising the hypothetical subject property. Based on the observations of Armour, "The Tukwila Pond site wetland as a whole, rates at the high end of Category III Wetlands... When viewed independently of the Tukwila Pond site, the Mitigation site rates at the high end of Category IV wetlands. " (These designations are Department of Ecology wetland ratings for Western Washington.) Under the City of Tukwila's Environmentally Sensitive Areas ordinance, Tukwila Pond appears to have the characteristics of a Type I wetland for City zoning and land use purposes, which has an attendant 100 foot wide buffer. (A copy of Chapter 18.45 of the ordinance is included in the Addenda herein.) According to the ordinance, there is an extremely narrow variety of uses allowed within all types of identified wetlands and buffer areas, generally limited to temporary maintenance and repair, streets and utilities, storm water retention, passive use for recreation and open space, education and research, and mitigation. Mitigation is addressed in 18.45.070 B5 and B9, allowing "Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping with native plants. " Further, dredging, digging, or filling within wetlands and buffers are allowed by permission, and only for "Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study. " Mitigation ratios include 1.5:1 for alteration of wetlands and 3.0:1 for "enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands. " It appears that the proposed use for the property, off -site wetland mitigation and enhancement under an approved wetland mitigation plan, is an allowed use under the current zoning ordinance. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 13 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP FACTUAL DESCRIPTION Taxes and Assessments The parent tract of the site area to be encumbered is currently carried on the King County tax and assessment roll as shown below. An assessor's parcel map showing the parent property is reproduced on the facing page. TAX AND ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Parcel Number Land A.V. Imp. A.V. Total A.V. Levy Rate/M 2005 Taxes 2623049062 $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000 N/A Exempt Although the parent tract is tax exempt, there are charges in 2005 for a noxious weed fee of $3.75 and a conservation district fee of $5.00. Fees relevant to the parent tract are reported to be paid current. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 14 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Wetland mitigation and enhancement under an approved wetland mitigation plan, as demand dictates, with ;no potential for development. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 15 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS PROPERTY VALUATION The subject of this report is the valuation of the right to utilize the subject site area for a fixed period, by way of an easement. The period is ten years. The question to be answered by the appraisal is, "What is the value of the use of this site area for ten years?" The answer requires several steps: 1. The valuation of the site area, hypothetically assuming that it is segregated and can be sold. 2. Apply a reasonable capitalization rate to derive an annual rent amount to be paid over the ten year holding period. 3. Analyze the proposed ten year income stream to estimate its present value. 4. The present market value of the ten years of income allocated to the use of this site area for a finite period equals the market value of the mitigation easement. The Cost Approach, Income Approach and Sales Comparison Approach are the three basic techniques or approaches to value when appraising real property. Because the subject property is analyzed as an unimproved site, only those techniques applicable to Land Value derivation have been considered. Several procedures for the valuation of land may be available to appraisers depending on available data. These include: 1. The Sales Comparison Approach. Sales of similar vacant parcels are analyzed, compared, and adjusted to derive an indication of value for the land being appraised. 2. The allocation (abstraction) procedure. Sales of improved properties are analyzed, and the prices are allocated between land and improvements. 3. The extraction procedure. This is a variant of the allocation method, whereby the value of the contribution to the total value of the improvements are estimated, and then deducted from the total to leave land value. 4. The anticipated use (development) procedure. Undeveloped land is assumed to be subdivided, developed, and sold. Development costs, incentive costs, and carrying charges are subtracted from the estimated proceeds of sale, and the net income projection is discounted over the estimated period required for market absorption of the developed sites to derive an indication of value for the land being appraised. 5. The land residual procedure. The land is assumed to be improved to its highest and best use, and the net income imputable to the land after all expenses of TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 16 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS operation and return attributable to the other agents in production is capitalized to derive an estimate of land value. 6. The ground rent capitalization procedure. In this procedure the rent paid for the right to use and occupy land is capitalized to yield a value. Capitalization rates are derived from market data. The appraisers considered these techniques, and determined that the most applicable method in the case of the area to be encumbered is the Sales Comparison Approach (Step One), which follows. The remainder of the valuation analysis is accomplished in the subsequent Reconciliation section. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 17 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS SALES COMPARISON APPROACH One of the most reliable indicators of value in an active market is derived by comparing the property being appraised with similar or near similar properties which have recently sold. This approach reflects the principle that a well informed buyer will pay no more for a property than the cost involved in obtaining an equally satisfactory substitute property. A basic principle in the valuation of real estate is that no two properties are identical and, thus, adjustments are necessary to reflect the various differences. This formalizes the thought process often followed by buyers and sellers and tends to yield a range of indicated values for the property appraised. A few of the more common factors that may influence value are detailed below: 1. Location Location is the primary factor in the valuation of virtually all real estate. As applied typically, the highest land values are found with those tracts having good overall utility, with good access, favorable terrain features, and suitable soil types. 2. Size of Tract Another important factor is the size of the tract being considered. As a general rule, the smaller the parcel, the higher the per unit value (price per acre). This is primarily because of the fact that the smaller tracts are in greater demand and within the means of many investors, while the larger tracts have a wholesale aspect and require greater financing capacity, equity investment, expense, and time to develop. For wetland tracts like the subject, the price per acre is the conventional unit of comparison used by buyers and sellers in the marketplace. 3. Financing Terms and Conditions of Sale Sale prices listed for comparable sales are strongly influenced by terms and conditions of sale offered by the seller and by the motivation of both the buyer and the seller. When sale terms are attractive, with such features as a low down payment, low rate of interest, and payment over an extended period of time, prices tend to be inflated as opposed to the situation where the seller requires all cash. Conditions of sale adjustments are required TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 18 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS when a sale is considered to be not fully arm's length in nature or when there are other conditions surrounding the sale or the motivation of the parties that are atypical. 4. Date of Sale/Market Conditions The date of comparable sales is also important in estimating present land values. This is not only because of the cycles in land values within the community, but also because of the inflationary trend affecting the value of the dollar during the last 20 years. 5. Zoning and Potential Development Density The highest land values, on a per unit basis, are normally found under the higher density commercial uses, followed in succession by multifamily/office/industrial uses, single family use, suburban residential, and, finally, agricultural, forestry, and open space use. While the existing zoning classification may not absolutely dictate future use of the land, it has a strong bearing on both sale prices and land values. A purchaser who must rezone land to a higher or different use must consider not only the probability of rezoning, but also the time and expense required. 6. Physical Features of the Land In considering current land values, a number of physical factors also influence land value. These include topography or slope, provision for surface drainage, soil conditions, the presence of wetlands, ground cover, and view, among others. When all of these conditions are favorable, a purchaser might reasonably be expected to pay a premium and when one or more are unfavorable, an offer to purchase will most probably be discounted. The highest and best use has been concluded for the use of the prospectively encumbered site area for wetland mitigation, with no potential for development. The appraisers have conducted a search for comparable land sales in the vicinity of the encumbered site area. The sales, although not exactly similar, provide a benchmark from which to value the encumbered site area. , In the case of wetland mitigation property, the method of comparison typically utilized is a per acre basis. The comparables all have a highest and best use similar to the encumbered site area, for wetland mitigation. While it is preferable to utilize recent sales and sales that do not involve any governmental entity, in the case of this property type, in TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 19 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate .•White n 4oK nnydale._ Height; 1 •�ashon •Bryn Mawr jjCoalflel oa *Mown Reril Cedarhurst Rehtb •, ; „ _ East Renton Highlands• Seahurst Buri l •Tu SUBJECT PROPERTY 1s •Riv on Ights ; • apleWood vashon WA" � unnyd le 4 t *VaShOn 1 � - .. Seetlle �� L-1 HYFEI(SITE - 8000 S 216TH ST, NENT � Pounce omp, _ Do$Mol' ,: _ . �-- ` •� +e is . - I _��__ • Zen fKOH o • -i- ` t•Dockton., - Set,tide1 at Makcilan 14ol oo - (f t Acre mo ch+ ` to •sj)oro L-4 _ ' �. ThoMas IW6CO. FLOOD CONTROL PARCEL +07'js a Co oq.` FRAGENROAD SOVTKKENT arrydale . Lakota • f Christopher k 1 1 lyr�Atnun ' / •Adel Fide I�Iyay ►Anf \�� — ea;Hilt mash Po Alt`+ �% ` ` No � owns_Poitrt �r so to FORM L 2 GERMUDE JONES SITE men River • te, i 9T ., 803 -15TH ST NE. At16URN ^-r�- •.� nca hart+ N aukum • ,aCOti18 ikon Edgewood A r ,eo 107 is ."` _{. L-3 PORT OF TA COMA HaTIGATIONSITE Waller orth Puyal u�, i gym S3' 3602 RNER RD F. TACOMA • .,•� �5umncr (t allup to r _ ti Flvin HRanch . o - 1z BonneyLaksd. COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS this market, the use of older sales and sales with agency involvement is unavoidable, due to the thin market for wetland mitigation properties, and due to the lack of any known active private sector wetland banking in the region. Historically, the availability of developable land has been abundant, particularly in the southerly King County/Kent Valley market, such that developers could typically avoid the necessity to mitigate wetlands off -site in their site selection. Four sales were selected for analysis of the encumbered site area. A summary chart of the comparables follows, with a location map shown on the facing page. COMPARABLE LAND DATA Sale Analysis Size in Price/ Sale Location Date Price Acres Acre L-1 Hytek Site 11/98 $250,000 19.17 $13,041 8000 South 216th Street Kent, WA L-2 Former Gertrude Jones Site 1/00 $500,000 36.19 $13,816 803 —15th Street NE Auburn, WA L-3 Port of Tacoma Mitigation Site 3602 River Road East Tacoma, WA 4/94 $300,000 12.62 $23,772 L-4 King County Flood Control Parcel 3/05 $250,000 12.63 $19,794 Frager Road South Kent, WA TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 20 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA Wiliam N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 1 Property Identification Record ID 7272 Property Type Wetlands Property Name Hytek Site Address 8000 South 210h Street, Kent, King County, Washington 98032 Location Westerly end of the cul-de-sac Assessor's Parcel Number 3830000030, 3830000055, 3830000070 Legal Portions of Lots 8, 10, 11, and B of Kent Five Acre Tracts Instrument SWD Map Page 686 A5 Sale Data Grantor Trillium Corporation Grantee Hytek Finishes Company Sale Date November 20, 1998 Auditor's File Number 199811201092 Property Rights Fee Marketing Time Direct Conditions of Sale See Remarks Financing Cash Sale History Seller purchased in December 1993 for $436,734. Verification Gary Volchok, CB Richard Ellis, 206-394-3347 Sale Price $250,000 Land Data Zoning M-3, Industrial Topography Level Utilities All available Shape Irregular Landscaping Native vegetation Rail Service Rail line across drainage ditch on westerly boundary Flood Info Nearly all in flood plain Land Size Land Area 19.170 Acres Indicators Sale Price/Acre $13,041 TUKWH.A POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 21 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 1 (Cont.) , Remarks This parcel is comprised of approximately 13 acres of wetlands and about 6 acres of uplands. However, the uplands are scattered throughout the parcel area and are effectively inaccessible and undevelopable. The buyer, Hytek, owns the property adjacent to the east that is improved with a warehouse and wareyard. The buyer's intent in purchasing this parcel was to attempt to create a useable one acre expansion site for use in conjunction with their existing property. However, this could not be accomplished, due to wetland issues, and the property remains totally undeveloped. Surroundings include intensely developed suburban light industrial properties. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 22 SMI File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS WESTERLY END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC 8000 SOUTH 216TH STREET TUKWII.A POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA - Page 23 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 2 Property Identification Record ID 7255 Property Type Wetlands Property Name Former Gertrude Jones Site Address 803 — 15'b Street NE, Auburn, King County, Washington 98002 Location Off the northerly end of Clay Street Assessor's Parcel Number 1221049013 Legal Metes and bounds Instrument SWD Map Page 746 B3 Sale Data Grantor Gertrude A. Jones Grantee City of Auburn Sale Date January 7, 2000 Auditor's File Number 200001130697 Property Rights Fee Conditions of Sale Typical, no threat of condemnation Financing Cash Verification Jeff Dixon, Director, City of Auburn Planning Department, 1-253-804- 5033; Tim Carlaw, Storm Drainage Engineer, City of Auburn, 1-253- 804-5060; Gary Volchok, CB Richard Ellis, 206-394-3347 Sale Price $500,000 Land Data Zoning M-1, Industrial Topography Low, level Utilities All available Shape Irregular Landscaping Native vegetation Flood Info Most in 100 year flood, two-thirds in floodway, all wetlands Land Size Land Area 36.190 Acres Indicators Sale Price/Acre $13,816 TUKWH A POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 24 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 2 (Cont.) Remarks This industrial zoned tract lies on the easterly side of SR 167 (with no freeway access), at the northerly end of Clay Street; a rail line separates its easterly boundary from H Street NW, in the city of Auburn. The majority of the site area is within a flood plain and about 67% of the site area is within the floodway of Mill Creek, according to county maps. The site is 100% wetlands, according to the City. The City of Auburn purchased this site outright in order to increase its holdings along the Mill Creek watershed. The City owns at least six adjacent parcels to the south, between the sold property and West Main Street, as well as large parcels westerly of the SR 167 freeway both northerly and southerly ("Goedecke North") of West Main Street. These parcels along the Mill Creek/SR 167 corridor are all heavily impacted by wetlands. In the planning stages is the future Auburn Environmental Park, which will include this tract and the area bounded by West Main Street, North 15'b Street, SR 167, and the railroad tracks. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 25 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS OFF THE NORTHERLY END OF CLAY STREET 803 -15TH STREET NORTHEAST TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA . Page 26 SIGH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 3 Property Identification Record ID 7262 Property Type Wetlands Property Name Port of Tacoma Mitigation Site Address 3602 River Road East, Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington 98443 Location Southeasterly of the intersection of River Road and Pioneer Way Assessor's Parcel Number 5000350671, 5000350672 Legal Port of Tacoma Assessor's Tracts, Portion Section 11, T 20 N, R 3 E, W.M. Instrument S WD Map Page 804 DI Sale Data Grantor N/A Grantee Port of Tacoma Sale Date April 27, 1994 Auditor's File Number 19940427xxxx Property Rights Fee Conditions of Sale Typical Financing Cash Verification Bob Emerson, Port of Tacoma, 253-383-5841 Sale Price $300,000 Land Data Zoning R2, Residential and RSep, Rural Separator Topography Level, below grade Utilities All available Shape Extremely irregular Landscaping Native and hydrophytic vegetation Rail Service Adjacent to an elevated railroad bed Flood Info All in 100 year flood zone Land Size Land Area 12.620 Acres Indicators Sale Price/Acre $23,772 TUKWILA POND NIITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA Page 27 William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 3 (Cont.) Remarks This tract is located in Pierce County at the intersection of River Road East and Pioneer Way. It is a long, narrow tract that is situated along the easterly side of a raised railroad bed southerly of River Road. River Road parallels the Puyallup River. The site includes an historical meander of the Puyallup River, and now includes the floodway of Clear Creek. The meander is historical, and not ancient, since the Tacoma city limits originally bordered the bank of the Puyallup River on this site. The site appears to be substantially covered by standing water and wetlands. Surroundings include agriculture on the lowlands to the east, residential on the uplands to the west, and some low density commercial development along River Road East. For price/value comparison, the useable industrial site located at 403 North Levee Road in the nearby The Park in Puyallup with an area of 5.44 acres sold for $141,633 per acre ($3.25/sq.ft.) in July 1994. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 28 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate BSI- Yf „ a � ?� `y' �q`- 41� Z 'y- � } �;' r � � c • �` � " '� .�d, -i`" a�H } gffl;:M��`at`dl 4`B Vill - ors.-.tt. ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 4 Property Identification Record ID 7264 Property Type Wetlands Property Name King County Stream Restoration Parcel Location Frager Road South, Kent, King County, Washington 98032; both sides of Kent Des Moines Road South, southerly of the Green River Assessor's Parcel Number 2322049033, 9036, 9076 Legal Metes and bounds Instrument SWD Map Page 715 F3 Sale Data Grantor John J. Flower Grantee King County Sale Date March 16, 2005 Auditor's File Number 200503230373 Property Rights Fee Marketing Time Direct Conditions of Sale Typical - no threat of condemnation Financing Cash Verification Gary Blanchard, King County Department of Ecology, 206-205-8644 Sale Price $250,000 Land Data Zoning A10 (King County) and R4 (City of Kent) Topography Level, low Utilities All available Shape Irregular Landscaping Native vegetation; overgrown stand of nursery trees with no commercial value Flood Info 100% flood zone, floodway and wetland Land Size Land Area 12.630 Acres Indicators Sale Price/Acre $19,794 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 30 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS LAND SALE NO. 4 (Cont.) Remarks This tract is located southerly of Frager Road which acts as a levee along the Green River, westerly of West Valley Highway and southerly of West Meeker Street in southwesterly Kent. The tract is 100% involved in Rating 4 wetlands per the National Wetland Inventory and King County maps. It is bisected by the elevated roadbed of Kent Des Moines Road South (SR 516). However, this road has a bridge over Mullen Slough under which the tract is provided access between its northerly and southerly portions. The northerly part consists of two assessor's parcels with areas of 1.32 acres and 0.34 acres (located in the city of Kent), and the southerly bulk of the site is a third assessor's parcel with an area of 10.97 acres (located in King County). The parcel is not cleared for agriculture, but is treed with an overgrown stand of nursery trees with no commercial value. The property is located in the Agricultural Production District but it is not in the Farmland Protection Program. The similar vacant parcels adjacent to the south were purchased in 1999 by King County's Green River Flood Control Zone. Immediately to the west is the Old Fishing Hole pond. The purchase price was a negotiated settlement; there was no threat of condemnation, since the tract was offered by the seller on a voluntary basis. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWH.A, WA Page 31 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS `�� Off, � ,\ 23210(9011 2322 666fi / ! ' s�0 23220(90T2 GreenrRiver FF`P 23220(9036 2322049029 1 N.- — - - -- 166 23220(9013 23220(9033 3220( 90 232204901 BOTH SIDES OF KENT DES MOINES ROAD SOUTH, SOUTHERLY OF THE GREEN RIVER FRAGER ROAD SOUTH TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWELA, WA Page 32 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow; Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS Analysis of Comparable Sales There are six common elements of comparison that should always be considered in the sales comparison analysis. These are: Real property rights conveyed; Financing terms; Conditions of sale; Date of sale; and Location and Physical characteristics. The first three elements of comparison are similar for the comparables used herein. The sales range in dates from April 1994 to March 2005. In order to account for appreciation in the market, an annual time adjustment of 3% is reflected for the sales. Typically, it is preferable to utilize sales that are more similar in size compared to the subject site area. Our research located four sales of wetlands, which are not ideal comparables due to their larger sizes, which necessitates the use of relatively large size adjustments for comparison to the encumbered site area. We are unaware of smaller size properties that meet the criteria of comparability, hence, the four sales utilized are considered the best available data. We are also aware of a current listing of a wetland property located on West Main Street and West Valley Highway in Auburn that has been marketed for several years as a wetland mitigation parcel (at a per unit asking price of about $31,000 per acre). Due to the larger size of this property, at 29.0 acres, and since it has had a protracted market exposure, it was not utilized directly as a comparable. L-1 ($13,041/acre) is the November 1998 wetland site containing an area of 19.17 acres, located on South 216`h Street in the city of Kent. This property, and all the comparables, is considered similar to the encumbered site area in terms of location per its potential highest and best use as mitigation land, a use which has no discernable or measurable relationship to locational attributes; no adjustment is applied for this factor. The comparable is similar to the subject in terms of accessibility, making it similar in terms of site utility and suitability for mitigation construction and monitoring efforts, requiring no adjustment for access. The property is larger in size compared to the encumbered site area, requiring an upwards size adjustment. L-2 ($13,816/acre) is the January 2000 sale of a wetland site containing an area of 36.19 acres, located in the Mill Creek/SR 167 corridor in the Kent Valley. The comparable is similar to the encumbered site area in terms of accessibility, requiring no adjustment for access. The property is larger in size compared to the encumbered site area, requiring an upwards size adjustment. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 33 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS L-3 ($23,772/acre) is the April 1994 sale of a wetland site containing an area of 12.62 acres, located within an historical meander of the Puyallup River just east of Tacoma. The comparable is inferior to the encumbered site area in terms of accessibility, requiring an upwards adjustment for access. The property is larger in size compared to the encumbered site area, requiring an upwards size adjustment. L-4 ($19,794/acre) is the March 2005 sale of a wetland site containing an area of 12.63 acres, located in the floodway of Mullen Slough near the Green River in the Kent Valley. The comparable is similar to the encumbered site area in terms of accessibility, requiring no adjustment for access. The property is larger in size compared to the encumbered site area, requiring an upwards size adjustment. Price Per Acre Method In utilizing the comparables to determine a per unit value for the subject site, each sale should be adjusted to the subject for dissimilarities. There are six common elements of comparison that should always be considered in sales comparison analysis. These are: Real property rights conveyed, Financing terms; Condition of sale; Date of sale; and Location and Physical characteristics. In analyzing the Location and Physical characteristics, adjustments may be made for some dissimilarities among the comparables, primarily location, utility (the impact of various site characteristics), access (the availability of convenient road access), and size (adjusting for larger or smaller acreage when compared to the encumbered site area). Within the discussion of each sale, the sale's characteristics were summarized. A comparison to the encumbered site area results the need for positive or negative adjustments to the price per acre. The chart on the facing page attempts to simulate the thought process involved in comparing the sales comparables to the encumbered site area. This chart is presented as an aid in depicting the positive and negative influences that impact the market value of these properties in this market segment. An annual appreciation factor of 3.0% per year is applied to the sales to account for the passage of time since the respective sale dates as compared to the date of analysis for the encumbered site area in August 2005. Although the adjustments are presented with mathematical accuracy, the reader is cautioned that the chart is for illustrative purposes only, as the market may not reflect an adjustment process of this precision. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 34 SIM He 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate PRICE PER ACRE ADJUSTMENT GRID __.-......�. __.�...-__.�....._ �L-3L-4_.. Comparable- L.1..w.... L-2 fist; Unadiusted Price per Acre $13,041 $13,816 $23,772 $19,794 F �- Unadjusted Mean Price Per Acre $17,606 Unadjusted Median Price Per Acre $16,805 Adjustment for:41, Market Conditions (time) 3.00% s per year r ;: 4 Date of Sale Nov-98 Jan-00 Apr-94 Mar-05 #� Months since sale 83 70 138 7 t ° Adjustment for time / listing status 20.75% 17.50% 34.50% 1.75%� Adjusted Sale Price $15,747 $16,234 $31,973 $20,140 £� Additional Adiustments Location 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' t Access 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% ' ,N Size' 45.0% 60.0% 35.0% 35.0% a Total Adjustment Factor 45.0% 60.0% 40.0% 35.0%µ, �: a . Indicated Value per Acre �r s� s• { `� ; Adjusted Mean Price Per Acre Adjusted Median Price Per Acre t� N tip_ l Selected Per Unit Price/Acre Encumbered Site Area (Acres) Indicated Site Value, Subject Property Rounded 3c� Note 1 e al'calculations provide a greater deg 'Sam . ? L +• . N .��..x: � , ; $22,833 $25,974 $44,763 $27,190 3; z $30,190•' $26,582 late4. K' $30,000 2.88 $86,400 } �- $86,000'� .curacythan as shown T i s t �� yN' 7900 pr4 TUK POND.As Per Acre Adj ANALYSIS OF DATA & OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS The adjustment grid graphically displays the adjustments made to the comparable sales to account for the differences between the sales and the encumbered site area. These adjustments are believed to reflect the market's most probable reaction to these differences. The adjustments are factors or percentage adjustments for each element of comparison identified as contributing to a value difference. The adjustments are negative or positive, depending on whether a certain characteristic is superior or inferior to the encumbered site area. The total of the gross plus and minus adjustments are used to arrive at a total net upward or downward adjustment, which is shown as the Total Adjustment Factor. The comparable sales suggest a per acre value ranging from $22,833 per acre to $44,763 per acre, with an adjusted mean of $30,190 per acre and an adjusted median of $26,582 per acre. Considering the data indicated by the comparable sales, as well as the physical aspects of the encumbered site area, a per acre value of $30,000 is considered realistic for the subject. Applying this per acre value to the area of 2.88 acres for the property to be encumbered indicates a value estimate of $86,000, as shown on the facing page chart. Opinion of Value by the Sales Comparison Approach: $86,000 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 35 SIGH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate RECONCILIATION All three approaches to value were considered, with the Sales Comparison Approach being considered the most relevant to the valuation of the property to be encumbered. The resulting value conclusion is as follows: Income Approach Cost Approach Sales Comparison Approach WA WA $86,000 Based on the above, the estimated value of the fee simple interest in the property to be encumbered, hypothetically assuming it is segregated and can be sold, effective as of August 26, 2005, is: EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS $86,000 Value of Easement The prospective easement that will encumber the property will require compensation for the use and occupancy. Based on the value estimate of $86,000, applying a typical rate of return of 10.0% as the basis for annual compensation, the compensation attributable to the subject prospective easement is estimated to be ($86,000)(0.10) = $8,600 per year. Typically, rates of return on land are in the range of from 8% to 11%. The rates of return on property transaction we are aware of at the low end of this range involved intensely developed commercial sites that include a theater site in Southcenter, a Fred Meyer site in Issaquah, and a mixed -use site in urban Seattle. The higher end of the range typically applies to less intensely developed sites. Hence, we have chosen a rate of return of 10.0% for application to the subject site area's fee simple value. At the end of the ten year easement period, the unencumbered fee simple interest in the property and the tenant's enhancements to the currently degraded wetlands revert to the City of Tukwila. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 36 SIIII File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate RECONCILIATION A Hewlett Packard 12C calculator was utilized to calculate the net present value of the prospective income stream. The procedure is summarized below, showing the required calculator keystrokes. Operation Keystrokes Clear Calculator f, FIN Input Annual Income $8,600, CHS, PMT Input Term (10 years) 10, n Input Discount Rate (10%) 10, i Solve For Present Value PV = $52,843 Resulting Present Value Estimate, rounded: $53,000 Over the ten year term of the easement, with no reversion, the discounted present value of the annual compensation comprising the subject property's prospective easement interest, using a 10% discount rate, is estimated to be $53,000. Easement Comparables Method The above present value indication by the Sales Comparison Approach is equivalent to a per unit value of ($53,000 / 2.88 acres) = $18,403 per acre. We are aware of two easement transactions relevant to wetland mitigation parcels in the Kent Valley, for which the easement interest was purchased outright by the grantees. In other words, the consideration paid in cash by the grantees at the outset of their mitigation easement obligation is considered equivalent to the present value of the right to use the property encumbered for a finite period, ten years, similar to the subject, and thus, the consideration would be considered equivalent to the value sought in this appraisal. Both of these properties involve parcels in what is known as the Goedecke South property located in the city of Auburn. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWH A, WA Page 37 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate Rout;on G.rst Pat f 169 d'M NVIY KSAE Ila Seahurst� urie to '.RIVert nH#lg aP IlWood, SUBJECT PROPERTY • unnydale v f 1 lop fi elan Des Wines +s+ _ Zenith _ • - 1e "aw ter Safe k Meridian Heights HLake �Woodm nt B eh ! �.. ;--I -•Star Lake. ? Thomas' . t x � *do do M y ' Christopher ti` �L�kota ti +o ti 1�1 Lea • Hill federal ` � t 1e 1e4 k to 167 E-2 i_ E 1 SELLEN SITE AuevnAeeddrry "...,� _ OPUS SITE •AI on - WEST VALLEY MYS.AUBURN ' 1401 W VALLEYNMW S, AUBURN 'j r —,-� } chit lea Res afoon i COMPARABLE EASEMENTS MAP RECONCILIATION A summary chart of the easement comparables follows, with a location map shown on the facing page. COMPARABLE EASEMENT DATA Analysis Size in Price/ Sale Location Date Price Acres Acre E-1 Opus Site 10/98 $197,295 7.89 $25,000 1401 West Valley Highway South Auburn, WA E-2 Sellen Site 2/99 $70,000 5.00 $14,000 West Valley Highway South Auburn, WA TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 38 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate RECONCILIATION EASEMENT NO. E-1 Property Identification Record ID 7256 Property Type Use of Wetlands for a Ten Year Period Property Name Opus NW Mitigation Site Address 1401 West Valley Highway South, Auburn, King County, Washington 98001 Location 0.2 miles southerly of Peasley Canyon Road and SR 18, west side of SR 167 Assessor's Parcel Number 2321049004, 2321049028 Legal Metes and bounds Instrument SWD Map Page 745 G3 Sale Data Grantor City of Auburn Grantee Opus Northwest, LLC Sale Date October 23, 1998 Auditor's File Number 9810292077 Property Rights Easement Financing Cash Sale History Purchased by City in May 1994 by SWD (E Number 1376668) Verification Gary Volchok, CB Richard Ellis, 206-394-3347; Jeff Dixon, Director, City of Auburn Planning Department, 1-253-804-5034; Other sources: Easement Agreement 9810291077 Sale Price $197,295 Land Data Zoning C-3, Commercial Topography Low, level Utilities All available Shape Irregular Landscaping Native vegetation along Mill Creek Flood Info All in 100 year flood, 75% in floodway Land Size Land Area 11.89 Acres Easement Land Size 7.89 Acres Indicators Sale Price/Acre $25,000 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 39 SM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate RECONCILIATION EASEMENT NO. E-1 (Cont.) Remarks This commercially zoned tract lies between West Valley Highway South and SR 167, immediately southerly of SR 18 in the city of Auburn. The total site area is within a flood plain and about 75% of the site area is within the floodway of Mill Creek, according to county maps. The site includes two assessor's parcels. The City of Auburn (grantor) owns the site and negotiated an easement agreement with Opus NW (grantee) for the purpose of the grantee "creating, enhancing, restoring, monitoring and/or maintaining wetlands on the City Property for the benefit and credit of the Grantee's Property and any future development situated thereon." Reportedly, Opus NW paid to the City a consideration of $25,000 per acre for the easement. There is no stated term to the easement; it states, "This easement shall be in effect for a period concurrent with Grantee's wetland mitigation obligations relating to Grantee's Property... " According to Mr. Dickson, who opines that the term was 10 years, Opus NW continues to monitor and report on the site, although the construction phase is completed. Construction costs are unknown, but it involved creating some open water and considerable dirt work. The "Grantee's Property" is the Emerald Corporate Park in Auburn, where some on -site mitigation was accomplished, as well. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 40 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate i ti ,tf y - t }rl .tee: EASEMENT NO. E-2 Property Identification RECONCILIATION Record ID 7273 Property Type Use of Wetlands for a Ten Year Period Property Name Sellen Mitigation Site Address West Valley Highway South, Auburn, King County, Washington 98001 Location 0.1 miles southerly of Peasley Canyon Road and SR 18, west side of SR 167 Assessor's Parcel Number 2321049023 Legal Metes and bounds Instrument SWD Map Page 745 G3 Sale Data Grantor City of Auburn Grantee Sellen Construction Sale Date February 5, 1999 Property Rights Easement Financing Cash Sale History Purchased by City 5/94 by SWD (E Number 1376668) Verification Gary Volchok, CB Richard Ellis, 206-394-3347; Jeff Dixon, Director, City of Auburn Planning Department, 1-253-804-5034 Sale Price $70,000 Land Data Zoning C-3 Topography Low, level Utilities All available Shape Irregular Landscaping Native vegetation along Mill Creek Flood Info All in 100 year flood, 75% in floodway Land Size Land Area 7.62 Acres Easement Land Size 5.00 Acres Indicators Sale Price/Acre $14,000 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWII,A, WA Page 42 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate RECONCILIATION EASEMENT NO. E-2 (Cont.) Remarks This commercially zoned tract lies between West Valley Highway South and SR 167, immediately southerly of SR 18 in the city of Auburn. The total site area is within a flood plain and about 75% of the site area is within the floodway of Mill Creek, according to county maps. County records show an area of 7.62 acres, however, the easterly 5.0 acres is the site area encumbered by the easement. The City of Auburn (grantor) owns the site and negotiated an easement agreement with Sellen Construction (grantee) for the purpose of the grantee creating, enhancing, restoring, monitoring and/or maintaining wetlands on the City Property for the benefit and credit of the Grantee's Property and any future development situated thereon. Reportedly, Sellen paid to the City a consideration of $14,000 per acre for the easement. According to Mr. Dixon, Sellen continues to monitor and report on the site. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 43 Sffii File 7900-05 N)red C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate • _�- -- - ------ --- ------- - � � X� rr Sr � t. „e. !r� ,•a�46 .�i s t. sty. It '•' ` ` � � 's .�' _�a.L ,x- `sr-� 'G � a. `� �� 3'' ''-s.' "x's _ T�'"�f' "�'' S�'-� '•fit t Mi' .� ( y� � �+�c +. �.,,�+2� �� ���s%''� �"-•�._t'f'��� °�i1' t `t is �'.�i-�T- .n c ".�. .'. �`^tS. �-t.-'"::'C�x�i1 #5'+#. ��"s_q ;1� ,�.iyL'll� 4A � �• F` i1_,'--��C Si ... -- -.��- hob...... Yi._ .\.d„{•+�'..��Y�n-_ �`..KY._ s).�->� .� ..i. -' iY:c RECONCILIATION Analysis of Comparable Easements E-1 ($25,000 per acre) is a commercially zoned tract that lies between West Valley Highway South and SR 167, immediately southerly of SR 18 in the city of Auburn. The total site area is within a flood plain and about 75% of the site area is within the floodway and wetlands of Mill Creek, according to county maps. The City of Auburn indicates that the entire encumbered site area is considered wetlands. The City of Auburn (grantor) owns the site and negotiated an easement agreement with Opus NW (grantee) for the purpose of mitigating wetlands. This property is considered similar to the encumbered site area in terms of location, thus no adjustment is applied for this factor. The comparable is similar to the subject in terms of accessibility, making it similar in terms of site utility and suitability for mitigation construction and monitoring efforts, requiring no adjustment for access. The property is larger in size compared to the encumbered site area, requiring an upwards size adjustment. E-2 ($14,000 per acre) is the adjacent parcel to the north of the Opus site, also owned by the City of Auburn, which is the grantor. County records show an area of 7.62 acres for this parcel, and the City of Auburn indicates that the encumbered site area contains 5.0 acres, all of which is considered wetlands. The City of Auburn (grantor) owns the site and negotiated an easement agreement in November 1997 with Sellen Construction (grantee) for a similar purpose as the Opus agreement. This property is considered similar to the encumbered site area in terms of location, thus no adjustment is applied for this factor. The comparable is similar to the subject in terms of accessibility, making it similar in terms of site utility and suitability for mitigation construction and monitoring efforts, requiring no adjustment for access. The property is larger in size compared to the encumbered site area, requiring an upwards size adjustment. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 45 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate PRICE PER ACRE ADJUSTMENT GRID Comparable..___......._....._�. __�. _.�__ .�.,..... _E-1 E-2 r Unadjusted Price per Acre $25,000 $14,000 i Unadjusted Mean Price Per Acre $19,500 Unadjusted Median Price Per Acre $19,500 Adjustment for: L Market Conditions (time) 3.00% per year A; €° Date of Sale Oct-98 Feb-99 Months since sale 84 80 1'"* :r Adjustment for time / listing status 21.00% 20.00% Adjusted Sale Price $30,250 $16,800 s; Additional Adjustments ^a Location 0.0% 0.0% Access 0.0% 0.0% G Size 10.0% 5.0% r`x` AM Y Total Adjustment Factor 10.0% 5.0% Indicated Value per Acre $33,275 $17,640 1 .1 Adjusted Mean Price Per Acre $25,458 Adjusted Median Price Per Acre $25,458 , Summary of the Indicated Unit Value Estimate &Selected Per Unit Price/Acre $25,000 Encumbered Site Area (Acres) 2.88 3 e '' Indicated Site Value, Subject Property $72,000 r S L Rounded: $72,000"� t n Note s Internal calculations provade a greater degree of accuracy than as shownzZ 7900 pr4 TUK POND.xIs Easement Adj RECONCILIATION The chart on the facing page attempts to simulate the thought process involved in comparing the sales comparables to the encumbered site area. The comparable sales suggest a per acre value ranging from $17,640 per acre to $33,275 per acre, with an adjusted mean of $25,458 per acre and the same adjusted median of $25,458 per acre. Considering the data indicated by the comparable sales, a per acre value of $25,000 is considered realistic for the subject. Applying this per acre value to the area of 2.88 acres for the property to be encumbered indicates a value estimate of $72,000, as shown on the facing page chart. In reconciliation, we have applied a discounted income stream method to indicate the present value of the easement interest, predicated on a typical rate of return applied to the estimated fee simple value of the encumbered site area. This method indicates a value of $53,000. In addition, we have analyzed actual easement considerations that are analogous to the value sought in the appraisal. Adjustments to the easement prices indicate a value of $72,000. With similar weight placed on both methods, the opinion of value of the prospective subject easement interest in the encumbered site area, effective as of August 26, 2005, is estimated to be $60,000. SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $60,000 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 46 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate CERTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and represent our personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 5. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 6. Compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 7. We have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 8. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report in the preparation of and research contained within this report. 9. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 47 SIGH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate CERTIFICATION 11. This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or an approval of a loan. 12. The appraisers are competent and qualified to perform the appraisal assignment. 13. The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAIs and SRAs who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. As of the date of this rennrr_ Fred Strickland has completed the continuing education program of the Institute. Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA State of Washington Certification 1100429 William N. Genschow, Associate State of Washington Certification 1100861 TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 48 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES FREDERICK C. STRICKLAND, MAI, SRA PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers All courses successfully completed as a prerequisite to the designation MAI; plus various other courses, including specific AIREA material relevant to computer use for appraisal purposes, Discounted Cashflow, statistical analysis, etc. Society of Real Estate Appraisers All courses successfully completed as a prerequisite to the designation SREA. State of Washington Appraisal Courses Various courses on appraisal of land, residential and commercial real property, and machinery and equipment valuation, taken primarily at Central Washington University. International Association of Assessing Officers All courses required for the CAE and RES designations plus instructor's courses for real property appraising and statistical analysis in real property appraisal. PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS AWARDED: MAI American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers SRPA Society of Real Estate Appraisers SRA Society of Real Estate Appraisers CAE International Association of Assessing Officers RES International Association of Assessing Officers Broker Licensed Washington State Real Estate Broker CERTIFICATIONS: General Classification - Washington State Certified Real Estate Appraiser Certification 1100429 EXPERIENCE: Currently managing partner with the appraisal firm of Strickland, Heischman & Hoss, Inc. (since 1989) Commercial real estate appraiser with Charles E. Anderson & Associates (1984-1989) Owner/manager of San Juan Appraisal Services (1979-1984) TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 49 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. St ickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Appraiser for San Juan County Assessor's Office (1977-1979) Instructor of real estate courses for State of Washington, Land Appraisal Course at The Evergreen State College; IAAO Course 1, Residential Appraising at Central Washington University; and IAAO Course 302, Appraisal of Income Property (utilizing statistical analysis) at Central Washington University. COURT EXPERIENCE: Qualified as expert witness on real estate values in Pierce County Superior Court, Thurston County Superior Court, and San Juan County Superior Court. Testified before arbitration boards, numerous County Boards of Equalization, and the State Board of Tax Appeals. PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS: Office of Thrift Supervision Resolution Trust Corporation Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation U.S: Department of Commerce WA Department of Natural Resources WA Department of Wildlife University of Washington Attorney General of Washington Metro (Seattle) King County Open Spaces Kitsap County Pierce County Real Property Management Port of Tacoma City of Bellevue City of Tacoma Other institutions, attorneys and individuals Seafirst Bank Key Bank Bank of America First Interstate Bank US Bancorp Hongkong Bank Columbia Bank West One Bank First Union National Bank, FL Washington Mutual Savings Bank Everett Mutual Savings Bank Washington Mortgage Intervest Mortgage Investment Company Multicare Medical Center Nature Conservancy City of Olympia TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWH,A, WA Page 50 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES WILLIAM N. GENSCHOW EDUCATION: Washington State University - Bachelor of Science PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: Appraisal Institute Courses Challenged: Real Estate Appraisal Principles Capitalization Theory/Techniques, Part A Successfully Completed: Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A, B, C Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation Income Valuation of Small, Mixed -Use Properties Appraisal Institute Seminars Comprehensive Appraisal Workshop Appraisal Practices for Litigation Affordable Housing Valuation Real Estate Fraud and the Appraiser What the Government Wants — From Appraisers Society of Real Estate Appraisers Courses Courses 101, 201, 301, and R-2 Examination Society of Real Estate Appraisers Seminars Condominium Appraisal HP-12C Calculator Subdivision Analysis Other Organizations CCIM: International Right of Way Association: Master Builders Association: Washington State University: Forest Practices Landscaping Low Impact Development Washington Association of Realtors: College Level Real Estate Courses Appraisal Principles and Practices Mortgage Brokerage Real Estate Salesmanship Basic Valuation Procedures Capitalization Theory/Techniques, Part B Report Writing & Valuation Analysis Highest and Best Use & Market Analysis Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Appraisal of Nursing Care Facilities Demonstration Appraisal Report Writing Washington State Planning and Land Use Creative Financing/Cash Equivalency Narrative Report Writing Fundamentals of Real Estate Investment Condemnation Appraising/Mock Trial Salmon Summit Salmon and Streams Soils for Real Estate Professionals Northwest Economic Outlook Symposium National USPAP Update Real Estate License Law Residential Appraisal TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 51 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: Associate Member of the Appraisal Institute State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in Washington: 1100861 Approved Appraiser: State of Washington Department of Transportation EXPERIENCE: Current: Appraiser and Consultant — Strickland, Heischman & Hoss, Inc. 1984 — 1996: Independent Fee Appraiser 1978 - 1983: Vice President — Sidney H. Smith III, MAI, Inc. 1976 — 1977: Nussbaum & Sons, Inc. APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE: Airplane Hangars Apartments (Conventional and Elderly Independent Living) Army Ammunition Plants Assisted Living/Nursing/Alzheimer's/Autism Facilities Auto Dealerships and Car Lots Bowling Centers Branch Bank Buildings Car Washes Child Day Care Centers Church Buildings Condominiums (Residential and Commercial) Conservation Easement Diminutions Convenience Store/Fuel Stops Enhanced Card Room Casinos Eminent Domain Appraisals Farm, Ranch, and Timber Land Fitness Sports Clubs General Hospitals General Motors Assembly Plant Going Concern Valuations Golf Courses Golf Practice Ranges HUD Title VI Apartments Indian Trust Land Industrial Properties (Light and Heavy) Land (Multi-Family/Commercial/Industrial) Marinas Medical Offices Mineral Extraction Property Mobile Home Parks Motel/Hotel Movie Theater Multiplex Professional Offices Regional Malls Retail Properties/Shopping Centers/Festival Marketplaces Storage Complexes Subdivisions (Residential and Commercial) Tennis Clubs Undivided Partial Interests and Leasehold Interests Urban Air Rights Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wetland Mitigation TUKWILA POND MrrIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 52 SHH File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. This is a Complete Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a summary Appraisal Report. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraisers' opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraisers' file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client stated within this report. 2. No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report. 3. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report. 5. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 6. All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 7. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 8. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report. 9. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this appraisal report. 10. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimates contained in this report are based. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 53 SHR File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA• William N. Genschow, Associate ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 11. Any sketch in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report. No survey has been made for the purpose of this report. 12. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless otherwise stated in this report. 13. The appraisers are not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Any comment by the appraisers that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The appraisers' value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in this report. No responsibility is assumed for any environmental conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The appraisers' descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made during the appraisal process. 14. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely affect the property's value, marketability, or utility. 15. Any proposed improvements are assumed to be completed in a good workmanlike manner in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. 16. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 54 SMI File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 17. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the Client or appraisers, and in any event, only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 18. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, or the firm with which the appraisers are connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval of the Client or appraisers. TUKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 55 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND/OR HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS 1. There are no extraordinary assumptions (an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the conclusion) to this appraisal. 2. The hypothetical condition (that which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis) attendant to this appraisal is the assumption that the encumbered site area can be segregated and sold. WKWILA POND MITIGATION PARCEL, ANDOVER PARK WEST, TUKWILA, WA Page 56 SIM File 7900-05 Fred C. Strickland, MAI, SRA William N. Genschow, Associate ADDENDA SEP, 1,2005 12:12PM STU CKLAND HEISHMAN & HOSS NO. 6316 N. Z 44 ` ricklarld r C schman oss, Inc. Ma r-5MM A"RA SEEM & CONS=A= September 2, 2005 Mr. Mon wig Wig Properties, LLC 4811-134ei Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Tukwila Pond mitiggition parcel, Andover Park West, City of Tukwila, Icing County, WA. Dear Mrs Wig: Pursuant to our recent correspondence, I am providing this engagement letter as the basis for proceeding on the appraise: relevant to the above -referenced property, which I understand consists of wetlands, which, along witk, the uplands that they surround, has no potential for development. The subject property will be encumbered by an easement agreement for a period of ton years, and the document is in preparation by the City of Tukwila, but has not been formalized to date. I understand that you will provide us VVith a copy of the draft easement to be utilized in the preparation of the appraisal. This will be a complete appralsal presented in a summary appraisal format, The appraisal roport will be provided to you as quickly as possible, and not later than fifteen days from our receipt of the draft easement document. The total fee for the appraisal is The fee is due and payable upon completion of the assignm-nt. "19 Uaewood DMe WeA TaWVaa. Washington 98467 ' )Iwma UM) 564,5M Floc (253) 564-3143 60/Z0 3!DVd 1N31^1d013MIG JVIVt .q utYQPCQ C7n ) 7 ,or crara7 ion 1cn SEP. 2.2005 12:12PM SUICKLAN6 HEISHMAN & HOSS N0. 6316 N. 3 Mr. Mon Wig September 2, 2005 Page 2 The appraisal will be prepared in at,cordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). I will proceed with the preparation of the appraisal upon receipt of a signed copy of this letter. Following your response, I will be contacting you for the pertinent information needed to complete the assignment. Please contact me if you have any questions. Strickland, MAI Engagement Letter Accepted; Date £0/£0 39VJ 1N7]Wd0-3MQ 7HIti-qq Rb4RCgPC7b 17 !QT CC1Q7 /QC1 /Cd AGREEMENT 1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are: 1.1. City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("City") and 1.2. Wig Properties LLC-SS, a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Washington ("Wig"). 2. Background. 2.1. City owns certain real property in the City of Tukwila and which is legally described in Exhibit A attached to this Agreement (the "City Property"). Wig owns certain real property in the City, which is legally described in Exhibit B attached to this Agreement ("Wig Property"). 2.2. A portion of Wig Property has wetlands that Wig desires to fill for a new development. A certain portion of City Property has degraded wetlands that City wishes to enhance. Wig proposes to mitigate wetlands on Wig Property by enhancing degraded wetlands on City Property in accordance with a Wetland Mitigation Plan that City shall approve. 2.3. Wig desires to obtain an easement over the City Property for purposes of enhancement, restoration, creation, monitoring and maintenance of wetlands in performance of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. To secure improvements for the City Property, the City desires to grant to Wig, and Wig desires to accept an easement over the City Property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 3. Conditions Precedent. The agreements and obligations in this Agreement are subject to the "Conditions Precedent" of (i) the approval of the City of the Wetland Mitigation Plan and (ii) issuance of permits required for the filling of the wetland area on the Wig Property. In the event these Conditions Precedent do not occur, the agreements herein shall not bind the parties. 4. Agreements. The parties agree: 4.1. Grant of Easement. Promptly following the occurrence of City's approval of the above Conditions Precedent, City agrees to grant to Wig an easement in the form attached and issue permits required for improving the wetlands on the City Property in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan. 4.2. Use of the Property. The City Property shall be used by Wig exclusively for the purpose of developing and constructing the improvements on the City Property in accordance with the City approved Wetland Mitigation Plan. Wig agrees to use reasonable construction practices to assure high quality work is performed in a safe manner. 4.3. Mitigation Area. The total mitigation area at the City Property that Wig is responsible for with respect to either wetland enhancement or creation is 2.29 acres. Please see the attached Exhibit C for the methodology on calculating the mitigation area. 4.4. Term of Agreement ("Term"). Wig agrees to commence construction of the improvements on the City Property either before, during, or after constructing the new development on Wig Property, but in no event later than two (2) years after the Conditions Precedent have been met. After Wig constructs the improvements on the City Property, Wig shall monitor the wetlands on the City Property for ten (10) years in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The City shall conduct inspections of the wetlands periodically in accordance with Section 4.25 below. At the end of ten (10) years, the City shall conduct a final inspection of the wetlands in accordance with section 4.11 below. If the City approves the wetland mitigation at that time, this Agreement will automatically terminate and Wig will be released of all liability regarding wetland mitigation and will be deemed to have fulfilled any and all wetland mitigation obligations. If the City does not approve the wetland mitigation at the end of ten (10) years, the City shall submit in writing to Wig the reasons for withholding the mitigation approval. This Agreement shall then extend an additional two (2) years, during which time Wig shall diligently work to cure the wetland mitigation problems identified by the City. In no event shall this Agreement extend beyond twelve (12) years after the initial construction of the wetlands at the City Property. At the end of twelve (12) years, Wig shall be released of all liability and obligations with respect to offsite wetland mitigation for the Wig Property. 4.5. Cost of Development. Subject to the occurrence of the above Conditions Precedent, Wig shall provide all necessary labor, materials, services, equipment and other items necessary for the development and construction of the improvements upon the City Property in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Wig shall undertake such development at its sole expense, entering into any and all labor, material, contractor and subcontractor agreements on its own behalf. 4.6. Consideration. Subject to the occurrence of the above Conditions Precedent, Wig shall pay to the City an easement fee of ($ ). This amount will be paid over ten (10) years in ten (10) equal installments, based on the MAI appraisal dated First payment shall be due when all work mentioned in Section 4.5 has been completed. Nine (9) additional payments shall be due on the nine (9) anniversaries of the initial payment. Wig shall be personally liable to City for the payment of the easement fee, but any non-payment of such easement fee shall not cause any reduction or termination of or other adverse effect on this Agreement. 4.7. Bond. Wig will provide City such surety instrument in the amount required by any permit issued by the City at the request of Wig. 4.8. Possession and Control. During the Term, Wig shall have the power and right to enter into any and all contracts, agreements or other documents affecting the improvements to be constructed which Wig deems reasonable for purposes of development, construction and security of the improvements. Wig shall take any and all actions Wig deems appropriate to accomplish its purposes and perform the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Page 2 of 8 Neither party shall have any right, power or authority to (i) enter into any contract, agreement or document for or on behalf of the other, or (ii) to act for, be an agent or representative of, or otherwise bind the other to any contract or undertaking. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, nothing in the Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as creating any kind of joint venture or other legal entity between Wig and the City. All actions undertaken by Wig are undertaken as a private entity, independent of the City including, without limitation, the performance of any obligation or the exercise of any rights or privileges arising under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.9. Permits and Approval. Wig is responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals necessary to develop and construct the improvements. The City agrees to grant the necessary permits and approvals for construction of these improvements in a timely manner. 4.10. Indemnity. Wig shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and its agents and employees from and against any expenses, damages, claims or liabilities to third parties for personal injuries or property damage proximately arising from any negligent act or omission by Wig in the exercise of its rights granted by this Easement. City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Wig from and against any expenses, damages, claims or liabilities to third parties for personal injuries or property damage proximately arising from the negligent act or omission of the City or of any third party allowed by the City to use the City Property. 4.11. City's Acceptance of the City Property. The improvements and fixtures constructed by Wig shall become the property of the City upon termination of this Agreement by acceptances of the improvements according to the following procedures: 4.11.1. Whenever Wig is satisfied that its improvements are complete in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan and are suitable for conveyance to the City, Wig shall notify the City in writing that the improvements are complete and ready for final inspection. Upon receipt of such notice the City shall conduct a final inspection to verify that the wetlands are developed and constructed in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan. If the City is satisfied that the improvements are so constructed and installed, upon such acceptance, the Term shall expire and Wig shall have no further right, title or interest in the City Property and the improvements and fixtures thereon, nor any further obligation or responsibility with respect to the City Property or the improvements thereon. 4.11.2. Wig may, from time to time during the Term and in its discretion, give the City written notice that a portion of the improvements are ready for final inspection. Upon receipt of such notice, the City shall conduct a final inspection to verify that the designated portion of the improvements have been developed and constructed in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan and applicable statues, laws, codes, regulations, ordinances and lawful orders. If the City is satisfied that the improvements and fixtures are so constructed and installed, the City may accept such portion of the improvements. Upon such acceptance, the Agreement shall expire with respect to the designated portion of the improvements and Wig shall have no further right, title or interest in that portion of the City Property and the Page 3 of 8 improvements thereon, nor any further obligation or responsibility with respect to that portion of the City Property or the improvements thereon. 4.11.3. Acceptance by the City, whether in whole or in part, shall be in "as is" condition and "with all faults." The City shall have no recourse against Wig concerning the design, construction, durability, safety or other characteristics of any improvement to the City Property. 4.12. Taxes and Fees During the Term. Wig shall pay all taxes incurred in connection with development and construction of the improvements on the City Property. The City shall not, in any case, bear the cost of any such taxes or other fees of any type associated with the development and construction of improvements on the City Property during the Term. Wig shall apply for and seek to obtain all appropriate tax and fee exemptions. City agrees to cooperate and support Wig in Wig's application of all tax and fee exemptions. 4.13. Wig's Maintenance of the City Property. During the Term, Wig shall exercise control and maintenance of the City Property, and keep the construction site in a reasonably clean, safe and sanitary condition. Wig shall not post signs, placards or advertisements of any kind upon the City Property which are not in conformance with the City's sign ordinance and without prior written consent of the City. The City shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the placement of conforming signs related to public safety, construction site security and identification of Wig and any professionals, contractors and material suppliers to the project. Wig shall, at all times, conduct its activities upon the City Property during day light hours and in a manner which avoids unreasonable disturbance of the public. 4.14. Insurance. When engaged in construction activity on the City Property, Wig shall cause his contractor to maintain insurance in the forms and minimum amounts set forth below: 4.15. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with limits of liability of not less than: 4.15.1. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for each person, personal bodily injury; 4.15.2. One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence, personal bodily injury; 4.15.3. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for property damage. 4.15.4. One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for combined single limit. 4.16. The City shall be named as an additional insured under such policies of insurance, which shall not be reduced or canceled while Wig is constructing the wetlands. Certificates of insurance or a copy of such policies shall be supplied to the City upon request. Page 4 of 8 4.17. City's Warranty Against Hazardous Substance. The City warrants that to the best of its knowledge, the City Property is free of the existence of any substances included within the definitions of "hazardous substances," "hazardous materials," "toxic substances," or "solid waster" in CERCLA, SARA, RCRA, Toxic Substances Control Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), the Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D, et seq.) or which are classified as hazardous or toxic under federal, state or local laws or regulations. The City's warranty in this regard shall survive the execution and Term of this Agreement, With respect to the release of any toxic or hazardous substances or wastes, or other condition of the City Property, occurring prior to the date of this Contract or any subsequent release or discharge by the City or by any third party allowed by the City to use the City Property which release or condition violates the provisions of, or necessitates any removal, treatment, or other remedial action under, any applicable past, present, or future federal, state, or local statute or ordinance or any regulation, requirement, or directive of any governmental authority with jurisdiction relating to protection of the environment, City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Wig from and against any and all losses, claims, liabilities, damages, demands, fines, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses) arising out of or resulting therefrom. 4.18. Compliance with State, Federal and Local Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Wig shall occupy the City Property and develop it in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, easements, rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. 4.19. Agreement Not to Discriminate. Wig will not discriminate against any person, contractor, subcontractor, supplier, employee or applicant for employment in connection with development and construction of improvements on the City Property on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based on a bonafide occupational qualification. Wig will take affirmative action to ensure that all such persons, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, employees or applicants are hired, retained or otherwise employed in connection with project are treated equally without regard to their race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sensory, mental or physical handicap. 4.20. Rights of Termination. In the event Wig's efforts to develop and construct the improvements on the City Property are materially impaired or prohibited, due to circumstances beyond Wig's reasonable control, then Wig may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the City, in which event, Wig shall surrender possession of the City Property to the City in its then -existing condition. By way of example, Wig may terminate this Agreement in the event any person or entity (other than the City or Wig) shall by legal proceeding or otherwise seek or attempt to impair or prohibit development of wetlands upon the City Property by Wig in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.21. Destruction of Improvements. If at any time during the Term, any improvements to the City Property made by Wig are destroyed or damaged by any cause or casualty beyond Wig's control, Wig shall have no obligation to restore such Page 5 of 8 improvements. However, Wig may, at its sole option, elect to restore such improvements in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan or, if approved by the City, with such modified plans and specifications as Wig may propose to the City. If Wig elects against restoration, then Wig shall, by written notice to the City, terminate this Agreement. In the event of such termination, possession of the City Property shall be surrendered to the City in its then -existing condition. 4.22. Removal of Property at Expiration of Contract. Within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the Easement, Wig shall remove all equipment, material, supplies, personal property or other items from the City Property, excepting any such items which comprise improvements. 4.23. Reports. During the Term, Wig will monitor the mitigation site several times a year (April, May, June, July, and August), and will provide the City with written reports in years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 summarizing the status of the project. 4.24. Preclusion of Waste. Wig shall not commit or permit any waste or damage to the City Property and shall not permit any rubbish to be deposited or accumulated upon the City Property. 4.25. Right of City Inspection. The City or its agents may enter upon the City Property at all reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of conducting inspections. If the City determines that the work has been or is being done that is not in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan or city codes or regulations, it may order work suspended until Wig brings the work into compliance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan or codes or regulations. Upon receiving such suspension order, Wig will cease all work until the City gives notice to proceed. 4.26. Utilities. During the Term, Wig shall pay the cost of any and all utilities used in connection with development and construction of the improvements on the City Property. 4.27. Liens. Wig shall keep the City Property free and clear of any and all liens or encumbrances arising from work performed or materials supplied to the project. At the City's request, Wig shall furnish the City written proof of payment of any item which would constitute the basis for such a lien. 4.28. Condemnation. If, during the Term, the City Property shall be taken or condemned in whole or in part by any competent authority, then this Agreement shall terminate with respect to that portion of the City Property taken or condemned upon the date title vest in the condemnor. With respect to any remaining portion of the City Property not so taken or condemned, either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other if it determines that development of the City Property is no longer feasible. If neither party elects to terminate this Agreement with respect to such remaining portion of the City Property, the City and Wig shall fully cooperate in the preparation of modified plans and specifications for the development of the City Property. All compensation awarded upon such taking or condemnation shall become the sole property of the City and Wig shall have no claim thereto. Page 6 of 8 4.29. Unauthorized Improvements. Wig shall not dispose of or make any alterations or improvements which will affect the City Property or appearance thereof, or make any changes to or use of the City Property, contrary to or not included in the Mitigation Plan without the prior written approval of the City. 4.30. Assignment. Wig will not assign, or in any manner substitute, any person or organization, to its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement without the written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4.31. Notices. All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall either be delivered in person or sent via an overnight courier service, and shall be deemed received on the sooner of actual receipt or two days after being deposited in the mail, postage prepaid, addressed to City or Wig at their last known address.. 4.32. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 4.33. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by City and Wig. 4.34. Attorney's Fees. In any proceeding brought to enforce this Agreement or to determine the rights of the parties under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect, in addition to any judgment awarded by a court, a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees, expenses of litigation, and costs of appeals. For purposes of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be that party in whose favor final judgment is rendered or who substantially prevails, if both parties are awarded judgment. The term "proceeding" shall mean and include arbitration, administrative, bankruptcy, and judicial proceedings including appeals. 4.35. Miscellaneous. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The invalidity or unenforcability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions, hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were omitted. CITY: CITY OF TUKWILA Approved as to form by the City Attorney: Page 7 of 8 WIG: WIG PROPERTIES LLC-SS M.K. Wig, Managing Member Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT "C" EXISTING WETLANDS ON JC PENNEY SITE: Wetland Area A 13,718 B 24,461 C 6,305 D 3,943 E 179 F 1,971 Total SF 50,577 1 Total Wetland Area on Wig Property 2 Upland Area on City Property (Total Area of New Wetlands Wig Can Create) 3 On Site Wetlands that Wig can mitigate for offsite at a ratio of 1.5:1 4 Remaining Wetland Area on Wig Property that needs to be mitigated (line 1 less line 3) 5 Wetland Area on City Property to Use for Enhancement at 3:1 ratio 6 Total Wetland Mitigation Area at Pond (line 2 + line 5) If line 2 changes as a result of additional wetland readings between now and final approval of Wetland Mitigation Plan, then the above numbers will be adjusted accordingly. Final Wetland Mitigation Plan will have details of how much wetlands area on City Property should be created versus enhanced. 50,577 sf 52,162 sf 34,775 sf 15,802 sf 47,407 sf 99,569 sf 2.29 acres Return Address: Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin, P.L.L.C. 5800 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-7096 Grant of Easement Reference Number(s) of related document(s): n/a Grantor: City of Tukwila. Grantee: Wig Properties LLC-SS. Legal Description (abbreviated): Assessor's Tax Parcel ID Number: 1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are: 1.1. City of Tukwila, municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("City") and 1.2. Wig Properties LLC-SS, a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Washington ("Wig"). 2. Grant of Easement. City hereby grants and conveys to Wig a non-exclusive, appurtenant easement over, under, across and through the City Property (as legally described on Exhibit A hereto) for the benefit of the "Wig Property" (as legally described on Exhibit B) and any future development situated thereon, for the purposes of performance on the City Property of the Wetland Mitigation Plan previously approved by City ("Wetland Mitigation Plan") which is incorporated herein by this reference. City reserves the right to use the City Property for purposes not inconsistent with and that would not interfere with Wig's easement rights granted herein. This easement shall be deemed for the benefit of Wig Property and not to be an obligation of or burden on Wig Property. 3. Term of Easement. This Easement shall continue so long as Wig (or its successors or assigns) or the Wig Property have any obligation under the Agreement (see attached Agreement section "4.4 Term of Agreement"); provided if the Wetland Mitigation Plan or wetland mitigation obligations require a perpetual dedication, the term of this easement shall be perpetual. 4. Indemnity. Wig shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and its agents and employees from and against any expenses, damages, claims or liabilities to third parties for personal injuries or property damage proximately arising from any negligent act or omission by Wig in the exercise of its rights granted by this Easement. City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Wig from and against any expenses, damages, claims or liabilities to third parties for personal injuries or property damage proximately arising from the negligent act or omission of the City or of any third party allowed by the City to use the City Property. Restrictive Covenant. The City, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees that the City Property shall not be made the subject of a future individual or general Department of the Army permit application for fill or other development, except for the purpose of enhancing or restoring the mitigation associated with the wetlands project on the City Property in accordance with Wig's Wetland Mitigation Plan. The Department of the Army also shall be considered an intended beneficiary of this covenant. CITY OF TUKWILA LE Approved as to form by the City Attorney: STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that s/he signed this instrument, on oath stated that s/he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of City of Tukwila to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes stated therein. Dated (Use this space for notarial stamp/seal) Name: NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Washington My appointment expires Page 2 of 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Mon Wig is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the managing member of WIG PROPERTIES LLC-SS to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes stated therein. Dated (Use this space for notarial stamp/seal) Name: NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Washington My appointment expires Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (City Property) Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Wig Property) THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26: THENCE NORTH 88005'42" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1998.68 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 659.34 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0104729" WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 658.25 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 662.05 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 87055'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 666.56 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 01012'25" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 661.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88000'36" EAST 673.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.9408290323 FOR MINKLER BOULEVARD; TOGETHER WITH: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE -SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26: THENCE NORTH 88005'42" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 2678.68 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 01 ° 12'25" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 657.29 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 01012'25" WEST 661.03 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 87055'53" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 185.28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01058'27" EAST 349.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87055'53" WEST 48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02004'07" WEST 10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87055'53" WEST 371.43 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, WITH A RADIUS OF 25 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9005531", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.67 FEET; Page 5 of 7 THENCE NORTH 01008'35" EAST TO A POINT NORTH 88000'06" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 88000'36" EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9408290323 FOR MINKLER BOULEVARD; TOGETHER WITH: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26: THENCE NORTH 88005'42" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 2678.68 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 01 ° 12'25" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 1318.32 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 87055'53" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 185.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87055'53" WEST 439.92 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE NORTH 01008'35" EAST 314.59 FEET ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90055'31", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8705553" EAST 371.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02004'07" EAST 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87055'53" EAST 48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH O1058'27" WEST 349.95 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9408290322, FOR MINKLER BOULEVARD; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 6 of 7 4. Railroad lead trackage shall be no closer than 15 feet to parking/loading and storage facilities, and shall be suitably landscaped. (Ord. 1758 §I (part), 1995) 18.44.150 Specific Use Regulations - High Impact Environment All uses allowed in the underlying zoning district shall be allowed in the high impact environment. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.44.160 Variances Variances shall be processed by the Hearing Examiner in accordance with the shoreline regulations. (Ord. 1796 §3(part), 1997; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.44.170 Appeals Appeals of any decision of the Department regarding granting or denial on shoreline substantial development permits and any decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding a shoreline variance may be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. (Ord. 1796 §3(part), 1997,• Ord. 1770 §24, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) TITLE 18 — ZONING Chapter 18.45 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Sections: 18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Best Available Science 18.45.030 Sensitive Area Applicability, Maps and Inventories 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Special Studies 18,45.050 Interpretation 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.070 Sensitive Area Permitted Uses 18.45.080 Wetland Designations, Ratings and Buffers 18.45.090 Wetland Uses, Alterations and Mitigation 18.45.100 Watercourse Designations, Ratings and Buffers 18.45.110 Watercourse Uses, Alterations and Mitigation 18.45.120 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability Designations, Ratings and Buffers 18.45.130 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability Uses Exemptions, Alterations, and Mitigation 18.45.140 Abandoned Mine Areas 18.45.150 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas — Designation, Mapping, Uses and Standards 18.45.160 Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay 18.45.170 Sensitive Areas Tracts and Easements 18.45.180 Exceptions 18.45.190 Appeals 18.45.200 Recording Required 18.45.210 Assurance Device 18.45.220 Assessment Relief 18-45.010 Purpose A. The purpose of TMC Chapter 18.45 is to protect the environment, human life and property, designate and classify ecologically sensitive areas such as regulated wetlands and watercourses and geologically hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of public and private property. These regulations are prepared to comply with the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, to apply best available science according to WAC 365-195-900 to 925 and to protect critical areas as defined by WAC 365-190-080. B. Standards are hereby established to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wet- lands and fish -bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. Printed February 2005 Page 18-81 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsi- dence, erosion and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic re- sources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. 7. Balance the private rights of individual property owners with the preservation of environ- mentally sensitive areas. 8. Prevent the loss of wetland and water- course function and acreage, and strive for a gain over present conditions. 9. Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to protect or enhance anadromous fisheries. 10. Incorporate the use of best available science in the regulation and protection of sensitive areas as required by the state Growth Management Act, according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195- 925 and WAC 365-190-080. (Ord. 2074 91(part), 2004) 18.45.020 Best Available Science A. Policies, regulations and decisions concerning sensitive areas shall rely on Best Available Science to protect the functions and values of these areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish and their habitats. B. Nonscientific information may supplement scientific information, but is not an adequate substitu- tion for valid and available scientific information. C. Incomplete or unavailable scientific informa- tion leading to uncertainty for permitting sensitive area impacts may require application of effective adaptive management on a case -by -case basis. Adaptive management relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory or non -regulatory actions protect sensitive areas or replace their functions. (Ord. 2074 ql (part), 2004) 18.45.030 Sensitive Area Applicability, Maps, and Inventories A. APPLICABILITY— The provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 shall apply to all land uses and all development activities in a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in the Definitions chapter of this title. The provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 apply whether or not a permit or authorization is required within the City of Tukwila. No person, company, agency or applicant shall alter a sensitive area or buffer except as consistent with the purposes and requirements of TMC Chapter 18.45. The following are sensitive areas regulated by TMC Chapter 18.45: 1. Abandoned coal mines: 2. Areas of potential geologic instability: Class 2, 3, 4 areas (as defined in the Definitions chapter of this title and TMC 18.45.120A); 3. Wetlands; 4. Watercourses: 5. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The Growth Management Act also identifies fre- quently flooded areas and areas of seismic instability as critical areas. Regulations governing frequently flooded areas are found in TMC 16.52, Flood Zone Manage- ment. Areas of seismic instability are defined and regulated through the Washington State Building Code. B. The City shall not approve any permit or otherwise issue any authorization to alter the condition of sensitive area land, water or vegetation or to construct or alter any structure or improvement in, over, or on a sensitive area or its buffer, without first ensuring compliance with the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.45. C. Approval of a permit or development proposal pursuant to the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 does not release the applicant from any obligation to comply with the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45. D. When TMC Chapter 18.45 imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 shall prevail. E. It is the obligation of the property owner to comply with all relevant provisions of this Code. F. SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS AND INVENTORIES 1. The distribution of many sensitive areas in Tukwila is displayed on the Sensitive Areas Maps, on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD). These maps are based on site assessment of current conditions and review of the best available scientific data and are hereby adopted by reference. 2. Studies, preliminary inventories and ratings of potential sensitive areas are on file with DCD. 3. As new environmental information related to sensitive areas becomes available, the Director is hereby designated to periodically add new information to the Sensitive Areas Map. Removal of any information from the sensitive area maps must be approved by the City Council. 4. Regardless of whether a sensitive area is shown on the sensitive areas map, the actual presence or absence of the features defined in the code as sensitive areas shall govern. The Director may require the applicant to submit technical information to indicate whether sensitive areas actually exist on or adjacent to the applicant's site, based on the definitions of sensitive areas in this code. Page 18-82 Printed February 2005 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE Where appropriate, a geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning develop- ment of the site. 5. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review conducted by the geotechnical engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer. D. SENSITIVE AREA STUDY -MODIFICATIONS TO REQUIREMENTS — 1. The Director may limit the required geo- graphic area of the sensitive area study as appropriate if: a. The applicant, with assistance from the city, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or b. The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the site. 2. The Director may allow modifications to the required contents of the study where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential sensitive area impacts and required mitigation. E. WAIVER — If there is written agreement between the Director and the applicant concerning the sensitive area classification and type, the Director may waive the requirement for sensitive area studies provided that no adverse impacts to sensitive areas or buffers will result. There must be substantial evidence that the sensitive areas classification is correct, that there will be no detrimental impact to the sensitive areas or buffers, and that the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of TMC Chapter 18.45 will be followed. F. REVIEW OF STUDIES — The Department of Community Development will review the informa- tion submitted in the sensitive area studies to verify the information, confirm the nature and type of the sensitive area, and ensure the study is consistent with TMC Chapter 18.45. At the discretion of the Director, sensitive area studies may undergo peer review, at the expense of the applicant. (Ord. 2074 §1(part), 2004) 18.45.050 Interpretation The provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 shall be held to be minimum requirements in their interpretation and application and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of TMC Chapter 18.45. (Ord. 2074 §I (part), 2004) .18.45.060 Procedures When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short subdivision or any other land use review which approves a use, devel- opment or future construction, the location and dimensions of all sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sen- sitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The Director may waive item numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant that step in the procedures and the Director grants a waiver pursuant to TMC 18.45.040E. 1. Sensitive areas study and geotechnical report: a. The applicant shall submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and TMC Chapter 18.45. b. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore shall be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 2. Planned residential development permit. - Any new residential subdivision or multiple family residential proposal that includes a wetland or watercourse or its buffer on the site may apply for a planned residential development permit and meet the requirements of the Planned Residential Development District chapter of this title. 3. Denial of use or development: A use or development will be denied if the Director determines that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the development, adjacent properties, and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. 4. Preconstruction meeting: The applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and department repre- sentatives will be required to attend pre -construction meetings prior to any work on the site. 5. Construction monitoring.- The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 6. On -site Identification: The Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with fencing, or with a wood or metal sign with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting, and wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." (Ord. 2074 91(part), 2004) 18.45.070 Sensitive Area Permitted Uses A. GENERAL USES — The uses set forth in TMC 18.45.070, including subsections A through D, and the following general uses, may be located within a Page 18-84 Printed February 2005 sensitive area or buffer, subject to the provisions of TMC 21.04 and of the mitigation requirements of TMC Chapter 18.45: 1. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities provided no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used in the sensitive area or buffer. 2. Nondestructive education and research. 3. Passive recreation and open space. 4. Maintenance and repair of essential streets, roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 5. Actions to remedy the effects of emergencies that threaten the public health, safety or welfare. 6. Maintenance activities of existing landscaping and gardens in a sensitive area buffer including but not limited to mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops and pruning and planting of vegetation. The removal of established native trees and shrubs is not permitted. B. PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW— The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the Director: 1. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities where alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. 2. Construction of new essential streets and roads, rights -of -way and utilities. 3. New surface water discharges to sensitive areas or their buffers from detention facilities, pre - settlement ponds or other surface water management structures may be allowed provided that the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended, and does not adversely affect water level fluctuations in the wetland or adversely affect watercourse habitat and water- course flow conditions relative to the existing rate. 4. Regional storm water detention areas may be allowed in a Type 3 wetland, Type 3 or 4 watercourse and/or their buffers per the standards of 18.45.090 and 18.45.110. Design shall be subject to the standards of this section and other applicable City standards, including mitigation. Type 1 wetlands and Type 1 and 2 watercourses shall not be used for regional storm water detention. 5. Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping with native plants. 6. Essential Utilities . a. Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize, or where possible avoid, disturbance of the sensitive area and its buffer. b. All construction must be designed to protect the sensitive area and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled storm water, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying capacity and storage capacity, and excavation or fill detrimental to the environment. TITLE 18 —ZONING c. Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, sensitive areas and their buffers must be restored to pre -project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. d. All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. 7. Essential Streets, Roads and Rights -of -Way a. Essential streets, roads and rights -of - way must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater. b. Essential streets, roads and rights -of - way must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access. c. Essential streets, roads and rights -of - way must be constructed in a way that does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland, or watercourse and/or its buffer. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities. d. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director, and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. 8. Public Use and Access a. Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing and seating areas and displays, and must be located in areas that have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration. b. Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan. c. No motorized vehicle is allowed within a sensitive area or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security. d. Any public access or interpretive displays developed along a sensitive area and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area. e. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect sensitive areas and their buffers by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas. f. Access trails must incorporate design features and materials that protect water quality and allow adequate surface water. and groundwater movement. g. Access trails must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas Printed February 2005 Page 18-85 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. 9. Dredging, Digging or Filling a. Dredging, digging or filling within a sensitive area or its buffer may occur only with the permission of the Director and only for the following purposes: (1) Uses permitted by TMC 18.45.080, 18.45.090, 18.45.110, 18.45.130; (2) Maintenance of an existing water- course; (3) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; (4) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City; (5) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City; (6) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping or other alteration permitted by TMC Chapter 18.45; (7) Filling of abandoned mines. b. Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner that will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. c. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director, and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. C. PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO EXCEPTION APPROVAL — Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of TMC Chapter 18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning. D. Uses allowed under a Sensitive Area Master Plan prepared and approved under the provisions of TMC 18.45.160. (Ord. 2074 §1(part), 2004) 18.45.080 Wetlands Designations, Ratings and Buffers A. WETLAND DESIGNATIONS- 1. For the purposes of TMC Chapter 18.45, "wetlands" and "regulated wetlands" are defined in the Definitions chapter of this title. A wetland boundary is the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland established by using the Washington State Wetland and Delineation Manual, as required by RCW 36.70A.175 (Ecology Publication #96-94) and consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. 2. For the purposes of this section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States FWS/OBS- 79/31" (Cowardin et al., 1979), contains the descrip- tions of wetland classes and subclasses. 3. Wetland areas within the City of Tukwila have certain characteristics, functions and values and have been influenced by urbanization and related disturbances. Wetland functions include, but are not limited to the following: a. Improving water quality; b. Maintaining hydrologic functions (reducing peak flows, decreasing erosion, ground- water) ; and c. Providing habitat for plants, mammals, fish, birds, and amphibians. B. WETLAND RATINGS — Wetlands shall be designated Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 as listed below: 1. Type 1 wetlands are those wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: a. The wetland is characterized by the presence of species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for those species; b. The wetland has 40-60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; c. The wetland is equal to or greater than five acres in size and has three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by perman- ent or open water; or d. The wetland is documented as regionally significant waterfowl or shorebird areas by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Type 2 wetlands are those wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: a. The wetland is equal to or greater than one acre in size: b. The wetland has three or more wetland classes and is less than 5 acres; C. The wetland is characterized by the presence of nesting sites for priority species as listed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or d. The wetland is hydrologically connected (non -isolated) to a Type 1 or Type 2 water- course. 3. Type 3 wetlands are those wetlands that are greater than 1,000 square feet and less than one acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes. C. WETLAND BUFFERS — A buffer area shall be established adjacent to designated wetland areas. The purpose of the buffer area shall be to protect the integrity, functions and values of the wetland area. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Wetland buffers are intended in general to: Page 18-86 Printed February 2005 1. Minimize long-term impacts of develop- ment on properties containing wetlands; 2. Protect wetlands from adverse impacts during development; 3. Preserve the edge of the wetland and its buffer for its critical habitat value; 4. Provide an area to stabilize banks, to absorb overflow during high water events and to allow for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects; 5. Reduce erosion and increased surface water runoff; 6. Reduce loss of or damage to property; 7. Intercept fine sediments from surface water runoff and serve to minimize water quality impacts; and 8. Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbances. An undisturbed sensitive area or buffer may substitute for the yard setback and landscape requirements of the TMC 18.50 and 18.52. D. SPECIAL BUFFER STUDIES — Applicants for a use or development within a wetland or its buffer shall be required to conduct a sensitive area study to provide a buffer analysis for the sensitive area. This study may be waived by the Director pursuant to TMC 18.45.040D. E. WETLAND BUFFER WIDTHS — The following standard buffers shall be established from the wetland edge: 1. Type 1 Wetland; 100 foot buffer. 2. Type 2 Wetland; 80-foot buffer. 3. Type 3 Wetland; 50-foot buffer. F. BUFFER SETBACKS — 1. All commercial and industrial buildings shall be set back 15 feet and all other development shall be set back ten feet from the buffer's edge. The building setbacks shall be measured from the founda- tion to the buffer's edge. Building plans shall also iden- tify a 20-foot area beyond the buffer setback within which the impacts of development will be reviewed. 2. The Director may waive setback require- ments when a site plan demonstrates there will be no impacts to the buffer from construction or occasional maintenance activities (see TMC Figure 18-2). G. VARIATION OF STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER WIDTH — 1. The Director may reduce the standard wetland buffers on a case -by -case basis, provided the reduced buffer area does not contain slopes 15% or greater. The approved buffer width shall not result in greater than a 50% reduction in width. 2. Buffer reduction with enhancement may be allowed by the Director as a Type 2 permit if: a Additional protection to wetlands will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; TITLE 18 — ZONING b. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded c. Buffer enhancement includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) Planting vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife habitat or improve water quality; (2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat by incorporating structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck boxes, bat boxes, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses and heron nesting areas: or (3) Removing non-native plat species and noxious weeds from the buffer area and replanting the area subject to TMC 18.45.080G.2.c.(1) above. 3. Buffers for all types of wetlands will be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland study by a qualified wetlands specialist or expert that documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: a. The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland that can be mitigated by an increased buffer width; or b. The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species listed by the federal government or the State. 4. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable native plant life in the buffers. Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of an enhancement plan approved by the Director. Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wet- land quality will be maintained or improved. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for a permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands with comparable specimens, approved by the Director, which will restore buffer functions within five years. 5. The Director shall require subsequent cor- rective actions and long-term monitoring of the project if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers are identified. (Ord. 2074 91(part), 2004) 18-45.090 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation A. No use or development may occur in a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC Chapter 18.45. Any use Printed February 2005 Page 18-87 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE or development allowed is subject to review and approval by the Director. Where required, a mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. B. ALTERATIONS — 1. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum necessary for project feas- ibility. Requests for alterations must be accompanied by a mitigation plan, are subject to Director approval, and may be approved only if the following findings are made: a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality; b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/or storm water deten- tion capabilities; d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas. 2. Alterations are not permitted to Type 1 wetlands unless specifically exempted under the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45. 3. Alterations to Type 2 wetlands are prohibited except where the location or configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by modifying up to .10 (one -tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Type 2 wetland must be provided at a ratio of 1.5:1 for creation or restoration and 3:1 for enhancement and must be located contiguous to the altered wetland. 4. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. 5. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC Chapter 18.45. 6. Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions may be altered and/or relocated under TMC Chapter 18.45. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of construction activities. The determination that a wetland is isolated is made through the Type 2 permit process. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. C. MITIGATION SEQUENCING — Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been exam- ined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. When an alteration to a wetland or its required buffer is proposed, such alter- ation shall be avoided, minimized or compensated for in the following order of preference: 1. Avoidance of wetland and wetland buffer impacts, whether by finding another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on -site; 2. Minimizing wetland and wetland buffer impacts by limiting the degree of impact on site; 3. Mitigation actions that require compensa- tion by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: a. restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands; b. enhancing significantly degraded wet- lands; c. creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species or noxious weeds. D. MITIGATION PLANS — 1. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the Director. Wetland and/or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved. 2. In order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. 3. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wet- lands, however, in order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, mitigation through enhancement must be compensated at a ratio of 3: 1. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a sensitive area study that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will ade- quately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function. at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. E. MITIGATION LOCATION — 1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that: a. On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or Page 18-88 Printed February 2005 b. Mitigation is not practical due to poten- tially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or c. Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or d. That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. 2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. 3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred. However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that: a. Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non -development and long-term viability of the mitigation site; and b. Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has occurred. 4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: a. Upland sites that were formerly wetlands; b. Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation; c. Other disturbed upland; d. Existing degraded wetland. F. MITIGATION STANDARDS — The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case - by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows: 1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site; 2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site -selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions; 3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria; 4. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints TITLE 18 — ZONING that are an integral requirement of any development proposal; 5. Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress; 6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met; and 7. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC 18.45.210. G. MITIGATION TIMING — Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will perma- nently disturb wetlands and either prior to or immedi- ately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Direc- tor may allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands prior to implementation of the mitigation plan under the following circumstances: 1. To allow planting or re -vegetation to occur during optimal weather conditions; 2. To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or 3. To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or phasing. H . PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO EXCEPTION APPROVAL — Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of TMC Chapter 18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning. (Ord. 2074 §I (part), 2004) 18.45.100 Watercourse Designations, Ratings and Buffers A. WATERCOURSE RATINGS — Watercourse ratings are based on the existing habitat functions and are rated as follows: 1. Type I Watercourse: Watercourses inven- toried as Shorelines of the State, under RCW 90.58. These watercourses shall be regulated under TMC 18.44, Shoreline Overlay. 2. Type 2 Watercourse: Those watercourses that have perennial (year-round) or intermittent flows and support salmonid fish use. 3. Type 3 Watercourse: Those watercourses that have perennial flows and are not used by salmonid fish. 4. Type 4 Watercourse: Those watercourses that have intermittent flows and are not used by salmonid fish. Printed February 2005 Page 18-89 5. All revisions, updates and reprinting of sensitive areas maps, inventories, ratings and buffers shall conform to TMC Chapter 18.45. (Ord. 2074 §1(part), 2004) 18.45.040 Sensitive Areas Special Studies A. REQUIRED — An applicant for a development proposal that may include a sensitive area and/or its buffer shall submit those studies as required by the City and specified below to adequately identify and evaluate the sensitive area and its buffers. 1. A required sensitive areas study shall be prepared by a person with experience and training in the scientific discipline appropriate for the relevant sensitive area in accordance with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in ecology or related science, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geotechnical or related field, and two years of related work experience. a. A qualified professional for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas must have a degree in ecology or related sciences and professional experience related to the subject species. b. A qualified professional for wetland sensitive area studies must be a certified Professional Wetland Scientist or a non -certified Professional Wetland Scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands professional, including delineating wetlands using the state or federal manuals, preparing wetland reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and implementing mitigation plans. c. A qualified professional for a geological hazard study must be a professional geotechnical engineer as defined in the Definitions chapter of this Title, licensed in the state of Washington. d. A qualified professional for watercourses means a hydrologist, geologist, engineer or other scientist with experience in preparing watercourse assessments. 2. The sensitive areas study shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of sensitive area data and shall use field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The sensitive area study shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to sensitive areas in accordance with the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45. B. WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE SENSITIVE AREA STUDIES — The sensitive area study shall contain the following information, as applicable: 1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; 2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal showing: sensitive areas and buffers and the development proposal with dimensions; clearing TITLE 18 — ZONING limits; proposed storm water management plan; and mitigation plan for impacts due to drainage alterations; 3. The dates, names and qualifications of the persons preparing the study and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site: 4. Identification and characterization of all sensitive areas, water bodies, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area or potentially impacted by the proposed project; 5. A statement specifying the accuracy of the study and assumptions used in the study; 6. Determination of the degree of hazard and risk from the proposal both on the site and on adjacent properties; 7. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to sensitive areas, their buffers and other properties resulting from the proposal; 8. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to sensitive areas; 9. Plans for adequate mitigation to offset any impacts; 10. Recommendations for maintenance, short- term and long-term monitoring, contingency plans and bonding measures; and 11. Any technical information required by the director to assist in determining compliance with TMC Chapter 18.45. C. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT- 1. A geotechnical report appropriate both to the site conditions and the proposed development shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as Coal Mine Hazard Areas unless waived pursuant to TMC 18.45.040E. 2. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. 3. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard Areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, a feasibility analysis for the use of infiltration on - site and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical engineer recommends it in Class 3 or Coal Mine Hazard Areas, and must be done in Class 4 areas. 4. Applicants shall retain a geotechnical engi- neer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this subsection. The geotechnical report and completed site evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the geotechnical engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Printed February 2005 Page 18-83 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director December 18, 2013 Wig Properties, LLC. Subject: Bond for Southcenter Square Wetland Mitigation Dear Mr. Wig, We have reviewed the itemized content of the bond for environmental mitigation work located at Tukwila Pond and find that the bond dollar amount may be reduced based upon satisfactory completion of the past four years of work. The remaining items to be completed are Monitoring and Maintenance, which must continue to be fully covered at 150%. Specifically that reduced bond amount is for the following items: Item Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Maintenance years 6-10 5 $ 5,650 $ 28,250 Monitoring - year 7 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Monitoring - years 9 & 10 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 Total Maintenance/Monitoring Cost $ 38,250 Total Bond Requirement Multiplier 150% $ 57,375 Should you choose to reduce the amount of the existing bond, please provide the City with verification and a copy of that new document. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665