Loading...
3rd Party Wetland Delineation Review.pdfLANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES TECHNICALMEMORANDUM ENVIRONMENTAL , GEOTECHMCAL , NAR R41 RESOURCES TO: Michael Clugston, AICP, City of Edmonds FROM: Steven Quarterman V DATE: October 20, 2010 017 2 2 2010 RE: THIRD PARTY WETLAND DELINEATION REVIEW 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds (City) Planning Official has determined that a Critical Area (i.e., wetland and associated buffer) may exist on or near 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington (the subject properties) pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.40. The determination of a Critical Area on the subject properties is, in part, based on a Critical Areas -Wetlands report submitted by the Proponent dated March 4, 2010 (Hart Crowser 2010a). In this report, an approximate 0.13 acre wetland was delineated on the subject properties. The Proponent subsequently submitted a July 2, 2010 addendum to the March 4, 2010 Critical Areas -Wetlands report (Hart Crowser 2010b) that contradicted the first report, denying the presence of an identified wetland at the subject properties. This technical memorandum was prepared to assist the City with critical area review of the subject properties. Landau Associates has reviewed the wetland reports submitted to the City by the Proponent, and conducted an onsite field review of site conditions. A summary of the wetland documentation and site review are included below. DOCUMENTATION REVIEW SUMMARY Upon review of the materials. provided by the Proponent, Landau Associates identified the following: 1. The July 2, 2010 updated wetland report contained limited groundwater data and did not include wetland/upland sampling data sheets. Page 3 of the update discusses observations of hydric soils in data pits associated with hydrology monitoring. It does not appear that wetland data forms are available documenting conditions for each pit. Data forms are useful in classifying areas as wetland or upland. 2. Hydric soils are identified in data plot DP-1 of the March 4, 2010 wetland report as a depleted matrix, however, the soil identified in the data plot does not meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) definition of a "depleted matrix." The USACE definition of depleted matrix (USACE 2008) generally includes a soil matrix value of 4 or more within the upper 6 to 10 inches. Based on the March 4, 2010 report, a soil matrix value of 2 is identified in the upper 6 to 10 inches of data plot DP-1. 130 2nd Avenue South ® Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com The soil in data plot DP-1 appears to meet the Ecology definition of a low chroma matrix where the low chroma matrix occurs in the horizon immediately below the A -horizon or 10 inches (whichever is shallower). The A -horizon of data plot DP-1 appears to extend to 11 inches below ground surface (BGS) and meets the definition of a low chroma matrix from 10 to 11 inches BGS; the soil below the A -layer extending from 11 inches to 17 inches BGS does not satisfy the hydric soils parameter. This circumstance indicates that surface water is the likely prevailing hydrologic source to the subject properties. 3. Page 3 of the July 2, 2010 updated wetland report discusses the presence of a concrete foundation onsite. It is Landau Associates' understanding that development, and any associated permitting, occurred prior to annexation by the City. Permitting information/documentation available for previous development on the site may include discussion of wetland presence or absence on site. 4. Ecology delineation guidance (Ecology 1997) specifies evaluation of wetland hydrology criteria in the context of the growing season. In summary, the manual states "...it is important to use sound professional judgment based on careful observation to determine if the growing season is in progress... Basically, if the predominant plants of the area in question are growing, it is the growing season." Photograph 1 and 4 of the March 4, 2010 wetland report show potential new growth (new leaves) on shrubs. However, a determination was not made that the delineation was conducted during the growing season. The field visit for the March 4, 2010 wetland report was conducted on December 2, 2009 and this time in the season is typically not the growing season. 5. From available information, it appears that the potential wetland may be an unintentional result of construction of an infiltration pipe (estimated construction in 2006) associated with 228t" Street SW. Because the pipe was disconnected in February 2010, it may be too soon to determine if the pipe was the sole source of hydrology to the potential wetland in the absence of information on pre-existing conditions. FIELD FINDINGS Landau Associates biologist Steven Quarterman conducted a site visit on October 4, 2010 to review the subject properties and hydrology data pits recorded by the Proponents' consultant, as presented in the July 2, 2010 updated wetland report. All four hydrology data pit locations (H-1 to H-4) as identified in the July 2, 2010 updated wetland report (see attached Figure 2) were located and resampled in accordance with the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), the USACE Regional Guidance letter on the 1987 Manual (USACE 1994), the USACE Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western. Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2008) and the Ecology Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Both USACE and Ecology outline a three -parameter approach to determine the presence or absence of wetlands that requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology (Table 1). Following this method, an area is determined to be wetland if all of the following three parameters are satisfied (also see Table 1): 10/20/10 PA074\167\FileRoom\R\Wetland Delineation TM.doc 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES • The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic • Soils are hydric • Wetland hydrology is present. Our field investigation occurred within the growing season, during a period of "normal" precipitation (see attached Hydrology Tool for Wetland Determination data form). The subject properties are located in a topographic depression, and likely receive runoff from adjacent properties. It is our understanding that the City has disconnected and sealed an infiltration overflow pipe that previously drained to the property. Landau Associates recorded wetland sampling points adjacent to the hydrology data pits conducted by Hart Crowser to avoid investigation of areas disturbed as a result of previous investigations. All four sampling points meet the definition of upland (see attached data forms and photographs) and are summarized below: • Sampling Point SP-1 (H-1): Does not satisfy any of the three mandatory wetland parameters. • Sampling Point SP-2 (H-2): Does not satisfy any of the three mandatory wetland parameters. • Sampling Point SP-3 (H-3): Satisfies the hydrophytic vegetation parameter, but not the remaining two mandatory wetland parameters. • Sampling Point SP-4 (H-4): Does not satisfy any of the three mandatory wetland parameters. At the time of the investigation, the upper soil surface was generally moist, but not saturated. Channelization of storm drainage was observed on the property, but lacked water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits and drainage patterns typical of inundation or normal flow. The upper soil is a gravelly loam, and the underlying layer is a well drained gravelly loamy sand. While in proximity to one another, the differences in soils noted by Landau Associates at sampling point SP-1 and the Proponents consultant at Data plot DP-1 may be due to variations in soil depths across the subject properties and quality of daylight at the time of the respective site visits. Vegetation within the vicinity of the sampling points is generally facultative (i.e., equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands, refer to Table 1) or tending toward upland conditions. CONCLUSION The subject properties are in a topographic depression that appears to support moist, but not saturated, upland soils capable of supporting facultative (i.e., hydrophytic) vegetation and vegetation tending toward upland conditions. Landau Associates' investigation of the hydrology data plots revealed 10/20/10 PA074\167\FileRoom\R\Wetland Delineation TM.doc 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES upland conditions on the property. In conclusion, based on the results of our October 4, 2010 site investigation, Landau Associates concurs with the findings contained in the July 2, 2010 updated wetland report that a wetland is not present on the subject properties. SJQ/rgm Attachments: Table 1 Figure 2 Hydrology Tool for Wetland Determination data form Sampling Point Data Forms Photographs REFERENCES Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. March. Hart Crowser. 2010a. Critical Areas Report — Wetlands; 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way; Edmonds Washington. March 4. Edmonds, WA. Hart Crowser. 2010b. Addendum to Critical Areas Report — Wetlands; 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way; Edmonds Washington. July 2. Edmonds, WA. USACE. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR708-13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi. April. USACE. 1994. Washington Regional Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. May 23. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. March. 10/20/10 PA074\167\FileRoom\R\Wet1and Delineation TM.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 .- - t d: E m yEm oo ro d o^ ado?mEm n'fl .mt"3;?ao3 ;oNdmm Eallo ...a c m a " oo RWw o:c m mmm ipaE �o Em E� d 'aao o co o y'o 'a A, ro m >+rn m d m¢ H N 3 c Edam mm c �a_,aamo. Lo < y'S'�' pEmN no w ;CN7o ctm3 E m 3oy 's c- ''m3�s,3a 'm a'>U ,m�n�E5 minmiII `m �cW � N 'io Cyo �m Iv-ca° I�°75 m�jp ;c m im.aro 9 a E� -W _ cc a >' ai wmo.o y0 da }��aN V =1. '.'Q�N.mC' C --'�q aRo E«o�z a c o m �y m s;= L m m- o- - c�R 2 No ro a o m mac° oaa mmo 9m c d c C m Eg ;:o mm�`m° 9 0 op�c E°�d�m `off 'mac imm >m� Im o c� NR ai me mo : o ,mo m;v-.g" .mcw.mm a. dorm o�m° 3 O o o �mo9 :o �o °`'am ma w� ..��o;p- aa� jc�i ct9ar° ciEo55n 1,¢�mawo5L 'O o12 molq °LL maw 'Imm` Iv�m-m 0-'m m3R Io yo O n d mp ° m L a o E .d m `my N c o d o LU - IL `mmN E2 m J4 m_lo- gym`>Uamoo a o m j ti o :L o m o ovpi m E a_ ¢aiE3R mm "` �H2 O U.m�u o- o E mCL ro Is o m a- ;U a m 3 a „39.QE !c am m Ncn°pas �¢m°cE xm�Rm ''!a`_3 o.o m2o ,a ° LU m m RE m- E a m imp •� a E m C m = =CC A p 6 m a_ N a �adiL IL os m m- ! m v 1 c i� w = a 2 E !h N o !m R om tE djOm (mOo _ R'R� mm= INom I`o � > 's mm- 9 C aaic�m .cmmm LL O E m _ a aoa mom !`E� E d 5EU=`0 d a o90 E m� .d im- o:a ;boo ;a = V o�E o mm o m."mc �a a Sco 3��>.0 mma 'E "pm aroi -oo - R U a -mmTEm 3� a "Rmm dmLLm o.o 33= !am�;m m :o �a mcmi ° -moN D' °,°-�' 'yr3 'a °'3m Q1m mo`m ,. �.m° m did iU¢ =mc m Ev�E am 30E d m Eoyo -moZ m ad m°moo N_� m�N aOLLLL� m�s:R m°,c�pm Oac C� i.° 3mro m ro i3 mo p3m _ 6 N IQ !g i- N(n (1lL��o'iq 8 Ny tJ M`10130 A c"MrIll ullf, t Chapter19 Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination Figure 19-7 Rainfall documentation worksheet Date:/ DJ Weather station: J County: Soil name: Photo date: 1st prior month* 2nd prior month* 3rd prior month* Conclusions: Rainfall Documentation (use with photographs) Landowner: State: f jv Growing season: Long-term rainfall records Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook Tract no.: Month 3 yrs, in 10 less than Normal 3 yrs. in 10 more than 60 Rain falln/ormal Condition dry, wet, Condition value Month weight value Product of previous two columns /. % 2. a7 D, ; :i� 3.)� vv t� —j 3 * Compared to photo date Stun 1 Note: If sum is Condition value: 6-9 then prior period has been Dry =I drier than normal Normal =2 10 - 14 then prior period has been Wet =3 normal 15 - 18 then prior period has been wetter than normal / ?7 �r�,,�,t��i<_ i7 `_ �;•,� �;:?. ' �., ,jilt}�� �� _�_. u 19-26 (210-vi-EFH, August 1997) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 9511& 9513 Edmonds Way City/County: Edmonds/ Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/4/10 Applicant/Owner: Whitworth Land State: WA Sampling Point: SP-1 (H-1) Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: S36, T27N R3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainage bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coast (LRR A) Lat: 47' 47' 31" Long: 122' 21' 35" Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Urban Land/ Everett gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 5 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Rubus discolor 40 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus spectabilis 10 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species 15 x 3 = 45 50 = Total Cover FACU species 40 x 4 = 160 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Pteridium agullinum 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 55 (A) 205 (B) 2. Geranium robertanium T N NI 3. Convolvulus arvensis 10 Y NI Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ❑ Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 7 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1' Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No JZ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 Gravelly loam 8-16 10YR 5/4 100 Gravelly sand 16+ Refusal Too gravelly to dig 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ .Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (810) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface is moist but not saturated. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 9511 & 9513 Edmonds Way City/County: Edmonds/ Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/4/10 Applicant/Owner: Whitworth Land State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2 (H-2) Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: S36, T27N, R3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainage bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coast (LRR A) Lat: 47' 47' 31" Long: 122' 21' 35" Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Urban Land/ Everett gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Upland _ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Sample plot is located within concrete pad shown on project figure. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 30 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Rubus discolor 75 Y FACU 2. Malus fusca 5 N FACW 3. Oemleria cerasiiformis 5 N FACU 4. Sorbus aucuparia 5 N NI 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 5 Y FACU 2. Geranium robertanium 20 Y NI 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Berries present on Rubus discolor 25 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species 5 x 2 = 10 FAC species 30 x 3 = 90 FACU species 85 x 4 = 340 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 120 (A) 440 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ❑ Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No aucuparia and Geranium robertanium flowering at time of US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Gravelly loam 6-9 10YR 5/4 100 Gravelly loamy sand 9+ Refusal Too gravelly to dig 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 9511& 9513 Edmonds Way City/County: Edmonds/ Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/4/10 Applicant/Owner: Whitworth Land State: WA Sampling Point: SP-3 (H-3) Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: S36 T27N, R3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainage bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coast (LRR A) Lat: 47' 47' 31" Long: 122' 21' 35" Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Urban Land/ Everett gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 10 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2' Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 10 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 90 Y FAC+ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 90 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Rubus discolor 5 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Geranium robertanium 5 Y NI 3. Geum macrophyllum 5 Y FACW- Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_7 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ® Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ Prevalence Index is !-3.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 15 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-15 10YR 312 100 Gravelly loam Fill present in plot (brick) 15-19 10YR 4/3 100 Gravelly loamy sand 19+ Refusal Too gravelly to dig 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 21 ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ElRecent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED includes capillary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface is moist but not saturated. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 9511& 9513 Edmonds Way City/County: Edmonds/ Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/4/10 Applicant/Owner: Whitworth Land State: WA Sampling Point: SP-4 (H-4) Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: S36 T27N R3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainage bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coast (LRR A) Lat: 47' 47' 31" Long: 122° 21' 35" Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Urban Land/ Everett gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20—ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 70 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2' Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 70 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Rubus discolor 50 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Buddlela davidii 50 Y NI Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5• FAC species 70 x 3 = 210 100 = Total Cover FACU species 50 x 4 = 200 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Geranium robertanium 20 Y NI Column Totals: 120 (A) 410 (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_4 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ Prevalence Index is _<3.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 611011>t Sampling Point: SP-4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Gravelly loam 6-15 10YR 5/4 100 Gravelly loamy sand 15+ Refusal Too gravelly to dig 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ . Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 a> c c aS N N a_ C O n N 0- E co U) N cz j O U) C O can E M a W CYi U) LO = O E T -6 L0 W� 4 CL cc 0 U) 0) 0 0 (L (1) U) a— U) CL E cis U) 4 Ira I E U) du 0 Cf)