Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L01-072 - OPUS NW LLC - SPECIAL PERMISSION PIPING AND WATERCOURSE
LO1-072 OPUS 14910 51sT AV (SP) SPECIAL PERMISSION .. Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION . 1, i.-.C. L - / HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting 4 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Other _ VOTRE f „b�'G 5 1 o� I" Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /0 day of N in the year 20 02. P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: . OP 4S N t. Project Number: 4_ 0 / - 0 70? Mailer's Signature: fl,(41.A.A..- 4 Person requesting mailing : — Mt t444 ( -L Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /0 day of N in the year 20 02. P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM To: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION January 10, 2002 • Andy Taber, Opus LLC(applicant) • Sheila Burns, Johann Pollinger (owners) • King County Assessor, Accounting Division • Agencies with interest (listed on affidavit of mailing) • Richard & Virginia Botham (Party of record) 16334 Linden Avenue North, Shoreline WA 98133 -5620 This letter serves as a Notice of Decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. The Director of Community Development hereby approves the proposed piping of Type 3 watercourses and reduction of 50 % buffer of Type 2 watercourse for relocation of Type 3 watercourse in association with the proposed three story 69,920 square feet office building at 14910 -51 Avenue South with the following condition: Additionally, the applicant must note the following items: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant must revise the cost estimate for enhancement work to accurately reflect the cost of work to be performed and monitoring associated with it. The revised cost estimate must be approved by the City and the applicant will be required to produce a bond to guarantee performance, monitoring and maintenance pertaining to the piping and rerouting of the two Type 3 watercourses. 1. Prior to issuance.of building permit, applicant shall obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for this project from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife if such a permit is required by Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet all the, tree permit requirements i.e. all trees removed from sensitive area buffers including areas with slopes greater than 20 percent must be replaced based on regulations and tree replacement ratios listed under TMC 18.54.130. Also, all other landscape requirements listed under TMC Chapter 18.52 must be met. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 PROJECT BACKGROUND REQUESTS: FILE NUMBER: L01 -051 Type 2, Special Permission permit- Director's approval to place an existing Type 3 watercourse (north stream) in a culvert underneath the parking and driveways and also to place a portion of the second Type 3 watercourse in a culvert. The mitigation for the north stream includes relocation of the watercourse and enhancements in a portion of the buffer area of the I -5 stream (Type 2 watercourse). This request for Sensitive Areas Ordinance deviation is associated with the proposed three -story 69, 920 square feet office building. APPLICANT: Andy Taber, Opus Northwest LLC 915 - 118` Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue WA 98005 OWNER: Sheila Bums, Johann Pollinger. L01 -072- Notice of Decision Page 2 of 4 ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA (A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on December 18, 2001.) Design Review (Notice of application was issued on August 27, 2001. It is scheduled for public hearing on January 24, 2002) Development Permit LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: The project is located in NW quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The project site is located on tax lot numbers 7661600030 and 7661600061, which are west of I -5 and east of 51 Avenue South. The street address is 14910 51S' Avenue South, Tukwila. Office (0) NOTICE: Notice of Application for this Type 2 permit was issued on December 21, 2001. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. t..4,'!tket:.aus:w'r•...:..,_a� �.3���:� ?,?s�Sd.� i�."'?•;�r L01 -072- Notice of Decision Page 3 of 4 The decision on this permit application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.010. A Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) was issued for the development of the property described above, pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 21.04. The other land use application (Design Review) is still pending and scheduled for public hearing on January 24, 2001. z �w No administrative appeal of the DNS is permitted. One administrative appeal of the Decision on JU this permit itself, excluding challenges to the DNS, is permitted. In order to appeal the decision v o on this permit, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community w w Development within 14 days of the issuance of this decision. The requirements for such appeals w area set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.116. w 0 All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall contain: w z 1. The name of the appealing party, z O w w 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party v N is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a a E- contact person authorized to received notices on the appealing party's behalf, and = v � 9-- O 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that Z rn decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or z anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. Any administrative appeal regarding the permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Tukwila Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Planning Commission's decision on this application must file an appeal in King County Superior Court within 21 days of the issuance of a Notice of Decision by the Planning Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in RCW ch. 36.70C. Any challenge to DNS issued for development of this property must be included in such an appeal to Superior Court. If no appeal of the decision on this permit is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the decision on this permit shall be final and the City's approval of the DNS will be final for both this permit and the other pending permit applications for the development of this subject property. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permit(s) are available for inspection at the Tukwila Dept. of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3685 for further information. Director Community Development City of Tukwila L01 -072- Notice of Decision Page 4 of 4 J.w.,..::�t. ,...,:wi.:.itx.,. ; i�. tr, s: n:..., i l.ti' %v.fi;icr:Fitii`u.:r`.t�.a. _:iiu3.S:, i_ pr.: i�a ir ._. v'�_1- J,n Bf 7; C 1:.J:=,.`;::- w.-:. oa_ r...',. .�,.,.......:....,...,..- �s.... _ __ STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATED JANUARY 10, 2002 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION This Type 2 permit (Special Permission- Director) is to seek Director's approval to pipe and reroute one existing Type 3 watercourse; pipe a portion of a second Type 3 watercourse; and reduce the buffer of a Type 2 watercourse by 50% to relocate the piped Type 3 watercourse. This Sensitive Areas Ordinance deviation request is in association with the proposal to construct a three story 69,920 square feet office building and 164 parking stalls on an approximately 3.3 acre site. The north watercourse is proposed to be tightlined its entire length and rerouted between I -5 watercourse (Type 2) and eastern edge of the parking lot. The relocated stream and the mitigation plantings will be in the buffer area for the I -5 watercourse. Therefore the applicant is also requesting a 50% buffer reduction in the width of the Type 2 watercourse buffer. Approximately 40 feet of the second watercourse is proposed to be tightlined to provide access to the site. Mitigation for this watercourse includes enhancements at the existing location. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Opus Office Building I 5/405. File Number: L01 - 072 Applicant: Andy Taber Opus Northwest LLC 915 - 118 Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue WA 98005 Location: Zoning: Comprehensive Plan Designation: 1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director The project is located in NW quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The project site is located on tax lot numbers 7661600030 and 7661600061, which are west of I -5 and east of 51 Avenue South. The street address is 14910 51 Avenue South, Tukwila. The current zoning for the subject site is Office (0). The current Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is Office (0). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 �"� :. 1 _ "fix xr �'G t ? r c . . � albs, , Associated Permits: SEPA (A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on December 18, 2001.) Design Review (Notice of application was issued on August 27, 2001. It is scheduled for public hearing on January 24, 2002) Development Permit Notice: Notice of Application for this Type 2 permit was issued on December 21, 2001. The following information was considered as part of review of this application: 1. Following environmental reports and studies: a) Wetland Delineation report by B & A Inc. (Bredberg & Associates, Inc) dated 2/15/01, b) Peer review of the wetland report prepared by Adolfson Associates dated 4/25/01, c) Wetland/watercourse peer review memo by Gary Schultz dated 4/16/01, d) Addendum to wetland report by Bredberg & Associates, Inc dated 9/21/01 e) Wetland /watercourse review memo prepared by Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist dated November 20, 2001. f) Watercourse Mitigation report prepared by B &A Inc., dated September 21, 2001 and revised 12/12/01. g) Watercourse mitigation report review memo prepared by Gary Schultz, Urban Environmentalist dated January 10, 2002. 2. Preliminary Site Plan prepared by Sconzo Hallstrom architects dated revised on 11 -06- 01, Topographic /Boundary Survey and Sensitive area/Tree Survey prepared by Gerald C Retzlaff, Preliminary Grading, Paving, Drainage and Utility Plan prepared by Hugh G Goldsmith and Associates, Preliminary Landscaping Plan prepared by Site Studio Landscape architects dated revised on 12/03/01. 3. a) Preliminary Findings Geotechnical Engineering study dated November 15, 2000 prepared by Terra Associates Inc. b) Geotechnical report and site sections prepared by Terra Associates dated September 21, 2001, c) Supplemental geotechnical review dated November 9, 2001, by Terra Associates analyzing grade transitions and impacts to groundwater as a result of placing fill on the site. 4. Level 1 Drainage Analysis and Stonnwater Control Plan, prepared by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc, dated July 2001. NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: 206 - 431 -3685. 2 z w 2 00 LLI w W = W F- z � I- 0 z F- w uj 0 co O — O I- • W z i u 0 z III. BACKGROUND /PROPOSAL The project site contains two Type 3 watercourses that flow from the west and a Type 2- watercourse segment along the East Side within the WSDOT I -5 right -of -way that z eventually flows into Gilliam Creek. There are two offsite wetland areas with some W buffer areas extending onto the site: Type 2 wetland with a 50 feet buffer on the south 6 v side and Type 3 offsite wetland with a 25 feet buffer on the north side. No work is U o co proposed to be performed within the wetlands or their associated buffers. 0 w= The northern Type 3 watercourse flows from the east into the I -5 watercourse and does uj LL W O not directly flow into a wetland. It is a maintained drainage chaimel with low riparian/habitat function and is proposed for piping under the parking lot. Per Tukwila g Municipal Code mitigation is required for piping to replace the open channel and its c functions. It is proposed to be tightlined its entire length and rerouted between I -5 = w watercourse (Type 2) and eastern edge of the parking lot. The relocated stream and the z mitigation plantings will be in the buffer area for the I -5 watercourse. Therefore the 1. applicant is also requesting a 50% buffer reduction in the width of the Type 2 w w watercourse buffer. v o The second Type 3 watercourse is located in the southwest corner of the subject site and it does not directly flow into the I -5 watercourse but dissipates into the off -site wetland. a.' v Approximately 40 feet of this watercourse is proposed to be tightlined to provide access to the site. Mitigation for this watercourse includes enhancements at the existing location. w z U N F- 0 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE z A. Type and Rating of the watercourses: Pursuant to the definition of a watercourse listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.06.920, and watercourse rating criteria listed under TMC 18.45.020 (D), the two East -West watercourses are determined to be Type 3 watercourses and the WSDOT I -5 watercourse is determined to be a Type 2 watercourse. This determination was based on the review of environmental studies submitted by the applicant; peer review by the City's Urban Environmentalist (Gary Schultz); and peer review by the City's environmental consultant (Adolfson and Associates). B. Piping and rerouting of the two Type 3 watercourses: This entire length of the north Type 3 watercourse is proposed to be tightlined and then rerouted between the I -5 watercourse and eastern edge of the parking lot. Pursuant to TMC 18.45.080 (D), piping in a watercourse sensitive area requires approval of the Director and must meet the criteria outlined in TMC 18.45.080 (D)(6). 3 z—. s la Following is the analysis of how the proposed piping and rerouting meets that criteria: a. Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if it is necessary for access purposes. Piping may be allowed in Type 3 watercourses if the applicant complies with the conditions of this section, including: (1) Providing excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event; and (2) Providing flow restrictors, and complying with water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. The north watercourse is a Type 3 watercourse and is proposed to be piped under the access and parking area and it will be re- routed to create a new channel for the entire length to be piped. It is not feasible to keep this watercourse as an open channel at its current location and relocation of this watercourse is necessary due to site conditions and the amount of fill material required for grading. The 40 foot section of the south watercourse that is also a Type 3 watercourse is proposed to be piped for providing access to the subject site. The piped section will provide excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 -year flood event and this shall be documented during detailed drainage review at the time of building permit review. The mitigation plan states that check dams will be provided in the new channel to prevent any erosion. b. No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured. Not applicable. c. Piping in a watercourse sensitive area shall be limited and shall require approval of the Director. Piping projects shall be per formed pursuant to the following applicable standards: (1) The conveyance system shall be designed to comply with the standards in current use and recommended by the Department of Public Works. The proposal meets this criterion. (2) Where allowed, piping shall be limited to the shortest length possible as determined by the Director to allow access onto a property. The entire north watercourse is proposed to be piped. However, a new channel is proposed for the entire length to be piped with enhancement plantings made along the entire length to improve and replace the functions resulting from piping. Only that portion of the south watercourse is proposed to be piped that is required to obtain correct grades inorder to access the property. 4 �;:J� iy >:k .; '•`iL;�"' . .:^ 4:' �5 : :F7t4E� (3) Where water is piped for an access point, those driveways or entrances shall be consolidated to serve multiple properties where possible, and to minimize the length of piping. At this time no entrances or driveways are proposed in proximity to the south access point that warrant a shared access for adjoining properties. (4) When required by the Director, watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be contained in an arch culvert using oversize or superspan culverts for rebuilding of a stream bed. These shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows, and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan approved by the Director. Not applicable. (S) When necessary to provide for fish passage, fish ladders shall be 1-foot vertical rise to10 foot horizontal distance, or as approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is no indication of presence of fish in the two Type 3 watercourses. (6) Stormwater runoff shall be detained and infiltrated ltrated to preserve the watercourse channel's dominant discharge. The project shall meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual standards. Detailed drainage design shall be reviewed at the time of building permit review. (7) All construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer and surrounding environment. The project shall meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements pertaining to erosion and sedimentation control. Best Management Practices shall be followed to ensure least adverse impact to the watercourse, buffer and surrounding environment during construction. (8) Piping shall be constructed during periods of low flow, or as specified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is no indication of presence of fish in the two watercourses. Applicant shall contact Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and meet all their applicable requirements. If required by Department of Fish of Wildlife, applicant shall obtain the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) prior to issuance of building permit. (9) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, and flow must be comparable. The project meets this criterion. 5 C. Mitigation and monitoring associated with piping and rerouting of the two Type III watercourses: Applicant submitted a watercourse mitigation report prepared by B &A Inc., landscape plan prepared by Site Studio Landscape architects and Site Plan prepared by Sconzo Hallstrom architects. These were reviewed by the City's Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schultz. See attached memo dated January 10, 2002, for Gary's comments. TMC Section 18.45.080 (D)(2), lists the mitigation and performance standards required for any mitigation plan associated with watercourses. The project meets the following minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations as listed under TMC 18.45.080(D)(2),: (a) Maintenance or improvement of stream channel dimensions, including the components of depth, width, length and gradient of the original location, (b) Bank and buffer configuration should be restored to an equal or enhanced state of the original stream, (c) The channel, bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with native vegetation which replicates or improves the original in species, sizes and densities, (d) The stream channel bed and the biofiltration systems shall be equivalent to or better than in the original stream, (e) The original fish and wildlife habitat shall be maintained or enhanced, (fl Relocation of a watercourse shall not result in the new sensitive area or buffer extending beyond the development site and onto adjacent property without the agreement of the affected property owners, (g) A watercourse may be rerouted; However prior to issuance of building permit, applicant must revise the cost estimate for enhancement work to accurately reflect the cost of work to be performed and monitoring associated with it. The revised cost estimate must be approved by the City and the applicant will be required to produce a bond to guarantee performance, monitoring and maintenance as they pertain to the piping and rerouting of the two Type 3 watercourses. Also, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet all the tree permit requirements i.e. all trees removed from sensitive area buffers including areas with slopes greater than 20 percent must be replaced based on regulations and tree replacement ratios listed under TMC 18.54.130. Also, all other landscape requirements listed under TMC Chapter 18.52 must be met. D. Variation of a standard watercourse buffer of Type 2 watercourse. The North -South I -5 watercourse is a Type 2 watercourse that requires a 35 -foot buffer. The applicant's proposal includes relocation of the north Type 3 watercourse in the I -5 watercourse buffer. 6 Pursuant to TMC 18.45.040 (C), the Director may reduce the standard watercourse buffer on a case by case basis, provided the buffer does not contain slopes 20% or greater and the approved buffer width shall not result in greater than 50% reduction in width and the reduced buffer is not less than ten feet for watercourses. Also, the buffer reduction shall not result in direct or indirect, short-term or long -term adverse impact to the watercourse and that 1) the buffer is vegetated and includes an enhancement plan as may be required to improve the buffer function and value; or 2) if there is no significant vegetation in the buffer, a buffer may be reduced only if an enhancement plan is provided. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the watercourse functions and values. The request to reduce the buffer of I -5 watercourse by 50% meets the above listed code criteria. V. COMMENTS Notice of application was issued on December 21, 2001. No comments were received related to this application. VI. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the project to pipe and reroute one existing Type 3 watercourse; pipe a 40- foot portion of a second Type 3 watercourse; and reduce the buffer of a Type 2 watercourse by 50% to relocate the piped Type 3 watercourse with the following condition: 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant must revise the cost estimate for enhancement work to accurately reflect the cost of work to be performed and monitoring associated with it. The revised cost estimate must be approved by the City and the applicant will be required to produce a bond to guarantee performance, monitoring and maintenance pertaining to the piping and rerouting of the two Type 3 watercourses. Additionally, the applicant must note the following items: 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for this project from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife if such a permit is required by Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet all the tree permit requirements i.e. all trees removed from sensitive area buffers including areas with slopes greater than 20 percent must be replaced based on regulations and tree replacement ratios listed under TMC 18.54.130. Also, all other landscape requirements listed under TMC Chapter 18.52 must be met. 7 ��w. W n4lai+Yt�l.:iw i MEMORANDUM City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director z Z CL w 6 J O 00 U) 0 w= J H N LL w LL ¢ 51 d W 1-0 z i— w • w • c 0 - O I— w Lu • U Per your request, I have reviewed a portion of the revised submittal for the Opus Northwest project „. — Opus Park 5/405 located along the east side of 51' Avenue S. The submittal includes a z Preliminary Landscape Plan (Site Studio Landscape Architecture, revised 12/3/01) and o Watercourse Mitigation Report (A.J.Brederg, B& A Inc., revised 12/12/01). This review is focused p t on a Type 2 Special Permission for watercourse relocation and buffer reduction approval. My z review comments and recommendations are listed as follows: TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist ;7 DATE: January 10, 2002 RE: Opus Park Office Building: Wetland/Watercourse Review — Type 2 Permit Permit #'s E01 -018 & LO1 -051. Preliminary Landscape Plan — Watercourse Plantings Steven M. Mullet, Mayor The current planting plan is near completion; however, there are several details that will need to be addressed before the final building approval. 1. The plant quantities need to be identified and shown in the plant legend. The quantities used for mitigation will be the basis for determining a portion of the sensitive area performance security. 2. The performance security estimate that has been provided left out some trees and does not appear to include labor for the installation. The grading work also appears to be underestimated for the new watercourse channel work. It is not clear where the separation is between sensitive area plantings and formal landscape plantings. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Opus Park Memo — Type 2 Permission January 10, 2002 Page 2 3. A tree permit is required because trees are being removed within sensitive areas — watercourse buffers and steep slopes (20 percent + gradient). The replacement trees can be planted within the watercourse mitigation area but are considered as a requirement that is additional to formal landscaping. The tree permit is included in the watercourse mitigation plan approval. The area adjacent to the new (mitigation) watercourse and its buffer is the preferred location to plant additional trees. The current planting plan shows this location as mostly salal. Adding tree and shrub cover will provide more functional habitat and better survivability. Site Plan 1. The Preliminary Site Plan — P1.01 indicates a 35 -foot buffer on the south side of the watercourse that crosses the southwest corner of the project site. All the other sheets /drawings are showing 15 feet for this watercourse buffer. Please correct for consistency. 2. The City does not have Type 3 and Type 2 ditches; however, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance does include Type 3 and Type 2 Watercourses. The City may be regulating streams within ditches or artificial channels and these are referred to as "Watercourses ". This labeling needs to be corrected on most of the submitted drawings. Watercourse Mitigation Report The watercourse mitigation report (B &A Inc. 12/01) includes the typical components of mitigation. The goals of mitigation are to replace the watercourse functions, increase habitat, and improve water quality. Check dams within the new channel will prevent erosion and the area will be vegetated. 1. The performance standard is 80 percent survival at the end of three years of maintenance and monitoring. 2. The construction plan section includes "retention of designated trees" and states "save and protect all existing willows and native vegetation ". Some existing vegetation in the new watercourse area is native (Pacific willow trees) and should be retained if possible. 3. Non - native, invasive plants will be removed prior to installing the new plantings. 4. Irrigation will be provided for all planting areas. The landscape contractor shall provide warranty for the plant material and installation for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance. Opus Park Memo — Type 2 Permission January 9, 2002 Page 3 5. Monitoring will be a period of three years to document plant survival (at least 80 %) and the condition of the channel. If plant survival falls below the performance standard, a contingency plan could be implement to make corrections or changes to the plan. 6. The performance security will need to be revised as it appears to be underestimated for this project. 7. The mitigation timing section states the new watercourse will be installed early into the project construction and prior to piping of existing watercourses Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director 1 0' �.��... ... .L'_.: �• '�1� _.. .. .... ...v' �... ..-�.. .�.. ... �+ � + InM r�l d.. t:.. YUt�/ aw. tW .:f4w"v:.irsw.a'Ai�L�r4uwiwi�:. • t.1 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Comnuinity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(a?ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I �1 Ti (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on { 2 - ZI • O I the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 149 (O ' f j AV so . so as to be clearly seen from each right-of-way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number _LCD 10 7 I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remo sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely man Notice letter. residing at My commission expires on A On this day personally appeared before mev`i to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged t as his/r voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. d immediately within fo een .4.1.1i cant or 'ro - t a ager's Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _ i 1 6K day of a t"p hf`4 t .- , A NOT Y PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington / CO(/' J / / fi / to me known he signed the same Dept. Of Community Development • City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I ' /g$7, , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: 4--01-07 Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: MI NN 1E- Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 2/ day of.1)cc.. in the year 20 0/ P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: OPUS Project Number: 4--01-07 Mailer's Signature: *MAL 4 Person requesting mailing: MI NN 1E- Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 2/ day of.1)cc.. in the year 20 0/ P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED DECEMBER 21, 2001 The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: Opus NW, L.L.C. LOCATION: 14910 -51 Ave South OWNER OF THE PROPERTY: Shiela Burns and Johann Pollinger FILE NUMBERS: LO1 -072 (Type 2 Special Permission for Sensitive Areas. — Ordinance Deviation) • - PROPOSAL: To place an existing Type 3 watercourse (north stream) in a" culvert underneath the parking and driveways and also to place a portion of the second Type 3 watercourse (south stream) in a culvert. The mitigation for the north stream will include relocation of the watercourse and enhancements in a portion of the buffer area of the I -5 stream (Type 2 watercourse). This request for Sensitive Areas Ordinance deviation is associated with a proposed three -story 65,600 square foot office building. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA and Design Review Boundary Line Adjustment Development Permit These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 pm on January 4, 2002. If you have questions about this proposal contact Minnie Dhaliwal, the Planner in charge of this file, at (206) 431 -3685. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision on this project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 206 -431 -3670. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: December 18, 2001 December 20, 2001 December 21, 2001 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 S.'i�lYy x: • 0 4 100 I" =200 ZOO IMMO 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors Planners 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue. VA 96064 P.O. Box 9565 Bellevue. TA 96009 TEL (4251 462 -1080 PAY: 14251 462 —T719 PLOTTED: 00112EOB.drq RN1X 04/23/01 11:22 SCALE: I' • Z00 DRAWN: RNIX LZF: DESIGNED: APPROVED: ACAO OWG.: 00112EOt1 PSSF: 300' LOT LINE (DENT. OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON JOB N0: 00112 SHEET z ~ W lYA 6 J U 00 CO 0 : W = J F.. CO u.. W 0 U- Q � 0 = O W _ Z H i- 0 Zh W U D O - O 1— tu 0 L I 0 .. Z W U � 1- O 1- z z ii- Z Q Q � J U 00 U) 0. W J F— w u. (0 = W z � Zo U) The Department of Community Development received your Type 2- Special Permission U � N application for Sensitive Areas Ordinance deviation (piping of a Type 3 stream) for the proposed o (- development of 65,600 square feet building at 14910 51 Avenue South. = v L Based on a review of your submittal relative to those requirements as set out in the Complete z w Application Checklists for Type 2- Special Permission Permit, your application is deemed c complete. Per Tukwila Municipal Code, a notice of land use application must be distributed within 14 days of the date of this letter. Z December 20, 2001 Andy Taber 915 118 Ave SE Suite 300 Bellevue WA 98005 Re: Notice of complete application -Type 2 Special Permission Application - Sensitive Areas Ordinance deviation (piping of a Type 3 stream) for Opus Park I -5/405 project. File numbers LO1 -072. Dear Mr. Taber: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION The next step is for you to post the notice of application on the site by January 3, 2001. Please call me to obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. At this time we have started code related review of your application and will inform you if any additional information is required. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206- 431 -3685. Sincerely, , i l• Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 {`r: >;a:LC.r,_ r ;i�AtkSE�#a..?2i6c!Y ,�4 °e @ s$Na xtis aapt" Payee: ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: doc: Receipt City of 1 Ul {Wlla. Current Pmts ZONING /SUBDIVISION 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 z RECEIPT .r z w re Parcel No.: 7661600061 Permit Number: L01-072 U O Address: 14910 51 AV S TUKW Status: PENDING N 0 Suite No: Applied Date: 12/18/2001 w = A pplicant: OPUS NW LLC Issue Date: J w 2 Receipt No.: R010001562 Payment Amount: 200.00 5 ii. a D Initials: MD Payment Date: 12/18/2001 09:16 AM = C User ID: 1685 Balance: $0.00 I— z H I— 0 Z I— TRANSACTION LIST: al— Type Method Description w w I- Amount I — U II O Payment Check 3450 200.00 . Z ' U � - _ O~ z Description Account Code 000/345.810 200.00 Total: 200.00 1825 12/19 9716 TOTAL 200.00 Printed: 12 -18 -2001 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -SP Planner: File Number: L d (- 01 2- Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail: tukplann,ci.tukwila.wa.us NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (7) TI4 ?Pt RK 5 4t S LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. R 51 Ave 'jua wrta , Tv, fc.uu Signature: - 3 (c(,l(10 - OOC,,l ¥ 7661(a0 - 61030 Quarter: P4W Section: 23 Township: 2 3 Range: a 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the - primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: t�N�y l r btu 0 4 fhS o rl+ FST Address: 9 1'5 ' ttFi" Ave SE , CA'`-« 300 ; ELt-E\UE, 9 ooS Phone: 4 1.' • it 5 '4 FAX: 4i T f `}6 3 • 1112.. Date: / 6(// 0� fj f G:\APPHAN\SIGN.HND \SPD.doc, 06/15/00 SPECIAL PERMISSION DIRECTOR OPUS,. THE OPUS GROUP A It C H I T EC T S CO N T R A C T() It S I) E V E L O I' E R S December 12, 2001 Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Type II Application for Opus Park 1-5/405 project — File Nos. L01 -050 and E01 -018 Dear Minnie: OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. 915 118th Avenue Southeast, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone 425 -453 -4100 Fax 425- 453 -1712 This letter and the enclosures are our Type II Special Permission Director submittal package for a Sensitive Area Ordinance Deviation (TMC 18.45.040) for our proposed development at approximately 14910 — 51 Avenue South. We propose to tight -line one existing ditch/Type III stream and a portion of a second ditch/Type III stream. This package describes our proposed mitigation measures. Approximately 40 feet of the stream in the southwest corner will be placed in a culvert to control the watercourse near the entry to the site. Mitigation for this enclosure will be enhancements at the existing location. The other watercourse currently crosses the entire site from west to east and needs to be placed in a culvert under the parking and driveways. Mitigation for this enclosure will take place between the I -5 ditch to the east of the eastern property line and the eastern edge of the parking area. The enclosed Watercourse Mitigation Report, by B &A inc., dated September 21, 2001, (revised for current drawings) describes in detail the mitigation for both areas. The mitigation for the north stream will include enhancements in a portion of the buffer area for the I -5 ditch. Therefore, we are requesting a 50% reduction in the width of the buffer. This reduction will be offset with enhancements along the relocated watercourse and in its associated 15 -foot buffer. These enhancements are described in the Watercourse Mitigation Report and the enclosed site plan, P1.01, revision 6, dated 11 -06- 01 and Landscape plan L -1, revision 2, dated December 3, 2001. w ww. o pus co rp. co m P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Typ II hr 011212 .doc Allentown • Atlanta • Austin • Chicago • Columbus • Dallas • Denver • Fort Lauderdale • Houston • Indianapolis • Kansas City • Los Angeles • Miami • Milwaukee • Minneapolis Orange County • Orlando • Pensacola • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Portland • Sacramento • San Francisco • San Jose • Seattle • St. Louis • Tampa • Washington, D.C. We believe the design demonstrates the proposed mitigation will not result in direct or indirect, short-term or long -term adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses, and the enhanced vegetation will improve the buffer function and value. The enclosures are listed below. Please call me at (425) 453 -4100 with any questions or if more information is needed. Sincerely, Opus N west, L.L C. Andy Taber Sr. Real Es Manager Enclosures ' 1' ude two copies of each of the following, except the check: • Completed Application • Complete Application Checklist • Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property from Burns and Pollinger • B &A, Inc., Watercourse Mitigation Report, dated 9/21/01 (revised for current drawings) • Sconzo Hallstrom, Preliminary Site Plan, P1.01, revision 6, dated 11/06/01 • Site Studio Preliminary Landscape Plan, L -1, revision 2, dated 12/03/01 • Application check for $200.00 cc: • Bart Brynestad, Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Bill Bieber, Opus Northwest, L.L.C. AJ Bredberg, B &A, Inc. John Hallstrom, Sconzo Hallstrom Architects P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Typ Il ltr 011212 .doc Pg 2/2 7:1 H m 0 > O H C -f 70 > CD M m --I z —1 cn m m H _ NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Corridor Barrier Function Surrounding land use immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL itEAC:II SCORE Figure 4 Dp a3 --,4R is /yos' Tukwila Watcrcotusc Rating pg. 2 LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK Width of unmaintained veg tp ► i eo from ()IlWP1 >50 feet Score = 3 25 to 50 feet Score = 2 5 to 25 feet Score = Vegetation diversity High diversity, Open forest or shrubs Single layer multi layered with understory with minimal diversity Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = I Subscore , Subscore !/tl For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores LefLaank Right Batik Suhscurc I Subscore " Total 2 Total Score Score '� Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = Score t Score Forested . Score = 3 urban: residential/maintained lawns Score = -1 Shrub or unmaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = 1 urban: industrial/commercial Score = -2 Score Score — Score Score Score / 5 Score Score rP Score SCORE SCORE/4 •Z • I W : Q I Q Y 2 J V. .0 0 . W = J . U) O: � = d Z Z • I— O Z H o `W I . LLI U = • INSTREAl11 ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (0111VM) >5 feet Score = 3 I to 5 feet Score = 2 <I foot Score = I Score a Channel capacity Ample, no ovcrbank Adequate, slight evidence flows of overbank flows Score = 3 Score = 1 Insufficient overbank flows common Score = (1 Score 3 Channel stability No scour or ciowncuuing Score = 3 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Slight scour or downcutting ( <25% of channel) Score = I Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = (1 Score Fish use Figure - I IV,\'I Eltt'ttltlttiE R.v'r(N(J FORM - CITY OF '1'1IKWII.A Salmonids present Potential for salmonid use Score = 3 No fish present and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Score = 2 No potential for salmonids but other species present Score = I Score x 2 = 0 Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat overwintering types present Score = 3 Score =2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = I Score TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE C Z • I • ~ W CC 2 U0 W J O . W � q le - a( Date fit., / U = Watercourse b rS trader c o teJSe /1,{ G�. W From O p t “ PA rc S ' /t j J r” Z H O To S 0 . O N .O 1— W W h V I- Z. W U O ~ Z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR •rHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. CITY OF TUKWILA - WATERCOURSE MITIGATION REPORT SITE: OPUS PARK 5/405 ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: HUGE G. GOLDSMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1215 114TH AVENUE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 425 - 462 -1080 PHONE 425 - 462 -7719 FAX PREPARED BY: B &A, INC. 3303 43RD STREET NW GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 253 - 858 -7055 PHONE 253 - 858 -2534 FAX ba @harbornet.com EMAIL BA #3378 SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 R 4'LSEn Z/c i 'FOR uEW ORAwtNG s 3303 43rd St. NW • Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA 253.858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 • ba @harbornet.com 60 w,.r i174 )%illik • '.; cu r vaftk+!:: :s:.ram4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 BASELINE INFORMATION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS & OBJECTIVES 4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5.0 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 6.0 MONITORING 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 8.0 PERFORMANCE SECURITY DEVICE 9.0 MITIGATION TIMING ATTACHMENT 1: COST ESTIMATE z • Z Ce JU' O 0 . • 0 cn w: J =: H CO u.. wO g Q' "I d = w Z I— 0 Z F- Lu U 'O •'; • t w w I I O. w Z — • I O f- z 1.0 INTRODUCTION Two watercourses will be rerouted. Discussions with the City to date indicate that this is acceptable. There are no salmon associated with the ditches or watercourses, nor is there any critical wildlife habitat. Mitigation plans have been prepared and are detailed on Sheets C -3, L -1, and L -2.-- Reduced copies of these sheets accompany. For detailed and to scale view, please see full size sheets. 2.0 BASELINE INFORMATION Two watercourses, one at the south and one midway through the north side of the project, will be rerouted. Both watercourses are Type 3. The south watercourse will have approximately 40 feet of its westerly end tightlined. The watercourse begins at a discharge from a culvert underneath 51st Avenue S. and flows in an approximately 2 -foot wide constructed ditch, then into a shallow channel where it eventually infiltrates into Wetland B. The southerly ditch /watercourse does not flow directly into the 1 -5 ditch but dissipates into the wetland. The ditch is approximately 2 feet wide and is a few inches to 2 feet deep. The vegetation is predominately Himalayan blackberry and salmonberry. The area where the ditch will be tightlined is not heavily vegetated. A restoration planting plan is provided for the area that will be tightlined up to the property line, including portions of the watercourse /ditch that will not be tightlined. The northerly ditch /watercourse will be tightlined its entire length. The current ditch is approximately 1 to 2.feet wide and from 2 to 5 feet deep. The ditch is vegetated along its eastern end with red alder trees, and the western end of the north side has poplar trees. The majority of the remaining vegetation consists of Himalayan blackberry. The ditch begins at the discharge from a culvert under 51st Avenue S. and flows in the constructed channel, east and into to the 1 -5 ditch. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS The purpose of the mitigation measures are to replace the functions resulting from the tightlining of the watercourses. A new watercourse will be constructed and enhancement plantings made along its entire length. In addition, enhancement plantings will be made along the existing ditch at the southwest corner of the property that will be unimpacted by the tightlining. 1 an d l.•2 rw. 21 1 2/03/01 aN4 &Ve• plan P1 re-v.6, I+ /ob /o) 3378 MR /aj b /smh /9/21 /01 1 <M�?i?tN�" ;°{',YEP N:; ^ •,i; yY �t„ a. Y�l�Y .:wy:Yi'}.9:9ki(sh:'FM7;�l$w±. The site selection for the mitigation area is driven by the topography of the site. The site has been selected for mitigation on the eastern edge of the development, paralleling the 1 -5 ditch. The site is selected as it has the proper slope and is long enough to accommodate the replacement watercourse. There are no direct target evaluation species as the watercourses have minimal habitat. The resource functions targeted with the replacements have to do with water quality and the creation of habitat associated with enhancement of the watercourses. 4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The performance standards for success of the project will be based on the successful creation of a watercourse. Additional standards will call for 80% survival of the plantings. Additional standards are per TMC as listed on page 18 -76 Section 18.45.080d2(3). 4.1.0 There will be improvements of the stream channel dimensions as the gradient will be decreased. Currently, the streams are on a slope such that there is down - cutting and erosion. The replacement watercourse will be on a 1% grade, with check dams to prevent any erosion. 4.1.2 Bank and buffer configuration will be provided in an enhanced state over the original watercourse. A detailed planting plan (Sheet L -1) details the plantings. 4.1.3 The channel bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with native vegetation which will be an improvement over the original species, sizes, and densities. 4.1.4 The stream channel bed will be better than the original stream. The original streams have unvegetated stream bottoms. The new stream will be hydroseeded and vegetated. 4.1.5 Fish and wildlife habitats will be enhanced over the original conditions. Currently, there is minimal vegetative habitat for wildlife, while the restored watercourse will be vegetated with enhancement plantings. 3378MR/a jb /sm h /9/21 /01 2 4.1.6 Relocation of the watercourse will not extend any sensitive area or its buffer off the subject property onto any adjacent property. 5.0 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION PLAN Detailed construction plans are provided on Sheets C -3, L -1, and L -2. Construction of the watercourse will be concurrent with construction of the project. 5.1 PROTECTION OF SITE Locate all existing and new underground utility lines prior to any construction. Save and protect existing trees designated to remain. Repair any damage done to curbing, sidewalks, fences, and any other damage caused as a result of this contract. 5.2. SUBGRADE PREPARATION Remove from site all invasive weeds (i.e. grasses, blackberry, Scot's broom) and rocks /debris larger than 1 inch size from planting areas prior to placing topsoil and as uncovered during tilling and planting. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Till all planting areas to a depth of 6 inches prior to placement of topsoil unless otherwise noted on plan(s). Save and protect all existing willow and native vegetation at stream restoration areas. 5.3 TOPSOIL Imported topsoil shall be a prepared two -way or winter mix topsoil from an approved commercial supplier. Provide 3 -inch minimum depth in all lawn areas. Provide 10 -inch minimum depth in all shrub beds and 6 -inch minimum depth in ground cover areas. Provide imported topsoil to depth only in planting areas outside of any existing trees designated to remain. 4_ L I 0.4 i.2,cay.2, I Z /o3 /o! c 'a 4 .4c Flan 1 ►i /06 /o1 3 Pocket plant shrubs and ground cover with topsoil backfill in planting areas that occur within driplines of existing trees. 5.4 MULCH z Provide 2 -inch depth, medium Douglas fir bark mulch in all shrub and = ~ 4--w ground cover areas. ce 2 5.5 GRADING o o Landscape contractor to be responsible for maintaining finish grading w = in all planting areas as indicated on plans, in typical details and ; u_ cross - sections and as discussed during preconstruction meetings. Lij 0 Verify provision of rough grade by general contractor or owner to plus /minus one -tenth foot. = a w z � Notify owner's representative of any discrepancy or potential surface z o or subgrade drainage problems prior to starting work. LLI For turf areas, finish surfaces by raking smooth and even, lightly o compact with roller, level out surface undulations and irregularities. = w U 5.6 PLANT MATERIALS 0 o All plants shall conform to Code of Standards set forth in the latest u edition of American Society for Nursery Stock. o z 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 All deciduous trees with single trunks to be size and variety specified in plant legend; straight trunked, symmetrically branched, with lower branches pruned for head clearance. All evergreen trees to be size and variety specified in plant legend with full symmetrical branching low to the ground. All plant material to be nursery grown and purchased by contractor to match within each variety in size, quality and character as indicated in plant legend (see Size and Remarks). All ground cover plantings to be triangularly spaced on center as indicated in plant legend throughout designated planting areas to dripline of low branching shrubs and evergreen trees. Plant material not matching these requirements shall be rejected. 4 5.7 FERTILIZER Fertilize all plant material with 71 gram Agriform tablets. Provide four (4) tablets per tree, two (2) per shrub, and one (1) per ground cover. Place tablets around root ball after backfilling by 50% for tree, shrub, and ground cover plantings. For turf applications, apply 16 -24 -16 starter fertilizer at the rate of 10 pounds per 1000 square feet. Apply dolomite limestone at the rate of 30 pounds per 1000 square feet, rake to incorporate. 5.8 SOIL POLYMER Provide Soil Moist, or approved alternate. Provide three (3) ounces per caliper inch of tree trunk diameter. Provide one (1) ounce per shrub and one -half (1/2) ounce per ground cover. Add soil polymer to backfill mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover. For turf applications, distribute at the rate of six (6) pounds per 1000 square feet. Broadcast with a drop spreader and ensure even disbursement. Till polymer into soil to a minimum depth of four (4) inches. 5.9 STAKING AND GUYING See typical planting details. 5.10 SOD Sod lawn shall be JB instant lawn, Country Green Farms, or approved alternate. 3378MR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Sod shall be cut within 24 hours of installation on site. 5 5.11. HYDROSEED Provide one application to the designated area(s) of the Landscape Plan at the following rates of slurry: Seed (see plant legend for seed mix and application rate). Fertilizer: 10 -10 -20 with urea form FTE at 40 pounds per acre. Hydromulch: Silve -Fibre by Weyerhaeuser (or equal) at 1,600 pounds per acre. Lime: to achieve pH between 5 and 7 Water: 5,000 gallons per acre. Tackifier: 40 pounds per acre on slopes greater than 40 %. 5.12 IRRIGATION All planting areas shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system. Irrigation system shall include double -check per jurisdictional requirements and inspection, sch. 40 main lines and class 200 laterals trenched to a 12 -inch minimum depth. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Provide Rain Bird 1812 series heads and nozzles and Rain Bird DVF or PGA series automatic remote control valves. Controller to be Irritrol Total Control series with two free zones above the system requirements for future expansion. Controller shall be located and mounted per owner approval. Irrigation system shall have complete head -to -head coverage with separate zones for north, south, east and west exposure, as well as lawn and shrub /ground cover areas. Nozzles shall be adjusted to provide optimal coverage with minimum overspray. Irrigation system shall have automatic rain shut off. 6 • .•r,t,o,,y..". 3378MR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 7 Irrigation system bid shall include first year winterization by compressed air blow -out and spring start-up. Irrigation contractor to provide as -built drawing showing locations of all main lines, laterals, valves and indication of zones. z ii- z Irrigation contractor to provide one -year warranty against defects in C4 UJ materials and workmanship. 6 0 0 5.13 MAINTENANCE w Landscape Contractor to maintain all planting areas until final acceptance of the job by owner. in 0 During this period, all damaged, dead, diseased, dying, or broken � plant materials shall be replaced immediately by the landscape = cl contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Z I- o Site shall be maintained during landscape construction to keep site w w clean of excess soil or excavation on paved areas. oS Landscape contractor to coordinate with Best Management Practices w w (BMPs) of the jurisdiction of the site. U o 5.14 WARRANTY Landscape contractor shall warrant the purchaser that all new and o F restored lawns and new nursery stock plant materials such as z shrubs, trees, flowers and ground cover shall, at the time of installation, be free from defects due to disease or damage caused by mishandling or improper planting. Warranty shall be for a period of ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. The landscape contractor shall have the right, at its own expense, to test the item to determine the cause of a defective or damaged condition. 5.15 CLEAN UP Prior to final acceptance and payment, landscape contractor shall remove from site all trash and debris caused as a result of this contract and shall pressure wash or wet broom all soil from pavement. 6.0 MONITORING The site will be monitored for three years to confirm 80% survival of the plantings. Two fifty -foot transects along the constructed watercourse will be shown on the first monitoring report. The sampling transect will be 50 feet long by the width of the buffer, which is approximately 30 feet plus the width of the ditch. The monitoring will take place for three years and submitted annually to the City by November 15. The monitoring reports will document survivability of the vegetation and condition of the segment.of the watercourse. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN Should the project not meet the performance standards during monitoring, the City will be notified within two weeks of the problem and remedial actions taken. Should it be observed that the performance standards are not being met, the reason for lack of success will be determined and remedial actions taken. The only likely problems anticipated is a lack of survival of the plantings. This could be due to insufficient watering, disease, insects and /or theft. If lack of watering causes loss of plant materials, a supplemental irrigation will be needed. Disease, insects or other pests or the presence of invasive weeds would need to be controlled. Theft would call for the replacement of the plantings. Should the grass in the ditch not survive or the watercourse show signs of erosion or other negative attributes, additional check dams or seeding may be required. 8.0 PERFORMANCE SECURITY DEVICE The landscape architect has prepared a total of $9,575.49 for plant materials and installation (Attachment 1). The cost estimate includes all site materials and grading. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 8 The costs of monitoring, including the As- Built, are as follows: TABLE 1: As -Built $ 300 Monitoring Year One $ 300 Year Two $ 300 Year Three $ 300 TOTAL $1,200 The cost of monitoring is $1,200 for the project for a three -year period. The $1,200 can be added to the $9,575.49 for a total of $10,775.49 for plantings, installations and monitoring of the project. A bond or other performance or security device will be calculated based on this cost estimate at a percentage per City requirements. 9.0 MITIGATION TIMING The installation of the new watercourse will be during the early part of the construction of the project, prior to tightlining the existing ditch. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 9 { PROJEGTY'AREA NAM AO IA x•LC: r • AP No C a non .. uti a n•x lu.n.A nox .cozo flush G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners IM 114th ANNA. CI 1.ONro., WA 10004 P.O. IN. WAS %nem. II 90001 T1L• eta 101 -1000 7u: eu 112 -7711 HIGHWAY H0• II tsR. PRIMARY STAtE PATO :�St7i..5P6C �•' LiTI uy "R% . .° Derr.^a .fir P., RV mop. spot•imina ..Nn. Way. tee PPP Poo.. am OW W PO LW 0,4 seldS•Popo VV. NMI Se s plan P 1. Dt, r cam. t, i 0001 N.N. LL.C. PRELIMINARY GRADING. PAVING. 9 DRAINAGE PLAN FOR OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF 70050,A WASNINCTON w 0002 C -3 9,WA 1 V O.,.Vi3e3K1ry Z H re L1 JU U {n J H w 0 2 LL co d = W i— O Z I— W w U D O • {` w W F— H LL O Li Z o 0 ▪ H Z 0 11esh 0. Coldlmllh k AllocI.tel, lee. Coemlliog Regieeere• Surejorl • Planets 1111 Ills, A.1111 11 1,11,11,, VA 11111 1 0.1„ 1111 1,11111,, VA 11111 a..1=1 AM•nq- n.1 ,M COMM 11.111. «111/01 MA ,1 It, O MI• /Le ICI PO dog OPUS LW. L.L.C. AINO CQINIT PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FDR OPUS N.W. L.L.0 VAIN I U01 1H L -1 jryrtan• Z W J UO 0 , O W = LL WO � Q Z W Z I- O Z F- w • w U O - � H W W I tL� O w Z O ~ Z O M!coualT 110M R.W10:1 MAIL NIT O 6II4n t1.1 pETAL 0 SOMMIVI 104 ows k OV 04 1.SVOUI_ res., 04.101 larj aNcerrsere0 v1w. ba 61_ LANDSCAPI GINIMAL NOTION erti ielfrjettgrerror41.7.0.1"4.12■ZetlAittietle t /1•1•001121 ..s I. wrw �.1.�y..e wwdr N ro.lad. rO Y. woo 1. .4:141;.67 . V.I .I 44 .y N Ii r11i'nrY � �1�: i , w � e �. W .,.,C�r;:. h� e" �� n./YN f.w!✓I IOW r wrJ�M y pw...w.r..YrY�IM� wl �ql.r. rl.�� p .1q wl 1 l h W.P.M. w .1 drvb N pa..Ywsir *..b i..ss1'e;V:�!_� «=4 .4 . .I O.. ww.d ten aTr I .(I M . carob �� q Y . r e =p ` e w " r • ..11e et M.dnb .. !.M .1M M..l ...1. ee .1rw4 Mr.wl tea Nrt Gio rM izt.•.'7.a" .2 ` 11.. ' r w 64.711.=.'.d so 00 tepee{ 000. w•001 N I N^M. N. *N. ■••.1 rwdbNgb 1V 1wN N 1 wuWe.44...4444 w d fit, ZTI4 a; iLst 1 =.N1d1n.e w Imo.. l.o-.. e•w-M 14441 �.�w ••• . .+ 11 .Wn�...r�..• •v-■-. t 1 ..MtreWnN i • tt . nw.0. 14 I= I .n IN Nm ro 1111.. r: wr.r.; u .... f .vd. lwl Hr. 1' �I1� ry .. «.14..w ee� .nwv.. w.. . . � v i 1 eb l l�y�r west s ...0144. ert: /eeWr..l t.f T yr 1 .�. 1 I w er..l.I . wd� MT r L'r� ee% � 1 . 0^ .4 Vas Cos.,- H.. or.tpe.d..w.V Aad .1.110 f &WM.% ••Vw 0.1 V.IM 171441•C•• . MM IM1euy 1.Y. N .Mt. Ito .1. � rg l..�r. 1n� M • Irs K Mr S ob b.. 44 .0101 T ' .dui r M j.rb� .*..44 O . a . .w �1..Mw..1 4 y W � �p� Lr bw ►a eu HR Mw I N i4YrY u .y.1n nwW 1.1w0 "Yf. Vr WOMm cad 11.100. Vrf >IO..wY•.b�11. 0.t . . 0 0.0 C411,••• Y� fa+� 4444.401 �yslo No �I..NY • to hmal w. IM �.M y � . . r Y WIN S' .44. ..40144+ pv. 11� ��!�b Wrs11r./IpM .R, Fa-•Mr�. a�Y' ( I1 ,J�'.'"'n7 T Iwl . . r IMN..r 11 11. � � M y M `; a y „rr..,,.,�r b ee. ' W le 000.1 .41.1.4448.00 jb 1 tie .n. 0 =et d•.{ w Y�i.� w11N^ 1.las =AN wilaN.44 or. of sod Or 4i4444 Y.4.. bare 011144014 N 0111M NNANA r. N•.• ...1 learn �/.• W ..,,... ..11��rreAsl. w0177 1 q�'+�\ •� •� M nuwl b 44 � I. Y.d.. eepeny I Ov sea la the /mI •••••• /•. NM1 pNr memo, .Tr... u M1 1M11 u Y .ever 1. •wr.I . JN 61`..01 r n1 .u11.d.s.d L'7..1.7411w�+ W. / Nit dabs .........•.w N w..� r�N w1 w r r.w .11e71�ie. t..+.�. PLANT LEGWD 1171+5t1. 01.00 • • . NAf7. NI! NO PE.140(6 V a � W r'.. 1. m ♦ 11ry '1 � W M 11414 rs.d"•4 1np.N 4� M N. d.. w 0.4.4 r.•. 6441 Abr..lJ 1'n 11.1 T.w :. ,1w l titer 1• Gl1Y 1n M 4 � M Oa.w M Cbrs. lY+1 ,TI"�� Ou.av g="t " M. 1 M.' r4 ONN4 004 00. Iw nm L r . V MrM �rc d r► I.r t ni.r..1 W..4 alp. =PTA.. McDO Wu - I.rr� i.�b� rg• w•M K r e .. ay 6•.P.rN.w 1,41M1•M 1100, W: yY 1. o001,00e0 t..�a 0101 111..., 1 4'1.1 N, nM �' 1 �1kranlw IMAM M C 402044 C7..1 11 Ac £4 . P t IV 767 oe°� va'Aru 1'M• ro "`` an N, t 1M _ . - r.. yt.•e.1 •M ad* ys In 101^..1 0 Hugh O. Goldsmith d Associates. Inc. CoollllinE Eogieeerl• Sump's • Pllnoetl 1111100 A At 1.11 ..... • 1.0.11.. 1111 1011..... ,1L: (111) 116111/ PAY: 111 11 111.0011 .. ._n wn1 n••1, 44..1 .. M .44..1 .no 1.1,110111 14641 n. 41.114111 t/s .n1M., .1. IS an OUT N.P. L.I.C. AMC COUNTY PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR OPUS N.W. L.L.0 VA S111/10174 L -2 vfx 430 Z W • g J U U O UD • tu J = "- CD LL W u Q c = W Z H 0 Z I - G O '^ O H I 0 W ▪ Z W U= O • f- z 0 > O - m �m D m NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Cost Estimate Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 5 c j y P425.788.8326 F425.671.0647 PROJECT @SITE- STUDIO.COM WWW.SITE-STUDIO.COM PO Box 1542 DUVALL, WA 98019 Architect's Estimate of Installed Costs For: OPUS NW LLC 5/405 ESA Restoration Date: 09/21/01 Job #: OPUS 5/405 By: JW SITE MATERIALS Quantity Unit Price Per Unit Price Per Quantity Hydroseed 2,600 CY 0.12 312.00 Topsoil 80 CY 24.00 1,920.00 Bark Mulch 30 CY 28.00 840.00 Rough and Fine Grading 4,200 SF 0.18 756.00 PLANT MATERIAL TOTALS (see attached summary) Trees Shrubs and Groudcover Estimate Subtotal WSST 8.8% Subtotal 3,516.00 Subtotal Price Per Quantity 999.00 4,286.00 5,285.00 8,801.00 774.49 ESTIMATE TOTAL 9,575.49 I PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED COST ESTIMATE OPUS NW LLC Date: 09/21/01 5/405 ESA Restoration Size Quantity Unit Price Per Unit Price Per Quantity Trees Western Red Cedar 6' Ht. 15 EA 45.00 675.00 Douglas Fir 6' Ht. 3 EA 40.00 120.00 Streambank Willow 3 -4' BR 34 EA 6.00 204.00 Subtotal 999.00 Shrubs and Groundcover Red Osier Dogwood 18" BR 105 EA 4.00 420.00 Oregon Grape 5 G. 28 EA 25.00 700.00 Pacific Wax Myrtle 5 G. 27 EA 30.00 810.00 Nootka Rose 18" BR 14 EA 4.00 56.00 Salal 1 G. 460 EA 5.00 2,300.00 Subtotal 4,286.00 Total 5,285.00 MEMORANDUM City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: November 20, 2001 RE: Opus Park 5/405 Office Building: Wetland/Watercourse Review (2 ") - Permit #'s E01 -018 & L01 -051. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Per your request, I have reviewed the recent submittal (9/28/01) for the Opus Northwest project — Opus Park 5/405 located along the eastside of 51' Avenue S. The submittal includes a geotechnical report (Terra Associates, Inc. 9/21/00), an addendum letter to the original wetland report including a watercourse mitigation report (A.J.Brederg, B & A Inc. 9/21/01 Letter and Attachments). In addition to the plan submittal for site design, there is a preliminary Landscape Plan. Preliminary comments for SEPA review were sent to the applicant (Community Development Letter, 8/16/01). My technical review comments were sent in a Memo dated August 27, 2001. The following is specific to the current submittal but is focused on the review needed for SEPA Determination. The proposed mitigation will be reviewed for final plan approval after SEPA is issued. The following information is intended to document the sensitive area review necessary for SEPA. Wetland/Watercourse Background Initially, a project application for land altering included the project property and several additional parcels of land on both north and south sides of the current Opus Park site. Three separate wetland consultants are known to have worked on these sites during the past 4 years. The B & A, Inc. wetland delineation was questioned by staff after reviewing the limited wetland boundary and conservative approach to classifying the sensitive areas. Adolfson Associates, Inc. was contracted to perform a peer review of the wetland delineation report and wetland/watercourse areas on the entire project area bordering the I -5 corridor. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 !4 WMV.Rt'l ? .Y}jWJln'J Opus Park Review Memo November 20, 2001 Page 2 z �z re w The following are the reports / correspondence related to wetland and watercourse sensitive areas _J v on the "site ". The "List of Reports" is not the total of file documents but is intended to include ( o those that are relevant to the sensitive area issues and SEPA. As mentioned, the "site" initially J included the majority of land between the I -5 corridor and 51' Avenue S. from S. 151 Street north co to approximately S. 146 Street. This land included several ownerships (8) and parcels (11). Lij 0 List of Reports u_ 1.Planning Division Comments — Memo Re: Permit MI — 018, Opus Northwest (2/6/01, C. Lumb) _ z � o 2.City of Tukwila Wetland Delineation Report by B & A Inc. (Bredberg & Associates, Inc.2 /15/01) w I- w 2 • o 3.Correction Notice — Illegal Land Altering sent to landowners (City of Tukwila 3/2/01) 0 cn, o I-- 4.Letter to Lisa Verner, Commercial Development Services from (Bredberg & Assoc., Inc. 3/14/01) 111 v f= L 5.Planning Division Memo to Utilities Committee from (Jack Pace, Planning Manager 3/20/01) Cu z U - 6.Draft Peer Review for Property Located at S. 151 Street & 51 Avenue S. (Adolfson Associates, p H Inc. 4/5/01) Z 7.Opus Property Project Memo — Wetland/Watercourse Peer Review (DCD Schulz 4/16/01) 8.Peer Review for Property Located at S. 151 Street & 51 Avenue S. (Adolfson Associates, Inc. 4/25/01) 9.Letter to Steve Lancaster, DCD Director from Opus Northwest (A. Taber & B. Brynestad 5/10/01) 10.Letter to Andy Taber, Opus Northwest re: Mitigation Planting Plan from (Bredberg & Associates, Inc. 7/16/01) 11.Letter to Andy Taber, Opus Northwest re: Complete Application - DCD (Minnie Dhaliwal 8/16/01) 12.Opus Park Office Building Memo — Wetland / Watercourse Review (DCD Schulz 8/27/01) 13.Addendum to Wetland Report - Opus Park 5/405 (Bredberg & Associates, Inc. 9/21/01) Opus Park SEPA Memo November 20, 2001 Page 3 Several site visits were conducted with City staff, Adolfson Associates, and Bredberg Associates to cooperatively agree on revisions to wetland boundaries and ratings. As a result, the wetland/watercourse mapping was revised and accepted for permit review. However, the wetland delineation report by Bredberg & Associates, Inc 2/15/01 (Number 2 above) is not approved. The Adolfson Associates peer review (Number 8 above) recommended numerous revisions, additions, and clarifications to this wetland report. In addition, the Addendum to Wetland Report by Bredberg & Associates, Inc. 9/21/01 (Number 13 above) cannot be approved because it does not correct the original wetland report. Current Project Review The current project, Opus Park I- 5/405, consists of one building permit for a 65,600 square -foot office complex. The proposed project is located in the central portion of the original development site that was evaluated for the extent of wetland and watercourse areas. The project land contains two, Type 3 watercourses that flow from the west and a Type 2 watercourse segment along the east side within the WSDOT 1 -5 right -of -way. The related wetland areas are located off -site on both north and south sides with very little buffer extending onto the site. The northern watercourse is a maintained drainage channel with low riparian, habitat functions. This drainage is proposed for piping under the parking lot. Per TMC 18.45.080 D., mitigation is required for piping to replace the open channel and its functions. The mitigation concept involves creating a new channel along the east side of the site. It is assumed the proposed watercourse channel will convey the same natural flows and provide water quality improvement and a habitat benefit. The details of the watercourse mitigation plan will be finalized after the SEPA process is complete. The I -5 watercourse was inventoried and mapped by the City and rated a Type 2 (Watercourse # 23 -11). The Addendum (Bredberg & Associates, Inc.) provides re- evaluation of the segment that crosses the project site. City staff verified that the proposed rating change from Type 2 to Type 3 for this segment of the drainage is not warranted. Watercourse # 23 -11 remains rated as Type 2 with a standard buffer of 35 feet. This watercourse is adjacent to the project site and the buffer extends onto the project site. However, the proposed watercourse mitigation area can be allowed in the existing buffer as part of an enhancement plan. Most of this buffer area is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. At a minimum, the standard buffer setback of 15 feet will be required for the new Type 3 watercourse. w Opus Park SEPA Memo November 20, 2001 Page4 ~z: JU U0 . U ❑' The following information will be labeled on the site plan: w The I -5 right -of -way watercourse is a Type 2 with a 35 -foot buffer. w 0 The two watercourses on the site are Type 3 with 15 -foot buffers. g The southern wetland, off -site, is a Type 2 with a 50 -foot buffer. <. The northern wetland, off -site, is a Type 3 with a 25 -foot buffer. = d The watercourse mitigation will be a Type 3 area with a 15 -foot buffer. _ z � I-0 w ui 0 0 52 This memorandum is purposely written to document the sensitive area assessments and mapping o for the project's SEPA Determination. There are no direct wetland impacts associated with the = project. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080 D. 6.) allows for piping a Type 3 watercourse with adequate mitigation. If approved by the DCD Director, a watercourse segment of low functional value would be piped and fully replaced on the site as part of an approved mitigation _ plan. The watercourse mitigation has been approved as a concept. The details of a final mitigation O I plan will reviewed and completed after the SEPA determination. z Summary Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director INSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (OIIWM) WATERCOURSE RATING FORM - CITY OF TUKWILA >5 feet Score = 3 1 to 5 feet Score = 2 <1 foot Score = 1 Score 2 Channel capacity Ample, no overbank Adequate, slight evidence Insufficient flows of overbank flows overbank (lows common Score = 3 Score = 1 Score = 0 Scc(e 3 Channel stability No scour or downcutting Score = 3 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Slight scour or downcutting (25% of channel) Score = 1 Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Scor1 1 / Fish use Salmonids present Score = 3 No potential for salmonids and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Potential for migratory sahnonid use Score = 2 Potential for stocked salmonids but other species present Score = 1 Score x 2 = 0 . Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat overwintering types present Score =3 Score =2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = 1 Score 0 Date 7/20 TOTAL INSTREAM SCOIth 6 3,:4+ c =z4lw rs :5 1 bhp 4eis.:.. ))1. -.6- � j r cv / / j Jf/J Watercourse N 23 -11 From S. 146th St. To S. ISIst St. CPA./ / /(:) 1 � LYv Z = 1„ • W tY J U 00 CO W = J H U) W W g_ = W F — Z � I— O W ui 0 O � O H W H LI Z LU • = O Z CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Corridor Barrier Function Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) 1W ir I rv, Width of unmaintained vegetation from OHWM >SO feet Score = 3 2.5 to 50 feet Score = 2 5 to 25 feet Score = 1 Vegetation diversity High diversity, Open forest or shrubs Single layer multi- layered with understory with minimal diversity Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = 1 For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores Left Bank Right Bank Subscore / 2 Subscore 3 • Subscord 2 Subscore 3 Total Total Score 6 Score 6 Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% . Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = 1 Score 2 / Score 2 Forested grassland Score = 3 Score = 2 Shrub or unmaintained Active agriculture or pasture Score = 1 urban: urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial /commercial Score = -1 Score = -2 r 1 Scclre _L Score TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL REACII SCORE Creek runs parallel and adjacent to I -5. Dense canopy, no access, little flow (<0.1 cfs); can't really see channel. I .0 1 . /(//i (1 -P_ pg. 2 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK C Score 7 Score 6 J Score 6 Score 6 /1 SCORE 13 SCORE 12 '21 a // • 01 ,a -arm rn cZ z Q • �i.' ' E R ' TF9 September 21, 2001 Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: ADDENDUM TO WETLAND REPORT OPUS PARK 5/405 The wetland delineation report was prepared in February, 2001, and submitted to the City. The original wetland delineation report was for several parcels, including the current Opus Park 5/405 project. Whereas, the report addressed a larger project, it has been downscaled to the current project. This addendum deals with the issues relative to the current Opus Park 5/405 project, comments from the peer review by Adolphson and Associates, Inc. dated April 25, 2001, the letter to Andy Tabor dated August 16, 2001, the fax from the City of Tukwila to Andy Tabor dated August 28, 2001, and the City of Tukwila Memorandum from Gary Schultz dated August 27, 2001. Most of the issues in the letter from Adolphson and Associates, Inc. dated April 25, 2001, have been resolved in the field or are not pertinent to the northern properties comprising Opus Park 5/405. All of the issues in the Adolphson letter regarding the wetland delineation have been resolved in the field, agreed upon, surveyed and confirmed as accurate. The Adolphson review requests additional information on the ditches /streams. The following information addresses channel width, depth, and type and amount of vegetative cover for the ditches /streams. 3303 43rd St. NW • Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/231 858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 • ba @harbornet.com Dhaliwal Page 2 The north ditch is approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and from 2 to 5 feet deep. The vegetation on the western portion of the ditch consists primarily of Himalayan blackberries with several poplar trees at the far northwest side of the ditch. The eastern end of the ditch is lined with red alder trees. The amount of vegetative cover is heavy dominated by Himalayan blackberry, while the poplar and alder trees cover short segments of the ditch. The ditch south of the Opus Park 5/405 site has a ditch less than one foot wide and in the non - excavated area is only a few inches deep, while the excavated area is approximately 2 feet deep. The southern ditch is dominantly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry and salmonberry. The functions and values of the wetlands are addressed as follows: Flood and Storm Water Both wetlands serve as storm water detention areas. Storm water from the watershed is discharged into the wetlands where the dense vegetation slows the flow providing a limited amount of detention. The southern wetland occupies a broad level plain allowing it to detain considerably more water than the northern wetland. Sediment Erosion Both wetlands are heavily vegetated and provide high value for the removal of sediments and eroded materials prior to discharging water into the 1 -5 ditch /stream. Pollution Control The dense vegetation of both wetlands removes pollutants prior to discharging to the ditch /stream along 1 -5. The dense vegetation and detention time within the wetlands provides biofiltration. The upslope watershed feeding the wetlands is heavily urbanized with considerable runoff from streets and roofs, providing a source of pollutants to be removed. Wildlife The wildlife value for the wetlands is low as they are in the middle of an urban area. The southern wetland contains a forested canopy, but is too fragmented to provide much wildlife use. The low designation of wildlife on the southern wetland is subjective and this, being a forested wetland, 3378LR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 r . ^ F _'.,'T:. ^ s:' n ' "lf` ul.S:ii'9S.y"'a ��+kr tk�v...7 ".....� +vim......,,': r�.: T.r.::..,., *,* i.i a Dhaliwal Page 3 could be considered to have high wildlife function. The northern wetland is primarily scrub /shrub and dominated by Himalayan blackberry, providing a minimal amount of wildlife habitat. Fish There is no fish habitat directly related to the wetlands; however, the wetlands provide water quality benefits to downstream fish habitat areas. Aquifer Recharge and Discharge The wetlands are neither aquifer recharge or discharge wetlands as they do not contain hillslope seeps, nor do they have permeable sediments allowing infiltration to support aquifer recharge. Education The wetlands have minimal education value as they are highly disturbed and vegetated with exotic species. Aesthetic The southern wetland has high aesthetic value as it forested. The northern wetland has minimal aesthetic value as it is primarily a Himalayan blackberry dominated wetland. Cultural The wetlands have no evidence of cultural value. Biological Support The wetlands serve to export organic material to the 1 -5 ditch /stream which, in turn, discharges to down stream fisheries. The impact assessment on the wetlands of the project shows that there will be no direct impacts on the wetlands. All activities will be outside the designated buffer for each of the wetlands. The watercourse /ditch discourse has come to agreement that the ditches will be regulated as watercourses. It has been agreed upon that the north and south ditches for the Opus Park 5/405 project are rated as Category 3 watercourses. 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Dhaliwal Page 4 Discussion of the 1 -5 ditch /watercourse in the field with Adolphson staff came to the conclusion that the watercourse would rate a Category 3 rating. Please find the accompanying Watercourse Rating Sheet (Attachment 1) with a total score of 9 based on a site specific review of the Opus Park 5/405 site. The stream segment just south of the subject project area would rate a Category 2 watercourse based on the surrounding land use points that would be picked up as it is a forested category. The subject property has urban residential /maintained lawns while, in the wetland to the south, it would be a forested community and would score a total of 13 points. The following items per the letter dated August 16, 2001, are addressed per relevant portions. Item 3 addresses a Type 2 permit application and the need to address Section 18.45.080D of TMC for applicable Code criteria. The discussion addresses how the proposed project meets the Code criteria for work proposed in the sensitive areas or watercourses. Attachment 2 is the Mitigation Report for the activities in the watercourses. Item 7b.3.a.1 & 2 addresses that all three watercourses are determined to be Type 3 and regulated. The report by B &A, Inc. dated February 18, 2001, categorized the north and south ditch /watercourse as Type 3. It is only in review of the watercourse adjacent to Opus Park 5/405 and preparing a new rating form, site specific, that the ditch /watercourse adjacent to the subject project is also a Type 3 watercourse. The memo from Gary Schultz dated August 27, 2001, is addressed as follows: Item 1: The original wetland delineation report is revised in the form of this letter and the accompanying attachments to address the project and associated wetlands. The wetland delineation has been approved by City consultants, and a new determination on the ditch /watercourse paralleling 1 -5 is provided as Attachment 1. Mitigation for tightlining the north drainage and modifying the drainage on the southwest corner is presented in conceptual form as Attachment •2. Item 2: The project site plan labeling has been completed, showing the 1 -5 drainage ditch adjacent to the subject property as Type 3 with 15 -foot buffers. It should be noted that, immediately south of the subject property, the ditch /watercourse becomes a Type 2 as previously described. 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Dhaliwal Page 5 Item 3: Sheet C3 shows the north watercourse relative to the final grade and how it is necessary to tightline the ditch /watercourse. The existing outlet is at elevation 93, while the final grade will be elevation 112. There is a 9 -foot difference in elevation between the proposed final grade and the existing culvert outlet that feeds the north ditch. Midway through the north ditch where it outlets onto the property line between the site northeast of the subject property and the subject property the final grade is at 102, while the elevation of the ditch is at 92, an approximate 10 -foot differential. Based on examination of Sheet C3, it is not possible to maintain the existing ditch in its current location or configuration and yet provide a reasonable site for the proposed project. Item 4: Watercourse mitigation around the southeast corner of the property in the area planted with salal was initially proposed. However, elevation of the outlets prevents placement of any water quality structures in this area. The outlet for the storm water vault is at 82 feet. The tightline exits from underneath the parking lot at an elevation of approximately 87 feet. To provide a water quality structure for the discharge of the storm water control vault, there would have be an excavation of 5 feet just to reach the discharge elevation from the vault. This would put any water quality control structure below the elevation of the ditch along 1 -5. There is not sufficient fall to put a water quality structure between the project and the 1 -5 ditch. The outlet of the tightline of the existing northern ditch /watercourse is at elevation 85. The water flows through the approximate 1% grade to the southeast corner of the site where water discharges into the 1 -5 ditch. There is not enough fall to incorporate other water quality features, other than the seeded bioswale and the addition of rock check dams in the swale. Item 5: All desirable, existing, native vegetation in the new watercourse area will be retained if possible. Specifications on the landscape notes and in the mitigation plan will make provisions for this. The fax to Andy Tabor dated August 28, 2001, contains two issues. Number 1: A creek cross - section for the new creek and channel restoration and bank stabilization mitigation plan will be provided. 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Dhaliwal Page 6 Number 2: The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted to review the stream relocation proposal and determine whether a JARPA or HPA is needed. This concludes the comments from correspondence with the City and, in addition to the accompanying attachments, provides a conceptual mitigation for the buffer restoration. If additional information is needed or there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A.J. Bredberg attachments 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 1. .�iaaJ:!�+t`.i.a.,"✓:ra. ..�:_ uu — . _ . wTn Dgpartment of Community Development 6300 Southcenter B1, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 To: Andy Taber Fax: Phone: 206 - 431 - 3685 Re: Opus -1 -5/405 project at 51 Ave S. File number L01 -050 & E01 -018. City of Tukwila From: Minnie Dhaliwal Date: August 28, 2001 Pages: 3 As per our conversation, attached are comments from Gary Schultz, Urban Environmentalist related to review of your wetland /stream report. Also, the ESA screening checklist was reviewed by Ryan Partee, Fisheries Biologist, and following are his comments that must be addressed: 1. Please provide creek cross section for the new creek and channel restoration and bank stabilization /mitigation plan. 2. JARPA application for Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington State Department of Fisheries may be required for the stream relocation work. Please contact Washington State Department of Fisheries to get more details about the JARPA application. If you have any further questions, you can reach me at 206 -431 -3685. il �.: .titA:�t.s•,...rr .:Y ':,�ri`1't�i�'.M•.is'K�uk MEMORANDUM Wetland/Watercourse City of Tukwila Department of Community Development TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: August 27, 2001 RE: Permit #'s E01 -018 & LO1 -051. Opus Park Office Building: Wetland/Watercourse Review - Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Per your request, I have reviewed the initial submittal for the Opus Northwest project — Opus Park 5/405 located along the east side of 51 Avenue S. The submittal includes a preliminary geotechnical report (Terra Associates, Inc. 11/15/00), wetland report, and watercourse mitigation concept letter (A.J.Brederg, B& A Inc.). In addition to the plan submittal for site design, there is a preliminary Landscape Plan. Comments for SEPA review have been sent to the applicant (Community Development Letter, 8/16/01). My technical review comments are listed as follows: 1) The current project of a proposed 3 -story office building, Opus Park, requires a wetland/ watercourse study to document the work that has occurred. The original wetland report is not complete. A new or revised wetland report is required to reflect the project and associated wetlands including the wetland delineation and determination of watercourses on the subject property. The mitigation for piping the north drainage and modifying the drainage on the southwest corner can be presented as a conceptual plan. This information is required to complete the SEPA review and determination. 2) The project site plan labeling should include wetland and watercourse ratings and standard buffers as follows: The I -5 drainage watercourse is a Type 2 with a 35 -foot buffer. All of the watercourses on the site are Type 3 with a 15 -foot buffer. The southern wetland just off -site is a Type 2 with a 50 -foot buffer. The northern wetland is a Type 3 with a 25 -foot buffer. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Opus Park Review Memo August 27, 2001 Page 2 3) The north watercourse needs to be shown on at least one of the site plan drawings to clearly show its location relative to proposed development. This mapping will demonstrate the difficulty with retaining it as an open channel. i /(;;y»�•;Jfa'. rvy,'.?(4Yr1 :+ M`•a : 'f r .. ;. �:: A' mFSjr w s • z z F w a: .J U U 00 CO LU J = f 4) N u- 0 If the stormwater drainage system design allows, the watercourse mitigation area should also be considered for water quality improvement functions. We can permit a dual use of this area if it g Q replaces the open watercourse to be piped. There is a significant area being shown as just groundcover plantings (salal) within the lower, southwest area of the "open space" that could be I w utilized for water quality. z = .' t o In addition, the watercourse that crosses the southwest corner would be piped to facilitate the new w w driveway. The area would be regraded and approximately 40 feet of this watercourse piped. Even o though the area is shown with new landscaping, the piping mitigation will also be replaced in the p "open space" area. o w W = U 5) Some existing vegetation in the new watercourse area is native (Pacific willow trees) and should be w z. retained if possible. All new plantings in the mitigation "open space" area will be native to the _, region. o E Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jill Mosqueda, Associate Engineer z 05/08/2001 15:36. 20678996E FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5 TO: l f11 U4 f 0 hac,/1 L 6 o( 7kW' La_ COMPANY: CC: FAX NUMBER: IC C-- PHONE NUMBER: SUBJECT:. '0 5 'PK° FROM: O-7 �Cv 3 ? b .PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 7 ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY: ;Do m& ADOLFSDN• MAY 0 $. 20b1 COM%'? °ICY D -''.1 EN i Tel 206 789 9658 Fax 206 789 9684 A..13 O L P S O M Ewironwn at So ZuZo ns be PAGE 01/07 - 1u4-1&r yes l of -o-y15 F a ve as mPf e_dC as pa ir- • //I,o s H 0tGt -��. a? &y p orno §•a 1 � 1 wcti wa-.u C f-u..o__Dz-tUwLs ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shiishole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 set rykpLia._ � Pti p Fir ox ma Ti N SCALE . 1" = '100' NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 05/08/2001 15:36 206789965L 51st AVE SOU iH ADOLFSON opus wetland ist auseme MEMORANDUM TO: Minnie Dhaliwal FROM: Ryan Larson / DATE: April 27, 2001 SUBJECT: Adolfson Peer Review of Property Located at South 151 Street and 51 Avenue South I have completed my review of the subject document and have the following comments: 1. On Page 4, the fourth paragraph states that none of the 3 watercourses /ditches within the subject parcel have been mapped as watercourses in the City. Though these watercourses have not been formally listed in the Sensitive Areas Map, they are identified conceptually on City stream maps and in the Gilliam Creek Basin — Storm Water Management Plan. 2. On Page 5 under Fisheries, flows from the site are incorrectly identified to flow to Riverton Creek. The report should read Gilliam Creek. 3. On Page 7, the third paragraph refers to work conducted 40 years ago. 40 should be replace by 36 (2001- 1965 =36) or the actual time that has passed since the site was disturbed. 4. On Page 8 under Northwest Slopes, this entire paragraph is misleading and should be rewritten. The reader is given the wrong impression that surface water runoff from the impervious surfaces are increasing runoff to Wetland A. This is simply not the case. The report noted that water was flowing down the slope during the site visits conducted by Adolfson. This statement was modified by an explanation in brackets stating some of the flow may be attributed to development in the area such as road runoff from 51 Avenue South and water from the stormwater systems in the area. Unless it was raining or had been immediately prior to the observation, none of the water observed would be coming from the impervious surfaces. In fact the result of impervious surfaces would be to decrease base flows but increase peak flows. This condition would decrease the likelihood of a wetland formation not lead to it. 5. On Page 10, the third paragraph incorrectly states that more storm systems have been designed to direct flows to this site. The subject property has always received runoff from all areas that currently contribute to the runoff. No additional drainage has been directed to this area. Please let me know if you need anything further on this issue. r 0 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR 'MAN THIS NOTICE IT is DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. April 25, 2001 Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Preliminary Review A D O L F S O N Environment Solutions 't 206 789 9658 yak 206 789 9684 adoyon ®adoyfon.rom v e� t�sv H,tw �+�' ! ' ) 7 Subject: Peer Review for Property Located at South 151 Street and 51 Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson) is pleased to present this review letter for the site located at South 151 Street and 51 Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. This letter documents the results of our wetland study conducted on the subject site. z 1 re W 6 00 CO o LLI J = U) LL, w LLj I zF.. 1— 0 Z 1— w 0 co 0- 0 I-- W At the request of the City of Tukwila (City), Adolfson reviewed a wetland study conducted by I B&A, Inc (B &A). As part of our review, we are also addressing on -site ditches to determine if they t'—' z are regulated as watercourses under the City of Tukwila Title 18 (Zoning) defirrrtions (Chapter w co 18.06). 01•- z Adolfson staff Andy Castelle, Donna Frostholm, and Elizabeth Larsen have conducted this review. Andy Castelle is the Director of Natural Resources at Adolfson. He is a Certified Professional Soil Scientist and Professional Wetland Scientist. Donna Frostholm is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist and Elizabeth Larsen holds a Wetland Science and Management Certificate from the University of Washington. For this project, Adolfson has reviewed reports prepared on behalf of the applicant, aerial photographs, and available public documents and maps. As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed the following: • Wetland Delineation Report prepared by B &A for Opus NW, LLC (Opus), dated February 15, 2001; ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 .. y:: •��.._ :...z1;.:!..'..,._...::a�... � :: s= .:. ^ ^.a:.�f2i.^ra'.'.'i::'.`:,r .:a::YS, Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 2of11 • City of Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates (dated May 1990); z _ I '~ w � 2 JU O 0 CO al J F- U) w • Letter prepared by B &A summarizing main points from the March 13, 2001 site visit; �? • Wetland Delineation survey prepared by Schroeter Surveying for the Trammell Crow Company = a (dated December 8, 1999) based on field work conducted by John Altmann; F- _ z � • Historic aerial photographs of the subject site (1936, 1946, 1965, 1968, 1970); w O uj 2 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Des Moines, v O CL o E- U! — • U.S. Geological Survey Topographic map, Des Moines, Washington quadrangle, 1949 - v (photorevised 1968 and 1973); • Soil Survey for King County Area, Washington, 1973; and • A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization: Volume I, Puget Sound. The first six items were provided by the City; the remaining items were obtained by Adolfson to assist with the review. • City of Tukwila Watercourse Rating Data Sheets prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates (dated October 29, 1990); • Recent aerial photograph showing parcel boundaries, plotted from the City of Tukwila GIS database; Washington quadrangle, 1987; Summary of Preliminary Review In addition, as part of our review, we have discussed historic and current site conditions with City of Tukwila staff including yourself, Gary Schulz (Urban Environmentalist), and John Howat (Superintendent, Sewer - Surface Water Department). On March 13, Adolfson met on -site with you and several individuals representing Opus including B &A staff A. J. Bredberg and Dick Herriman. At this meeting, B &A provided additional information to support the results of their on -site study that is documented in the Wetland Delineation Report prepared for this project. Wetlands. Three wetlands have been identified on the subject site by B &A. Wetland A (4,840 square feet) is in the northeastern portion of the site; Wetland B (58,461 square feet) is in the central - eastern portion of the site; and Wetland C (368 square feet), occurs in the southern portion o z z Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 3 of 11 of the site. A previous delineation conducted by John Altmann, which was surveyed in 1999, identified two wetlands on the site. Wetland A (83,717 square feet), which generally corresponds to Wetland B of the B &A study, occurs in the central portion of the site and Wetland B (24,395 square feet), which generally corresponds to Wetland A of the B &A study, is located in the northeast portion of the site. The NWI map shows a palustrine emergent wetland (i.e., a wetland dominated by herbaceous vegetation) in the northeastern portion of the site. Watercourses/Ditches. Four ditches were identified on the site by B &A. One of the ditches parallels I -5, two flow into Wetland B, and one is a straight west to east ditch located between Wetlands A and B. John Altmann identified two watercourses on the site (both of which drain into the area identified by John Altmann as Wetland A), which generally correspond to the middle and south ditches in the B &A report. In addition, he identified a ditch north of the two watercourses and just east of 51 Avenue South. Watercourse mapping within the City identifies the waterway paralleling I -5 as a Watercourse 23- 11 (Jones & Stokes 1990). None of the other watercourses /ditches identified by B &A or John Altmann have been mapped as watercourses in the City. The NWI map and topographic map do not show streams on the site. The topographic map indicates that the general vicinity of the site is a low -lying area and that the area to the east and west of the site rises in elevation (in the general vicinity of Tukwila, the I -5 corridor occurs in the low -lying area). Although streams are not shown on the topographic map, water would have flowed into the general vicinity of the site prior to construction of I -5. Aside from runoff from I -5, only surface and ground water from the west reaches the site. Aerial photograph interpretation. Aerial photographs of the site from 1936 to present show maintained ditches on the site and in the low -lying areas in the vicinity of the site. A 1936 photograph shows a ditch along the eastern portion of the site, paralleling a north -south road that was present before I -5 was built (old Macadam Road). Several west to east ditches occurred on the site (as early as 1936) that conveyed water from the higher areas (western portion of the site) east to the to the north -south ditch along old Macadam Road. In addition, the aerial photograph show that several lateral ditches flow to the on -site east —west ditches. All of the photographs reviewed were taken once the vegetation had "leafed -out" and, therefore, does not give a good indication of wetland conditions in the recent past. A photograph from 1965 shows the approximate limits of ground disturbing activities for construction of I -5. ;:_r.1;i �Gic: �'.� i LN• r�•, �-^!k�t 4t -'° �%: �l�: i:.$ ,r�;;' <�+?`��;.'eb'q".'�yr -..�; �rac..?%�:�3i��t:���:! Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 4 of 11 Fisheries. Based on our review, we could not find any information to indicate that salmonids currently or historically used the ditches /watercourses. However, drainage from the site flows to Riverton Creek and eventually to the Green /Duwamish River, which are salmonid- bearing waters. z F- w IX 2 JU 0 cn 0 to The report prepared by B &A thoroughly discusses the land use history, site description, and w o geomorphology of the site. It is our opinion that additional information should be provided in the report, including expanding the methods section and providing more detailed descriptions of the g Q delineated wetlands and on -site ditches /watercourses. The following paragraphs address the report co d in greater detail. 1- m z � I- 0 The methods section of the report should be expanded to provide supporting documentation, w w including: Review of Wetland Report U • 0 O - O I- • Providing a discussion of how the comprehensive determinations methodology was modified w • w and why the routine determination data sheets were prepared for a comprehensive determination.' • z w z U N H = O ~ • Providing additional information on the "disturbed site methodology" used for the delineation. We are assuming that B &A is referring to either the problem areas or atypical situations methodologies described in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997 Manual) and the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual I Two wetland delineation methods can be used to delineate wetlands: routine and comprehensive. The routine method is the simpler, quicker method of making wetland determinations (and is used on less complex sites). The comprehensive method usually requires more time and effort to collect the information needed to make a wetland determination. The comprehensive method can be used in place of the routine methods when more rigorous documentation is required. Wetland determinations conducted under either method involves an assessment of vegetation, soils, and hydrology at all data plots. 2 Atypical situations and problem areas refer to areas in which at least one of the three parameters (vegetation, soils, hydrology) is absent or unidentifiable. Methods for atypical situations are used only when positive indicators for one or more of the three parameters could not be found due to effects of recent human activities or natural events (recent means that period of time since legal jurisdiction of applicable law began). Atypical situations include, but are not limited to, unauthorized placement of fill in wetlands, natural events such as beaver dams impounding water, or wetlands recently created by humans. Methods for problem areas are used when one or more of the wetland parameters are difficult to find at certain times of the year (due to normal environmental conditions). An examples of this include lack of wetland hydrology indicators in the drier summer months. z Dhalitivnl /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 5of11 (1987 Manual). If this is the case, the report should present the rationale for using either of these two procedures. • Providing additional information as to how the methods used to delineate the subject site relate to methods of evaluating the vegetation, soils, and hydrology as presented in the 1997 and 1987 Manuals. Additional discussion should include, but is not limited to, the following: dominant species assessment and indicator status for vegetation; criteria used to determine if soils are hydric (e.g., organic soils, sulfidic material, gleying); and indirect observations of hydrology that may have been evident at the time of year the delineation was made. • The report presents a discussion of how the water table was used to assess wetland hydrology, but does not address how the water table may have been affected by lower than average levels of precipitation. In addition, the discussion of soil horizons "giving a false indication of wetland hydrology" should be expanded to include (1) how this observation pertains to the wetland hydrology parameter as presented in the 1997 and 1987 Manuals; (2) additional information about the type and extent of soil disturbance causing this phenomenon, especially as it pertains to the subject site; and (3) the location of these soil conditions on the site and how it affected plot data collection. • The report indicates that the work was performed in November 2000, but the data sheets are dated February 2001. The report should indicate why the dates differ. • The report states that areas dominated by Himalayan blackberry are not wetland because the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. It is our opinion that these statements should not be included in the wetland report. A Public Notice issued by the Corps of Engineers in May 1994 (which is included in the 1997 Manual) states that FACU (facultative upland)` wetlands occur in Washington. Areas dominated by FACU vegetation, such as Himalayan blackberry, should be delineated based on information presented in the May 1994 Public Notice. The report briefly describes each of the three wetlands. The report should provide additional description of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology (three parameters used to determine wetlands) for each of the three wetlands identified and delineated. It is our opinion that the description in the 3 The 1987 Manual is used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permitting at the federal level (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), while the 1997 Manual is used by state and local jurisdictions for permitting purposes. These manuals are essentially the same: areas identified as wetland using one manual would also be a wetland using the other. 4 Facultative Upland (FACU) refers to plant species that usually occur in non- wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99 %), but are occasionally found in wetlands. FACU dominated wetlands are those wetlands in which most of the dominant plants species are more likely to occur in non - wetlands. Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 6of11 report does not characterize the wetlands as a whole. The description should address the entire wetland, with the plot data results supporting the description. The report addresses the ditches /watercourses primarily from geomorphic and historic land use perspective. It is our opinion that the report should provide additional descriptive information on the ditches /watercourses on the site including, but not limited to, channel width and depth, and the type and amount of vegetation cover. The report indicates that construction of I -5 resulted in widespread soil disturbance along the eastern properties on the subject site. The extent of the soil disturbance should be documented if it affected the analysis of the soil data on this site. If this is the case, the report should clearly indicate why work conducted 40 years ago does not reflect the normal, existing conditions at the time wetland regulations were implemented. In addition, the sources of information should be cited if the disturbance is widespread (the photo we reviewed indicated the area disturbed did not extend much beyond the existing I -5 ditch). The report states that a wetland functional value assessment and impact assessment are not included in this report. It also states that impacts will be determined once a development proposal is prepared. We assume that a wetland functional value assessment will be included in a subsequent report. Adolfson agrees with the wetland and watercourse ratings presented in the B &A report for the three wetlands, the I -5 ditch, and the middle and south ditch. No watercourse rating was presented for the north ditch because it is B &A's understanding that the City agrees that this ditch is not regulated. Wetland Delineation Evaluation Adolfson reviewed the delineation conducted by B &A as part of the peer review process for this project. Information obtained from B &A and the City of Tukwila were evaluated during the site visits. Wetland boundaries were verified using methods described in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Adolfson agrees with the delineated wetland boundaries for Wetland C. However, for Wetlands A and B, we disagree with portions of the delineation. In addition, we have identified two areas on the site that qualify as wetland that were not delineated as such. Areas in which Adolfson disagrees with the B &A delineation are addressed in the following paragraphs. Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 7of11 h Wetland A. Based on the results of our field investigations, it is our opinion that the area north of the delineated wetland boundary is jurisdictional wetland. In addition, the central portion of the delineated wetland that B &A flagged as upland (area flagged as A -A to A -F) was determined by Adolfson to be wetland as well. Both the area to north and central portion of the wetland are dominated by Himalayan blackberry, but have soils that are a IOYR 2/1 silt loam and were saturated to the surface in mid- March. Since these areas are dominated by FACU vegetation, guidance provided in the 1994 Public Notice is applicable. Adolfson observed that the soils and hydrology criteria have clearly been met, and therefore, observed "plant species growing under wetland conditions consistent with the Diagnostic Environmental Characteristics (i.e., criteria) for vegetation ". Adolfson did not determine the northern limits of the wetland, but it is our opinion that the wetland is substantially greater than 4,840 square feet. Northwest Slopes. In addition, the slopes northwest of Wetland A meet the definition of wetland. This area was assessed in the field by B &A, who determined that the area was not wetland. However, water was flowing down this slope during the site visits conducted by Adolfson (some of which may be attributed to development in the area such as road runoff from 51 Avenue South and water from the stormwater systems in the area). Based on conversations with City of Tukwila staff, it is our understanding that water from the road side catch basins and vaults would naturally have flowed towards the subject site; however, these structures have altered the rate of the water discharging to the site. B &A excavated several soil pits along the slope northwest of Wetland A and determined that the soils are non - hydric. Adolfson also dug several soil pits along this slope and found the soils to be hydric (chroma of I) and saturated to the surface. For this reason, it is our opinion that the slope northwest of Wetland A is wetland (i.e., a FACU dominated wetland). Adolfson did not determine the extent of wetland along the slope, but noted that wetland conditions are present. This area may be hydrologically connected to Wetland A. Southwest Corner. Adolfson investigated the southwest portion of the site because surface water was present in places. Much of this area is dominated by FACU species such as Himalayan blackberry. Our evaluation found that portions of the southwest corner consist of non - hydric soils (chroma of 2 without mottles) without evidence of wetland hydrology. However, portions of the site are saturated to the surface and /or inundated and have hydric soils (chroma of 1). It is our opinion that some of the southwest corner is jurisdictional wetland and would be considered a FACU dominated wetland. Based on our observations, wetland conditions in the southwestern portion of the site occur upslope of Wetland C and to the southwest of Wetland B. It should be noted that, as the growing season progressed, numerous facultative and facultative wetland plant 5 1OYR 2/1 refers to a soil color in which the first number indicates the hue (e.g., l OYR), the number before the slash represents the value (e.g., 2), and the last number indicates the chroma (e.g, I). Soils with a chroma of 0 or I are hydric. G Soils with a chroma of 2 with mottles are hydric; soils with a chroma of 2 without mottles are non- hydric. Mottles are spots of contrasting color in the soil that indicate a fluctuating water regime. z _1. w cc 2 00 • o J � w w u _ = • d • w z = t- O zt- w w U � O N a'- ELI I I- r- U_ O .. z w U= O ~ z Dhalitival /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 8 of 11 species were growing in areas where the Himalayan blackberry had been cut back or crushed. Adolfson did not determine the location and extent of wetland in this area. We recommend that wetland data plots be collected to adequately determine (I) how much of the area is wetland and (2) if the wetland (or wetlands) in the southwestern portion of the site is (are) hydrologically connected to Wetland B. Wetland B. Based on our evaluation of this wetland, it is our opinion that wetland boundary flags between B16 and B18 should be moved upslope slightly. It is our understanding that B &A is in agreement that the wetland boundary may need to be revised outward in this area. Adolfson agrees with B &A that the grassy area south of Wetland B is non - wetland. Adolfson agrees with the B &A delineation along much of the western wetland boundary of Wetland B, but disagrees with the delineated northern boundary. It is our opinion that the wetland boundary between flags B -1 and B -7 should be taken upslope to include the some of the Himalayan blackberry. The soils in this area are hydric (chroma of 1) and were saturated to the surface. The northern portion of Wetland B appears to be FACU dominated wetland. It is our understanding that, in this area, B &A believes that the wetland boundary line should be moved in to include less wetland area. However, it is our opinion that the wetland area should be increased and that the total wetland area is greater than 58,461 square feet. The extent to which this wetland should be increased to the north and possibly to the southwest was not determined by Adolfson. However, if the wetland area in the southwestern corner of the property is hydrologically connected to Wetland B, either directly or via the south ditch /watercourse, this wetland has the potential to be substantially larger than currently delineated. Watercourse/Ditch Evaluation Watercourse /ditch issues have been addressed based on the definition of watercourse, as presented in section 18.06.920 of the City of Tukwila Zoning Code. The City defines a watercourse as "a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green/Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, stormwater runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices." 7 Facultative refers to plant species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non - wetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66 %). Facultative wetland refers to plant species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99 %). Areas dominated by facultative and /or facultative wetland vegetation are considered to meet the hydrophytic vegetation parameter in both the 1987 and 1997 Manuals. Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page 9 of 11 The north, middle, and south ditches /watercourses have recently been cleaned out and Adolfson was unable to observe the channels prior to the recent maintenance activities. During the Adolfson site visits, Himalayan blackberry had been cut back or crushed, the drainages ditched, and straw had been placed on the banks. Water was flowing through the ditches at the time of the Adolfson site visits. In the wetland report prepared for this project, B &A presents information indicating that streams historically could not have occurred on the site. The rationale presented is based largely on geologic conditions resulting since the last ice age and the substrate in the vicinity of the site. City staff (Sewer - Surface Water Department) has provided some recent history of the site (i.e., late 1950's to present). City staff indicated that the on -site ditches /watercourses have been maintained and that more stormwater systems have been designed to direct flow to the on -site ditches. This information is supported by aerial photographs which show that the ditches on the property have been maintained since at least 1936. The 1936 aerial photograph shows that water was directed to the eastern property boundary where the water flowed into a north -south ditch (along old Macadam Road) that conveyed the water off -site. The site is a low spot that historically received surface water runoff and ground water from the east and west. Construction of I -5 prevented water from the east reaching the site. However, the site continues to receive surface and ground water from the west (as well as runoff from I -5). The water flowing to the site has been altered by human development (i.e., ditches, stormwater systems). It is our opinion that the ditches direct water to the low -lying area that would historically have flowed to this area as surface water, ground water, or side slope seepage. It is also our opinion that the stormwater systems along 51 Avenue South were not constructed to artifically transport water to the subject site, but that the stormwater system and drainages expedite the flow through this area. For this reason, it is our opinion that the drainages meet the City of Tukwila definition of watercourses and should be regulated as such. The definition of watercourse states that the "course or route formed may be modified by man," which is true of the subject site. In addition, streams may not have naturally been present on the site and the ditches may not have naturally formed in their current location, but the ditches were present at the time regulations were implemented at the federal, state, and local level. Therefore, they represent the existing environmental conditions at the time regulatory authority was initiated. As stated earlier, Adolfson agrees with the watercourse ratings as presented in the B &A report for the I -5 ditch (Type 2 watercourse) as well as the south and central ditch (Type 3 watercourse). It is our opinion that the northern ditch is also a Type 3 watercourse. ... Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 Page l0 of 11 Watercourse Violation Assessment Should the City of Tukwila agree that the on -site drainages are regulated as watercourses, mitigation should be conducted. Much of the existing watercourse habitat is degraded by maintenance activities and invasive, non - native vegetation. Little effort would be required to restore the drainages to their previously existing condition as the vegetation will re -grow quickly. It is our opinion that the Stream Mitigation /Restoration section of the B &A report presents a reasonable conceptual approach to mitigation. Summary Adolfson has conducted a peer review of the site located at South 151 Street and 51 Avenue South in Tukwila. We have suggested some revisions to the Wetland Delineation Report submitted by B &A. Our field review indicates that no changes are needed to the wetland boundaries for Wetland C. We are suggesting substantial revisions to the Wetland A boundaries. We are recommending some revisions to the boundaries of Wetland B. We are also recommending additional wetland studies be conducted in the northwestern and southwestern portions of the site to determine the extent of the wetlands and if these wetlands are hydrologically connected to Wetlands And B, respectively. Substantial revisions to the boundaries of Wetlands A and B may be required based on the results of the additional wetland studies. It is our opinion, based on the City's definition of watercourse and our review of the site and surrounding vicinity, that the on -site drainages should be regulated by the City of Tukwila. This report has been prepared as part of a peer review for the City of Tukwila and has focused on local wetland and watercourse regulations. It is important to note that other local, state, and federal regulations are applicable to development on this site. Other regulations that may be applicable to this site include, but are not limited to, SEPA, Washington Hydraulic Code (for the Hydraulic Project Approval), Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. It is important to note that the on- site wetlands and watercourses do not preclude site development. On -site mitigation opportunities exist in the event that wetlands cannot be avoided by the site development. Dhaliwal /Peer Review Letter April 25, 2001 . Page 11 of 11 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Andy Castelle or me at 206 - 789 -9658. Sincerely, ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Donna Frostholm Senior Wetland Biologist MEMORANDUM TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: April 16, 2001 RE: B & A , Inc. Wetland Delineation Report Opus Property Project: Wetland/Watercourse Peer Review - Miscellaneous Permit Application #MI Eiri:si �" :ti.v§3i� Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Per your request, I have reviewed the Wetland Delineation Report (B & A, Inc., 2/15/01) and peer review letter report (Adolfson Associates, Inc. Draft Letter, 4/5/01). The wetland report provides information about the site's wetland drainage system including the watercourses that run through or are adjacent to the project site. As you are aware, I spent considerable time on this site involving a previous application and wetland consultant as well as Sound Transit's review for the proposed E4 light rail route. As a wetland ecologist, I would like to list some comments on the B & A wetland report. Also, I will provide some recommendations that could help finalize Adolfson Associates' peer review report. A site visit was conducted on 4/13/01 with Adolfson Associates. The results of that meeting are also reflected in the following comments. 1) One of the primary issues with the wetland delineation on this site is the dominant presence of Himalayan blackberry. Using current wetland methodology, this plant is listed as Facultative Upland (FACU) which indicates that it can occur in wetlands about 33 percent of the time. Therefore, it is mostly an upland plant but can grow in wetlands in Western Washington. The report does not acknowledge that FACU plants can occur in wetlands. The report also does not acknowledge that the presence of hydric soils assumes wetland hydrology unless it can be demonstrated that the hydrology criteria is not met during the growing season. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Opus Peer Review Memo April 16, 2001 Page 2 z Without fully explaining the rational or method, there appears to be several inconsistencies in the cc 2 delineation. First, the report states areas dominated by blackberry cannot be wetland. This is not 6 v consistent with Corps of Engineers regulatory interpretation of wetland delineation. U o Secondly, the report seems to indicate that non -hydric soils are present in areas that did not have hydrology in the fall but it states that these areas should be re- reviewed now because hydrology has ui p i with the spring season and a rising groundwater table. Regardless of hydrology, hydric 2 soils need to be present unless there has been significant and recent disturbance. g After reading the report, my opinion is that with the dominant presence of a FACU plant, specific = w areas need to be re- reviewed to observe active wetland hydrology combined with the presence of z F = (wetland) hydric soils. z O w Based on our recent site visit with Andrew Castelle, Himalayan blackberry has become established v =n from past disturbances and is a dominant plant in wet areas. However, in areas where it was removed or cleared away the regenerating plant community is comprised of mostly wetland species ° (facultative FAC & facultative wetland FACW). This site has hydric soils and wetland hydrology v with a mixture of both "typical" upland and wetland plants growing in these areas. On this site, the u_ o presence of "typical" upland plants does not make these areas dryer. w z co 2 ) IL: F— Related to the above comments, the wetland report recognizes there is uncontrolled groundwater or near surface water flows on the site. This is mentioned on page 5 of the report and includes a discussion of soil horizons that are not natural and are the result of disturbance. According to the methodology (1997 Manual), wetland hydrology should be found in the upper layer of soil to affect a 12 -inch root zone. However, the report states "The bands of water flowing above 12 inches give the false indication of wetland hydrology." It is apparent that water is moving through the ground from the hillside and under 51 Avenue S. to the site. The statements on page 5 should be clarified to better explain how the soil conditions are so disturbed to exhibit artificial wetland hydrology. How does the observed hydrology correlate with disturbed soil conditions? Varying textured soil horizons occur naturally — how does this site differ? 3) The Methodology section needs further clarification to explain why the disturbed site method was used and whether this is the same as the Atypical Situations method in the 1997 Manual. Also, this section states that no hydrology was observed at the time of original flagging and data collection (November & December 2000); however, all of the data plot forms are dated February 2, 2001. Opus Peer Review Memo April 16, 2001 Page 3 z z 4) cc w There is no recognition of current regulatory issues related to the on -site watercourses. All of the 6 v watercourses could be considered waters of the State. Their alteration may require a Hydraulic 0 0 Project Approval permit from Fish & Wildlife. The City has not made a formal determination of w the status of drainage ditches on the site. _ Ill i 5) w 0 Much of the land use history section is anecdotal and is not supported by research or specific data. g The report does not include a reference list or use literature citations to support conclusions. N = w z F . Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Draft) Peer Review Letter 1. 0 z F- LU The following is a list of recommended corrections or clarifications intended to help finalize the o draft peer review report. In general, the report includes two areas of review - the B & A wetland 0 report and the site conditions including wetlands and watercourses. The following reflects the 1- comments from DCD staff discussions. = 0 L 1) z co The wetland field delineation for this site was initially performed by John Altmann. No written v report was submitted; however, since this time period was a transition from Talasaea to Altmann 0 1- Oliver Associates it may be appropriate to include John Altmann's name as the contact. Z 2) Page 3, the middle paragraph explains the site is in a low -lying area and received water flows prior to the construction of I -5. I think the intent is to explain that natural waters flowed into the subject area from east and west prior to the construction of I -5. However, the last sentence referring to current conditions may need to be revised because there are discharge pipes associated with I -5 that would be adding water from the east to Watercourse #23 -11. 3) Page 3, the aerial photo section explains the ditching on the site and next to old 52 " Avenue S. as observed on 1936 photographs. Is there any statement that can be made regarding the hydrology that may have existed at that time? Also, the last sentence identifies "ground disturbing" activities from I -5 construction. Does this statement have any relevance? If so, can the area of disturbance be correlated with the statements in the B & A report? Would it have any affect on formation and extent of wetland? Opus Peer Review Memo April 16, 2001 Page 4 z _~ '~• w 4) IX 2 Page 4, The review of the wetland report has recommendations that include both "could" and 6 v "should" for possible revisions. Please review this and consider if the two terms are appropriate or 0 O u) 0 . need to be the same. w = -i i- 5) co o Page 4, Under the first two bullets that question the report's methodologies there needs to be some 2 explanation in laymen's terms. Try to explain the purposes of suggesting these revisions, or g evaluate if a disturbance methodology is appropriate for this site. Most readers would not W D understand the significance of the two statements. = w H z� 6) ►- O Page 5, the 4 paragraph mentions the north drainage ditch not having a rating. Based on the peer w w review findings that this drainage should be regulated, can its rating also be identified? Type 3? v o 0 — 7) 0f= Page 6, Wetland Delineation Evaluation section needs some further explanation to fully identify the H 0 areas of wetland that were not delineated. This is primarily related to Wetland B. Based on the site u. 0 visit last week, it appears the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology would greatly expand z Wetland B into the southwest parcel on the site. Also, there is wetland drainage in the central 0 portion of this parcel that may be isolated from Wetland B. 0 1 z Please clarify the statement about water flowing down the slope on the north possibly from "the stormwater system from the development in the area ". This is the 2nd sentence of 2 paragraph. Is the observed runoff from recent rainfall and is it related to the street? It is likely that much of the runoff from 51 Avenue's east lane is uncontrolled sheet flow. 8) Page 7, Please insert "along or adjacent to old Macadam Road" into the last sentence after north - south ditch. 9) Page 8, Under the Summary there should be a few revisions that are being made in the peer review. One of them is the significant or substantial wetland boundary change to Wetland B. Also, can there be added some statements about how Federal and State regulations apply to the site? It appears that the watercourses would be considered waters of the State and work in them or rerouting could require an HPA. Cc: Jim Morrow, PW Director Ryan Larson, PW Senior Engineer �:i�a�,.4r,iz :•.s_`;c.S.'•: . h�C�:2esSs:sr x'^»,;�.a tTItr.'*. 1M:i *rL ^«dti _. ,� w 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan a,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents�,,engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at /#7/0 Si Sr /f ✓G SD. , TNXk! /L /� 4 )4. for the purpose of application review, for the limited timenecessary to confplete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The'City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. I - � EXECUTED at�p'0q. �G IQ J t So (city), .1, e I /.e �(6t }; on 3 —3 o -01 s!�t'!�G• ,.eg2 (Print Name) 7-14)-44)174, /i7 /a ,5/ s GJw (Address) oG -.2 -7392 On this day personally appeared before me s i r,,�/ l.,Ch4.4-6J to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/s a signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME o 4 4• '• M C ®mission expires on Sr "In itiO ss (Signature) S ,Q DAY OF l!'r -406 �• 0,0 l , YP at IC in and for t e State of Washington 7-11/ - 4� STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan n_ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY 55 COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2, All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its fm toyees, agenrs� engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at / `t ! O — c 5 Z ,S'J f y� r c- Tu• tC Lo (LC{ 49c4 .. 9 8' 8 for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose, 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The'City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on aavtft PoLLil4lc, Box %U G teare e eiO . 9g 36O - � - 95/d (Print Name) (Address) (Phone Nu (Sig ) On this day personally appeared before me X0+'1 A r c' Po si ■ to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF c c c\-■ , a(1)0 e i ee eckf NOTARY PUBLIc an or the State of Washington residing at Cou.•�t�„ My Commission expires on `\1Ire - c aifi�;%, cica;'l_c %i: 'i e4`6feC�dfrsM+4�zd r SNP` F'r February 15, 2001 Andy Taber Opus NW, LLC 915 118th Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Taber: RECEI�IK�il� A CITY OF \= E ta 7 0 ? PERMIT CENTER RE: COVER LETTER TO WETLAND DELINEATION LETTER OPUS TUKWILA PROPERTY Please find the accompanying Wetland Delineation Report for the property located north of South 151st Street and east of 51st Avenue S. This is a complicated site and needs to be reviewed by parties with appropriate credentials. Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS) performed the site review and wetland delineation based on historic disturbances, geomorphologic interpretation, soil mapping, and soil morphology. Hydrology of the site has been altered by road construction and storm water discharge. A thorough understanding of soil water movement, including training in soil physics, is necessary for accurate interpretation of the site. The report addresses land forms, using common geomorphic terms, as shown on the Landform Map (Figure 8). These terms need to be fully understood for a proper interpretation of the site. Richard C. Herriman and A.J. Bredberg have 45 and 25 years experience, respectively, in their field. It would be anticipated that anyone reviewing this work would have similar experience, education, and background in order to provide a peer review. We anticipate the City will provide such CPSS personnel and a CPSS will be involved in the review. A CPSS ensures that accountability for any decision will be subject to proper peer review. 3303 43rd St. NW, P.O.Box 133Z Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 Fax 253.858.2534 ba @harbornet.com Whereas, the site is highly disturbed and difficult to interpret, we have spent numerous days on -site over several months making the proper technical determination. It would be sound practice that we be present for any field review with City personnel. The numerous days we have spent reviewing the site have generated information and understanding too lengthy and voluminous to be included in the report. Some of the site characteristics are subtle and cannot be accurately described in a report. On this basis, we anticipate being on -site with any reviewer to cooperate fully and transfer our knowledge and data to facilitate the City's review. If there are any questions or additional information needed, please contact us. A.J. Bredberg Enclosure cc: Lisa Verner 3378 L2 /aj b/s m h /2/ 15/01 2 CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT PREPARED FOR: OPUS NW, LLC 915 1178TH AVENUE SE, SUITE 300 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 425 - 453 -4100 PHONE 425 - 453 -1712 FAX SURVEYOR: HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC 1215 114 AVENUE SE BELLEVUE, WA 425 - 462 -1080 PHONE PLANNER: LISA VERNER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. BOX 70372 SEATTLE, WA 98107 206 - 286 -8575 PHONE 206 - 286 -8426 FAX PREPARED BY: B &A, INC. 3303 43RD STREET NW GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 253 -858 -7055 PHONE 253 - 858 -2534 FAX BA #3378 FEBRUARY 15, 2001 3303 43rd St. NW, P.O.Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 Fax 253.858.2534 ba @harbornet.com INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND LAND USE HISTORY SITE DESCRIPTION METHODOLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY WETLANDS WATERCOURSE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES STREAM MITIGATION /RESTORATION SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES: FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2: TUKWILA WATERCOURSE INVENTORY FIGURE 3: SOIL MAP FIGURE 4A: WETLAND A FLAGGING FIGURE 4B: WETLAND B FLAGGING FIGURE 4C: WETLAND C FLAGGING FIGURE 5: SITE MAP FIGURE 6A: NORTH DITCH FIGURE 6B: MIDDLE DITCH FIGURE 6C: SOUTH DITCH FIGURE 7: USGS MAP FIGURE 8: LANDFORM MAP ATTACHMENT 1: WATERCOURSE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 2: WATERCOURSE RATING FORM ATTACHMENT 3: DATA SHEETS .Yl INTRODUCTION A wetland delineation has been performed on several parcels under contract with Opus NW, LLC for future development. The parcels are located north of 151st Street and east of 51st Avenue South (Figure 1). This delineation report addresses the wetland delineation, justification of locating flags, wetland categories, watercourse categories and associated buffers. This report does not address functions and values or proposed developmental impacts. Once the boundaries and regulatory status of the watercourse and buffers have been established, a development proposal will be finalized. When the development proposal is finalized, the impacts to the critical areas and any necessary mitigation will be addressed in a separate report. z w 00 mo o. J = w g_ The wetlands were originally delineated in the fall of 2000. Since the delineation, seasonal rains have brought the water table up, requiring additional scrutiny of the wetland boundaries. We know that some of the flags need to be moved out z ° and some of the flags need to be moved in, as we fine -tune the delineation with 2 0 the onset of late winter hydrology. Any movement of flags will be done based on 0 the correct methodology, and those flags moved will be measured off the existing o E_ wetland flagging map and adjusted for the final site plan. = w o w z U - o ▪ � BACKGROUND A wetland delineation completed by B &A, Inc. was recently submitted to the City. This delineation was performed in the late fall of 2000. The City also has a wetland delineation prepared for Tramwell Crow. Per the platting division comments of February 6, 2001, there is a discrepancy between the Tramwell Crow delineation and the delineation addressed in this report. The Tramwell Crow delineation was available when we prepared our delineation, and we found that we can substantiate our delineation, keeping in mind there may be some minor modification and movement of flags with the onset of the wet season. We have observed several of the areas where the Tramwell Crow delineation was larger than our delineation and those areas either lacked hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydric soils. The watercourse /stream /ditch issue will be discussed in detail in the appropriate sections of this report. Discussions with the City indicate that the middle ditch and the south ditch are to be regulated as streams. We understand this and do not challenge it, as Opus, the proponent, can most likely work within the constraints of those ditches regulated as critical areas. However, as Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS), we are bound by a code of ethics requiring us to present the proper technical information. Presented herein is the proper 3 378 R/a j b/s m h /2/ 15/01 z PIZION technical interpretation of these areas, and that evidence supports the conclusion that no stream naturally occurred on or adjacent to the sites. This report discusses this interpretation at length and does not intend to be contentious; we are merely providing the correct technical interpretation for discussion. LAND USE HISTORY The area was logged and cleared for pasture land approximately 100 years ago. In the 1960s, 1 -5 was constructed. The construction involved a broad corridor on the eastern boundary of the subject properties. Soil disturbance of the area was widespread. Heavy equipment was staged and traversed the area causing soil compaction. A large ditch was constructed paralleling the 1 -5 easement at the base of the 1 -5 fill. The ditch is from 4 to 8 feet deep and 8 to 16 feet wide, running in a north -south direction. All existing structures in the 1 -5 right -of -way were demolished or moved. The natural drainage corridor, a glacial meltwater channel with no stream, was obliterated by the construction of 1 -5, as can be interpreted from the U.S.G.S. Map (Figure 7). Approximately 75 years ago, 51st Avenue South was constructed. It runs in a north -south direction and has been rebuilt several times since its original construction. Hillslope topography along this street required substantial cuts and fills. The soils were disturbed through the grading, cutting and filling. t water. runoff along 51st Avenue South was captured in catch basins and a storm drain system that leads to 12 to 18 inch concrete culverts under 51st Avenue South, discharging to the east onto the subject properties. Three 12 to 18 inch culverts outlet under the subject properties. % Historically constructed ditches picked up the storm water where it discharged onto the property from culverts underneath 51st Avenue South. The ditches carried the water east, delivering it to the large 1 -5 ditch. No easements were granted from King County or the City of Tukwila to discharge storm water across the private properties. Therefore, the land owners have performed all ditch maintenance for many years to convey the storm water from the point source dischar a at the culvert to the 1 -5 corridor or to the large wetland delineated as Wetland B. Additional development in the upslope watershed has dramatically increased storm water flows. Peak flows of storm water discharges are many times the historic level of water reaching the site from the west. j 3378R/aj b /smh/2/15/01 2 tliVINS All existing buildings and houses have had grading /filling or some type of soil disturbance. Large lawns, garden, berry patches, and patches of orchard areas are historic across the properties. A nursery existed in the southwestern corner of the property and horses were grazed in the southern portions of the site. Routine maintenance has occurred on ditches throughout the property. The state has cleaned the 1 -5 ditch on various occasions. The north ditch has been maintained by that land owner. In addition, the same land owner has used a backhoe to carry the water away from his house along the middle ditch corridor. The backhoe ditch is still evident. A blueberry patch and garden was maintained for several years near the middle ditch's outlet into the wetland. Additional disturbance and maintenance to the middle ditch is evidenced by a large blue - green PVC pipe visible where the current middle ditch has been recently cleaned. The middle ditch was channeled from the concrete pipe outlet, under 51st Avenue South, down the slope and into a blue - green, 6 -inch PVC pipe, discharging to an unknown location. The south ditch has been maintained over the years and has been recently cleaned via the current land owners. SITE DESCRIPTION Two constructed ditches enter the property from the north and discharge uncontrolled storm water into the north of the property. The northwestern corner of the property is steeply sloping, dropping down to a level pad of fill that contains a single family residence. This is the northernmost residence shown on Figure 5. To the east of this residence is a steep fill bank, dropping down to relatively undisturbed soils that break away to Wetland A. To the north of Wetland A is an area of Himalayan blackberry. This area had wetland hydrology but is dominated by a 100% canopy of Himalayan blackberry. It lacks hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation, thereby, this area was not delineated as a wetland. We recognize this area is wet, and if it had hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, it would meet the three parameter criteria. To the south of the area described above is a ditch running east -west. This is what is referred to as the north ditch. This is a constructed ditch carrying storm water from the concrete discharge pipe along 51st Avenue South to the 1 -5 ditch. To the south of this ditch is an area of uplands, steeply sloping along 51st Avenue South but gently sloping to the east. This area contains five single family residences and other outbuildings. This area is all uplands, but has the middle ditch crossing the southwestern corner of the area. 3378R/ajb /smh /2115/01 3 • . r E � t s4• - _.,.ae:... -. ,.. ._. y t • �tivtWs it - tAirla • To the south of the above described area is the middle ditch entering from the northwestern corner, discharging into Wetland B as delineated. Wetland B occupies the eastern half of this segment of the property. The western segment of the property steeply slopes up to 51st Avenue South with two single family residences. The southern quarter of the property is dominated by uplands with two single family residences and various outbuildings in the southeastern corner. The property slopes gently at first from the east to steeply sloping in the west along 51st Avenue. The southerly ditch enters the property at the northwestern corner of the southern quarter of the site flowing in an easterly direction and discharging into Wetland B. In the southeastern corner of the property is Wetland C. It is a small, isolated wetland discharging into a pipe running underneath the driveway and discharging into the 1 -5 ditch. Along the eastern portion of the property is 1 -5 at several tens of feet above the subject property. At the toe of the fill for 1 -5 is the deeply and widely constructed ditch flowing the length of the parcels. To the north of the parcels are single family residences. To the west of the parcel is 51st Avenue South with single family residences and developed land and other developments to the west. To the south of the parcel is South 151st Street with single family residences immediately to the south and a commercial building and parking lot to the southeast. Vegetation of the site is mixed. Around the houses are ornamentals. Garden areas, berry patches, and fruit trees are also present. Other areas are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and other scrub vegetation. Various trees are present. In the wetlands are primarily red alder and black cottonwood. Portions of the site are heavily vegetated with willow and other scrub /shrub vegetation. Western red cedar and Douglas fir are also present. METHODOLOGY The 1997 Department of Ecology Wetland Delineation Manual was used to perform the delineation. A modified comprehensive determination was used in making the evaluations, combined with disturbed site methodology. The forms for the comprehensive determination were not n eec ssarily used for vegetation. In all areas, except the northern area of Himalayan blackberry, vegetation is considered hydrophytic, and the only parameters in question were soils and hydrology. In the case of the northern area of Himalayan blackberry, if there is a 100% canopy of Himalayan blackberry, hydrophytic vegetation criteria is not met and the area is, therefore, not a wetland. No documentation is necessary in this area as it is clearly within the parameters of nonwetland. 3 378 R/aj b/s m h /2/ 15/01 4 The Soil Survey of King County, City of Tukwila Watercourse Rating Data Sheets, City of Tukwila Water Source Rating and Buffer Recommendations, Tukwila Municipal Code, Department of Natural Resource Stream Rating System, and the City of Tukwila Wetlands Map were all used in making this wetland delineation report. Also available was the Tramwell Crow Wetland Delineation, personal communication with land owners, and information gathered from numerous test pits. The site was observed in November and December 2000, and data was gathered throughout that period. A geomorphology map was prepared in January 2001 (Figure 8), and additional observations of off -site hydrology around the site were made. At the time of the original flagging and original determinations, hydrology was not observed. Hydrology and lack of hydrology have been observed on subsequent visits and flags will need to be adjusted accordingly. y /A y Test holes were dug to observe soil and hydrologic conditions (Attachment 3). The site has been heavily disturbed, leaving horizons of various textures not naturally found. Varying textured horizons provide for the movement of water laterally in the soil, which is not a water table. Bands of water of a few inches thick travel laterally down slope. If a shovel hole is dug into the bands, the hole will rapidly fill with water. The water is a result of the lateral flow in the few -inch band that does not constitute a water table, and thus does not constitute wetland hydrology. The actual water table is sometimes found at depths below 12 inches, below the critical area for meeting wetland hydrology conditions. The bands of water flowing above 12 inches give the false indication of wetland hydrology. GEOMORPHOLOGY Figure 8 is the geomorphology of the site. The natural landforms involved include basin floors, alluvial fans, fan terraces, and hillslopes. The unnatural landforms include the large areas of fill. The geomorphology explains the presence and location of wetlands along with the lack of presence of natural streams. Wetlands A and B are on the basin floors and comprise natural wetlands. These were closed basins present near the head of the large north to south drainageway. Typically, the upper watersheds of the lower Puget Sound streams are occupied by a number of small closed basins. These are leftover from the glacial meltwaters. Wetlands A and B were naturally occurring closed basins. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 5 In closed basin landforms, no water obviously leaves the basin, therefore it follows that no streams naturally flowed into the basin or out of the closed basin. The only source of water flowing into the basins naturally was from the subsurface water flows that were under head from the surrounding watershed. Currently, the source of water flowing into the basin is the uncontrolled storm water from the surrounding developed areas. This includes road runoff, lawn, z and other storm waters. —.I U U O Hillslopes occupy the areas off -site to the west. Between the hillslopes are cn w glacial meltwater channels. The glacial meltwater channels are the result of w large volumes of water flowing when the glaciers melted. The large volumes of u) o water left relatively broad channels contrasted with deeply incised channels created by stream flow. Currently, storm water discharges into these meltwater channels where it has been channeled through constructed ditches eventually a reaching 51st Avenue South and discharging through the concrete culverts onto ~ _ the subject properties. z o z I- LL! tu Alluvial fans and fan terraces are mapped at the bottom of the glacial meltwater channels. These landforms have unique characteristics, one of which is that o they do not contain wetlands. The wetlands associated with fan terraces and c0 ' alluvial fans are located at the toe of the fans. _ w o w z = Three wetlands are delineated on the subject property. Wetland A is located on z the northern portion of the property, Wetland B is in the central portion of the property, and Wetland C is on the southern portion of the property (Figure 5). Wetlands A, B, and C flagging is detailed on Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C respectively. WETLANDS Wetland A is located in the northeastern portion of the property. Wetland A is fed by groundwater from the surrounding upland watershed. Wetland A is dominated by bull rush and reed canarygrass. A small upland area is located in the middle of Wetland A, dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Wetland A is bordered on the east by the 1 -5 ditch. The wetland had hydrology at or near the surface during the site visit. The soils of the wetland most closely match that of the Norma series. Wetland B is located in the central- eastern portion of the property. Hydrology is supported by the surrounding upland watershed and by the discharge from the storm water in the ditches entering from the concrete pipes underneath 51st Avenue South. The wetland discharges into the 1 -5 ditch. The wetland is dominated by red alder, black cottonwood, and reed canarygrass. Wetland B 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 6 R @u" xi. : 1ixSTSov6N ;la #' :' wiry Ci i • 4 9 .u,: C,' xt 00 1 .c� 4:4441 ,41iR .�r.rrn vt••— had hydrology at or near the surface and its soils are dominated by those of the Norma series. Wetland C is a small, isolated wetland at the southern end of the property comprised mostly of buttercup. The soils are similar to the Norma series, however, they are also similar to an Alderwood series. Hydrology is supported by groundwater from the surrounding upland watershed and discharges into a tightline plastic pipe flowing to the 1 -5 ditch. Wetland A is 4,840 square feet on -site; Wetland B is 58,461 square feet; and Wetland C is 368 square feet. Data sheets documenting the upland and wetland transects for each of the wetlands are provided in Attachment 3. WETLAND RATINGS AND BUFFERS Wetland A is a Type 3 wetland as it is less than one acre and has two or three wetland classes. Wetland B is a Type 2 wetland as it is less han one acre and has three or more wetland classes. Or, it is equarto - ess than one acre with a forested class comprising 20% average of total surface area. Wetland C is a Type 3 wetland. Type 2 wetlands have 50 -foot buffers, and Type 3 wetlands have 25 -foot buffers. Therefore, Wetland A has a 25 -foot buffer and Wetland B has a 50 -foot buffer. Wetland C is too small to regulate. WATERCOURSES Several ditches are present on the properties and are described as watercourses, or streams. As mentioned in the Introduction and Background sections, we are providing technical interpretation of historic conditions based on the definition of a stream. The figures are labeled as ditches and the watercourses will be described as ditches for the purpose of this discussion. 1 -5 DITCH The 1 -5 ditch runs north -south at the toe of the fill of 1 -5. It ranges from 4 to 8 feet deep and from 6 to 12 feet wide. Ditch and road fill have truncated Wetlands A and B. This truncation is noted at the straight edge at the eastern boundary of both wetlands. 3378R /ajb /smh /2/15/01 7 LN1' Cf: t' Sd�Yi` 3%.l' oaf NORTH CONSTRUCTED DITCH The north constructed ditch flows from a 12 -inch culvert delivering large quantities of water from 51st Avenue South and the adjacent areas to the west. There are no streams, seeps or other sources of water flowing into the storm water system feeding ditch. On this basis, this is clearly a constructed ditch and not regulated as a stream. Discussions with the City have confirmed this designation. %) ION 1 0• t `ice The north ditch is lined up almost due west and due east in a straight line. If a stream were naturally present, it would tend to roll off the apex of the alluvial land form. Such a surface flow would be directed to the southeast rather than flowing in a straight west to east line. This strange conveyance could not be a naturally occurring stream course. In addition, the soil profiles adjacent to the ditch are representative of alluvium. New fan alluvium is a series of flat, layering (thin) deposits. This is opposed to the stream alluvium associated with the naturally occurring and flowing stream course. MIDDLE DITCH An 18 -inch culvert delivers storm water directly under 51st Avenue South to the sites. This water is conducted from the watershed west and upslope from 51st Avenue South. The constructed ditch below 51st Avenue South runs through man -made fill (Figure 8) and across the alluvial fan into Wetland B. Below 51st Avenue South, the owner has filled most of the area, causing the ditch to flow up against the hillslope. Storm water flows have been very large during peak discharge periods. This is evidenced by ditch segments that are severely eroded followed by segments that contain thick recent sediments. This watershed is rather small geographically and could not have produced a significant flow in an 18 -inch culvert. This swale is part of a glacial meltwater channel. The sandy bottom end of the swale did not have a channel. The water from the small watershed infiltrated into the soil and was conveyed underground to the closed basins downstream, Wetland B. No historic stream flowed where the middle ditch is constructed. The small watershed upslope would not generate enough water to support a natural stream in the glacial meltwater channel. Channels observed under current conditions are constructed ditches and the flow they carry is storm water from upslope. Furthermore, no stream was historically through this area as the sediments on the subject property are permeable. Even today, the small flows reaching the site generally infiltrate coarse textured sediments. 3 378 R /aj b/s m h /2/ 15/01 8 z Iz � w 6 J0 00 W I w LL.. co I Cr 1— w z = }-O w i n o 0 O - O I- W LI_ w z 0- z There is no stream below the constructed ditch; the water infiltrates into Wetland B. If a historic stream were present, there would be some evidence of channel downslope below the constructed ditch. SOUTH DITCH A 12 -inch culvert delivers storm water to the subject property via a constructed ditch (Figure 8). This ditch crosses a fan terrace. There is no evidence of any naturally occurring stream course in this vicinity. This ditch was constructed to carry storm water almost due west to east. Due to the large storm water flows during peak discharge periods, a man -made gully formed causing the lower portion of the ditch to veer to the northeast. Remnants of the original ditch are still evident. Alluvial fan deposits are highly susceptible to gully erosion. This is especially true when slope gradings range from 3 to 6% and the K factors are .30 to .40. This ditch is aligned at the base of a large fill located to the north side of the ditch. This is not the location one would expect a naturally occurring stream to be found. We investigated the source of water west of 51st Avenue South directly across the street from the discharge point of this culvert. The source of water reaching the culvert is some distance to the west of 51st Avenue South. Two glacial meltwater channels converge to the southwest of the house and the water flows through a constructed channel lined with cobbles. This channel is at least several decades old and has the general appearance of being natural to those not understanding the geomorphology and affects of storm water on a drainage basin. This water flows in a semiconstructed channel over to the road where it spills out over the cut bank onto the road side. Water then flows along the road side into a catch basin and discharges onto the subject property. If a natural stream flowed down this hill, there would be a channel other than the constructed armored channel present off -site. Furthermore, if a natural stream flowed down the hill, the construction of the street would have accommodated a natural stream. The construction of a road would not permit a natural stream to flow directly onto the road surface and run into a catch basin. Rather, an invert would have been placed to intercept the water and deliver it to the catch basin below the surface of the road. The current situation, with water running on the road, creates a hazard. On the basis of the landforms, the sources of the water upslope and lack of attention to any natural stream in the construction of the road are evidence that no natural occurring stream flowed through this area. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 9 ; o?mar�v, NORTH DITCHES Two small ditches on the north of the property are shown on Figure 8 in a fan terrace landform. Storm water is dumped from the area of 51st Avenue South down across a large fill and onto the fan terrace below. This water flows in the fan alluvium until it begins to surface on the slopes above the wetland. This soil water is moving downslope along a gradient of 3 to 6 %. The soil water is high in oxygen and, not unexpectedly, the representative soil profiles are not hydric soils. In addition, the vegetation is a 100% canopy of Himalayan blackberry. This area is disturbed from construction activities associated with 1 -5 construction in the 1960s. Soil disturbance includes surface compaction and some grading. These areas do not meet the criterion for hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation. WATERCOURSE RATING In the spirit of working with the City, watercourse ratings are provided for the north bank of the middle ditch and the south bank of the southern ditch. Discussions with the City shows agreement on the north ditch not being regulated. 7 The 1 -5 ditch is, from discussions with the City, Type 2 water course. Type 2 water courses are designated 35 -foot buffers and Type 3 is 15 -foot buffer. WATERCOURSE SUMMARY Watercourses are defined by the City of Tukwila as "a course or route formed by nature modified by man, generally consisting of a channel or bed in banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial water courses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices." Based on the above definition, we have established that all watercourses on or near the site are artificial and did not convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of the ditches. However, in light of the desire of the City to regulate the middle ditch and the south ditch as watercourses, rating forms are provided for each of them. 3378 R/aj b/s m h /2/ 15/01 10 It should be noted that the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Stream Typing System defines streams as conveying water to a Type 1 or 2 stream. In this instance, the significance is that the middle and south ditch did not convey water to a Type 1 or 2 stream. The middle and south ditch carry water from a storm water culvert and discharge it into a wetland. There is no channelized or overland flow from the discharge point of these ditches to another stream. On this basis the south and middle ditch would not meet the criteria of a stream under the state definition. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES Proposed activities are not available at the time of this writing. Once the wetland boundaries and buffers have been agreed upon and the regulatory status of the water courses and their buffers agreed upon, a site plan can be addressed with regard to impacts to the critical areas. At this point in the site plan development, it is intended that no wetlands be filled and all buffers be respected. There may be some encroachment into watercourse buffers if they are instituted. Buffer averaging, restoration, and mitigation will all be used to the fullest extent to provide a net improvement over existing conditions. STREAM MITIGATION /RESTORATION A February 6, 2001, planning division comment, Item 3, identifies that a regulated stream had been ditched without a permit. If this is a regulated stream, then mitigation would be appropriate. The historic condition of this ditch is not favorable from an environmental standpoint. The ditch is clearly in a down cutting situation, providing sediments to the wetland downstream. There is little water quality benefit or wildlife benefit. Any of the ditch maintenance activities that may be in violation of City Code will be mitigated to the fullest extent with numerous provisions as stated below. Any regulated watercourse that has been disturbed will be replanted with native vegetation and the bottoms of the ditches armored or check dammed to minimize erosion. The check dam will prevent down cutting and maintain water quality. Vegetation will be planted that will enhance wildlife habitat. The importance of shading the streams is minimal as water discharges into the wetland where it dissipates into a broad area or infiltrates into the ground. Upon confirmation that the ditches are regulated watercourses, a full mitigation plan will be prepared. In addition, at the site visit with the City's consultants, we can discuss appropriate mitigation measures such that there will be consensus 3378 R/aj b/s m h /2/ 15/01 11 of what should be done, what we will submit, and how it will be reviewed by the City's consultant. It is the intent of the proponent, Opus, LLC, that all stream restoration /mitigation will be included with the site plan development. This will include improved water quality features and vegetative components for all the water courses. The overall benefits to the site and all the watercourses, whether regulated or not, will be substantial over existing conditions. SUMMARY Numerous parcels were evaluated for wetlands. This is a wetland delineation report for three wetlands, Wetlands A, B, and C, located on the subject parcels. Four ditches are present on and adjacent to the parcels that could convey buffers onto the parcel. The middle ditch and the south ditch are open for regulation, per discussions with the City. The north ditch is agreed upon as not regulated. We feel the technically correct interpretation of all the ditches is that none are watercourses as they did not occur naturally, prior to the construction of the ditches. However, the proponent is open to discussion with the City as their plan can accommodate the buffers and provide for stream enhancement as part of the site plan. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 12 a�:. :;:,.:: Nr�> w.. aµ':;: a. �' .;",:,:,,•�iK'�,�,,:wzxc�r:: =c: FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION Mag 16.00 Mon Nov 13 10:33 2000 Scale 1 :7,812 (at center) { 500 Feet 200 Meters 1995 DcLormc { // ' Secondary SR, Road, Hwy Ramp Interstate /Limited Access Town, Small City Population Center Lake, Ocean 1511tH 11 ° m 2 G 14 4111 N co 9 t o Tukwila mt, Lt 1 ;1 E 5 NJ. ..: ; , i! • I J 1-' . 1 , L......i.,_. „,.., 1.17,..:1•,___. I „_,,,1“,,,,,,, 1 .1.1,.' - -1 "- :. - ,:_ -1 ../ lN.,,,. . ) N '4'.1 , , . ... \ \ \ •\ I‘) /1,/ /r \_) 1 1 -I I I cm i—rII1 LLLLL A _ — / T3RD AVE $ C7 f 0i3 ,1 \ 11 •j " vi\ - 57111 Alie; I 58TH INE if Ln"L') If Li 't In _ CI -4 4:I AVE S • I 51ST AVi S ill 17- 55TH AVE S - 1 - 11 - 1 j r ST ill AVE $ :1.11_J.:111L 1111{ [ AVE 5 il [tit I - [ s z. 1 L Sal II AVE S 1:- \ 11711 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. l') (.3 5511 AVE S 56TH Avg S :ppk 57TH AVE S •• .•II - ISSN I S S ••■ • a • • a • •a■ a a ■ • • • ■ • , 1 1 • S1, • S 1• a • T a a il 1• • t 1 • • 11 • a 1 • • s a • i• a a a ; i• as ■ a, ilia ..' at, ' a • • ! a 1 • • a • r • • a • • a • • s a a • ,• • / 1 a i • • • • a V I a • 1 • • • • 1 / ♦ r • • • •• • a• • OS S a s s • • a 1 1 r a • • 0 FIGURE 3 : SOIL MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B &A, INC. GIG HARBOR, ANA 98335 (BA #3378) Foster Golf Course '1 • 3 36.. l'.. _:;« �� • a , 0 if • • •a c 4. y i • H I I :. i• y o • • •1Tul•:�:vila •. , 4 Sch ter. 1V.= ••• °Pk I- WETLAND A AREA = 4840 SQ. F 0.11 ACRES 0 25 100 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 150 FIGURE 4A : WETLAND A OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. G WA 98335 (BA #3378),_ yl 0 0 Z TI C ED 0 -0 m 7 CO C. CoZXm F v� > D v w CO w CO rn Z dw�� �d MH 3IVIS )8 ,OS = „ l :31\OS OSl OS 0 0OL 5z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. FIGURE 4C : WETLAND C OPUS / TUKWILA B &A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) S HWA`( NO. I n z W . (.R. 12" CMP 0 25 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 100 t I- 150 EXISTING E RIM = 90. I.E. CTR. C H- 35mm Drawing #1 • AREA p��48CRES w C J o Z ( II - - E ¶ r. r c 111.7 51st AVE SOUTH ,111 l (i 111 111 i1�1 I 10:..1..1► !J1:!..iiiyy,q{. 111 11111111111101 i11111111111ili 51 61 Inch '0 E3 1 ' STCOTT Since 087 5 I h6 . £6 ZL L 04 6 I 4 IIiiiit illlll111111lll1111111IIII 111 !IIIIII 111111111 IIII 1 1 1 IIIIIIIIII 11111 i 1111 HIGHWA NO' 1 (.• /woe ,, ! `\ ��ri� f . Y ST ATE .. �J // t Cill. o l min - 714 w w 0 M1LI Wi1O W M Q Q I3 2 � to z co •■ I 4 W a m 0O m s 0 +, i • 1. 05/08/2001 15:36 2067899658 ADOLFSON • OEM • WETLAND A AREA 40413 sQ. 0. ACRES _ — -- V 2171 • PAGE lc 7r U -0 Z 't )J1 n = . s WESTCOTT 05/08/2001 15:36 515t AVE SOUTH • • •-••• 2 067899E • . ph'? STATE. HIGviVIAY No.•1 11 - , . • , 1.11. OIL , , IL 19 It 1£ 13 11. • 1.1 t16 nch j • 1.111111111,111141111111111.11111,q141:11.1,tptani,11..11.1:!..iill.,1, 4.1 . ,P* ' I i • ADOLFSCI•i: • • .1. • PAGE ISA .1•1 i•■•• •■■••=,. ••• 111•• •••••••• 03/07 140 41 142 43 144 145 146 41 146 141130 131 162 153 154 [FORM/EGRESS EASEMENT STABILIZED EARTH SLOPE _ C C C C C C C C C C 16 26 30 31 32 33 54 35 36 21 26 25 24 25 27 21 20 19 9 10 H 12 13 14 15 • • VARIES (S' MIN) 3 3199' -0" 1540. -0a 131 136 135 113 H4 115 l3PJ'-0" S0• SETBAcu r a'1 r ' j qp B. / WETLANDS 2' 1 TYP. WETLANDS PROJECT DATA CCI'1MON AREA. (CORRIDORS, RESTROOMB, ETC) • 12% USABLE FLOOR AREA . PARKING REWIRED. PARKING PROVIDED. STANDARD • 132 COMPACT •26 ACCE6816LE • 6 TOTAL • 164 BUILDING HEIGHT. 51' OUTPALL CI• RELOCATED DITCH ZONING. CPFIcE (0) LIGHT OUILDING AREA (SO. )R). CPPICE ASSEMBLY LEVEL ONE 11,820 11,820 LEVEL TWO 23.440 LEVEL THREE 23,440 EXIST. OUTFACE TOTAL 86,400 • 11,520 • 67,920 (1008) (1863) 44,392 92 10.131 . 61529 3,1000 1 ,1000 154 10 • 164 1NTERST A TE i -5 TOP OF STREAM SIst AVENUE SOUTI -1 PROPOSED RELOCATED DITCH PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE! I" • 30' -0" 0 15' 30'. 60' 30' �� " � i g iiIi�iji l ijl�l, Li,1.i !:. ._!_I_ I II, 1 !, 1 . II 5I Hi III� I1I l III Inch Y 1 'WtSTCOTT S ince II IIIiIii i illllitu nnli n nnhnl nnlnll wihii 111111iii nnhlu mihiii Inllnn nnlnn 1nIIInI whiii nnlnn nnllln EXIST. DITCH TO OE RELOCATED EXIST. OUTFALL NORTH 41411.131410111 ARCHITECTS P.S.C. 90�1 A93 IK 5 m : 4hAV5. 203 Mt 426.435.935 a6a...aUUI4446ba Co.. r � 3 4 6 41 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN J01 NO 2000090 DRA541 MT, GF CHECKED. ..14tH DATE. cI!l1ADI Uniseape IOU /41-.11tUNCIS • • a Of l' o OD W Fw S L r2TH ' .',> O Z W o Z G V " ''r <• �� 6 u i N• 1,1 W /tn a ��p• r VIZ •O M ` jn� �r , - Ib ' - :p •�� c a �44C . '9 ° STAilILk..E17 o n T TP. 1 Dl • 9 G EARIW' o a � y 6ouou6du001. ;6au 60660061 : obo6 INGRESS /EGRESS EASEMENT - -- RF_CT'CLI G STORAGE SPACE ( ; P. MIN,) 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers• Surveyors • Planners 1111'114t1'Avepu S$:;;:'•, ;:, :'; ;;';;.'.:'.:':...:: `. °.:.',; : •:,:';.,:; ; BilIeviter WA 910.(14 ' %1 '• Belliigi.;WA•91119 TEV. NO 1 • 2 DATE illiAet W z 6GALE 1 "•70' • t— • s•••■•• i �+ / !� L%: Rn TOOD f� OUTFALL OF RELOCATED DITCH - car. taLic aez aviL I- r ' **vision to p idwary Min DESCe1PTICN Revuion to PnitnNry Plan MADE BY CHECKED 1NTERs TA'1's 6 EXIST. OUTFFALL PLOTTED!. SCALE! 1 • • 20' vlat DATEI 0e /11/01 DESlDH�41,•,:: °vri IPe •'ACAb CIID: i•:" lfIrt �nD.iict ?. • 91ST AVE SOUTH ,�- • DP iRtAM ADJ TO s71 iftarTAdE LNW AREA PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN TTP. a l OPUS N.W. L.L.C. two IIdWITLADU'IPER IES N. ) • oQ 7 s . O OU t"F REEL — EXIST. DITCH TO EE RELOCATEE JON N0. • 1 Inch ;,t3 1 I STCOTT', Slue 1872' 11 1111 / 11 11 111 1 111 11111 I r> :L1•I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 3 q ,: ;., 6 Olt I 19 IL I9 19 IP IC Iz I. IOl 1 111111 IIIIIIIII III111111 111111111 Inlllili IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII I 111111111 3 :44:0 Grrvi a re ronmenta wvevarveruccooe repeov .n.rudamN ro I1l1.wA�7Y 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avaonr SE Bellevaa, WA 91004 P.O. Box 3565 . TEL: (425) 462.1010 Bellevae, WA 91009 FAX: (423) 462.7719 REV. NO 2 DATE T/lb/ol 12/03/01 4 iltr 4 i NTS O SNRJD PLANTING DETAIL .NTS' • t --c1PM ITAJOIS PRIYAILINO 1010 PUN O CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL O DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NT$ 74972, .11 s4{i�u�q�IL•�i= orclIDAm OWES 2 NI l>mm aTMaH 0 OA 1:0111 TROT TO TIDNIN v2" DIA ULAOC MOM NON TT cigait rIO�IOLD�a4m.P i War""" PRM11 Woe PCP 'WOOL f� IIACKPILL Itrcc*r CTID MATM NON. PTtevAANO ItRO a.-- CIDAR MAW 110016 LL w --ClDM SIAM 2nD CHAR ATAaaa a OASIS TWIT TO %14N N" DIA MACK MIER NDar TTr. ALL i�XiT wi► a NU� r 2" PI/DILATED: S VIAND: POW aIMOR t IcANK PPrtRAMM 001701 CP Poor PlirlaT1 TON WPM. KCOTACh7D NAfl I ION. AIDE aY LANDSCAPR G/NRRAL NOM 1PROMOTION OP 61T11 Vea* diiicaryrlul�rtp�panrdwnn ail ea haw aI� p peal aired N'r rNUB of & e ee ry _" t>•Yq. Mlar. and /iy d d WM i 2.61b6RAnE PRt rysaneN from 11 r t � 4 .1 a r r vl. w ar rrrd B a00leh 0111 racia da�r? lar str than a rr rl w i � i7rom � ar •" r q a n1 i b o u e aalrAl o► 11 Mr A a. Arna_tll KUTO pMntrl - 1 al I fall � rI 11011 and Ntlw vreetatlall ai •wall raltaNt: ar. ale etlwaw rotes cP 41: v. a 41 "^.6 l i _ o 1 1 t a pia 7 q I rimer ra e t i d l i lt �n =mile I la wit' Provldr a m wplh n al ialn Yr►. PrwleN'10� nnlAw &salt n all NrW WWM n" nrlteutt arras. �r OfS II to On n IaarN l it e oulydr or r I kM• e l I�LCN Ina er i rfearuilPoeYal MrtW art erormri topi�ll We�lrlll n pWnlltO rrN Ul Dear A ProvWr a" depth n.rJrw d re Wok mach in all •hub and arouldoover areas. GRAMS �t b re t« rims t t i si ad n all inn tailed on v re a l ni asD Cr ore _ s u ` ry b f qad en's`- a t actor a 1w D ra l a r n' s Tnlvrrlwpl! teassssiiL er e .. d4, a�e. poi a lal wr/au « ante • Lo h INt WN°ti •la it turn • Ith g rasnte •1100th and curt ro a K tarter undo two a a l pleN ball i c=11 b code or standards set forth n the latest odium or Marian Soetety for Nursery a All dw 111111 4t s N tp tae *mar nd �rlety N*brc hd n plant treed, strafe* Wiled, •y1tA11 andR:d , NHh Otsr a11rJ1M pfurd f« v hMdClealarloe. l ar Mi inns to be sin a var m plant legend nth lull •yl.Nnal brandrle let 4 i iiel9 M bid l d ICt a nellr I t e a etd ser'tlmr art Mlbo ii td' n each variety n sme, A cI s ir ed �rle it s u clip art to a IL. n M th c an i i i vees. d U* N Plot eaten not matching these T4 A solo 0011 be t 6q� t g p D W ef n n'ftlllo ill I uM taboo' ,r!l lb- • hKll at t rIA 10 S a T. 1 1011 eg r b of SCpwd. pr leapt, ra I�i to Inearpenta n R P VT t' Or PVT oN din rate. Provide !a) 1. to'W bo o f browdr�4t w stw.. rovide g Far urf I hntl �r 4 I ttir °Op N� •rwre evim du bursalerlL Td poN,tnsr alto tlr Ito / nn nun depth o/ Cau 6ert 6 T icia� na d e b od l taw a eel( Illat on on instant e Canary tress Pane, « apprwed.hrtrta Sod 1111 be cut aeon 24 F M'Of06ED pryrypyylN ar E a�ph ) csa0 44 5 on the ud are of t C I. Man at the rollaway rotas or 'key- eMd !sr* -0: n« ; t aw. per NteJ: lan, to 1 me It 4e W. acre ttrr l e y Sa od our, (« e a le0 0 Au. pr aaa Titlu�rr4 4. pr f r e e en slopes eremite Ulan 40%, 1'I 11 t*i&lll r b. W mi t.d N I :ion ..5. Minima* and C I�atrr to I• ▪ eo o t t l t va es. controller llrO flog f p Et tel Nd eatnrltt d y a Abel rNth am utcaatio � *WN WIt N W+n an YTb 1r area rf X11 W m eld t trao4aWt 4 Ntd rlrrt ear r 17Tmt nsra a H I ran trwet4lM I If1 b wlorautoeaa u ra� a, np t o r n aNOn Car b f a rea fN,i, r r lute van• IM a w.ht In4, latraM, v l/vri " in d .., t�.ran act« eION Ct nVIet« to pfnde a to y en warrant I • &Nett• n eatrub a . A C m or.xc . tot or CN t ON 0000dm Practical of 471 JvNdlauon of t rine tsOlte. nary nalrli wah u r r . w ffk ea in � na « w s:4 I M *tier Orr I siah u t w1erl'w a t 4 44 . I 1 T d A M TI Ia ggi a?,n ANN lTl. L � cz t ietar .MO izt w ri c h , al I6. i spree, to teat u Item to detonate U. cause or a we « daMeed eondluon. 44 CLEAW UP paean l Prior final a resultt Off t writ bt Ind shall peers ma o sh o r ea move from p III * t. .7 and debris Revision to Prelminary Plan Roving' to PrelNnay Plan DESCRIPTION CHECKED PLOTTED:. SCALE: 1" DATE: 04 /1a /a1 VIER: REF: DRAIN: JIM Lilt DES10NE0t JTI APPROVED: JTI ACAD DKO,I - FLD DKt PO Nt PSSF PLANT LIGWD SYMBOL COAN. NAME RUM (* •I D A SONtt!•D r er I t.. N W �CONi L OTOR DI6Extet� OUT Ml� • OPUS N.W. L.L.C. CITY OF TUKWILA A 0 p 0 I r ep aced l rlan • r 'mow . Plan Spaced shear P I to mien 446' Meta. eye to colter Spaced Per Flak Utr1ct epamsd Pe Plan 2" G4 It a dwacter * *load Par n erWaet•P 2" Hand Online!., Lae era ndMd e�p 0. Rowed PAW e I, garble, IL• tin Leath 7 I .dpe IRMO a o'C�w,�64Nr 3i'rJ:HL Ca Pact {bJuJ ng�eaa n elP fOa -a4 Ht P+ CI tlg /tie MAS Rrpl'fwdar fE�rWrn�ldoeO�rladr.n 'Wre a lraaW OrM l arbom lal = I � 1 T � I a 66 nelol � d t � ar � 1 � el l i ark• =i et Cbror r Flarrmp pay od Mifr MonWan evil h11p o, 1e1 Itiett.n Wwsbork OMOo• wag A 1.244041A aurae nrolre ¢ 6aL�l Ai' 7 , �DODbcRCN itNq as OAR ° 1 P 1 " rat,_ PIN N I Time Creeper' � a4 L ich Pa t P � llan � :d" y ' � NSSt Sd:Flall P r Plan WAWA *Mika TAMAR Creeping erarbl' d Gra !a np t awn God Laval W frl.C6 unit-urn PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR OPUS N.W. L.L.0 SIZE AND R£MAtlGS R o s a wary ' t o dnpine of g a art° °' K 4 0 a xn [6)to I - eubnt seed spec for approval &bolt wod/eed spec. For approval WASHI NGTON Ja NO. SNEET L =-2 Inch Ii16 .� • . . W STCOTT Since !874•" IIII • IIIfijIIIIIfIII I IIifIIIIIIII .:II 3" � ; ..r..;4, 5 6 1 y . e £ll Z 11 OIl 16 8 IL 1 15 It, C IZ IL l3 it IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIILIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIII IIU 1111111!! II I�IInII I WETLANDS TYP• 1 74' ; 15130 3,132133134133136 39 3 , 31 • 1 7T 761 J3� 711 J3 1.71 21120 19 :22 I9 I 1.1 PROJECT DATA F4RICING REWIRED, OUTFALL t7F RELOCATED DITCH PARKING PROVIDED, STANDARD • 132 COMPACT • .76 ACCESSIBLE • 6 TOTAL • I64 BUILDING HEIGHT, 51' 0 I IA 7. STABILIZED B \•_ / SLOPE —� b n d V RTES (5' MMJ STABILIZED EARTH 2.1S9' -0" SLOPE . n 73 c 4 y cc 41 c JO C 3:1000 1.1000 BIKE PARKING lt�1TER A I 54 10 • 164 ZONING. OFFICE (0) LIGHT BUILDING AREA (9a. FT.h OFFICE ASSEMBLY LEVEL ONE 11,920 11,520 LEVEL TWO 23,440 - LEVEL THREE 23,440 - TOTAL 55,400 11520 • 6S,?20 EXIST. OUTFALL RECYCLING - STORAGE SPACE (I3S SF, MIN.) -- 540_0" 0‘4 ourreTER AND ENCLOSURE 5I�2t AVENUE SOUTH TOP OR STREAM PROPOSED r— RLOCATED DITCH � 4'x^ TS1� :ti x t� r zJ °t L� i 4 i:. / h 'e' ^ '�f4iF` � , '( o�w !; '''-k.. lw ��. �Ji j 1 d yxps� r Y, ' . is,?: : ,- S :n?'�+•�,••�� t�k; Aa:T`�k «r .`3 ; Jj :' , : �•tl. >u� :..: :Rte::)1'." .Ta•) 1 � 1 �' rr j 1 4 S�:y '•.. n; •; �: • t..r;..:,5 `i'•)y /R � . 1v� R'4 F �: �.'.' .:+n'i�.i 1 �1]• .,, t ,- '= .�i. � 1 . } 7•'td ti wi 7'< 9 . ,I ,C y _, i I, ./Yr k �j • i i`1.�'f h:: T � iu rq;�• kc < +� �'v�f)rl` a�G ' tr ')' , Y �;I � • . f:;+ - •t � 3 ' �r( F f� iti '4,„..- i.,I 1 y , �� `•G'.� F, .:4.- „.., ^ -•'m:. c ,Y} • 1 S1:4:f:�t. ?�1:?l -p :Ly' r'.i,`.'•n- gr'`� / y.. � ,��� , t � 5 `,}�gr�"•�� }i.;t._:., �•f. •.: j ' hLS .17.+7��2'� •1:,�_ -�. x ;1.1 •: I ) C p..t:l; l �' j � ?A y. / � ' } � , -, ': � 'a•5��� ?, 1 ., h � F�niN• . •. �x1n':�. - 4 lyzftr.. Z�;¢Z ;L7�� �:1 G'�e'`' �'.r e. ''x•. r.� �;" , c�`' . '• r ^: t . J �/�.''�: t ir= rF='h` 4t” rIJ } ?'y„�ia�: t. �r " .. � r � F•, •• i }' C+,^.t •_N, it�S�• 41...'''' iL ? •J� ' -' y.'�,ybf,;, 4 •..'.� iTq;F�:%kj �1` -'',' ti:"IFC,T,.'y.T .�iTi� r.t �� 1••• { f - . t Tr, :FT' �4,�'•:Y� •`,I ;:f,�';;;., � y .':fS� = : , } . !r ...�i.1.:!/!_T!�!14 �C.�..4'L'Qve.,..t�•t M ltt ,36113 °_ PARTIAL SITE PLAN 9CALE: I" • 30' -0" COMMON AREA, (CORRIDORS, RE5TROOMS, ETC./ • 12% ( O& (1953) 0 15' 30' 60' 90' USABLE FLOOR AREA . 5I.392 • 10.131 . 65929 • 13I ',,,,,,333,,,___ 94 STABILIZE -I EARTH _ SLOP£ / 16 . // vAPBE4 (3' 11114.) 3' act 12' 1 ' TYP.I ser sA K 91 621 1 • 631 e ' L 1 es! 1, �1 r • 69 I I' � e6 a 330' - "EXIST. DITCH TO BE RELOCATED EXIST. OUTRALL NCRTN WETLANDS 1 OUTFALL CF ! RELOCATED DITCH 1 1 1 I Li .... 11 [ � . I . i . 11 III Ili 1 ,i ,,j.i. +.l j..I,. - III I III III III III III ( f . 111 i j i 11 I I H i l I III II - 1 Inch 1 ;1t 1 I 1 I Z f I 3 ,, •; I .. I 1• .;�If r , I I 5j1 I I I 6 1 STCOTT! r. . • Since )872. T;, (l b E Z • 1. O I s I g I L I g Ib I E I Z I • wo 11111111111 tIII IIII 111111111 IIII IIII iiiiInil111uln11 1ni11ni 111111111 111111111 111111111 l 111111111111111111 IIIJI1u1 11111111 I nnllnl l SCONZO •u 1llST.l0111 ARCHITECTS, P.S.C. Its 1241N e6 NE aatt •• ie6 TEL, e25455.320.1 rAx 425.155,935 .....e.••M.oMr011— E 3 y y a � f C a a is 1 1 1 1 a a r, a i3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN JOB NO, 70000•0 DRAW, MT CF C44ECQED, Jai DATE, 01)31/01 F'1.01 OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • WETLANDS TYP• 1 74' ; 15130 3,132133134133136 39 3 , 31 • 1 7T 761 J3� 711 J3 1.71 21120 19 :22 I9 I 1.1 PROJECT DATA F4RICING REWIRED, OUTFALL t7F RELOCATED DITCH PARKING PROVIDED, STANDARD • 132 COMPACT • .76 ACCESSIBLE • 6 TOTAL • I64 BUILDING HEIGHT, 51' 0 I IA 7. STABILIZED B \•_ / SLOPE —� b n d V RTES (5' MMJ STABILIZED EARTH 2.1S9' -0" SLOPE . n 73 c 4 y cc 41 c JO C 3:1000 1.1000 BIKE PARKING lt�1TER A I 54 10 • 164 ZONING. OFFICE (0) LIGHT BUILDING AREA (9a. FT.h OFFICE ASSEMBLY LEVEL ONE 11,920 11,520 LEVEL TWO 23,440 - LEVEL THREE 23,440 - TOTAL 55,400 11520 • 6S,?20 EXIST. OUTFALL RECYCLING - STORAGE SPACE (I3S SF, MIN.) -- 540_0" 0‘4 ourreTER AND ENCLOSURE 5I�2t AVENUE SOUTH TOP OR STREAM PROPOSED r— RLOCATED DITCH � 4'x^ TS1� :ti x t� r zJ °t L� i 4 i:. / h 'e' ^ '�f4iF` � , '( o�w !; '''-k.. lw ��. �Ji j 1 d yxps� r Y, ' . is,?: : ,- S :n?'�+•�,••�� t�k; Aa:T`�k «r .`3 ; Jj :' , : �•tl. >u� :..: :Rte::)1'." .Ta•) 1 � 1 �' rr j 1 4 S�:y '•.. n; •; �: • t..r;..:,5 `i'•)y /R � . 1v� R'4 F �: �.'.' .:+n'i�.i 1 �1]• .,, t ,- '= .�i. � 1 . } 7•'td ti wi 7'< 9 . ,I ,C y _, i I, ./Yr k �j • i i`1.�'f h:: T � iu rq;�• kc < +� �'v�f)rl` a�G ' tr ')' , Y �;I � • . f:;+ - •t � 3 ' �r( F f� iti '4,„..- i.,I 1 y , �� `•G'.� F, .:4.- „.., ^ -•'m:. c ,Y} • 1 S1:4:f:�t. ?�1:?l -p :Ly' r'.i,`.'•n- gr'`� / y.. � ,��� , t � 5 `,}�gr�"•�� }i.;t._:., �•f. •.: j ' hLS .17.+7��2'� •1:,�_ -�. x ;1.1 •: I ) C p..t:l; l �' j � ?A y. / � ' } � , -, ': � 'a•5��� ?, 1 ., h � F�niN• . •. �x1n':�. - 4 lyzftr.. Z�;¢Z ;L7�� �:1 G'�e'`' �'.r e. ''x•. r.� �;" , c�`' . '• r ^: t . J �/�.''�: t ir= rF='h` 4t” rIJ } ?'y„�ia�: t. �r " .. � r � F•, •• i }' C+,^.t •_N, it�S�• 41...'''' iL ? •J� ' -' y.'�,ybf,;, 4 •..'.� iTq;F�:%kj �1` -'',' ti:"IFC,T,.'y.T .�iTi� r.t �� 1••• { f - . t Tr, :FT' �4,�'•:Y� •`,I ;:f,�';;;., � y .':fS� = : , } . !r ...�i.1.:!/!_T!�!14 �C.�..4'L'Qve.,..t�•t M ltt ,36113 °_ PARTIAL SITE PLAN 9CALE: I" • 30' -0" COMMON AREA, (CORRIDORS, RE5TROOMS, ETC./ • 12% ( O& (1953) 0 15' 30' 60' 90' USABLE FLOOR AREA . 5I.392 • 10.131 . 65929 • 13I ',,,,,,333,,,___ 94 STABILIZE -I EARTH _ SLOP£ / 16 . // vAPBE4 (3' 11114.) 3' act 12' 1 ' TYP.I ser sA K 91 621 1 • 631 e ' L 1 es! 1, �1 r • 69 I I' � e6 a 330' - "EXIST. DITCH TO BE RELOCATED EXIST. OUTRALL NCRTN WETLANDS 1 OUTFALL CF ! RELOCATED DITCH 1 1 1 I Li .... 11 [ � . I . i . 11 III Ili 1 ,i ,,j.i. +.l j..I,. - III I III III III III III ( f . 111 i j i 11 I I H i l I III II - 1 Inch 1 ;1t 1 I 1 I Z f I 3 ,, •; I .. I 1• .;�If r , I I 5j1 I I I 6 1 STCOTT! r. . • Since )872. T;, (l b E Z • 1. O I s I g I L I g Ib I E I Z I • wo 11111111111 tIII IIII 111111111 IIII IIII iiiiInil111uln11 1ni11ni 111111111 111111111 111111111 l 111111111111111111 IIIJI1u1 11111111 I nnllnl l SCONZO •u 1llST.l0111 ARCHITECTS, P.S.C. Its 1241N e6 NE aatt •• ie6 TEL, e25455.320.1 rAx 425.155,935 .....e.••M.oMr011— E 3 y y a � f C a a is 1 1 1 1 a a r, a i3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN JOB NO, 70000•0 DRAW, MT CF C44ECQED, Jai DATE, 01)31/01 F'1.01 OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT 26 29 30 31 32 39 34 35136 21 26 25 24 23 22 21120 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RECYCLING STORAGE SPACE (135 SF. MIN) DEIMPSTER AND ENCLOSURE 94 95 % 91 96 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 101 108 IIO 112 14O 141 142 143 44 145 146 141 146 149 150 191 152 03 04 116 111 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 121 126 ` 129 b`ot E111111■ 155 156511 II 64 65 66 61 68 69 10 11 1 12 1 13 141 151 161 1155' -0 STABILIZED EARTH SLOPE . � VARIES (6' MMJ 35.4 -0 163 164 01 136 139 24' r. 9 e DR! 2' .1YP. WETLANDS PROJECT DATA PARKING REQUIRED, PARKING PROVIDED, STANDARD • 132. COMPACT •26 ACCESSIBLE • 6 TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT, OUTFALL OP RELOCATED DITCH ZONING, OFFICE (0) LIGHT BUILDING AREA (SQ. PT) OFFICE ASSEMBLY LEVEL ONE 1020 I1S20 LEVEL TWO 23,440 - LEVEL THREE 23,440 - TOTAL 86.400 1020 • 69.920 COMMON AREA (CORRIDORS, RE6TROOMS, ETC,) • I2% (1.008) (1,983) USABLE FLOOR AREA • 51,992 10,131 • 61,529 51' 311000 10000 04 10 • 164 . 164 Inch 1110 WESTCOTF Sinrc 18 IN7ER5T ATE —5 EXIST. OJTFALL 515t AVENUE SOUTH TOP OF STREAM PROPOSED RELOCATED DITCH PARTIAL 51TE PLAN SCALE, I" • 30'-0" 0 15' 30' 60' 90' (4[ 1.0 1(I„1�1, L III 1�1 111 1 111 111 111 III 111 111 J1I 2 I I I "41 l I 1 5I I I 1 6I 111 y. I bbl. £II. 311. H. ply 6 18' IL Ig Ig Iq IE I Z I 4 w� II III111111 III111111 III111111 III111I11 III111111 III111111 III111111 III111111 III111111 rim 1111 111 II 1111 III111111 IIIIIII EXIST. DITCH TO 13E RELOCATED EXIST. CUTFALL NORTH - WETLANDS (0NZ0 41411.13T11010 ARCHITECTS, P.S.C. 919 124111 NM SE VA 96005 TEL• 423.455 .320.1 TU9 423.455.9351 ..V••OOI2•1/499Irar1,44,9 b 4 4 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN JOB NO, 2000090 DRAIN, MT, CF CHECKED, JGH DATE; 01/31/01 F 1.0 1 INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT— \ STAILFF...EID • E4R1I-P-, 0 SLOFIE '. ..40TitlIPTAISOulbc),.•;,,. , ,I.firihoofichLly‘dhsmu,.,..,,,,. ..', 6 . -. . ,,, ,.. : RECYCLI G STORAC-E SPACE S.E. MIN.) COLORED CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN PATH LaniscipeAraittipchr t .440 Grolronmartalbovicas "Imam gratir" /" OW ry" 111111° ' 4 1.9 0 , (2/45 .0 AZi !CALE me lEv. MO 2 PATE 1/2/421 12/03/0 W 1■1.0-.--.;-....--.4- . 'if 4,■,.,. 114:1:13:,.._ ...,... A , 1: ,. : 1 '43.,:tir}741IPA1:7:::1;;Vi 1.$5' Z;7 1.1. " 1 : V. \--i. 1;44.117:6":::-./. - It. 0 _........„ .. ....... .... sow, it ,.....,,.... .._,,. .... ._...r....r.ti : : _ , I t:: ■ '. ., . A , '..,h 4" i 0 , v Art. . ---64 114.1 1 2Z , iip„.7. ..____.1 iii0 odp...,.4z... . 11P, . ,,,,l,lit . - °,... . . . .1, , . . . i.g: RELOCATED DITCH .......:44...■ ,. • ,, " : , .. : OUTFALL OF AI ' .4......:3%,;(„:: ike,i ., L 0 ,; - ..... _. 1: .,..+?.:...6..v.tr,-.1464:1: Ir. , A , ., /...... Da:. , ...1.....:L**'4‘:,-'6., ,,,t-(.1o.d.Adia•-• . 0 % 0 "Ik ° L.rl CP ARTI-I TFE CPC. tlteLK fen CIVIL FLAW) lainnelon to Preliminary Plan OESCRIPIMN Inension to Prelarwiry Plan JADE WE CHECKED EXIST. OUTFALL PLOTTED'. SCALEs 20' VIEDI MEI 04/111/01 .DESIONEPt.' JTV )(HETI • • „ DIST AVE SOUTH Mal igoarrAan 24" NT mei AT LAM AIWA OPUS N.W. L.L.O. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 11117LANDW • MUM) S. ILIILAND Iii OU1T- REEC EXIST. DITCH TO BE RELOCATE!: JOG NO. SHEET F.1.1 1• I I I 1,1, 1 ILI it L i 1 . ) .7. 1 .i.3 1 , 1 I !Ill 1 1 I I . 1 — i Ti I I Inch 1,16 / Aximaxyrr° NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. FIGURE 6A : NORTH DITCH OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) ti"Aa:a�c nicxg :csn�Y%f� YW r= .xctx+z ru rrrtixit! usrnrrnarn z 2 1- ~ W it 2 JU 00 LIJ W LL WO 2 < - 3 W Z I- O 2 I- w O C a I- W w 2 I- H Li- O w z O~ z 25 100 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 150 FIGURE 6B : MIDDLE DITCH OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) 51st k 0 0 2 G) C 03 0 o - m po C cn0 D -r 0 wn�-1 ° F ' C' > D * C) w Co >z � cn r— om Hl nos Ind NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 3 -D TopoQuads Copyright © 1999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Source Data: USGS FIGURE 7 : USGS MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) 00 ft Scale: 1 : 12,800 Detail: 14.0 Datum: WGS84 r/ f/ 1-7/1 L S G. c)P ES `, L4 AJQFo' S o 3 /9s.Au T=e-oc2iz • gL,v/ tiS • ) /9 `T laki2 F t k 44 5 a • /2/0 7 T'CU 1/ \G C / ✓ F. /1 / - / L j" Zi / S C /9 L L FIGURE 8 : LANDFORM MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) Z 6 JU 00 LU J I • u_ W 2 u_ Q 2 • d � W Z = 1- 0 Z I- w • w O • - 0 I- W I- " Z w U = O I- Z m D O0 mm cn z CH D 70 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. WATERCOURSE NUMBER TOTAL SCARE LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK TYPE LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK 16 -1 19 19 2 22 -1 7 7 3 22 -1 7 7 3 22 -1 12 12 2 22 -1 20 20 2 22 -1 14 14 2 22 -3 6 7 3 22 -3 12 19 2 22 -4 20 18 2 22 -4 11 8 2 3 22 -5 12 17 2 22 -7 21 21 1 22 -8 19 9 2 3 23 -1 5 5 3 23 -1 8 8 3 23 -1 8 8 3 23 -4 14 14 2 23 -4 4 4 3 23 -5 3 3 3 23 -6 6 6 3 23 -9 5 9 3 23 -11 13 12 2 23-11 9 8 3 25 -1 8 8 3 26 -1 5 17 3 2 35 -3 25 14 1 2 35 -3A 21 21 1 35 -3 7 4 3 35 -3 6 6 3 SOUTH 3 - A 10 10 3 3 -1 B 23 14 1 2 3 -i C 0 0 3 3 -1 D 5 5 3 TYPE 1 21-33 See Water Resource Rating TYPE 2 11 -20 and Buffer Recommendations 3 -1 3 -1 9 -1 9 -2 10 -1 10 -2 10 -2 10 -2 10 -2 10 -3 10 -3 10 -3 10 -3 14 -1 14 -1 15 -1 15 -1 15 -1 15 -1 15-1A 15 -2 15 -2 15 -2 15 -2 15 -3 15 -3 15 -3 15 -4 15 -4 15 -5 15 -5 15 -6 15 -14 15 -15 15 -16 15 -16 NORTH., 17 17 20 20 4 3 4 3 16 16 20 17 15 15 6 6 WATERCOURSE NUMBER TOTAL SCORE TYPE LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK BANK BANK 9 9 2 2 9 9 9 9 7 12 5 CITY OF TUKWILA WATERCOURSE SUMMARY 5 21 21 9 9 9 7 15 16 9 15 14 14 7 2 21 21 9 2 6 7 2 7 13 2 20 10 14 4 7 2 7 13 7 20 10 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 8 8 20 20 7 7 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 TABLE 4 TYPE 3 -3 -10 Study — May 1990 10/31/90 z I - =z '~ w J O 0 • u. J H w 0 u. <4 co = z � I- 0 z F-- w w U u) o ff' O H w W I-� U.. w z — I o � z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE _ QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. INSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (O11WM) Figure 4 >5 feet Score = 3 1 to 5 feet Score = 2 <I foot Score = I Score I Channel capacity %%'A FP:RC M :RSF. RATING FORM - CITY OF TuKWiLA Ample, no overbank flows Score = 3 Adequate, slight evidence of overbank flows Score = 1 Insufficient overbank flows common Score = 0 Score 0 Channel stability No scour or downcutting Score = 3 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Slight scour or downcutting ( <25% of channel) Score = 1 Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score Fish use Salmonids present Score = 3 No fish present and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Potential for salmonid use Score = 2 No potential for salmonids but other species present Score = I Score x 2 = 0 Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and overwintering Score =3 Two of three habitat types present Score = 2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = 1 Score U TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE :n 4 — `: :yr Pru�!aT3 'a Date 2/l5 Watercourse a Hof R a recl /i.' el 1e From 51 4„ To 44-1 I5 Sd QQ W W = • . JU O 0 CO 0 J F=— W O J O Z -0 = W H Z 1.. O W W a1-- W 1-- Lt. O Z . 0 O~ Z 4, CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Corridor Barrier Function Surrounding land use immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each category) TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE REACI SCORE Figure 4 Width of unmaintained vegetation from Oi IWhI >50 feet Score = 3 25 to 50 feet Score = 2 5 to 2.5 feet Score = I Vegetation diversity High diversity, Open forest or shrubs Single layer multi- layered with understory with minimal diversity Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = 1 Subscore Subscore For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above Iwo elements to determine total scores Lett Bank Right Bank Subscore Subscore Total Total Score Score Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = I Score Score I Forested Score = 3 Shrub or unmaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = 1 urban: urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial/commercial Score= -1 Score = -2 Score Score Score Score v.y. ..:. _. .. w.-.f R�F� dfief`at�f��.— ".r�.ec .i`S?� °i?� ti"?i�i,�n$�1�%?Kq�?.�: .�+.`�rJ�- s$'i�Sart •_'�`"'�, r;�!�:r`'r.r'f?,: >v r(14i�*�73T.�s�i;x' Tukwila Watercourse Rating pg. 2 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Score Score Score Score M SCORE SCORE d- ' W 6 U UO tuO u _ �d. � z = 1— I-o Z W U O - O I_- W W S U L I 0 Z '. U u). z 1NSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (OIIWM) Figure •i WA•I'b:ltt'trt'USE RATING FORM - CITY OF Tt)KW11.A >5 feet Score = 3 I to 5 feet Score = 2 <I foot Score = I Score ( Channel capacity Ample, no overbank Adequate, slight evidence Insufficient flows of overbank flows over bank flows common Score = 3 Score = I Score = 0 Score 3 Channel stability No scour or downcutting Score = 3 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Slight scour or downcutting (<2.5% of channel) Score = 1 Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 11 Score Fish use Salmonids present Potential for salmonid use Score =3 No fish present and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Score = 2 No potential for salmonids but other species present Score = 1 Score x 2 = Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat overwintering types present Score =3 Score = 2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = 1 Score l) TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE > .•�i ��3:; �f �:. s i "r.�'.'�,.'S % ' v_': j% S, �r.:: x.: w��: Y:.;.!'..' �' �° �W `sy,.C'�w:?"tsi�e^�',- �. *'b„; 2t.v:.._,eg, v�+ *.''i Z • = • 1" • W ft 2 J U UO CO 0 : W I J F- U) LL ' WO Dale °? /J/d §~-t r � Watercourse i< = Sr 4 I— al From - 6-( .5-74 Z To Itl e f/ci.✓e1 B o O So Srd¢ G.✓�t� U �: O ct . , W W I H -" .. Z W - = . 0 Z CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Width of ttnmaintained vegetation horn 011Wh1 >50 feet Score = 3 Vegetation diversity High diversity, multi- layered Score = 3 25 to 50 feet Score = 2 Open forest or shrubs with understory Score =2 5 to 25 feet Seine = For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores 1-eft Bank 1ij.ght Bank Subscore Subscore 02 Single layer with minimal diversity Score = I Subscore Subscore Total Total 3 Score _ Score Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = I Score _ Score l Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested . Score = 3 urban: residential/maintained lawns Score= -1 Shrub or unmaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = 1 urban: industrial/commercial Score = -2 Score Score 2 Score Score TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DE1 EItAIINE TU'1'Al. itt:ACli S('ORE Figure 4 Tukwila Watercourse Rating Pg. 2 LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK Score Score Score Score 3 p SCORE a ......_�..u...f...:....�...8:� i.r > :•:rfxvr ik� Y F j� , � :+':�i+.t��i.;Tie,'+<'� "„S,vsM ,.d.%;.:'r :.. Z _i- il W ,..t 0 CO J H (0 1 W gQ a = W H Z. Z F— O Z F— W W U � O - 0 F— W W 2 O ; W Z" = O Z t D � o D >0 w I mm mz cn W NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Depth (magi) Horizon Matrix color (Munseil moist) Mottle colors (Mansell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile ton) (match description) eY.,2 — 1 ,2, Fi Z / 7 1,5" - VZ ,� I T SAC_ /,7ur/ • $ Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) , Hifrtosol Concretions Hilitic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils , . I F Sutfrdic Odor • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ,__,__ i Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List .__•.'_. Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List I C ed orLow- Ciroma Co • s __ Other (ex •lain in remarks) present? yes no r decision/Remarks: . (circle) to vegetation present? yes , n , � o ,/ ii present? Yes t Is the sampling point yes + � 4: . •lo_i, •resent? es ,, y within a wetland? I. U a� dD g .9 - p� u N th u A a U U v w C`. { C. O O • Q 4 �d 14!l4 /Do /4 J/7/ S'o/ L_ ‘<90 ,urn 4 i) ?4 ci' /4 -8 Drainage Class /2j Field observations confirm Yes map ped type? J Project/Site: 7T/> "t1) gtL / . .� Applidantfiowner: at P 0 S Investiaatbr(s): 4. c 4,T z Date: / (�,, 7 f County: .4.1•,J 4 State: /4J49 S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? .lam- no Is the site Iigniiicantly disturbed (atypical situation)? _ no Is the areaia .otential Problem Area? ves AID Community 1T: C4Tt4 • • 1 41 Transect ID: D/2 C�.ET', Plot ID: • „# ., FLIM VEGTATION Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum iniicato; Dominant 'Plant Species LPI (0 ()/' J / 08L. ) 1 j { ! i j f I .. - I L ITYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION ThDICATORS: i of domi;tants OBL, PACW, Si FAC: / 0 G � i Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OT'r-R ,_._ Hydrophydc vegetation present? - no Rationale for RYPII.c4i0GY, . V yes /'n /� Is it the grt!wing season? Based pn: j Water Marks: ves no Sediment Deposits: Yes no 1 Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: ; es n o I Dept of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Depth co free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water stained Leaves: yes no Depth to sinirated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream: Lake or gage data Other: Other: Aerial. photographs: _. _ Wetland hydrology present? k yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: `� °__ . " DATA FORM 1 .� . Routine Wetland Determination . ' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manua e ► r "? '�� vlSe vswrt9tien nr vtt? v� Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no FAC Neutral: yes no Sediment De•osits: yes no Drai.na -e Patterns: ves no is *ased!t:oil: iAc that apply & explain blow: or cite . , P : data �..,, Other: hydrology present? yes for decislott/Remarlt:s: '. Local Sail Survey: yes no Water-stained Leaves: Wetland plant list (nat' 1 or regional) Morphological adaptations W d Plant Data Base County: , 41A) G, State: earn SrR: Community ID: '3' Transect IO: Plot ID: OTHER Cri Q _- ~' tr 6 w O 0 w = t- w 0 L Q = Z t- O w • ~ w U ❑ O — w L I O z U O z . , i Map Unit Name .) _ mapped ydrk Son Indicators: (check all that apply) ltosol Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime ; Reducing Condidtnts Gle ed orLow a Color sous precut? yes no for decision/Re • _ Matrix color Mottle colors (Munson (Munsell moist moist O .1- / > ; inadon (circle) Mottle abundance size at contrast Concretions I Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed an Local Mythic Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other explain in remarks Is the sampling point yes o within a wetland? s. t i arks: Drainage Class Texture, concretions, structure, etc. o 0 i rho U Drawing of soil profile (match description►) I /or 7 i<It,�:.. v Routine Wetland Det etmination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: � �, 4 Daze: f 4, / p / ____ Applidant$owner: e 4 0 kg County: ,k /•.t.3 State: it.hq Investgatbr(s): a.0 #J S!T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? - no Community ID: a 'TLAiyO %T ! Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? 1 0� ;',.4-f) no Transept ID: ; Is the areale •otehtial Problem Area? . ves dp Plot ID• - /2-- - ,- VEGETATZON Dominan tiPlant Species - _ Stra tum Indicator Dominant Plant Species stratum Indicator ' �4 /..�A L I rza i I 1 HYDROPfYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: • % of dQrni iants OBL, FACW, & FAC; (._,,' Check all indicators that apply & explain below: f Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) O Iap. Physiologiai or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophyidc vegetation present? yes fio ' Rationale flor decision/Remarks: C_,." • I - I HDao? g9Y, • Is it the gnlwing season? yes lino) Water Marks: ves no i Sediment Deposits: yes no . Based Qn: ; Drift Lines: ves no Drainage Patterns: ves no Dept. of injrndation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ;:es no , ! Channels <12 in. yes no Depth to free water in pit: / - inches FAC Neutral; yes no Water - stained Leaves: ves no De -th to s soil: inches Check all at apply & explain below: Other: Streams L or gage data: Aerial photographs: __,___. Other: / , Wetland hydrology present? yes Jno Rationale for decision/Remarks: (_�/ _) • ... • .:', DATA FORM 1 ^ �, ; , !; , ,,..; �' _) • H Taxonomy (sub Description Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (Munsoil (Monsell moist) moist) 0 /04 /G -/Z Z-- /3 a rlo Sod Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol �_ Histic Epipedon Suifdic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Condidons Gle ed or Low •!,�., a Colors soils m? !' no for decision/Re Mottle abundance size & contrast Drainage Class __ Field observations confirm Yes Ko mapped tvtae C� Texture, concretions, structure, etc. L Drawing of soil profile (match description) Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other explain in remarks W i /9 0 c_ Z _l '~ w ce 6 UO • 0 W = � Lt. UI 0 • a = • a to Z Z U • ci 0 _ O F- LU u ▪ z u 1 = 0 z • Project/Site: Applicant/owner: Investigator(s): • DATA FORM I ' �' ' ': ' • • , . Ro Wetland Determination ,, • +,;:,...., rmination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ' j 'jf 1C4) lie, 61 (9 4 Us / C r7r. J �,f , ';: , , � .. Daze: County: State: • ji"['JR; Conununi_ Transect Plot ID . I ( o / ,e/) ( 41 1�Q Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? !SQL no Is the sit significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? no the:arei a potential Problem Area? • yes _ t:. ID: ( T it KO .e IU: ,) /) 4& f is : 7';} • - is. FC. V- GgTOO.TION Stratum / Indicator Tike Dominant Plant Species Strarum Indicator Dominant Plant Species . k f 3) -..--c /) c r y ! d• /,.. P k I E I � l 'YDRO1 EYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dornilriants OBL. FACW, & FAC: 3 v Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional Icuowledgt; of plant communities Fhysiologibal or reproductive adaptations Technitai Literature below: Wetland plant list (nattl or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTs-TER __ Hydxoph • c vegetation present? yes no l Rationale for decision/Remarks: �J i yes 097 Is it the grelwing season? Based on: i Water Marks: yes no J Sediment Deposits: ves r.o Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no I Dept. of Depth to Death to inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no fa water in pit: 0 inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves: yes no saturated soil: inches Check gill Stream,: Aerial .hotb that apply & explain below: Lake or gage data: Other: Other: i t : •hs: _ -- Wetland hydrology present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: , • z . w 6 00 co 0 co W Q a = W H- Z F- ►= z t— W U 0- W W I-� LLi O ~ z Par's ,± asswIntie III Profile Description 1 Uep i (inett s) i Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture. concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match descriptioN °"17 ' / / . — ., / '; - c.5V C.- 1 - ii.", © wa ‘64--, f ; Hydra Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) -;__,_ Histosol Concretions ' + Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ,, .J . Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils i 1 Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List 1 ! Gleyed or Low-Chroma C Other (explain in remarks) Hydrig soils present? yes n Rationale for decision/Remarks: 1 .W d inatiop (circle) • Hy ytic vegetation pre yes (..no- -. ;; ; Hydric oil's present? yes Is the sampling point yes e ll,' '9e hydrology present? • yes o . within a wetland? arks: /0D 1)/2/C. 1 2' 0 / & . MapjUnit Name (Set*s & Phase) Taxc�notny ((subgroup) ' + TZ/9N G D pp4, IrZW6 8 -/s Drainage Class /6) . ( Field observations confirm Yes Ago, . - mapped type? fl { !; • { "' , R"oittiie Wetland Det et-rn 1 in ation ,.,.;•; (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual': or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Mantr)) HYDRIOPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 4 16 of dikai:bints OBL, FACW, & FAC: / D 7 7/2 yes Wetland plant list (naz'1 or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base no no OTrIE.R Sediment Deposits: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Depth „ (inch •• :) 'Hori Matrix color (Munsell moist Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, ons, structure, etc. o 1 q ( o/, z / 2 - ---,. -- .a iCi : �. t. a_ _l.t.l . I .► Map Uazt-Natne Y GJ (Sams $ phase) oak D+3cription So11'Indieators: (check all that apply) Hi$tosol HiStic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Agpic Moisture Regittte I 4 Reducing Conditions GI ed or- Low ..: Colors present? y no e fer decifion/Re (circle) 'vegetation present? prese tt? • lo;> • sent? w4 mJp 3 LQj _ o is- no no no Is the sampling point within a wetland? /aV(P/2/ Jsc Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? Drawing of soil profile (match description) // ,..�_ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (ex • lain in remarks) yes% no z a = �~ w 0 0 to CO IL J = F- C w < co n I �. w z = E- 0 z l-- w w 0 O c 0I- LL! Ha- Z . w — I 0 ~' z FiJrJ f�vr do vegetation present? no - -- decision/Remarics: 04! ' its it • • 8tued Fiw 0GY wing season? yes n• Water Mark: ves no Sediment Deposits: yes no Drift Lines: es no Draina:e Patterns: ves no { [LE.J • • son dation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. y no Local Soil Survey: yes no e water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no , soil; inches !Check; • t$tat • apply 43t explain below: or . : data: Other: • tz _ • . s: Other: hydro Per present? no decilsion/Rernarks: : t t/Sht : 7J04)/�. i� an I owner: I O 0 S Inv g s): aCh Do N rnt81 Circumstances exist on the site? Is the. ite!signifleantly disturbed (atypical situation)? le the area t potential Problem Area? otnir.ant T &TION Plant St7ecies .• • Re - kiowledge of plant conimumties • Phyrid l or reproductive adaptations tTeclsniial Literal rre „ DATA FORM I ottin e Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual .or 1907 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)' Stratum OPEYrTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: tnittants OBL, FACW, & MC: /L.9 �9 indicators that apply & explain below: Date: County: State: SET/R: Indicator Dominant Plant Species Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER z z a w aa � J 0 00 CO o W J f w u Q Y 3 � z I— 0 z �— w U � O — O 1— W W t ..z w 1 5-2 o ~ z Depth Horizon (ind $) Matrix color (Munsell most Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match descrintioq) 6 '' /Y/Z- ? ___... �. A 3, AL/A 5 /02 - ---' & 142—f. 3c /yr/ # 9 5R A 3 6/2— .s c` J�- i l►dr* Sotl.Indieators: (check all that apply) �_. I __ Hiitosol Concretions • j. I .,.. Hiatic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils f Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils „_ I 1 L Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List , i 1 Gie ed or Low 0,, .: Colors Other (ex plain in remarks) -Sydrieisods presient? Alp no do a f. deciiiio - , 1 1 :-1 t - - - _ , lion (circic) f vmge#:i present? �� no + ycbi •' preseht? tion L' no Is the sampling point y es -• no ., .. t• •lo.s .resent? . s et , no within a wetland? ... : /A/?/ / cPb /U• i Map nme (Se:* Phase) Tuoao s ub D Pei, 1 1-146 e Drainage Class .;� �.: z i• ~ w 6 .1 0 0 J F- u_ w g? a = W z � z° w w U � (0_ 0t— Ww u. z ui U= O ~ z i.L.,/ .. 4_ F4c co 1 ,i_ • 1 r&et. I 1 • tt Ili of t/SEte : ant:Owner.: c fs' s): aC///04trki$ rmuiI Circumstances exist on the site? ite s ignificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the a • •tentiai Problem Area? A ON Plant $ • ecies TA ON INDICATORS: jRe • }P edit • • . • . • I Other: C - E .4 `rtez C I • OT R yes no . rL 41..4 ! Dcri . Uon Horiion Matrix color (Munsell moist Map al t Name ( •s .Pha.se) T ax., o . 0 sub ou gia d,..) /04//2 17, vegetation present? preaeflt? h •lo_, • sent? Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size 8t contrast > • z W 6 00 rn uJ J F'— w u . co o =w z � t- zF— W w 0 0 — 0 I- W W sL O Z Lu 0 I ' z Water Marks: es no Drift Lines: es no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <1.2 in. es no FAC Neutral: yes no Sediment De.osits; yes no Draina:e Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Circumstances exist on the site? its significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? it potential Problem 4rea? Proj App 'hives t Plant S cies g seas on? yes inches free. water in pit: inches Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S cies Stratum Indicator Other: no Community ID: 710 Transect ID: Plot ID: Water Leaves: Site: owner: VPOS PHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ta OBL, FACW, & MC: r...st / dicators that apply & explain below: .saturatedlsoil: inches that app' & explain below: or gage data: graph. : ___ Other: hydrology present? yes for dad DATA FORlYi 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co Wetland DeUneadon Manual) 14 laiewledge of plant commtinities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Litesoxure Wetland Plant Data Base Date: County: State. 4.tb)9 S/T/13.: • ' z < • z 2 -J 00 U) 0 CD W Ul F- w 0 g u_ < I- In Z 0 Z 0 V- 0 Ili I z — I 1— z z I Horizon Matrix dolct (Munn!! . •, . 4 ; Mottle colors (Munsell: t • ..: t Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. U 7 7r//26/- ,, c /c/ 0 'Bch /0/41 x q ,,J.Ifiz..r, oRci Pt Deicripiion MrftrIptantivn (drat) . . - z z re In 00 (OW W I -I 1- il l 0 5 co - ± F. Cl uj Z 0 Z Lu :E =3 D 0 03 0 -- LU 0 r: LI, 0 I- LIJ 0 1— z rHYDRiOPEYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 411 of •• mintlnts OBL, FACW, It MC: indicators that apply & explain below: • lmowiedge of plant cotrundnities Wetland • ... or reproductive adaptations Morphological plant list (nat'1 or regional) adaptations Plant Data Base OTHER • , , •. Lketature Wetland • M • • • yde regetatlon present? yea oo • . ... • . : ' deciaton/Eemarks: i • • ii e t J. it the . • • ing season? yes no • : Water Marks: es no Sediment De.osits: yes no Drift 'Lines: es no Draina • e Patterns: yes no • imuddation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no f • 1 • 4. 1 free water in pit: ! inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves; yes no $ �t;.. . • . _.'soil: _ inches /neck that apply & explain below: • . - . I or gage data: Other. ; %, • • . • . • • •• hls: - Other: . • • hydrology present? yen ::,-• • for decilion/Remarks: F ` JA es no no Site: i ie._ .1s): owner. 40/0 :Circumstances exist on the site? Ito significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ai potential Problem Area? ON Plant Species DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1967 Co .s Wetland Delineation Manual) Stratum » .. , Name & Phase) (sUbgl'olli)) . ,mer11.17110.1144jmummliimel...mr...ln..enpo■ Soil Indicators: (check all tha Hiatosol Epipecion SUltidie Odor • Aquic Moisture Regitne RCducing ConditiOns G ed art.. lw •tna C decsion/Rernatics: apply) 6 f Drainage Class , Field observations confirm Yes mapmci=", cS IL. L fJ . ..111•01••■=1■01016•••■•■••••■■■■•••.■•■■ Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, sire & contrast structure, etc. Drawing of Zir profile (match deserts:Aim) Concretions Kigh Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex lain in remarks) Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? MIIIIM■1111.■ z z cc 2 O 0 co 0 CD Li.1 • u_ L a 0 D LL. - 1 Cr t _ z 1— 0 Z I- 0 ill (I I D O D. O I— LL' Li j UI 0 0 • -1 O 1— z • 1.4 Prof - ; App Inns weer: io) Circumstances exist on the site? to significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? potential Problem Area? 4i4N Plant S •ecies FHYTXC VEGETATION IND/CATORS: fli of ««• tninents OBL. FACW, dr FAC: gseason? yes ea ddstion: inches free water in pit: t inches :aniseed soil; ;; inebes that apply & explain below: or gage data: ' Water Marks: es no Sediment De•osits: es no Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. yes no MC Neutral: yes no Other: Water - stained Leaves: indicators that apply • explain below: knowledge of plant communities or reproductive adaptations re d hydreloop present? for dec' ion/Remarks: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 19 . Co • s Wetland Delineation Manual) Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base no Date: 2 4 County: dt State: L(Jd9 STIR: 0 Community "' 47 Transec;t lI7; Plot ID: Matrix Color (Munsall 1044/1 kia .13/12 Mottle colors (Munsell Concretions Nigh Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other explain in remarks) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture. concretions, structure, etc. Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? 1 1 e f'Dd2 C cP0/ nit N ante &Phase) oa(subjpw___ IWO 111.11111.- ' ••■■•■■■■■... Drainage Class 717d' C-cs-e-t( Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? Drawing of soil profile (match descrictiog) 4 z re 2 ...i 0 00 cow U) W I —I F- ( u j 0 < co B u Z v- 1— 0 Z z Lu • Ca O u) O — ra IJJ u j l z- L - . z 0 that apply & explain below: or gtlge data: inundation: inches free water in pit: G ` inches anaitated: soil: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no PAC Neutral: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Site: ill aft. 4 owner: st, S indicators that apply & explain below: kndwiedge of plant communities glut or reproductive adaptations Lkerature hytic vegetation present? foot deci$ion/Remerks: g season? Stratum Indicator County: State: SPUR: no Community ID: no Transect lD: e9 Plot ID: Dominant Plant Species Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base Drift 'Lines: es no Other: 1.009 Drama Patterns: es n Water- stained Leaves: PHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: is OBL, FACW. & PAC: hydrology present? for deciaionJRemarhs: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or Co s Wetland Delineation Manual) Indicator ',9 I ' • i• 471 717, rlt 9\- !Horiton 4 Matrixoolor Mottio colors Mottle abundance (MunseU (Mtmsell size at. contrast • moist ••••■■••• /2a-io -Y/et / 3 cl I ; 3 t2. •" •• , Tax I i • • (c-ele) lad= P • • iptesent? hydrologyixesent? • Map nii Name ( •&Phase) sant present? yea n� fOr decision/Remo:kr Soil Inkators: (check all that apply) Histosol Hc Epipedon Sultidic Odor .....Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions G ed or Lo •taa C b il 4.0 Yes yes -. ye 4.1.! Is the sampling point within a wetland? C Drainage Class Texture, concrettons, structure, etc. Field observations confirm Yes ,No) mapped typo? Drawing of soil profile (match Oactiwict __ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex • lain in remarks • _" yes ' 64 • • z < • II— .r— Ce -J 0 0 co 0 0W WI i- U) 11.1 cn Z 0 Z Ili 0 0 0 I— Ui . ' I 4: 17 , . Z C11 C° = so 1— z ....,• ' ' I v �w v a.. ey • ;A • • ,.., • oiwtte V P U S .it► s: s :.:. 'Do Daze: l County: A'/ State: 409 vim Communit I D• Transact ID: / 4 {/ p /6th N ,, Circumstances exist on the site? i no I is the • �- significantly disturbed (atypical' situation)? .. no the • a • •tetftial Problem Area? es - /"t Indicator Plot ID: t ? 94 Soecics Stratum can= Indicator Dominant Plant p • .. t Plan S • cies II. ' Mill f 111V.M.MMIRIM r • • DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or �19$? Corp Wetland Delineadon Manual) • RopmenC VEGETATION INDICATORS: t r of dotni ants OBL FACW, ft PAC: k 41 .indicators that apply a explain below: os ktidwledge of plant communities .�, Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) OTHER dols** or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations dcknit8l 14arature z Wetland Plant Data Base ydretpity he vegetation present? • ' yes no i tiorai s kr'decision/Remarks: it the prowini season? . o( intmdation: inches to free:water in pit: t inches yes soli: inches land hydrolotY present? yea 'male for deciston/Rcmarks: Water Marks: y es no Sediment Deposits: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. yes no PAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no z 1- z r4 w 6 U O coo -I _ I— U) w w 0 g? co = W F- _ Z I— O w ~ W Uca ON ca W U lL O Z Lu O~ z 1 • • I f Sag Inditators: (check all that apply) Histosol Hc Epipedoe Sultldic Odor Maio Moisture Rtgitne Reducing Condidons. CileYed or Lowo tilla C js SOW present? Tes • fcir decision/Remarks ' Mottle abundance size & contrast _Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sois Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ____ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List —Listed on National Hydric Soils List Ot/...,_z in rTmazks) Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? z z rt 2 6 = _J 0 CD 0 (OW W I —J 1— CD L.L. ui 0 < co ± w I- ZI- UJ UJ 0 u) 0 — a 1 - Ui uj I L I 0 u) — 5 ' — z Proj App 'Dives ;DoN fre the tha g season? Water Merits: es no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no FAC Neutral: ' yes no Draina :e Patterns: es nb Drift•Lines: es no Local Soil Survey: yes nO P$YTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: OIL, FACW, A FA1C: Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTJR Morphological adaptations W d Plant Data Base no Community ID: no Trausect11): Plot ID: Water - stained Leaves: Si te: ArtA) et. ewtter. 49 U Circumstances exist on cite site? significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? re tial Problem Areas? DATA FORM I Routine Wetland Determination (WA Stag Wetland Delineation Manual or 1917 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Date: 2 County: k/,.1. State: 4)4'9 S/T/R: 0 z z w a: 6 00 (ow -I I- w W O g Q to I W z = )- 0 zit w W 0 co O — 0 t— ww O u z w = OH z 4 . I •• 44 :4 II • Niurle &Phase) piton Horizon (circle) vegetation present? Mottle colors (Munsell Mottle abundance size & contrast Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes No mapped _ype? Is the sampling point yes ) within a wetland'? So� Indicator,: (check all that apply) _ inistosol Hilt& Epipedon Sulfidio Odor Aquic Moisture Regime • Reducing Conditions ) or Low-Chro C 713 AK. Drawing of soil profile (matED descriptipp) Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex lain in remarks) z < . ffi r4 2 00 to 0 (O W Ili a: 0 < cf) a u z I- ZE- 0 L.1.1 t 2 5 o ( 1 2 ci u i • b , z cr O ▪ 1 3 , s 1', • • ' ''', ' I V Ic of 6.0. el ' .1 .A ..- . **tier, ()Pox . , .., C a • i .a. , A,. ......_. t Date: 2/ 4, / 0 / county: A.-..th4, • State: W.'9 SITIR: Do N • Circumstances exist en the site? , „ it IS the 4nitoandy disturbed (atYpic.al i ' . • genial Problem Areal * 'N , . . .ii . • . etas ' 1111 . .7 1 str 1 ■ 1 1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 i; 1 Ill situation)? Stratum EMI= 4 grit no 1 . 47*..,.' no ...... ; es ,d) Indicator :‘ 111.1 Dominant Plant Community Transect ID: Plot ID: Species ID: '' - Stratum Indicator ; 111111111111111111.111111 . . : 111111111111111111111111111111111 _ ; 7 R Perm VEGETATION INDICATORS: !att. . • ts OtL. FACW, A FAC: ' 0 1 r.. .; .., - indicators that apply & explain below: . Itadowledge of plant coriantatities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) grp . , .• • •• , ar *reductive adaptations Morphological adaptations W.., . d Plant Data Base " ." ;!,• : • . i• , ytie vegetation present? Yes / fel+ claciiionfaernarks:' • . . . i . I I • ; . 71171 0:1 j , • 1: t■ i ; '. . I • . it the • . . g season? yes 1 0 Water Marks: es no Sediment De osita: es n ; • Drifttines: es no Draina:e Patterns: ves nd .... ' • inuhdation: . inches Oxidized Root (live roots) 2 Channels <l2 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no . _ f : . • . • ts water in pit inches fr AC Neutral: yes no . Water-stained Leaves: yes no _____ • . . . ;soil: .. Me $ . _.... • ;.; .. 1 , apply & explain 1,40vsit .. or gage data: L . Other: , iqs e ther: • L 11 fl r'; . bydroloty present? no i 4 Sete • . ; • ft:WI:incision/Remarks: Hi Ji DATA FORM I Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 19,7 Cops Wetland Delineation Manual) stalIgelt4r . Vs . ,,tt.?>I*.-iii.m.Ms 4 kLY ••■•••■•■•••■•■■• • ; ;i < • 1- ,1- 6 a: -J 0 O 0 U) COW W -J E- U) u_ L a 0 I I LLI z 0 Z I— WLU M O co O — 0 F 0 L I 0 Z LU • CO I 7 _ z 4.1 Dii . don Horizon w / o e in�/21 Matrix color (Nlunsell moisl) Sod Indicators: (check all that apply) Hi3tosol Milk Epipedon Sulfklic Odor Aquic Moisture Ragitoe .,�,.., Reducing Cooditiens C3 d or Low pant? !a decision/Remarks Mottle colors (Munsell Moist) Is the sampling paint within a wetland? /Uo '/ o ic. Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in rernazlcs) sit Name Sr Phase) su Drainage Class /A-4 Field observations confirm Yes ma d p ? t J ant Species PH'Y'TIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: OBL, FACW, 4 FA;C: (j g season? inundation; inches freaweter in pit: soil: root$ County: State: L41.09 S/T/R: no Community BD: no TraisectED: tU Plot ID: Water Marks: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: )24v/hedge of plant cniamtinities or reproductive adaptations ytie vegetation present? fort deci1ion/Renaarks: ators that apply & explain below: DATA FORM 1 Rodtine Wetland Determination (WA Stale Wetland Delineation Manual or s Wetland Delineation Manual) Stratum yes Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies S tratum Indicator Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base t.', OTHER Sediment Deposits: yes a Drainage Patterns: yes nd Local Soil Survey: yes nq z ~ W aa • � - J O 0 0 N CO W I • w w 2 u - _ d = W Z I- I- Z I- w W U co O - O I— =w I- 1 O w z O ~ z Matrix color (Mtn sell moil!) / w4 soils present? yea foir decision/Remarks: e vegetation present? :!present? hydrology present? Mottle colors Mottle abundance (MunselI size & contrast moist) Soil Indicators: (check all that ap ply) -,..,. Etstosol F tic Epipedan • Suitidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions G d orLow -C hrotosa C•• ors , Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sous Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other explain in remarks Map Unit Name (-in ( - ' &: Phase) b • 7 z ~ W 6 UO U O J = LL w 0 u U _ w z = �— O z t— Ili O • N o W w =p O ..Z w U = oI z I. s • • • circumstances exist on the site? significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? • • tential Problem Area? ATTPN- ▪ cies Stratum C VEGETATiON;INDICATORS: ts OBL, FACW, & PAC: hy'oioV present? yes on/Remarks: • g season? yes o : inches flotiweter in pit: 3*_ inches satuiand ioil: • ' inc Indicator no Water Marks: es FAC Neutral: yes no no Sediment De Drains e Patterns: ves no Local Soil Survey: yes nd Water-stain d Leaves: osits: es no DATA FORM 1 • Routine Wetland Determination • (WA State Wetland Ddinentlon Manual or Cotp, Wedand Delineation Manual) + < • 4-- 6 cc 2 —1 0 00 cd w W _1 i— d) LL u i 0 -71 LL., (f) z 0 Z w 0 0 — CI w w z C.) — I 1-- 0 1— z Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ;_„ Histosot Hiatic Epipedon Suif dic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Ole ed or Low•Cttrottta Drawing of soil profile (match description) /L Concretions High Organic Conant in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex • lain in remarks) j' bydrologly present? • • for decision/Remarks: paync VEGETA.FIC )N INDICATORS: OtIL, FA.CW, FAC: indicators that apply & explain blow: krtrowleclje of plant communities or reproductive :adaptations Lititramte tbas,appl7 & explain below: br gate data: hs DATA FORM I Rotttine Wetland Determination CiVA State 'Wetland Delineation Manual or 19117 Co Wetland Delineation Manual Yes Wetland plant list (nat'l or reonal) Morphological adaptations W d Plant Data Base ) •••■••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••=1I OTHER ProjerZitt I ATlitantictinteri Lie "0E ?left • 'Noma Circumstances exist on tile sita? we significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? • , • • terttial Problem Ateat g season? • yes inches ask. inches ' inches Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator It ...• Go l000 • • 11-• ••■—_ Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no Drift 'Lines: CS no , Drainage Patterns: yes no. Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. es no FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves: • te•A•'50:„...1÷,fAt' Date: .g 4 , / County: ie 413, State: 1.009 S/T/R: Community Transect ID: Plot ID: nit Nude &Phase) Sail Indicators: (check all that apply) Hi0to9o1 ilstic Epipedon Sulfldic Odor _.._;,_ Aquic moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Ole -• or Low -C;hro •. Concretions lagh Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex •lain in remarks) Is the sampling point within a wetland? / ^. �i�tr�. �a: �2 �!;" ri!. �# l;:• s.e;. {z�a2!�n�vi��kc+i��".�.�.1 , ±t. .�:�._ " 147.0414t; Texture, concretion structure, etc. • 1 4/ Drawing of soil profile (match descrinn90) B k_> G z 11 . = z ce O 0 to o CO LLI J 1-- u_ w 0 LQ z = w U • 0 O — C] F- LU w � -- wz 0~ z z _� .r— CC LI-1 6 00 W J 1=- w LL = a to Z = 1— 0 Z 0 to t3 w ..z w U = O Z • /1 Drainage Class _Oe_; y • Field observations confirm Yes matoed tie? nit Nude dc'Phase) 'Horizon Soti rs: (check all that apply) Hiutosol Hiltic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor _�,.. Aquic Moister Regime Reducing Conditions ' Gl,edorLow.Chro present? no !bi decibion/Remadcsr - •'~ Matrix color (Mtnisall Mottle colors (Mansell /DilG Drawing of soil profile (mach descrinrijy) //,,z 73a) z = z 6 00 cna cn J I— U � co I— a Z = 0 Z - L11 uj U � or- wW I w Z ui t. o z HID OPfYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of unl arts OBL, FACDV, & PAC: / 5vi Chock indicators 1Regioriel kLowledge ! 1"hysio • . 'Teel: ,+° that apply & explain below: of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER - or reproductive adaptations Literatnie Ily... • h ... • • .. • vegetation present? yes • decision/Remarks: o :l4±..ets • ?e it di- : ; • g season? yes • • • . i iit i r Water Marks: es no Sediment De •osits: ves no Drift•Lines: es no Draina_e Patterns; es no Dep t, • inundation; t `,Depth •• frit ' t • .. . • saturated inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no __,,,_ water in pit: AV inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no soil: inches teeJ z : • . . 44 - • Wetland Pationale : f•r _ . at apply & explain below: . or gage data; — de 610r Other: _ . : . :t: s • _ . Other: • 'logy present? Yes decision/Remarks: • • ■ ProjedtfS ta: 7000,04e- Al Appll4ant(owner: () s` C Invest Do No Is the Is the Circumstances exist on the site? 'ice significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? a • •tential Problem Area? Eig . t# Do antiPlant S • cies DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Cogs Wetland Delineation Manual) fie es no no Stratum - Indicator Dominant Plant Species ge coit- Date: � ( � / County: kl/ /At,b (R, State: 40.09 Q 3 3 4) Community 1D: Transect ID; Plot iD: _ a Stratum Indicator r Map Jtut Name (Series . Phase) Taxo> ;otny (su bgroup) 4 r t 1• 1 • 1+' • ; 3 ; 1,1 • L Pro Nscriptioo (inch*) • Horizon *adotealldgemarlrs: NOTES Matrix color (Munsell moist) /t 94 /p0 l<lydric;soils present? yes o Rationale fir decision/Remarks: 'Wetiagd•I tgrzninat1on (circle) Hydropiyti; vegetation present'? • EHydric foils present? •We• • • h • •lo_i •resent? Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Flydria Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) _. Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime I Reducing Conditions Gloved or Low .Chroma Col • s yes yes yes Is the sampling point within a wetland? `/ 7 ' Drainage Class /Lei Field observations confirm Yes (3,,.- mapped type? Mottle abundance { Texture. concretions, size & contrast I structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match descriitiot1) .! c Concretions . , High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List �,_.. Other (explain in remarks) yes J n.ti...:.w .`- �Y+46 Stftkik- d'i:4.- :s4v'.'F:: =z,.itt `'4,,Y'IS4 "a44 , 4 • ,F- z w 6 00 0 Ill w • 0 = Z ZI E11 w U � O — ww I-- 0 w z w = O~ z Prod ..' Appr. litres /.: -, vi. Irsa..l S4I Side: ' irta4) #(.-'9 , owner. t 4 U S /� s : /��e � ;� Date: ? 4, 0 l County: A / /Ad Stare: Wd9 SIT/R: Do N. Is the 4ite Is the . Circumstances exist on the site? 4l # no . gnificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? 017 no la potential Problem Area? • es Community ID: R-z -�r� 3 Transect ]D: Plot ID: , - a 9G S ON J Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ! D. . t Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 , • ' ,i J . ,HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: !96 of tit, ninants OBL, FACW, & PAC: &■ p ;Check all ' dicators that apply & explain below: !Re}onll owledge of plant communities - Wetland plant list (nat' 1 or re OTEER 'Physiolinie or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technitial l iterature Wetland Plant Data Base .Hydsogb . Fatiott fbr vegetation present? no decision/Remarks: t Yj . it the It? on: season? yes n Water Marks: es no Sediment De.osits: yes no Drift•Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water stained Leaves: yes no , . oo inandation: inches ;! :Depth tici free water in pit: l inches PAC Neutral: yes no ft s ted soil: . inches aU tl4st apply di; explain below: • - or gage data: Other: Other: • , h7drology gad .0. - for I present? yea no decision/Remarks: DATA FORM I Rodtine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or z Q 2 Z ~w m 00 ID 0 CD CO Li_ w to I 1 — W Z ZI- u.t W O ff ' O H to z 11. 1 0 z sag pt'estet? Yes • decision/Remarks: Matrix color (Munn 11 moist) /a4/Z SaJ Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Mine Epipedou Suifk Odor Aquic Moisunts Regime Reducing Conditions I Gleyed or Low-Chro v C Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size 8r. contrast Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) 4; aria: no Is the sampling point within a wetland? It.) V 7-1- (PO/ z_ Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil structure, etc. profile ( , m a t c h descnigign) yes rCir27 • z II— Ce 00 w (OW U.1 F- u_ u j 0 g u_ to Caf }- Z 1— 0 Z 1— Ul ui • 0 • w O — O 1— w • 0 1— 17: L I 0 1 0 (i) F. 0 I z Projee App lfc ' Invest Do No 'Is the ':Ys the ISi : 7111(4LJI6-q er: a O U s •c#/✓n 9,4 Circumstances exist on the site? to i disturbed (atypical situation)? •potential Problem Area? • yes Indicator Date: ,--, C oun t y: k' State: 1.009 STIR: Community ID: Tragsect ID: Plot BD: sr#, Species ( p / . 4;, 6 •`• -f? Stratum •■■-` no no 41 9 Dominant Plant •!8 Indicator 1 VEIT?ION Domi4nt Plant Species Stratum r i324LeA 011 tC/716k i � :HYDRIDPBYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: a 1% of ••. • ..•tas OBL. FACW. & FAC: Q Clack indicators that apply & explain !Re knowledge of plant communities ' Thysioibgi tl or reproductive adaptations 'Tee. .• Literature below: Wetland plant list (nat'l or re Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER •ify g etation present? : Ration a decision/Remarks: �• i I { 1 s it the :. • g season? yes al . : ater Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes Drift Lines: es no Draina:e Patterns: es no -Dept. •• us ' °bepth Oospds • • ndation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) hannels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no •o water in pit: ' _ inches PAC Neutral: yes no Water stained Leaves: yes no •. , .. — soil: inches 'Check .• !Runatn, i ''� at apply & explain below: or gage data: Other: .. Other. _ hid: ... r_.._ , !li►letisnd • • • logy present? yes 'Rationale f.r denial on/Remarics: f 1 DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Deiineadon Manual or 1989 Co • s Wetland DelineQtion Manual) • Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (Ivltmsell (Munsell moist) moist)_ — Mottle abundance size & contrast Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? Map Unit Name (Sams Phase) Taxtino Y1subgroup) Sdf Indicators: (check all that apply) Iiistoaol I Histic Epipedon „__. Sulfidic Odor _j_,... Aquic Moisture Regime I ,._, Reducing Conditions Q . ed or Low- Ciaroma se4lt present? yes or decision/Remarhs: arks: /) ,4 D0+2 /G To / L Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? a.zzeL Drawing of soil profile (match description) 4 • 1.1- Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks)_ 0 7 z Q = z '~ w ee 6 l 0 00 to LLI J CO W Q I W Z ,- o Z I- w o U �_ ci W I r- W� U= z Projectt/Si'te: Appr,.. laves ► Do N•' Is the Is the I�• ' O k /t - j t/ewner: Z) vs _t j s : nh✓ :� Circumstances exist on the site? no ice •' gnificantly disrurbod (atypical situation)? 'L no - a • •tential Problem Area? es o p • t '.lent Species Stratum Indica Dominant Plant , 1--- -_.__l Daze: /4/' County: ,74 State: z Jv9 S/T/R: ___ Community ID: Traasect ID: Plot ID: • S•ecies Stratum Indicator ,J /. / tie. f RYD •PflTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of • • inhigncs OBL, FACW, & PAC: �J - 'Check indicators that apply & explain below: Regi knowledge of plait communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regiortal) OTTER Pbysia Baal or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations a� „ 1Ger3ture Wetland Plant Data Base Hydro h Sda. • vegetation present? yes • docieion/Remarks: 4 ,e Y a it the! • in season? yes • 8 ued . Water Marks: es no Sediment De•oshs: es no Drift Lines: es no Drama_e Patterns: es no Dept. 0 iii adation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels tl2 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no bepth ti f e water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no r • . soil: inches Check . it apply & explain below: $tr+eam, • or gage data: Other: ' �� ... s;1, : s: • Ii.: Other: �.. , . - - "Weden logy present? yes no • a f•r deciaioa/Remarks: . DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ..... ^.M1?iK :L 5r °vi._ i ,I &'iH ' «. z Q II- 00 0 w= F— N� U 0 6 LL Q d �W Z WI- W 0 ON 0 I— u3 w 2 tL O w z U= O� z - • •• • •• .•-. • don Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell moist A Indileaters: (check all that apply) Histosoi Histic Epipedun Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime I Reducing Conditionv I G or Low-Chro C • ars sods present? yes no fter decision/Remarks: (*de) Olden present? • iptisOnt? Mottle oblors Mottle abundance Text of sod (Munsell size & contrast structare, etc. profile moi (mgtoh descriptice yes Yes BO no ma Is the sampling point within a wetland? Drainage Class /27,etel Field observations confirm Yes d 9 Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils --Listed on Local Hydric Soils List - , Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex lain in remarks ,•■•••••••••••••■••••••■■••■•■•■•■ ; ,111•111■11.6.0.••••••••••••■■100 otifta yes no t �1{ 1t ir tt fj • 6,0 I. .r s�, i,&1c =NM etC�) 8 1 iwner: L) s: S • cies g season? Circumstances exist once side? gniftcantly disturbed (atypical situation)? .. to tial Problem '? PHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ts OBL, FACW, & FAQ: s that apply it explain below: 4wledge of plant co*tmt Cities or reproductive adaptations vegetation present? deci ion/Remerks: ye don: • inches !water in pit: ___. , inches soil: apply c& explain belowt fo data: • or present? ye* decision/Remarks: Stratum Other es no no Indicator Dominant Plant Species Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base Water Marks: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes nQ FAC Neutral: yes no Other. Daze: 2 t / / County: / AD 4 s tate: 14l VT/It: Couununity rot j s i c .5 Transept ID: Plot ID: Sediment Deposits:yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water-stained Leaves: OTER yes nak DATA FORM I Rodtine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1981 Co Wetland Delineation Manual tratum Indicator i i • fS • z Q = z 00 CD 0 CD ILI J I-- NLL. w LLQ _ cl z � W ui 0 O N O F-- W W t— tL O w z 0~ z Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil structure, etc. profile (mach desc> Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other explain in remarks) a _I- z w w D 0 co o J = H lL w < co = I• z �. I- 0 z F- U O - c] I— W I- 9-- O w z o z ' V ;�utiist�:35:9i� SRa dxtzt ' d Water Marks: es no Sedi t D Draina_e Patterns: es no Water - stained Leaves: DriftLines: es no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no 1AC Neutral: yes no tivinert cies Stratut C VEGETATION II/MCATORS: is OBI., FACW, $I C: V 'v �; •, that apply & explain blow: evoledge of plant c7ommt cities or reproductive adaptations mire :..r ' lo$y present? yaa ! decMon/Rernarks: Indicator Dominant Plant 9 ' ies Stratum Indicator -A DATA FORM I Rotktine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1907 Co tps Wetland Delineation Manual 4. I, ' Z Q = Z : J U to ui J = I-- Nu_ w 0 g Q tn= = a I- In Z = I- 0 Z �— w w U 0 O N O H w U. 0 w Z = 0~ Z tub Name & Pha e) Matrix Cold- Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, (Munsell (MmseU! size dt contrast structure, etc. rooks mobst /o/rz# ( isTik , s1 42 i R!. ti 3451/4 e. G[ i H F,v i:::+F "::i'e` irsr•i;a pmt? ye decision/Remarks: Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sods • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (explain in remarks Ls the sampling point yes within a wetland? /--NJ / 2 / Drainage Class .,2/4 Field observations confirm Yes rna • • d type? .1 z < • w c4 2 00 co III J N LL W co = z = t- o z � ui 0 0 O I-- t1J • W Lt. w 0 z Water Marks: es no Sediment De•osits: es n Draina_e Patterns: es nes Local Soil Survey: yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: iCircun] stances exist on the Ott? ioe significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? { . • ntial Problem Areai? t Soecies g season? yes on: inches Stratum Indicator County: ■ ( 4J !� State: 4<b S/T/R: no Community ID: a.., no Transect II7: CS up Plot ID: Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 19,7 Cat`ps Wetland Delineation Manual] ik Z 1- w tr 2 00 0 w W CO w to 2 = d -. Z F Z � • 0 0 O - O H W W ▪ O .Z W U 0 Z rDeptt (it& • t s) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moiil Mottle colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size Bt contrast Texture, e, concretions, structure, etc. 0 . cite 10/2 ----�- • .._.�. �f 'i�- i �.. ,. 5 — lei ;41 _� Ai/ x, ituo &id:2K .. cl'Ni� ' ' 4 d ry�• Q'S` '/,. tft Di ld rr - .���r c...2/ - - ;1 ��w�r� { I Map Unit Name (Ser s dr Phase) Field observations confirm Yes n Said IndlCators: (check all that apply) I Hi stic Epipedon ,,..L . Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions d or Low- Chromma C seas present? yes fldr decision/Remarks: arks: (circle) vegetation present? ,� no present? Drawing of soil profile (mktch descrip) Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sots • _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other exeiain in remarks) Is the sampling point within a wetland? yes (no / z Q I • = Z 6 '~ w 00 w W • 0 a CO z � w Z Z O W uj O O co O — O H I 0 W W 0 w z O ~ z 14 6 : 1 • t S . cies Stratus vegetation present? deei*ion/Rem k2: water in pis; 1`_(L/ inches Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies at_ chleur FICJ Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base tratum Indicator o$y present? vr� decision/Remarks: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (1*Al State Wetland Ddineation Manual or 1 ' Co • . s Wetland 'Dellneadon Manual) eKraav:+n!tsa?41 Water Marks: _+es no Sediment Deposits: yes nd Drift Lines: yes no D rain ge Pat terns: yes nti Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. es no PAC Neutral: yes no • Water - stained Leaves: yes Rd. z .1-Z w • 2 J U O 0 CO 0 co w J H w • 0 g a cn 2 Z {- 0 Z F- W O c o O — O H W H r- lL O .. Z W U O ~ z ( ! Mp1unit name (Serbs & Phase) sub I.. •u• Tax II pdri Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Histic Epipedon _ � .,,.,, Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime I _, Reducing Conditions _ J Gleyed or Low -hroma Colors 1Hydrts soils present? yes illation's for decision/Remarics: kati (crxvle) vegeation present? present? • logy present? AEI Yes Yes ;• Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) Is the sampling point yes no ,1 within a wetland? Z/2/. J7 :444.4. f tWi, { • • Prot" (inch's) ohs Horizon a ption / U Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes ma.. d re? Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (Munsell (Munsell size 8c contrast structure, etc. profile moist moist (match descriprionl ( /24-a x 672-FSt /r) J J • Q = z ~ w re 2 JU 00 CO LLI J E- U) u_ w u_ =d W Z = h 0 Z o • - O -- wW I LL'O U= O ~ z - DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or • 1987 Co •s Wetland Delineation Manual) Projedt/SEte: Appi an Tj owner. e 4 V S / 474S4Ei Date: j to„ l , 0 / County: ! 6 , ..tb as State: lt./,7 Do N. .. Is the -rte Is the -- Circumstances exist on the site? no significandy disturbed (atypical situation)? no a potential Problem Area? • yes J Community ID : Ac3 Traasect ID: Plot ID: Y ,fit 25 D • . ant _ — i Plant S • cies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 24)2 sp ,--- } IV /3LeX IlAp s1-. Mcz2 , HYD 1% of d 1 PI YTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: OBL. FACW, de MC: �J 72 ' �• . Check !Regi tll ii dicators that apply 8t explain below: wledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nail or regional) OTHER , iPhysin4ogttal or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations lTeehniial lriterature Wetland Plant Data Base __,_,J :Hydro hytic vegetation present? Or no IRuiotu le f r decision/Remarks: 4 it the :' • • ing season? yes no ;fated ; Water Marks: yes no _. Sediment Deposits: `es no_ Drift Lines: yes no Drain P atterns: yes no Pept. a! in ndation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no pepth f e water in pie tri inches ' t • soil: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Check .' . at apply & explain below: • tteam,1 or gage data; .,–:.t. • . ..ohs: _ Other: Other: etiand Radiotta.e hydrology present? yes , o for decision/Remarks: ts,4 4 z ~ w re UO co 0 to r co lL w u. Q -d = r z f.. H O w • ~ O • N 0 I— w • 0 tL w z O~ z t : MaplUn:t Name (Series & Phase) Taxonomy sub u ) ;H Hydrie 1w Deacxl ' lion Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors (Munsell (MunselI moist) moist) /W ;2 3, /61o Hydrii Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) 1 ' Histosol Histic Epipedon �^ SulYidic Odor T Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions GI ed or Low- Chronla C Hydra sot a present? yes no Rationele fpr decision/Remarks: f letggi (circle) . ..;�; c vegetation present? r i . present? drolo_) •resent? `7 Yes es no 0 Mottle abundance size & contrast Is the sampling point within a wetland? Drainage Class Texture, concretions, structure, etc. j/ � yes Field observations confirm Yes ( ( P mappe type? Drawing of soil profile (match descrip?igit Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (ex •lain in remarks) 7L z z w 00 co 0 wF. N LL. w 0 L Q. = cl � w Z 0 W I-. U co 0— ca w F- w U2 0 z rrojecv5 - • ) V ,' - Ai Applit n • er: €7 ,D U Inver ` ' ' r(s): eit/ Daterr f l� f/0 / County: Al A25 State: 4/09 S/I'/R: Do N. s. Circumstances exist on the site? Is the n to ' . • 'ficandy disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the.drea "potential Problem Area? — no no ' es Ad Indicator Dominant Plant Community ID: er--.c - 44•vt. Transect ID: 2? Indicator Plot ID: / .. Species Stratum . :9 i . ON Do ' • c Olaat Species Stratum 4 T.70 t 1 'a it the growing season? yes no Water Marks: yes no i ltid Pita.4-cA-c- •r— F. F/f/Z-- Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no _ pt. inu ndation: inches Depth 4 ftto water in pit: inches •••, • saturated: soil: _ _ inches • i Water- stained Leaves: yes no Cheek .E. apply & explain below: 9tresm. . IT.or gage data: Other: +Mw • •h : Other: W • • • hydrology `cation far i r 1 present? yes o decision/Remarks: HYDROF : C VEGETATION INDICATORS: 96 of • -i is OBI., FACW, & FAC: 9.0 O i is owledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'I or re OTHER Pahyti • • gic' .al r?Team •- Literature or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations _ Wetland Plant Dana lase •1Iydreohptk *ado* .i ! : for vegetation present? - no decision/Remarks: • OGY ' t 1 'a it the growing season? yes no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no _ F. Drift tines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no _ pt. inu ndation: inches Depth 4 ftto water in pit: inches •••, • saturated: soil: _ _ inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no Cheek .E. apply & explain below: 9tresm. . IT.or gage data: Other: +Mw • •h : Other: W • • • hydrology `cation far i r 1 present? yes o decision/Remarks: r. DATA FORM I Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 19$7 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) J Hydrii Soin Indicator!: (check all that apply) I :.,.1.,.._ Histosol L • j __f L__ _ Histic Epipedon f ;. ; Sulfidic Odor Agtuc Moisture Regime .; ; ! _._ Reducing Conditions L.. Gleyed orLow- Chroma Co Map(Ut Name Phase) sub Description Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist /€ /0 3 42 4 5456- soils present? yes for decision/Remarks: (circle) vegetation present? Hydric present? 1WVedand hydrology present? INUatioserialltersartwe Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil (Munsell size St contrast structure, etc. profile moist (match descrifltiori) /sefxS,s cif Is the sampling point within a wetland? z <A (Yo / ' Drainage Cass aii4 Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? /'7/X "'re fs't cc AC Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ,Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) yes . L �'i M i.," •.; ii i :, 9i. ° Y1.��1Y'.Xs^::�,J ° .dl;Y� ^�?d s.�. i i,��';� .:T�r�,. ,r.,,: ;,t #r,:z �.�; -a' ; <., ti 4�i',�c.. -d, .�Y•'. , v.;r� 3t. z = Ce w 6 00 W = w g Q CD =d z 1 � z i-- w W U ci O - ca w F- - . w z w U = O ~ z File: L01-0072 35mm Drawing #2-8 • r'-e?...0,4 • ' , 4 z 11- z 0 I 00 w . • LLI W • LL, 'Li 0 g 7-1 • <C. cy. I— III Z I— 0' Z I- LL' 2 D. O co, 0 O I-- WLU. 0 LI 0" ▪ Z • U): 0 O .