CANOD.pdfCity of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
ritical Area F171—e#-
Site
ile#:
Site Location: 3 4 �- S�
Project Description:
Owner:
Permit Number:
� 7d ► h 1
Parcel Number:
S
D
❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above.
1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer.
2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.020, and/or
23.80.040.
3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.
❑ Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
ritical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or, a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is requiredry A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. _� Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project m described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23,40, 10,0, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations, Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
Notice on Title. Critical area notice on title recorded under AFN 7-0 l -7
M
I
S
Reviewer Signature Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny to development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area rega lat ons may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 11/29/2016
SHANNON �LSONJ.
om
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
February 16, 2017
Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District No. 15
20420 681h Avenue West
Lynnwood, WA 98036
RE: RESPONSE TO PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PERMIT #BLD20161599,
NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT, 9300 236T11 STREET SW,
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Wilton:
This letter presents our response to comments provided by the City of Edmonds Development
Services Department in their letter dated February 3, 2017. The reviewer requested that we
describe any impact to the slope west of the track and whether any mitigation will be needed for
construction in that area.
Currently, the slope to the west of the track and field (west slope) extends vertically down to the
west approximately 30 to 40 feet at grades of 20 to 30 percent. It is densely wooded with mature
trees and understory vegetation. Our reconnaissance of the west slope did not reveal any
evidence of slope instability. Wetlands have been mapped along the west slope (Plan Sheet
G-003) and are described within the Revised Wetland and Stream Delineation Report submitted
on August 4, 2016. The wetlands within this area are described as being supported primarily
from observed groundwater seeps. The existing stormwater drainage system within the track and
field area discharges water onto the slope.
The project design plans provided to us indicate there will be no significant construction on the
slope or at the top of the slope. The slope will be protected from runoff and sedimentation
during construction using a system of drainage swales, temporary stormwater
collection/treatment, erosion -control fencing and a chain link fence installed along the top of
slope.
Improvements to the track and field stormwater drainage system will include abandoning the
existing discharge pipes and replacing them with a system that conveys water away from the
400 NORTH 34TH STREET, SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103-6636
206-632-8020 FAX: 206-695-6777
www.shannonwilson.com
21-1-22082-004
Ms. Taine Wilton SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
Edmonds School District No. 15
February 16, 2017
Page 2 of 2
slope. The proposed construction within the track and field area will not impose additional
surcharges to the slope as no additional soils will be placed along the top of slope. In our
opinion, the west slope is currently in a stable condition and no mitigation measures are required
to maintain stability during or after construction.
If you have any questions regarding the findings presented herein, please contact me at
(206) 695-6875.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Martin W. Page, PE, LEG
Vice President
Geotechnical Engineer
KJW:MWP/kjw
21-1-22082-004-LlhvpAkn 21-1-22082-004
Geotechnical Engineering Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
9300236 th Street SW
Edmonds, Washington
October 31, 2016
Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value.
Since 1954.
Submitted To:
Ms. Taine Wilton
Oli1pC 10 R S C 0 Edmonds School District #15
2042068 th Avenue West
y� Lynnwood, Washington 98036
By:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
RECEIVED400 N 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98103
,.) 2016
21-1-22082-004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SHANNON WILSON, INC.
Page
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... ....... ........ ........ ........ ..............................1
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS.....................................................,.. ,..,.,...,,,.,.,,., .,...,,,.,,.,.,,.,...,,.....,....2
2.1 Regional Geology.......................................................... ..,.,.... , ..,,.,., 2
2.2 Regional Seismicity....................................................................................................2
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION.... ,,. ..,,,,. ,,. ,,.., ....__ ..... ...........................3
4.0 FIELD INFILTRATION TESTING, .......,. „.... .,...... ....... ., .......,............,...,...,..4
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING .......... —...................................... ............M., .. ,.,....,..,..,..,....5
6,0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....... ..... ....... ... ........ .... .......... ...5
....... ....... .... ........ ..... ........... .... .
6.1 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions...................................................................5
6.1.1 Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Building..............................................5
6.1.2 Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Parking Lots and Driveways...............6
6.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions ........................................... ..,,..,.. ..,,,... ...,..., ,..,.,...,6
7.0 ENGINEERING STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................6
7.1 General .................................. ........................... ......... .................. .....................6
7.2 Foundation Design............................................................... ............ ................ .......... 7
7.3 Seismic Design..............................................................
7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls.............................................................8
7.5 Lateral Resistance ......................................... ..... _,..... ..,,....... ....... ,.,....,,..,................. 9
7.6 Slope Stability............................................................... ...,., ,..,..,,, ...........,..........9
7.7 Pavement Design..........................................................___.,....,.,.,....,,,,...,,.,,....,10
7.7.1 Traffic Load ................................. ................. ...........,................. ,,,,.,,,,10
7.7.2 Subgrade Conditions..................................................................................10
7.8 Non -Porous Pavement Section Recommendations..................................................10
7.9 Porous Pavement Section Recommendations..........................................................11
7.9.1 Grass Grid Pavers .......................____ .. ........ ................., ......,.. .........11
7.9.2 Pervious Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and Concrete......................................11
7.10 Pawei cut Sect as Near Steep Sl?e.12
7.11 Frost $e,t „ n; �c a�"" . ................ ..........12
��..
q
8.0 G�EOTECHN1 A�a �� .... ........
VOR"ItE '� O� ��A;".................13
8.1 Earth rk �, �s fit o ......... ,. .................13
8.2 Pervious Pavement Materials........... ................... .............. ........ ,., ,.,,_..,14
8.3 Construction and Maintenance Considerations for Pervious Pavement ,,..,,„„.,,.,,..,14
8.4 Temporary and Permanent Excavation Slopes.........................................................15
8.5 Erosion Control ....................................................,.,,,..,,,,,..... „ ........ ...,........... ,,..16
21-1-22082-004-R1fdocx/wp/Bm
1
21-1-22082-004
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
Page
8.6 Construction Drainage.............................................................................................16
8.7 Subsurface Drainage ... ............ .................. .................. ....................... ..............16
8.8 Utilities .......................................... ., ....,.... ..,..,............................................... ,......16
8.9 Wet Weather Earthwork...........................................................................................17
8.10 Plans Review and Construction Observation ....................... ..........-- ........ —..,,..--18
9.0 LIMITATIONS .............................. ...... .......................................... .........., ........, ,..,.... ,.18
10.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................. .... ... .............— ...20
TABLES
1 Recommended Minimum Parking Lot and Driveway Section Thicknesses .........11
2 Recommended Minimum Porous Pavement Section Thicknesses ........................11
3 Imported Backfill Specifications Based on 2016 Washington State
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications.........................................13
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site and Exploration Plan
3 Typical Rockery Detail
4 Measured Water Level, Pilot Infiltration Test, Test Pit PIT -1
5 Measured Water Level, Pilot Infiltration Test, Test Pit PIT -2
6 Measured Water Level, Pilot Infiltration Test, Test Pit PIT -3
APPENDICES
A Subsurface Explorations
B Laboratory Test Results
C Analytical Laboratory Test Results
D Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
21-1-22082-004-R1f.docx/wp/Um
11
21-1-22082-004
SIM4NON WILSON, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT
9300236 T11 STREET SW
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Edmonds School District No. 15 plans to construct a new Madrona K-8 School on the south
side of the property at 9300 236' Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in the Vicinity
Map (Figure 1). The property contains the existing Madrona K-8 School and is bounded by
236th Street to the north, residential developments on the east and south sides, and the former
Woodway Elementary School on the west. The site has a number of distinct surface features
including a parking lot on the northwest side, track and large open field area on the southwest
side, and a baseball field on the southeast side. There is a densely wooded ravine area along the
east side of the property and a densely wooded slope on the west side of the property that slopes
down to the former Woodway Elementary School. The purpose of this study is to finalize our
geotechnical recommendations with data from additional subsurface explorations and testing to
aid in the final design of the proposed structure. Geotechnical recommendations were provided
previously in a preliminary geotechnical engineering report submitted on August 6, 2015.
Our scope of services for the design phase included drilling and sampling 12 geotechnical
borings and excavating 5 test pits. However, one of the proposed drilling locations was changed
to a test pit exploration for a total of 11 geotechnical borings and 6 test pits. The proposed
drilling location was changed to a test pit due to the close proximity to subsurface utilities and
access issues. Locations of the subsurface explorations were selected to coincide with the
planned location of the proposed building and associated facilities. Descriptions of the
subsurface exploration activities are discussed further in Section 3.0. The results of our pilot
infiltration testing (PIT) are discussed in Section 4.0.
This report presents updated geotechnical engineering recommendations to incorporate the
additional subsurface information gathered from the new explorations and information provided
by the design team. We have'included recommendations for pavement design and a discussion
of buffer and setback distances when adjacent to steep slopes and other geologic hazard areas.
The results of the soil fertility testing are also provided to aid the design team in evaluating the
suitability of on-site topsoil for use in landscaping.
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/llm 21-1-22082-004
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Regional Geology
AMON 6W11130N,IIID
The site is located in Edmonds, Washington, which is within a region known as the Puget
Lowland. The Puget Lowland is a structural depression bordered by the Olympic and Cascade
Mountain ranges that is generally within about 500 feet of sea level. The geology of the area has
been influenced by repeated cycles of glaciation, which worked to fill the lowland to significant
depths with a complex sequence of glacial and nonglacial deposits. The most recent glacier to
impact the area, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, overrode the area with up to
3,000 feet of ice in some locations. Following the last glaciations, the erosion of some of the
glacially overridden soil deposits, as well as local deposition and human placement of additional
soil deposits, have further complicated the local geology (Troost and Booth, 2008).
The project site itself is situated on a ridge underlain by Quaternary Vashon till (Qvt) that was
observed at relatively shallow depths during the current subsurface investigation. This geologic
unit was found to be a very dense, gray to gray -brown deposit consisting of silty sand with
variable gravel, cobble, and some boulder content. Other explorations performed on the site
(Shannon & Wilson, Inc. [Shannon & Wilson], 2016) encountered deposits of Quaternary
Vashon advanced glacial outwash (Qva) at depths of approximately 40 to 50 feet below ground
surface (bgs). This geologic unit is characterized by dense to very dense sands and gravels with
variable amounts of silt. Qva is typically less compact and more pervious than Qvt. Geologic
maps of the Snohomish County region indicate that the contact between the glacial till and
advanced outwash material is on the slope on the west side of the property. The Qva at the site
may be underlain by pre-Vashon interglacial and glacial soils, predominantly fluvial.
2.2 Regional Seismicity
The Puget Sound Lowland is located in the fore arc of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The
seismicity of the region is largely derived from the subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate beneath
the North American Plate. The convergence of these two plates results in a number of generally
east -west -trending faults, as well as basin and uplift regions (Troost and Booth, 2008). The
seismic hazard of the region comes from three major sources, a major subduction type events,
deep intraplate events (such as the 2001 Nisqually earthquake), and earthquakes due to rupture of
shallow crustal faults.
The site itself is located a reasonable distance from subduction and intraslab sources, and as a
result, the more local, crustal faults are believed to drive the seismic hazard for the site. The
closest known potentially active fault to the site is the South Whidbey Island Fault (SWIF). The
21-1-22082-004-R1 f docx/wp/Um 21-1-22082-004
2
SWIF is a shallow, strike -slip fault that is believed to be capable of producing a magnitude 7.5
event, which could impose significant seismic demands on structures at the site.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Previously, we completed subsurface explorations as a part of a preliminary geotechnical
engineering study to aid in the selection of the proposed building location. Previous explorations
consisting of 16 test pits on the southern half of the property were completed on June 24, 2015.
Logs of the previous subsurface explorations are included in Appendix A.
Recent subsurface explorations consisted of test pits and geotechnical borings completed
between Monday, July 25, 2016, and Friday, July 29, 2016. Holocene Drilling (Holocene),
under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, completed a total of 11 geotechnical borings with the
use of a track -mounted Diedrich D-50 drill rig. Holocene used the hollow -stem auger drilling
method to complete the borings to depths ranging from 15.5 to 16.5 feet bgs. Holocene collected
samples on approximate 2.5 -foot intervals with the use of the Standard Penetration Test. Once
the geotechnical borings were completed, Holocene backfilled the holes with bentonite to within
approximately 1 to 2 feet bgs. Borings that were drilled in the asphalt parking area were patched
with concrete.
Clearcreek Contractors (Clearcreek), under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, completed a total
of six test pits to depths ranging from 4 to 10 feet with the use of a rubber -tired John Deere
310SJ backhoe. Three of the test pits were used to characterize infiltration within the near -
surface soils. Infiltration testing within the near -surface soils is discussed below in Section 4.0.
Following the excavations and testing, Clearcreek backfilled the test pits with the excavated
material and tamped the material down using the excavator bucket in approximately 1 -foot -thick
lifts. Once Clearcreek had completed backfilling the test pits, they rolled the surface for further
compaction and replaced the grass layer where it was possible to salvage.
The explorations were located throughout the site as shown in the Site and Exploration Plan,
Figure 2. Test pits designated with a PIT were the ones in which we performed the in situ
infiltration tectinu/PTTc_ while the tect nits decinnated with a TP were not need fnr in citli
---- -- ---a - ---1 • • ----- ---- ---- r- -- -a--- -- .. ---- -- -- • • --- ___ _ —_-- --- --- ___»
infiltration testing. During the exploration process, the soil and groundwater conditions were
observed by an engineer or a geologist from our office. Soil samples were collected and
transported to our Seattle laboratory for analysis and testing. Logs of the explorations are
presented in Appendix A.
21-1-22082-004-R1 f docx/wp/Ilm 21-1-22082-004
3
S511 MMON MILSON, IING
The geotechnical boring and test pit locations provided in Figure 2 are approximate, being based
on hand measurements from site features, and surface elevations shown in the logs are estimated
from a topographic survey of the site prepared by PACE Engineers, Inc.
4.0 FIELD INFILTRATION TESTING
We performed small-scale PITs within three of the six test pits excavated during the current
subsurface explorations. The PIT test pits were designated as PIT -1 through PIT -3, and the
locations are shown in the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. All three of the infiltration tests
were performed on July 28, 2016. These test pits were over excavated following the PITs on
July 29, 2016. Details of the three tests are presented below and are summarized in the PIT data
plots (Figures 4 through 6).
The PIT -1 test pit bottom during the PIT was approximately 3.8 feet bgs, or about Elevation
440.7 feet. The tested soil unit was fill, consisting of reworked glacial till. After the water flow
was terminated, the test pit drained completely overnight. No free water was present below the
PIT test depth when we overexcavated it on July 29, 2016. A plot of the PIT -1 test data is
presented as Figure 4. The observed (short-term) infiltration rate was approximately 0.80 inch
per hour, based on the last hour of the constant head period. If these soils represented the
subgrade beneath a bioretention feature constructed with imported bioretention soil, the City of
Edmonds (City) will require the application of a correction factor of 2 due to the test being
performed during the dry season. This would result in a design (long-term) infiltration rate of
0.4 inch per hour.
The PIT -2 test pit bottom during the PIT was approximately 3.3 feet bgs, or about Elevation
452.7 feet. The tested soil unit was glacial till, with a short-term infiltration rate of 0.13 inch per
hour, based on the falling head data collected after the water flow into the test pit was
terminated. Applying the correction factor would result in a design infiltration of 0.06 inch per
hour. The test pit failed to drain completely overnight and this soil is considered to be a
hydraulic restriction to infiltration, due to its low infiltration rate. A plot of the PIT -2 test data is
presented as Figure 5.
The PIT -3 test pit bottom during the PIT was approximately 2.9 feet bgs, or about Elevation
447.1 feet. The tested soil unit was glacial till, with a short-term infiltration rate of 0.07 inch per
hour based on the falling head data collected after the water flow into the test pit was terminated.
Applying the correction factor would result in a design infiltration rate of 0.03 inch per hour.
The test pit failed to drain completely overnight and this soil is considered to be a hydraulic
21-1-22082-004-Rlfdocx/wp/llm 21-1-22082-004
4
restriction to infiltration due to its low infiltration rate. A plot of the PIT -3 test data is presented
as Figure 6.
If a shallow well were installed in the vicinity and read during the wet season, no correction
factor would be required, provided groundwater is at least 3 feet below the bottom of the facility,.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted on several soil samples collected from the test pit explorations
to assist in classification and characterization of the subsurface soils. The laboratory tests
included natural moisture content determination and grain size analysis. The natural moisture
contents are indicated on the test pit logs in Appendix A. The results of the grain size analyses
are presented in Appendix B. Most of the grain size tests were sieve analyses.
Combined sieve and hydrometer tests were performed on two samples (from B-4 at 5 feet deep
[about Elevation 440 feet] and from B-5 at 7.5 feet deep [about Elevation 439.5 feet]) so that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) texture could be identified. Both samples are
considered to be "sandy loam," based on the USDA textural system. Based on our discussions
with the City, the short-term infiltration rate for these soils is 1 inch per hour. Since the
explorations were completed during the dry season, a seasonal correction factor of 2 is required,
resulting in a design infiltration rate of 0.5 inch per hour. This assumes that these soils represent
the subgrade beneath bioretention features with imported bioretention soil.
In order to characterize the existing topsoil within the upper and lower field, we submitted two
samples to Spectra Laboratories (Spectra) in Poulsbo, Washington. The samples were tested for
soil fertility and the results with recommendations from Spectra are included in Appendix C.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions
Intact glacial till soils were encountered in all but one of the explorations performed under the
current scope of work. The test pit PIT -1 did not encounter intact glacial till, but did encounter
weathered till at a depth of approximately 7 feet bgs.
6.1.1 Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Building
Explorations performed within or near the proposed building footprint on the existing
upper play field in the southeast corner of the site indicate that this area is underlain by a thin
layer of topsoil followed by layers of fill, weathered or reworked glacial till, and intact glacial
21-1-22082-004-R1 f docx/wp/Hm 21-1-22082-004
5
Q,,,,AINNON WILSON, IING
till. Borings B-7, B-9, B-10, and B-12 indicate that there is a layer of fill soils at depths ranging
from 4.5 to 7 feet bgs. Fill soils consisted of medium dense to very dense, silty sand to silty sand
with gravel. Intact very dense glacial till underlying the building footprint was encountered at
depths ranging from approximately 1 to 7 feet bgs.
6.1.2 Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Parking Lots and Driveways
Explorations performed within the parking areas west of the existing school building and
north of the track indicated that fill soils overlying the glacial till are present at depths ranging
from 7 to 9.5 feet bgs. Borings and test pits on the north and east sides of the existing building
also encountered fill soils at depths ranging from 4.5 to 6 feet bgs. Intact, very dense glacial till
was found to underlie the fill soils.
6.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in the recent shallow soil borings and test pits, all of which
were performed during the dry season. Moist to wet layers were observed below about 15 feet in
borings B-2, B-3, and B-5, and below about 12 feet in boring B-9, which may indicate the
presence of perched groundwater. Subsurface explorations performed previously onsite as part
of our hydrogeologic study (Shannon & Wilson, 2016) identified a regional groundwater aquifer
at the site at about 180 feet deep and between approximate Elevations 276.3 to 277.2 feet.
Perched groundwater zones were also encountered during the previous hydrogeologic
explorations at depths ranging from 8.5 to 11 feet bgs (Shannon & Wilson, 2016). Note that
groundwater is not expected to be encountered during excavations for the new school building.
We understand that the project stormwater management system will consist of a series of shallow
bioretention swales combined with underground injection control (UIQ wells. The results of our
recent hydrogeological testing and analysis are presented in a separate report (Shannon &
Wilson, 2016). Please refer to this report for design recommendations regarding UIC
construction and infiltration rates.
7.0 ENGINEERING STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
Based on the observations made during the subsurface exploration program and information
reviewed for the project, we expect the glacial till material will provide good support for
conventional spread footing foundations with minimal settlements.
21-1-22082-004-R1 £docx/wp/Hm 21-1-22082-004
6
,,,,1ANNOIN 6W11,,,,,,SON, IIIA
The following subsections provide detailed recommendations on the following topics:
• Foundation design
• Seismic design
® Lateral earth pressures
• Lateral resistance
• Slope stability
• Pavement design
7.2 Foundation Design
The subsurface explorations encountered undisturbed, very dense, native glacial till soils across
the entire site. Spread footings founded in the dense, native till material may be designed with
an allowable bearing pressure of 10,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Spread footings that are
founded in compacted structural backfill placed above the glacial till may be designed for an
allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. These allowable bearing values may be increased by
one-third for transient seismic loading. Any fill material that is to be reused should be evaluated
by a geotechnical engineer to see if they are suitable for use. Use of on-site fill material is
discussed in Section 8.1.
Based on the subsurface conditions, isolated overexcavation could be required due to the
presence of some existing fill within the building footprints. As an alternative to overexcavation
of fill material encountered at footing subgrade elevations, in situ densification of the fill could
be accomplished with the use of heavy vibratory compaction equipment (i.e., excavator -mounted
"ho-pac"). Footing subgrades should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or
geologist.
If the native glacial till material or compacted structural backfill is used as the foundation
bearing soils, it is anticipated that any settlement that occurs will be essentially instantaneous as
the load is applied during construction. If the footings are designed for the bearing pressures
noted above, then the total footing settlements will be less than '/z inch. Differential settlements
would be about one-half of the total settlement. However, if the entire structure is founded on
the glnoinl till then differential settlements .vo',:ld he :ns.gruficant.
7.3 Seismic Design
The seismic design of the structure should be in accordance with the International Code Council,
Inc. 2015 International Building Code (IBC) (International Code Council, Inc., 2014). The IBC
design criteria are based on a target risk of structural collapse of 1 percent in 50 years. The soil
21-1-22082-004-xff:aocx/wpnkn 21-1-22082-004
7
°°ANMON &WILSON, ING
profile is assessed by assigning a site class definition. It is our opinion that based on the soil
classification, i.e., very dense, the site can be classified as Site Class C.
Seismic inputs are the short -period maximum spectra acceleration, Ss, and spectral acceleration
at a period of one second, Si. Using the map provided in the IBC, which corresponds to Site
Class B sites, the mapped values of Ss and S1 are approximately 1.262 and 0.493g, respectively.
The site coefficients for the given spectral acceleration values and site class C are 1.0 and 1.31
for Fa and F, respectively. Seismic hazards such as liquefaction and fault rupture are not present
at the project site.
7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls
Lateral earth pressures will act on portions of the building as well as on retaining walls. The
magnitude and distribution of these lateral pressures will depend on many factors, including, but
not limited to, the type of backfill, the method of backfill placement, level of backfill
compaction, slope of backfill, drainage, and characteristics of the wall itself. If the wall is
allowed to move at least 0.001 times the wall height, the wall is considered flexible and active
earth pressures can be used. If the wall is considered to be inflexible then at -rest earth pressures
must be used.
The active and at -rest earth pressures, evaluated using an equivalent fluid unit weight, are
estimated to be on the order of 30 and 50 pounds per cubic feet (pcf), respectively. The values
given above assume a permanent wall structure, the ground surface behind the wall is level, and
that proper drainage is installed to prevent the buildup of pore water pressure behind the wall.
The total earth pressures should be analyzed for seismic loading conditions using a dynamic load
increment equal to a percentage of the static earth force. The percentage load increase for
seismic condition was developed to be consistent with a pseudo -static analysis using the
Mononobe-Okabe equation for lateral earth pressures (Kramer, 1996) and a horizontal seismic
coefficient of 0.2. The load increase for seismic conditions is recommended to be a uniformly
distributed load equal to 8H, where H is the height of the wall. Note the seismic coefficient is
not equal to the peak ground acceleration (PGA) expected to be encountered at the site in a
design event. The PGA is experienced only a few times within the record of earthquake shaking,
and the actual earthquake ground motion is cyclic in nature, not static. Values of the seismic
coefficient are thus typically one-third to one-half the value of the PGA that may be experienced
at the site during a design level event.
We understand that rockery walls may be installed. Rock walls have been used in numerous
locations around Puget Sound area primarily to provide erosion protection to cuts in stable
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/Hm 21-1-22082-004
8
SNANNON 6WILw IIIA
materials. Rockeries have also been used to retain fill slopes; however, this practice is not as
prevalent. In our opinion, rockeries could be used to retain cut slopes made in dense to very
dense native soil that are less than 6 feet high. Rockeries should be constructed in accordance
with the recommendations shown in Figure 3.
Rockeries could be used to retain fill slopes provided they are 5 feet high or less, or if they are
reinforced. If used with a reinforced slope, the rockery would form a facade or erosion
protection facing on an otherwise stable slope. Rockeries that are used to retain fill slopes that
are 5 feet high or less should be built in accordance with the recommendations shown in
Figure 3. We recommend that the fill be built out beyond the planned wall location and then cut
back. With this procedure, the fill can be fully compacted, as compared with the difficulty of
compacting the edge of a fill slope.
7.5 Lateral Resistance
Footings may resist lateral loads using a combination of base friction and passive pressure
against the buried or embedded portion of the footings and buried wall. We recommend that
base sliding resistance be determined using an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.7 for a
concrete foundation founded on on-site glacial till or compacted structural fill. Passive earth
pressures can be evaluated using an equivalent unit weight of 400 pcf. This value includes a
factor of safety of 1.5.
7.6 Slope Stability
The slope along the eastern perimeter of the property is mapped as a critical area by the City due
to the steepness of the slope and the presence of wetlands. We recommend that the Madrona K-8
school footprint be set back at least 10 feet from the top of slope. While we did not observe
active landsliding on this slope, the Edmonds Community Development Code requires that
buildings or other structures constructed near an environmentally critical area maintain a setback
of 15 feet from the edge of the critical area which in this case is the top of the slope (Edmonds,
Wash., 2016). However, the code also allows for setbacks to be determined by a Geotechnical
Engineering Report. In our opinion, after review of the subsurface conditions and the current
condition of the slope, a setback of 10 feet would not cause an increased potential for landslides
or surficial soil instability on the steep slope. In our opinion, buried utilities within this setback
distance are acceptable and will not be at risk due to slope instability.
We understand that dead or diseased tree removal is planned along the east, west, and south
perimeter of the property near the top of the slopes. We made a site visit on September 20, 2016,
21-1-22082-004-R1 f docx/wp/11m 21-1-22082-004
9
IIII°° IIS WILSON, [ING
to observe the slope areas where tree removal is planned. In our opinion, the planned tree
removal will not cause instability of the slope and the trees may be felled and chipped in-place.
7.7 Pavement Design
Pavement analyses were conducted using the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) method for flexible and rigid pavement design (AASHTO,
1993). The AASHTO method is a widely used empirical design procedure for the design of
flexible and rigid pavement structures. It considers strength of the base course materials, traffic
stresses, and the strength of the pavement subgrade. The pavement design life is assumed to be
20 years.
7.7.1 Traffic Load
Average daily traffic counts, including delivery trucks, school buses, and occasional
heavy vehicles such as fire trucks, were based on assumed conditions for similar projects.
Assumed traffic volumes were then converted into equivalent single -axle loads by using
equivalent load factors. We assume that there will not be a significant increase in traffic at this
location, but did include a 1 percent growth factor in the design life traffic counts for our
analysis.
7.7.2 Subgrade Conditions
The subgrade conditions at the proposed pavement locations are medium dense, silty
sand to silty sand with gravel fill suitable for pavement support. If loose or soft subgrade is
observed during construction, we recommend that it be removed and replaced with at least 1 foot
of compacted structural fill. A Resilient Modulus, MR, of 15,000 pounds per square inch is
recommended for pavement design where existing medium dense fill and newly placed
compacted structural fill are present.
7.8 Non -Porous Pavement Section Recommendations
For support of the proposed parking and driveway areas we propose pavement section
thicknesses shown in Table 1 below. Recommendations have been separated into lightly loaded
and heavily loaded pavement sections. Lightly loaded pavement sections are assumed to be
those that are utilized primarily by car and other passenger vehicle traffic. Heavily loaded
pavement sections are assumed to be those that are utilized by heavy vehicles such as buses,
delivery, and fire trucks.
21-1-22082-004-R1fdocx/wp/1lm 21-1-22082-004
10
X1111°°ANNON INWIlLSO , INC
TABLE 1
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PARKING LOT AND
DRIVEWAY SECTION THICKNESSES
Base course should correspond to crushed surfacing in accordance with the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2016). Placement,
compaction, and material specification for crushed surfacing is discussed in Section 8.1 of this
report.
7.9 Porous Pavement Section Recommendations
7.9.1 Grass Grid Pavers
Grass grid pavers will be a proprietary product and should be designed in accordance
with the manufacturer's recommendations. For design of the porous pavement sections, we
recommend that the compacted subgrade be assumed to have a California Bearing Ratio of
approximately 20.
7.9.2 Pervious Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and Concrete
As we understand, porous pavement sections consisting of pervious HMA or concrete
underlain by an underdrain are being considered within the fire lane to collect surface drainage.
Pervious pavement consists of porous asphalt or concrete overlying a stone bed.
For support of the proposed fire lane areas, we propose porous pavement section
thicknesses shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM POROUS PAVEMENT
SECTION THICKNESSES
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/Um 21-1-22082-004
11
SHANNON IIIA ING
Please note that porous asphalt is susceptible to considerable wear due to heavy vehicle
loading especially in vehicle turning areas. Rutting due to surface abrasion is known to occur
between the wheel and the pavement during breaking and turning.
Also note that pervious concrete pavement is sensitive to the means and methods used in
mix design and placement. We recommend following the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Specification for Pervious Concrete Pavement, ACI 522.1-13 for design and installation
practices of porous concrete pavement systems (ACI, 2013). This specification covers materials,
preparation, forming, placing, finishing, jointing, curing, and quality control of pervious concrete
pavement. Provisions governing testing, evaluation, and acceptance of pervious concrete
pavement are included. Pervious concrete pavement will require annual cleaning to maintain its
infiltration function. We recommend vacuum cleaning once or twice a year (depending on
conditions) with a regenerative sweeper and pressure washing as needed.
7.10 Pavement Sections Near Steep Slopes
Pavements constructed near the steep slopes on the east and west perimeters of the property
should have the same minimum pavement sections shown above in Table 1. Subsurface
conditions encountered in the explorations indicate that the site is underlain by glacial till at
relatively shallow depths, so slope stability is not an issue with regard to pavement construction.
7.11 Frost Susceptibility
Frost -susceptible soil is regarded as having greater than 3 percent finer that 0.02 millimeter
(mm). Soil with a fines content not exceeding 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the
minus %-inch fraction, can normally be expected to have 3 percent or less finer than 0.02 mm.
The current subsurface explorations indicate the subgrade soil has an average fines content of
about 30 percent, which should be considered frost -susceptible.
The measured frost depth during cold winters of 1949 and 1950 was about 15 inches near
Edmonds, Washington. In accordance with the WSDOT Pavement Policy (WSDOT, 2015),
pavement can be designed for frost protection by providing a pavement section that is equal to or
thicker than half of the anticipated frost depth. The pavement section includes pavement and
non -frost susceptible base course. In our opinion, the minimum recommended pavement
sections presented in Table 1 above should provide adequate frost protection.
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/Hm 21-1-22082-004
12
I�- M IIIY 6WILSON, ING
8.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Earthwork and Use of On-site Soils
Fill placed beneath structures such as floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, or backfill against
footings should be structural fill. Structural fill should be placed and compacted upon native soil
surfaces observed during construction by a geotechnical engineer or the engineer's
representative. The fill soils encountered onsite generally contain sufficient fines to make them
moisture -sensitive. In our opinion, on-site soils may be difficult to place and compact to
adequate relative compaction levels, particularly during wet weather or in wet conditions. The
on-site glacial till soils may be used as structural fill material provided the following conditions
are met:
• The soil is free from organics, debris, or other deleterious material.
• The water content of the on-site soil at the time of compaction is close to its optimum
as determined by a Modified Proctor Test (ASTM International [ASTM], 2012).
• On-site soils used for fills and backfills that become wet and unstable after placement
should be removed and replaced with suitable material.
• Stockpiled on-site soils are protected when rainfall is anticipated in accordance with
Section 2-09.3(1)E (WSDOT, 2016).
If on-site soil becomes too difficult to compact or construction site space limitations prevent
stockpiling, we recommend using imported, granular, structural backfill. Imported backfill
should meet gradation requirements of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2016).
Table 3 provides material specifications for various backfill applications. On-site soil not
suitable for structural backfill could be used as backfill within landscaped areas.
TABLE 3
IMPORTED BACKFILL SPECIFICATIONS BASED ON
2016 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
Structural fill should be placed in horizontal, uniform lifts and compacted to a dense and
unyielding condition, and to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D1557 [ASTM, 2012]). Subgrades to receive structural fill should be dense and
unyielding and should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of fill.
21-1-22082-004-R1faocx/wp/1lm 21-1-22082-004
13
SHANNOIN 6WILSON,11611
Preparation of subgrades should be in accordance with Section 2-06 of the WSDOT Standard
Specifications (WSDOT, 2016). In general, the thickness of soil layers before compaction
should not exceed 10 inches for heavy equipment compactors or 6 inches for hand -operated
mechanical compactors. The most appropriate lift thickness should be determined in the field
using the Contractor's selected equipment and fill, and verified with in situ soil density testing
(nuclear gauge methods). All compacted surfaces should be sloped to drain to prevent ponding.
Structural fill placement operations should be observed and evaluated by an experienced
geotechnical engineer or technician.
8.2 Pervious Pavement Materials
We recommend the following material specifications for pervious pavement:
Porous Bituminous Asphalt. The bituminous surface course shall be a bituminous
mix of 6 percent by weight dry aggregate. Porous asphalt uses the same mixing and
application equipment as for conventional asphalt. A neat asphalt binder modified
with an elastomeric polymer is recommended. The polymer modified asphalt binder
shall be heat and storage stable. Aggregate shall be minimum 90 percent crushed
material and have a recommended gradation of:
U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing
1/2 (12.5 millimeter [mm])
100
% (9.5 mm)
92 to 98
4 (4.75 mm)
34 to 40
8 (2.36 mm)
14 to 20
16 (1.18 mm)
7 to 13
30 (0.60 mm)
0 to 4
200 (0.075 mm)
0 to 2
Stone Bed. Stone bed course aggregate shall be a crushed, %- to 1 -inch uniformly
graded coarse aggregate conforming to AASHTO size number 67 (or equivalent).
Stone bed aggregate shall be placed immediately after approval of subgrade
preparation. Clean (washed) stone bed aggregate should be in maximum 8 -inch lifts.
Each layer shall be compacted to a dense condition with a smooth drum roller.
8.3 Construction and Maintenance Considerations for Pervious Pavement
Pervious pavement is susceptible to damage and clogging during construction and afterward.
We recommend that the construction be undertaken in such a way as to prevent:
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/Ucn 21-1-22082-004
14
°°1ANNON 6WILS01% ING
• Compaction of Subgrade: If the existing subgrade under the stone bed is to be used
for infiltration, then the subgrade shall not be compacted or subject to excessive
construction equipment traffic prior to stone bed placement.
■ Contamination of Stone Bed and Pervious Pavement with Sediment and Fines:
Control of sediment is critical and rigorous installation and maintenance of erosion
and sediment control measures is required to prevent sediment deposition on the
pavement surface or within the stone bed.
Staging, construction practices, and erosion and sediment control must all be taken into
consideration when using pervious pavements. Due to the nature of construction sites, pervious
pavement and other infiltration measures should be installed at the end of the construction
period.
All pervious pavement installations must have a backup method for water to enter the stone
storage bed in the event that the pavement fails or is altered. In uncurbed lots, this backup
drainage may consist of an unpaved 2 -foot -wide stone edge drain connected directly to the bed
between the wheel stop. In curbed lots, inlets with 12 -inch sediment traps may be required at
low spots. Backup drainage elements will ensure the functionality of the infiltration system if
the pervious pavement is compromised. These systems should be designed by the project civil
engineer.
8.4 Temporary and Permanent Excavation Slopes
Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the Contractor and depend on the actual site
conditions at the time of construction. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the Contractor
and should comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
Washington Industrial Safety and Health Administration Standards. For trench safety purposes,
the fill material at the site should be considered as OSHA "Class C" material, which requires
side slopes no steeper than 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H: IV). Cut slopes during
construction, particularly during wet weather, should be compacted to achieve a dense surface
and covered with plastic sheeting to reduce erosion.
All traffic and/or construction equipment loads should be set back from the edge of the cut slopes
a minimum of 5 feet. Excavated material, stockpiles of construction materials, and equipment
should not be placed closer to the edge of any excavation than the depth of the excavation, unless
the excavation is shored and such materials are accounted for as a surcharge load on the shoring
system. Permanent slopes excavated in dense native soils should be no steeper than 1.5H:1 V.
We recommend that permanent slopes in on-site fill materials be no steeper than 2H: IV.
21-1-22082-004-x1f aocx/wp/Bm 21-1-22082-004
15
IIS°°1ANNON WILSON, INC.
8.5 Erosion Control
Erosion control for the site will include the Best Management Practices incorporated in the civil
design drawings and may incorporate the following recommendations:
• Limit exposed cut slopes.
• Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from
exposed slopes.
• Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded
material on the site.
al Seed or plant vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings
are proposed.
0 Retain existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent.
8.6 Construction Drainage
Even during dry weather, we recommend that site drainage measures be incorporated into the
project construction. Perched water in the excavations (if present) and surface runoff can be
controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, these include the
construction of shallow perimeter ditches or low earthen berms, and the use of temporary sumps
to collect runoff and prevent water from damaging slopes and exposed subgrades. All collected
water should be directed, under control, to a positive and permanent discharge system. The site
will need to be graded at all times to facilitate drainage and minimize the ponding of water.
8.7 Subsurface Drainage
We recommend installing a subdrain system along the outside of the perimeter footings to
prevent pooling of stormwater against the building foundations. The subdrain system should
consist of a perforated or slotted, 4 -inch (minimum) -diameter plastic pipe bedded in %-inch to
No. 8 size washed pea gravel.
Where a perforated or slotted drain pipe from a subdrain system connects into a tightline, we
recommend that a low permeability concrete collar or dam be placed along the first 2 feet of the
tightline to force all water into the tightline. Cleanouts should be provided at convenient
locations along all drain lines, such as at the building corners.
8.8 Utilities
In general, utilities at the site can be installed within the existing site soils, provided they are not
underlain by extremely loose, soft, or organic materials. Maintaining safe utility excavations is
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/11m 21-1-22082-004
16
SFUNNON WLSON, IING
the responsibility of the Contractor. Conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate
the soils. The utility trenches should be backfilled as noted in Section 8.1. We recommend
utilities placed under the roadway have a minimum cover of 2 feet from the crown of the pipes or
conduits to the top of the pavement subgrade. Catch basins, utility vaults, and other structures
installed flush with the pavement should be designed and constructed to transfer wheel loads to
the base of the structure.
8.9 Wet Weather Earthwork
In the project area, wet weather generally begins about mid-October and continues through about
May, although rainy periods may occur at any time of the year. Therefore, it would be advisable
to schedule earthwork during the dry weather months of June through mid-October.
Most of the soils at the site contain sufficient fines to produce an unstable mixture when wet.
Such soils are highly susceptible to changes in water content, and may become muddy, unstable,
and difficult to compact if their moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. Performing
earthwork during dry weather would reduce these problems and costs associated with rainwater,
trafficability, and handling of wet soil. However, should wet weather/wet condition earthwork
be unavoidable, the following recommendations are provided:
Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet
conditions. That is, each section should be small enough such that the removal of
unsuitable soils and the placement and compaction of clean structural fill can be
accomplished on the same day. If there is to be traffic over the exposed subgrade, the
subgrade should be protected with a compacted layer (generally 8 inches or more) of
clean crushed rock.
Fill material should consist of clean, well -graded granular soil, of which not more
than 5 percent by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on wet sieving the
fraction passing the 3/4 -inch mesh sieve. The fines should be non -plastic.
The ground surface in the construction area should be sloped and sealed with a
smooth -drum roller to promote the rapid runoff of precipitation, to prevent surface
water from flowing into excavations, and to prevent ponding of water.
01 No soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth -drum
vibratory roller, or equivalent, should be used to seal the ground surface. Soils which
become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular
soil.
Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full-time
basis by a geotechnical engineer or his/her representative, experienced in wet -weather
earthwork, to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with the
project plans and specifications, and our recommendations.
21-1-22082-004-R1f docx/wp/Uw 21-1-22082-004
17
Illi°°LANNON WILSON, II .
Covering of work areas, soil stockpiles, or slopes with plastic; sloping, ditching, and
installing sumps; dewatering; and other measures should be employed, as necessary,
to permit proper completion of the work. Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences
should be aptly located to control soil movement and erosion.
Grading and earthwork should not be accomplished during periods of heavy,
continuous rainfall.
8.10 Plans Review and Construction Observation
We recommend that Shannon & Wilson be retained to review those portions of the plans and
specifications that pertain to the geotechnical aspects of the project to determine if they are
consistent with our recommendations.
We also recommend that we be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of construction,
particularly the pavement and shallow footing subgrade preparation, drainage installation, and
earthwork (structural fill placement and compaction). This observation would allow us to
witness the subsurface conditions as they are exposed during construction and to determine that
the work is accomplished in accordance with our recommendations.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Edmonds School District No. 15 for
specific application to the design of the Madrona K-8 School project at this site as it relates to the
geotechnical aspects discussed in this report. The data and report should be provided to
prospective contractors and/or the Contractor for factual information only. Our judgments,
conclusions, and interpretations presented in the report should not be construed as a warranty of
subsurface conditions and should not be relied upon by prospective contractors. Construction
period observation by our firm is necessary to confirm recommendations and interpretations
made in this report.
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in
accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice
in this area at this time. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made.
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed during our site visits and explorations, and further assume that the
explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; i.e., the
subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the
explorations. If subsurface conditions different from those described in this report are observed
21-1-22082-004-R1£docx/wp/Um 21-1-22082-004
18
SHANNON WILSON, INC.
or appear to be present during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review
these conditions and reconsider our recommendations, where necessary.
If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work
at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at
or adjacent to the site, we recommend that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability
of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and time lapse.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by
merely taking soil samples or completing test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently
require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore,
some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs.
Shannon & Wilson has prepared the enclosed Appendix D, "Important Information About Your
Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal," to assist you and others in understanding the use and
limitations of our proposals.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Kevin Wood
Geotechnical Staff
KJW:MWP/kjw
Martin W. Page, PE, LEG
Vice President
C'rantPrlhniral Pnrrinaar T PPT) AP TIRTATM
21-1-22082-004-R] Vwp/Ikn 21-1-22082-004
19
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
10.0 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993,
AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures, Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2 v.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2013, Specification for pervious concrete pavement (ACI
522.1): Farmington Hills, Mich., American Concrete Institute, ACI 522.1-13, 7 p.
ASTM International (ASTM), 2012, Standard test methods for laboratory compaction
characteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)), D1557 -
12e1: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08,
soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, 14 p., available: www.astm.org.
Edmonds, Wash., 2016, Natural resources: Edmonds, Wash., Edmonds City Code and
Development Code Title 23, available: http:L/www.codeoblisliin .coin/WA Fdmonds/.
International Code Council, Inc., 2014, International building code 2015: Country Club Hills,
Ill., International Code Council, Inc., 700 p.
Kramer, S.L., 1996, Geotechnical earthquake engineering: Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice
Hall, 653 p.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2016, Hydrogeologic report, new Madrona K-8
project, Edmonds, Washington: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle,
Wash., 21-1-22082-003, for Edmonds School District No. 15, Edmonds, Wash.,
November.
Troost, K.G., and Booth, D.B., 2008, Geology of Seattle and the Seattle area, Washington, in
Baum, R.L., Godt, J.W. and Highland, L.M., eds., Landslides and Engineering Geology of
the Seattle, Washington, Area: Geologic Society of America Reviews in Engineering
Geology XX, p. 1-35.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2015, WSDOT Pavement Policy:
Olympia, Washington, WSDOT, 131 p., available:
htt://www.wsdot,.wa. ov/NWrdonl res/L,F9AAC9E-6323-4BO9-A3D1-
DD2E2C905D02/0/WSDOTPavemeiatPolic June2015. df
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2016, Standard specifications for road,
bridge, and municipal construction: Olympia, Wash., WSDOT, Manual M 41-10, 1 v.,
January, available: litlp://www.wsdot,wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M41-10.htm.
21-1-22082-004-R1£docx/wp/llm 21-1-22082-004
20
co
-rename: J:�[l Iv UUU4V--Vd—V4 rig z - — r—awg �.aYOUI: i YWI U- I U U 1� Login:
7
/.J
1�u
dvl�
12
I –.
TP -13%
LEGEND
B-1
Boring Designation and
Approximate Location
PIV
Test Pit Designation and
Approximate Location (2016)
TP -1 F
PIT -3
and Approximate Location
TP -1 %
Previous Test Pit Designation and
P-2 F
Approximate Location (2015)
12
I –.
TP -13%
LEGEND
B-1
Boring Designation and
Approximate Location
TP -1 F
Test Pit Designation and
Approximate Location (2016)
Infiltration Test Pit Designation
PIT -3
and Approximate Location
TP -1 %
Previous Test Pit Designation and
Approximate Location (2015)
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
NOTE
Figure adapted from client file, Topo
and Survey, dwg, received 10-3-16.
T
0
N
0
0
H = 6 Ft. Max.
4
16" Min. Width 4
for Top Rock _VIII
Ditch Drain to
Appropriate Outlets
8" Compacted Native
or Imported Soil
(Impervious Surface Layer)
Stable Excavation Slope
in Very Dense Native Soil
(Contractor's Responsibility)
Opening Chinked with
2 to 4 -inch Quarry Spalls
v \
Very Dense
Undisturbed Native Soil
Backfill
All loose soil at rockery foundation subgrade should be
overexcavated down to medium dense to very dense
soil and replaced with compacted backfill as described
above. The excavation shall be kept free of water.
The prepared foundation subgrade shall be evaluated
by a soils engineer prior to placement of rock.
MINIMUM WEIGHT OF ROCK
Rock shall be sound and have a minimum
density of 160 pounds per cubic foot.
Not to Scale
6" Diameter Slotted Pipe
Bedded in washed 3/8" to No.8 sieve size
pea gravel (6" cover around pipe), sloped to
drain and connected by tightline to storm
drain outfall or other appropriate outlets.
No fabric around pipe.
Maximum slot width is 1/8".
Clean, well -graded sand and gravel or
°
crushed rock, 2 -inch maximum size, 40 to
60% gravel, less than 5% fines (passing
Medium
12��
Min.
#200 sieve). Fines shall be non -plastic.
dense to
-
Ve Dense
rY
AAs'.
' �" . yr
Compact in 4" lifts with minimum of 4
Native Soil
6wa
" Min. `^
coverages by hand -operated tamper.
Compact to at least 92% of Modified
H/3 Min. Width
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
�- —�
for Base Rock
D-1557). Backfill and rock placement
should be built up together.
All loose soil at rockery foundation subgrade should be
overexcavated down to medium dense to very dense
soil and replaced with compacted backfill as described
above. The excavation shall be kept free of water.
The prepared foundation subgrade shall be evaluated
by a soils engineer prior to placement of rock.
MINIMUM WEIGHT OF ROCK
Rock shall be sound and have a minimum
density of 160 pounds per cubic foot.
Not to Scale
6" Diameter Slotted Pipe
Bedded in washed 3/8" to No.8 sieve size
pea gravel (6" cover around pipe), sloped to
drain and connected by tightline to storm
drain outfall or other appropriate outlets.
No fabric around pipe.
Maximum slot width is 1/8".
(WdJ) o;e�tl MON polnseeIN
QO 1l CO UP ,I: M N
O O O O O O O O O C)
CD N 00 (q 14: N O
O O O O
(190=0 Goold M 3sal;o w0110e anogy 1019H Ja;eM
L
9.
fR
O
N
00
N
a
a
v
a�
rn
Ur
7
N
N
H
EL
MdO) 9189 mogul painseaW
ap ti c0 Un q: M N �-
O O O O O O O O O O
(190=0 JooI=1id 1sal;o Wo11O8 anogy 1019H Ja;eM
t
CL
c6
O
N
N
O
(L
N
F
d
U)
m
CA
LL
7
N
H
d
N
v
W N
__ ..
_
as
J 0
N
_
�Y
WH
Q v
N
oo
t o
vas
D
a?m�
0 � E
WLi
W Z cfl
3
.c o �o
00=
C9 3-0
�- o
7
tD
- "
W)
c
-
Z W
N O N
q
W J
v
a, >
af0i
aD
....._
�
i O
v
O
O.
O
N
c a
_
a>
m 0
-^
G
N
O)
C
0_
00
a0 N Y
O-�
-
a) v
.
O
a)
.+
+L
cu
r 4)> D
7
C
C
-
O C.0 Nca L
a) a3 N f -
a
N .••.
p
O
C N
a7 0
C N
a) N
C
d L a)
3
WM
ti O Orr
N
a7 W . ID co
_
_
o
cn
+r
3 aG-Z,FL o
0)
`mom 46
-----Cc
aoo
0
(L) o
p"L"'>N :03c
O
+�O
(n
O
.I-- � O CL— N
Nz
a N a) O O N 2
C
00 . -. C r... Lp C CD
N O N "I� a
N
o C C
f fa Z N O
'ca
..
O
:3 � a
c .
0 E-.. O, NL
c0
0 ca - >% > ca
E>3E.2mccOiL
.,....µ
......
....
...e,....
..�,
.....
,..,.
.. .�._,..,.
_
,.
... ..
,.............
..�
._.--
--- ........
�.,.,
OQ a0tX'='
'zEo)���`ia
-..
a0 0) C) N'x (D
ccga(D a)Oti O`
3tor- 0cc
_
.....
.,.
....
p I -T •- COI) o
_..
_L._
_
O
o
a o mcn 3 ac
= m
v
>y3E~��
_. .
.,
........
_
c o m
a) ..
c- O� ° m 3
O — a) L
N
CC
C O �
_
..
_......,.
o
.O N 4
N O �_.. a). -
— E.� ac ca o
.m.
.�..
_
.
_
C
NOt-OOOO-y
` M .0.. C y L
.....
.,,....._
_..
_,,.._
..
......
_,�:.,
'
..
....,..
........,..
.,...�
.....
fa CL 0
U CL 0 SD
NQ N O N E c O
— O H '-
m
7-j--
wNO
°
aoaoomN
�:N
,
W L O a) O U
°Q MH 3 w
O
0
Z. r
cD N .- a0
CO
N
O
O
O
O
O
(190=0 JooI=1id 1sal;o Wo11O8 anogy 1019H Ja;eM
t
CL
c6
O
N
N
O
(L
N
F
d
U)
m
CA
LL
7
N
H
d
(WdJ) 84e1:1 m011ul peinseeyy
cq ll*� U M N
O O O O O O O O 0 0
v cV r a0 c0 't N
O O O O
(199=0 Goold M Isal;o wo:408 anogV 1019H J91BM
t
a
c2
0
N
N
m
O
a
M
H
d
co
N
7
0I
I1
N
N
H
FL
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
SHANNON N, INC.
21-1-22082-004
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil
identification system modified from the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of
the USCS and other definitions are provided on
this and the following pages. Soil descriptions
are based on visual -manual procedures (ASTM
D2488) and laboratory testing procedures
(ASTM D2487), if performed.
S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS
2
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS
CONSTITUENT
(50% or more fines)'
....
-n tless_than 50%fines)'
Fine
Lean Clay,
Medium
Major
aj
Elastic
ic Silt
Sand or Grave
GRAVEL
tiOla
Fine
Modifying
(Secondary)
30% or more
More than 12%
Precedes major
coarse-grained:.
fine-grained: 3
constituent
Sandy or Gravellya
Silty or Clayey
COHESIVE SOILS
15% to 30%-mmm -
5% to m
N, SPT, RELATIVE
coarse-grained:
fine-grained:
Minor
with Sand or
with Silt or
Follows major
with Grave14 ,
—�---
with Ola 3
-------
constituent
30% or more total
Medium dense
4-8 Medium stiff
coarse-grained and'
15% or more of a
8-15 Stiff
lesser coarse-
second coarse-
15-30 Very stiff
grained constituent
grained constituent:
> 30 Hard
is 15% or more:
with Sand or
with Sand or
with Gravels
with Gravel e
"All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3 -inch sieve
2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor
tetermn ned based on behavior,
4DetermMad based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage
RWhichever Is the lesser constituent.
MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water, from below
water table
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
SPECIFICATIONS
Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30 -inch free fall.
Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead
2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm
NOTE: If automatic hammers are
used, blow counts shown on boring
logs should be adjusted to account for
efficiency of hammer.
Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long
Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches
Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches
Barrel O.D. = 2 inches
N -Value: Sum blow counts for second and third
6 -inch increments.
Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or
less; 10 blows for 0 inches.
NOTE. Penetration resistances (N -values) shown on
boring logs are as recorded in the field and
have not been corrected for hammer
efficiency, overburden, or other factors.
PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS
DESCRIPTION
SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE
FINES
< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)
SAND...
..........-. ............._.......................m.................................................... �...........
Fine
#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)
Medium
#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)
Coarse
#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)
GRAVEL
Silica SandI�
Fine
#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)
Coarse
3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)
COBBLES
3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)
BOULDERS
> 12 in. (305 mm)
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY
COHESIONLESS SOILS
COHESIVE SOILS
N, SPT,
RELATIVE
N, SPT, RELATIVE
BLOWS/FT.
DENSITY
BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY.
< 2 Very soft
<4
Very loose
4-10
Loose
2-4 Soft
10-30
Medium dense
4-8 Medium stiff
30-50
Dense
8-15 Stiff
> 50
Very dense
15-30 Very stiff
> 30 Hard
PERCENTAGES TERMS 1.2
Trace
BentoniteSurface
Cement Grout
M"µ"":
Cement
Seal
.� �,
Bentonite Grout
M
Asphalt or Cap
15 to 25%
Bentonite Chips
Slough
Mostly
Silica SandI�
q ..., �.....,�
Inclinometer or
Non -perforated Casing
Perforated or
...............
Screened Casing°°°°
'l
Vibrating Wire
Piezometer
PERCENTAGES TERMS 1.2
Trace
< 5%
.............................................Few.................................��.................
�...�����................��....�5..to 10%..............................................
Little
15 to 25%
Some....................
.............._...... 30 to 45%.....................................
Mostly
50 to 100%
'Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as
organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.
2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM
International, www.astm.org.
351
/0///qn//I�/�G,i//d/,
/dIQ�// /,1 ////%/l///,//flI lfi/rA�U„'/dill Nh O/G,(„dl,�N f✓/-/li. Y��f
,,'//,/i l�/%O�f
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRt7UP/GRAPHICSYMa0L TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS
GW
Well -Graded Gravel; Well -Graded
b Gravel with Sand
Gravel
(less than5%
fines)
GP
Pooriy Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded
Gravels
b «, Gravat wrtfa Sand
(more than 50%.,
of coarse
fon racdo 4 saineed
SiltyGoraCllayey
GM
Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand
vel
COARSE-
(mor nes) han 12/o
GC
Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with
GRAINED
Sand'
SOILS
(mora than 50%
retained on tlos
SW
Well -Graded Sand; Well -Graded Sand
200 sieve)
Sand
.. u
with Gravel
(less than 5%
tines)
SP
Poorly Graded sand; Poorly Graded
Sands
Sand with Gravel
(50% or mora of
,
coarse fraction
passessat�ee No. 4
v)
Silty r
SM
Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel
Clayand
Mara
(more f2%.
tines)
Sc
�”
Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel
ML
Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
Gravelly Silt
Inorganic
Silts and Clays
(liquid limit less
CIL
Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay
than 50)
Organic Silt or Clay„ Organic Silt or
FINE-GRAINED
Organic
OL
Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
SOILS
Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay
(50% or more
paasses tho No.ECH
Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or
200 sieve)
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt
Inorganic
Silts and Clays
Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or
(liquid limit 50 or
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay
more)
OH
�,
Organic Silt or Cla ; Organic Silt or
Clay Sand or gravel; Sandy or
Organic
with
Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay
HIGHLY-
Primarily organic
matter, dark in
PT
Peat or other highly organic soils (see
ORGANIC SOILS
color, and
organic odor„
ASTM D4427)
NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.
NOTES
1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, Le., SP -SM; Sand'
with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when
the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot to the CL -ML area of
the plasticity, chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types
are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).
Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CUML,
Lean Clay to Silt, SP-SWSM„ Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate
that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between
two groups.
Poorly Graded
Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within
ATD
At Time of Drilling
singular: bed.
the range of grain sizes present, one or more
Alternating layers of varying material or
Diam.
Diameter
sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets
Fissured
Elev.
Elevation
with little resistance..
criteria in ASTM 032487, if tested.
Fracture planes appear polished or
glossy; sometimes striated.
Well-Graded
Full range and even distribution of grain sizes
ft.
Feet
breakdown.
present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if
Inclusion of small pockets of different
FeO
Iron Oxide
tested.
Homogeneous
gal.
Gallons
EN '
Horiz.
Horizontal
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
Weak
Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight
I.D.
Inside Diameter
I pressure.
Moderate
Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger
in.
Inches
pressure.
lbs.
Pounds
Strong
WIII not crumble or break with finger
MgO
Magnesium Oxide
ssu ,
01 ACTC
mm
Millimeter
MnO
Manganese Oxide
APPROX.
NA
Not Applicable or Not Available
DESCRIPTION
PLASITICITY
VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA INDEX
NP
Nonplastic
.P .. ...._......
_ .. ..--...... .. lP N1 E..
O.D.
Outside Diameter
Nonplastic
A 1/8 In. thread cannot be rolledOW
Observation Well
Low
at any water content.
A thread can barely be rolled and 4 to 10
pcf
Pounds per Cubic Foot
a lump cannot be formed when
PID
Photo-Ionization Detector
drier than the plastic limit.
PMT
Pressuremeter Test
Medium
A thread Is easy to roll and not 10 to 20
ppm
Parts per Million
much time is required to reach
the plastic limit. The thread
psi
Pounds per Square Inch
cannot be terolled after reaching
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
the plastic limit. A lump
crumbles when drier than the
rpm
Rotations per Minute
plastic limit.
SPT
Standard Penetration Test
High
It takes considerable time rolling > 20
USCS
Unified Soil Classification System
and kneading to reach the plastic
limit. A thread can be rerolled
qu
Unconfined Compressive Strength
several times after reaching the
VWP
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
plastic limit. A lump can be
Vert.
Vertical
formed without crumbling when
drier than the lastio limit.
WOH
Weight of Hammer
WOR
Weight of Rods
ONA S
Wt.
Weight
Mottled
Irregular
g lar patches of different colors.
Bioturbated Soildisturbance or mixing by plants or
animals.
Diamict Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt
and/or clay matrix.
Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling.
Slough Material that caved from sides of ptorehole.
Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.
Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces,
Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.
Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.
Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges.
Flat Width/thickness ratio > 3.
Elongated Length/width ratio > 3.
Interbedded
Alternating layers of varying material or
calor with layers at least 1/4 -inch thick;
singular: bed.
Laminated
Alternating layers of varying material or
color with layers less than 1/4 -Inch thick;
singular: lamination.
Fissured
Breaks along definite planes or fractures
with little resistance..
Slickensided
Fracture planes appear polished or
glossy; sometimes striated.
Blocky
Cohesive soil that can be broken down
into small' angular lumps that resist further
breakdown.
Lensed
Inclusion of small pockets of different
soils, such as small lenses of sand
scattered through a mass of clay,
Homogeneous
Same color and appearance throughout.
'Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Sails (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright
ASTM international, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A
copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International,
www.astm.org.
ZAdapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A
www.asim.org.
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
October 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Envlronrnental Consultants
Total Depth: 16.5 ft. Northing: .............. ---- -
Drilling
Method:
Hollow Stem
......
AugerHole Diam.:
6 in.-.....----
Top Elevation: - -.449 ft. Easting: .... . .
Drilling
Company:
_Holocene
Qd#ing1,.....--- Rod Diam.: ---------------
2.-.inch '..
Vert. Datum: NA VD 88 Station: .............. ..
Drill
Rig
Equipment:
...Diedrich.-D-50
Hammer Type:
.... ....... . ...... ...
Horiz. Datum: Offset:
Other
Comments:
. ... .... ....
. . ...... . . ....... . . . . . . . ........ - ... . ..............
.........
SOIL DESCRIPTION
�
75
U)
-0 tt�
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(blows/foot)
Refer to the report text tier a proper understanding, of the
Z
-0
'a
:5
A Hammer Wt. & Drop: 1bs130
inches
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratificationE
E
2
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
0)
0
W
U)
(9
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40
60
isphalt
0.4
Dense, red-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
2
few organics.
—
Topsoil/Weathered Glacial Till
4
— - - ------ . ..... . . . . . ......... . . . . .... .
Very dense, gray-brown, Silty Sand with
4.5
Gravel (SM); moist; fine, subrounded to
angular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic
2
6
. . ...... . .
fines; diamict.
Glacial Till
3t.
8
. . ................
7 710T,
T.
rn
10
. ... .... . .
. . . .........
41
it
0
z
12
5
5014'o
14
Moist to wet below about 15 feet.
6
16
"1 .
......
- - - -------
16.5
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 7/26/2016
18
--- ----
0 20 40 60
LEGEND 0 % Fines (<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered 0 %Water Content
2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF BORING B-2
cw
W
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.2
FIG. A-
GooWchnical and: EnvWonrnental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for S I ubmittal
Total Depth: 15;9..ft. Northing: _____-----,----""-Drilling
Method:
Hollow Stem Auqer Hole Diam.: 6 in.
- . Stem -- — - - - ----------
Top Elevation: -447.5ft. Easting: .....
Drilling Company:
Holocene Drilling,, Rod Diam.: 2 -inch
Vert. Datum: 1111,,NAVD88_.__ Station: ........ . .... ............ . .
..... ... . ----
Drill Rig Equipment: Diedrich D-50 Hammer Type:, ... ..........
Horiz. Datum! ......... . Offset:
Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)
�
Refer to the raport text for a proper understanding of the
E
CL
CU
A
A Hammer Wt.& Drop: I 101k��00iqqhes
subsurface nwtorials and drilling methods. The stratification
CL
,
E
2 cl
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
U)
Cc
U)
(9
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
_,Asphalt0.4.
............ . . . ............. . . ............ - ---------- ------
Dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand-,
2
nonplastic fines; diamict.
y.
Weathered Glacial Till
4
— -------
.......... . ... . .... .... . ........ . - - ---------
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM) to
4.5 -T-
-
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine,
X.
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
3%
2
50/6"1
6
-7
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Glacial Till
Diamict pockets from 7.5 to 9 feet.
0
8-
. . . ........
.. - ---- -
— -----------
3-1
01
A
Z
'0
........... . . . .
. — ---------- ... . .......... .
1
4
:X
1-
0'
O
z
12
------
�50/6`
14
Moist to wet below about 15 feet.
BOTTOM OF BORIN - G ------ --- -
15.9
16
-------- ......
__7
COMPLETED 7/26/2016
Q:
18
...............
LEGEND
0 20 40 60
Sample Not Recovered
0 % Fines (<0.075mm)
2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
0 %Water Content
J
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
ca
LOG OF BORING B-3
lu
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-3
I
Geotochn[cal and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 15 .8 ft. Northing:
. ... ...... . . ... ......
Drilling Method:
Hollow Stem A Hole Diam.: 6 in.
... .......
Top Elevation: �ft__ Easting: . . . ...............
Drilling Company:
--- - inch_____..__
Holocene„ Rod Diam.: 2 -inch
Vert. Datum: NAVQ 88 Station: --------- . ......
... ... Drill Rig Equipment: Diedrich D•56 Hammer Type: . ............. . ............ . ..... .
Horiz. Datum: Offset: . . .... - ------
Other Comments:
-------- . . ... .. ......... . ... . . ...... . ..... ...... ...... .......
SOIL DESCRIPTION
o
Cni
v
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsifoot)
Rotor to the report text for a proper understanding of the
E
CL
:3 -6
A Hammer Wt.& Drop: _14,Q'1,bs�1'30_1nch.es..
subsurface matertals and drilling methods, Thes1ratificationCL
> 1
E
2 EL
(D
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
0
U)
co
between material types, and the transition maybe gradual.
20 40 60
,asphalt.
........... . . . . . . . --- --------- - - ----
0.4
Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand (SM) to Silty
Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to angular gravel; fine to coarse
2
sand; nonplastic fines; trace to few organics;
trace diamict pockets below about 7 feet.
Fill
4
.
. . . ......
2
6
. . ....
'T.
8
. . ......... .. .. . .
3
. . . . ............ . .....
Sand
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM) to
95
10-
Siltro
y Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
4
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Glacial Till
12
. .. ........
5
78h
:f
14-
. . ........ . . .
2018"6
BOTTOM OF BORING
15.8
161
. .....
. ................ . .
. . . ......
COMPLETED 7/26/2016
W
18
— . . . ........ . . .
QD
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
0 % Fines (<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered
%Water Content
0
!9
2.0" O.D. Split spoon Sample
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
LOG OF BORING B-4
W
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON 4 WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-4
I I
Gede0n[call and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 15.9 ft. Northing:__
Drilling Method:
AqgK_,", Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Hollow Stqm - -------- — -.111- -111
Top Elevation: 455 ft. Easting: . ................
Drilling Company:
Holocene p ng Rod Diam.: 2 -inch
. .... . _ ...........
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: '-D.i.edr.i.chQ-,50 111-111111111-- Hammer Type: ...... . .... .
Horiz. Datum: Offset: . . ..........
. Other Comments:
.. . . .. ..... .. ............ . . . .. ...... . ......
SOIL DESCRIPTION
-6
Cn
4=
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowstfoot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of ttraa
—
E
A Hammer Wt. & Drop:140 lbs 30.fijqq4_
subsurface matertals and drifting irpelhods. The stratiflaotion
CL
E
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
0
cn
cc
U)
(.9
between material types, and the fronsillon may be gradual.
20 40 60
Medium dense to very dense, gray -brown,
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
2
—7—
Weathered Glacial Till
X
�T
4-
I T
2
6
8
. . . . .........
3
..........9.0
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand with
Gravel (SM); moist; fine, subrounded to
10
. . ........... . .
. . . . . .......
angular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic
fines; diamict.
4
1
68/11"0
Glacial Till
Y z
12
711". ------
---
X..",
5
4110k
14
. .... .....
6
— ---------- . .. ........ .
BOTTOM OF BORING
15.9
16
COMPLETED 7/25/2016
8
18
. . .... -
. . . ...........
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
0 %Fines (<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered
0 %Water Content
2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
NOTES
and definitions.
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified
and may vary.
maW
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
LOG OF BORING B-6
0
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
0
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-6
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 15.9 ft Northing
Drilling Method:
Hollow Slam Auper Hole Diam 6 in.
Top Elevation 4,54 ft. Easting
Drilling Company:
IlolocenPAriiliti Rod Diam 2 -inch
Vert. Datum: /VA'V 1 88 Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: _.._Diedrich D-50 Hammer Type _ .._._._._
Horiz. Datum _ „ Offset:
Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
ct�
o
y
u
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)
Pieter to :the report text for a proper understanding of t/ro
stobsurface materiels and driPMng methods. The stratification
t
n
.0a
E
E
� � r
o n
A Hammer Wt. &Drop: 140,Ibs / 30 inches
......
lines indicated below represent the approxirnale boundaries.
(a
(7
between rnotedal types, and the transition may be gradual.
l]
0 20
...., .. __..M ,,.° ..
0.2
40 60
Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist;
few fine, subrounded to subangular gravel;
:.
-
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low plasticity
2
fines; diamict; trace organics.
—
Topsoil/Weathered Glacial Till
7
4
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand with
Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded
2=*t�;"
to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines.
6
Glacial Till
L*
Oi
....
c
°c
m
c
4�m
H
10
50141'
C
w
r
a
Z
12
14
-
- Trace pockets of poorly graded sand with silt
x
. below abo.ut 15— f._e.__et.
15.9
+:
6
°
�tl
- ------ _.......
116-
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 712612016
m18
_ .....
_..m.
3
Y
LEGEND
0 20 40 60
* Sample Not Recovered
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
�a
I 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
0 % Water Content
t�
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
LOG OF BORING B-7
au
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-7
Gaoten:0rnlcal and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 15.9.E ......,, Northing
_ Drilling Method:
Hollow Stem Auner Hole Diam.: _ ___ 6 to
To Elevation: 456 ft Eastin —_
P 9�
Drillin Company:
9 P Y
H_ olocene,wDrflling Rod Diam. 2 inch
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station:
9 Equipment:
Drill Ri E ui ment Diednch 5th....... Hammer Type
Horiz. Datum: _ Offset: _ ....
Other Comments:
..
SOIL DESCRIPTION
cr�
5
-0
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsifoot)
Rotor to the report taxi for a,proper understanding of Me
I-
Mn
C a)�
♦Hammer Wt. &Drop: , 149„lbs Inches,,,,,,
subsurface materials and drilling naelhod& The stratification
a
j,
E
2 n
fines Indicated below represent tho approximate boundaries
f/)
fn
0 fa)
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
I sp t lt, ..
0.2
Very dense, gray-brown, Silty Sand with
Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded
to angular gravel; fine to coarse sand;'.
2 '-__.
. ,
- ........
nonplastic fines; diamict.
Glacial Till
4
2
5015",
6—
—
3 -]$
c
5014".
D
m
c
0
O
10
4
N
5013”
O
m
Z
12
—
-
- Gray below about 12 feet.
.�
5012u;
14
6
Y _.... . ,----- .....----- �.. _.
J .... -.BOTTOM OF BORING
15.8
�.
16
......
5014"
COMPLETED 7/25/2016
18
3
Y
0 20 40 80
LEGEND
0 % Fines (<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered
• S
m
• %Water Content
I 2.9'0.D. Split Spoon Sample
a
tv
Geotechnical Report
z
I'
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.
N
LOG OF BORING B-8
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-8
C ttechNeal and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 5 ft Northin
1456
DrillingMethod:
Hollow Stern Auger Hole Diam.: fi In
Top Elevation: ft.__.._ Easting
Drilling Company:
Holccerter Drllitng„ Rod Diam.: 2 inch
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 ,., Station: ...
„.
Drill Rig Equipment: Diedrich Hammer Type.
Horiz. Datum Offset: ..... ...
Other Comments:
........
SOIL DESCRIPTIONo
a�
v cH
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)
Rotor to the report text for a proper uroderstantding of the
subsurfar.°o materiels and drilling rnetlrods. The stratificaldczn
t
a
M
E
n
E
«( t
a
♦Hammer Wt. & Drop: w 14 l 5 d 30 inches,
tines Indicated belowrepresent the approximate boundariesN
U)
N
o
C. N
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0
to
0
Topsoil.
20
40 60
__....... .. .. ....--
0.5
..
Dense to very dense, brown and gray, Silty
Sand with Gravel (SM); dry to moist; fine to
coarse, subrounded to angular gravel; fine to
2
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; trace organics;
diamict pockets.
Fill/Weathered Glacial Till
4
2
7t).
Very dense _. .......... "......---....
ry gray -brown, Silty Sand with
7.0
'
Gravel nded
osubang�la gravel;) finne e
to coarse sand
3
c
8
nonplastic fines; diamict.
o
Glacial Till:t
Q10'
..
t
40
m
62
- Fewoorl of ockets
p poorly graded, fine to
z
12...._.
- ...
medium sand with silt pockets below about
50/4"
12 feet; moist to wet from about 12 to 14
....
feet.
14
—
Y..
Z
— .......".
OM OF BORING F'
BOTTOM
15.5
w !
s=
Al
COMPLETED 7/25/2016
16
CO
Z,
18
3
Y
I
LEGEND
0 20 40 60
Sample Not Recovered
0 % Fines (<0.075mm)
I 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
0 % Water Content
r�
J
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
�
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations
and definitions.
a
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
�w
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
LOG OF BORING B-9
ua
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-9
Csotech nIcal and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 15.8 Northing:
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem.Au.qer Hole Diam.:
Top Elevation: 454.5 ft. Easting: ... . ......... . ......... . .
Drilling Company: Holocene Rod Diam.: 2 -inch
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: _-_Diedrich„D 5il. . ......... Hammer Type:__
Horiz. Datum: Offset: . . . . . ..........
Other Comments:
. .. . . ........ . . . . ...... ........ .---- ................ ... ........ ........... . . -
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0
a)
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)
Refer to the roi)ort text for a proper understanding of the
E
CL
C:
D•
CU
n
A Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs I;IQ-frlq�99
subsurface materials and drilling methods. 7he stratification
CL
>1
E
C)
- 3:
lines Indicated bolow represerif the approximate boundaries
a)
U)
U) CcC7
0
between material types, and the transition may be gradual,
0 20 40 60
.............
"I'll”,
Topsoil. ... . . ......
0.5
Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand(SM); dry to
moist; few fine, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines;
2
. . ...............
. . . ..... . ...... .
diamict pockets; trace organics.
T
Fill
4
Roots at about 5 feet.
2
6
. . . ..... . ...... . . . ......... . . ..... . ......
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand with
7.0
Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrou nded
:
8
to angular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
3
-a
nonplastic fines; diamict.
Glacial Till
Mottled orange and gray -brown with pockets
10
7
. . . . ......
of iron oxide staining from 7 to 9 feet.
4
5011
12
V 5
50/3% 6
14—
5014"
BOTTOM OF BORING
15.8
16
. . .......... -7-
COMPLETED 7/25/2016
181
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
0 % Fines (<0.075rnm)
Sample Not Recovered
0 %Water Content
2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
2
cz
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification
and selected lab testing.
LOG OF BORING B-10
as
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
I FIG. A-10
I
Geatechnical and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth:„m4 ft Northing: ___
Drilling Method:
Hollow Stern Atl5�t Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Elevation: 4 1 Eastin 9
Drilling Company:
n :
9 P Y
Holocene Drllldn Rod Diam : 2 -inch N�
Vert.
Vert. Datum: NA VD
1-11 D 88 . Station:
Drill Ri E ui menta Drednch D at? Hammer T e
– G P
Honz. Datum .. Offset:
Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
o
U)
„
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
satasaadeco rnnterlats acrd driillr�g methods. The stratificattrn
s
n
n
E
°� t
o a
Hammer Wt. Drop: 1401bs /30 inches
.........
linesbetypes, �c present the approximate boundaries
IndIl
a)
U)
Cc�
� (1)ige
material and the transition may be gradual,
0
20
40 6n
-�..—..........�.
0.5
Dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
2
diamict.
Weathered Glacial Till
1
AL,–.
4
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM) to
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM), moist; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
z
8i11^"^
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
.,
6
..
Glacial Till
3
c
8621
1,.
C
J
10
4�m
m
50WIA
0
12
--
.rc
a•.5t)/�F
6
14
° .
11,
s
16
” ...........
.:
$6f a".
BOTTOM OF BORING
16.4
..
Cn
COMPLETED 7/25/2016
'
18
3
,
Y,
LEGEND
0 20 40 60
Sample Not Recovered
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
I 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
0 %Water Content
U
J
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
RNOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations
and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
W
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and
selected lab testing.
LOG OF BORING B-1 1
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON 8 WILSON, INC. FIG. A-11
Dookoctun�cal and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 16.3 R. Northing: -----------
Drilling Method:
Hollow tern Aygeir
Hole Diam.: 61x1.-_.....
Top Elevation -456 ft . Easting:
. ...... . . .. I — -
Drilling Company: _Yq19q
Rod Diam.: . ........... 21 -Inch . . ...........
Vert. Datum: NAVO 88 Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: _D.ie01chD-.50__..
Hammer Type:
Horiz. Datum: Offset: I --- - ------ . ............
. Other Comments: .. . . .......... — --- - . . .
.............. . .......
SOIL DESCRIPTION
o
o �
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsilfoot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
r_
CL
E
:3
A Hammer
Wt. & Drop:
subsurface materials and drilling mallwds. The stratificallon
CL
>� E
0
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
(D
ca
U) Co
U)
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0
20 40 60
Topsoil. . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . .......
0.5
Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
X.
(SM); dry to moist; fine, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to medium sand;
2
7—
nonplastic fines; trace organics.
Fill
T
...... .... .
4
- - — ------- -
. ........ ........ . . . . . ..... ..... . .... . ......
Very dense, gray -brown, Silty Sand with
4.5
Ts
Gravel (SM); moist; fine, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
t 2
6
. ...........
nonplastic fines; diamict..
X.
. . .... .......
Glacial Till
Trace organics from about 4.5 to 8.5 feet.
8
. .. .... .....
-501601
10
.
.......... . .
......
4
501,5%
12
.
........ ..
S
50t2%
14
6
16
-1-1: . . . . ........... .
. . ..
-------
-- - -----------
BOTTOM OF BORING
16.3
COMPLETED 7/25/2016
18
0
20 40 6C
LEGEND
0 % Fines (<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered
0 %Water Content
2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
Geotechnical Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF BORING B-12
September 2016 21-1-22082-004
SHANNON &VVILSON, INC. I FIG. A-12
GootechnIcal 8rW Environ that. Consultants
3-
r
LL
cLO
oCL
a
0CL
w
CL
Q�
c
o
m
ami"
.. �, .
U
� "
f0 co
. , , ,.
. ,
. ,
O�
�,
,.
. r
..
. .
. ,
O
NIDm
CNl
n
CO CO
"w., ✓✓
. . . , .
. . ,
00 d)
V O R^ , , .
�.
. ,
..
Lii
FLj
F
.,
CLCo
�.
Y
.�•✓
1
cc,,)
V,
�� , ,
I
N
'O
Z
Nca
_
N
O
L)
L)
m
m.�
seldweg
ch ch
JaleM %
_�..�
o
anus au._���.._
P q0 oN
n...
P}j!
0
a�
c
,
C4
ooa�irn
�U� m o
m(6
Eos
Ci
m
Z.
O
N G �� C0+%
�N
X
a
o y 3 E E
U n�
CV
_O
.� -0 7 f6
LL
H N
N
'a
o�yJ'D�N
OE
o
ac
1
=
F-
w
O` off
Z (D °
U
C
LJJ
❑
J
N
c c it, w n
c`?
O
a
H
LL
O
_
y
4c---
mcc
T,
Ucn ��a�a
ca
�m
O
o
-omoC,)
a
rw�e
u�iC40=
0
y a y C
• c . _ c ° co cc
C E` Vi V> U N ao
3 0
d M o °� =,cam mm °' roti
Z!,;Z -0Z' 7 lB ,� O d N
Zo ~ O N� C Oa) E aC�- j C N O O
C�� 3� O)C 'O OCV
CD cc �. � o Z'�Mv H w aoao
ZW W C i�z��$ y Z a N N
r _
h O O df0 (0
�6 � a
O y 7� �O�pp� Cha LL.O
sr O O U= 0 7 C .Sg N (V N C c
H �� coli > 300 v m m� �� nn
0 � Now 0 CO� a_a-
N FIG. A-1
N
Cc
tai
L
oca
c,
x
p
x
OL
Q o
LU
N
>
. ,
co
O
'Nt
E
LL<
o
4D I
„
w
o
�,....
(0CD
�..
N
N
c
N
�,
. ,
ti
Llj
f`
`
O
Z
.r ,
Q,
_
O
arm.
�� �Eocn,
�.
o
CO`
Y
�� o.
oo� ��. ..
LL o Q o,_
D
N
ca
p
N
m °oOo
» Li
C�
-
N
q 0
N
N
O
Z
LUco
i
0
U)
. ..
" . . .
_.... __
�� ...._..,...�..�_ _.m..... C). ..�..
saldweg
H H
CD U
jualuoo.._
..............._........
Ja}eM %
., .
� l em
............
.,,...� _ __.. ....... � .. �__w � �m�...---..m_
pun
p
panaasgp auoN
y a y C
• c . _ c ° co cc
C E` Vi V> U N ao
3 0
d M o °� =,cam mm °' roti
Z!,;Z -0Z' 7 lB ,� O d N
Zo ~ O N� C Oa) E aC�- j C N O O
C�� 3� O)C 'O OCV
CD cc �. � o Z'�Mv H w aoao
ZW W C i�z��$ y Z a N N
r _
h O O df0 (0
�6 � a
O y 7� �O�pp� Cha LL.O
sr O O U= 0 7 C .Sg N (V N C c
H �� coli > 300 v m m� �� nn
0 � Now 0 CO� a_a-
N FIG. A-1
N
a
Q occ
>
c.
����:.'.'�,
,
. .
E
:...�
::.:::
v
cu 00
Z
Cl) }
LL
cu
CD
co
Cb
N
N.
0
W
2
<a C,
ca
f
Q.
1
Oco
f
NCo.
00
N
ca
„ i
., .
. .
N
0
'v
W
fa
T
N..
Zco
W
0^
V/
3
r
o
of
�..�imii
.........mm��
00
T T
saldWeS
Ch
;uaJuo0
....... ._......._.
Ja1eM %
Ja}eM
P 3 )ON
punoa�
N
`m
o>
o 'n
o
3E
3a�°io �rn
y� 3 °
'i
{.7
V
Z.
LL�.:.�
ZO
-
��
C C
2�c�
�ONDo
tq
y �'
>. U
O N V
3
-
va)a.0
C M N 7
d
E a E
Cl)Au
co
0 `
a°i
of
c
as y cooa
H
U
N a)
w�
aLz
3
T
_ j U C
Z
..
E j d
�s
W
W
E-0
LZ - —
Baa a
o
CU CL
-0 r�M
LL
O
cn
O
a
a) �
o
U l m E2 m
�'ta m c—
rn
T O` cl
m y mcn
0
o
»� _
o—.
CD colo —
E
i co a3 U m C H
N
0
0
8�
COO
FIG. A-16
N,
. .
. . . .
Q
o
E
wLL
.
00
1
o
U
I'd
N
,
N
.
o
Z
CD
O
0_
� ..
f
. . ,
N
00,.
N
(6
co
. , ,
,
N
a
w
N
N
H
t
w
ui
'^
LL
N„_.
.
D
........
_ ��
co
00o
C14
seldweg
Cb
JuajuoC)
JejeM
punoaE)
auoN
E
LL
Z
ai
Cl
0
��
_3
H
aID
u
> 2
rna�
>
cn
cc
q
�c
U�
a"
>0
.
h
w�
z
m
rn
n
°
�"
J
,50.
8� � 3
OL
to
N
0
y
.o
0 4 C
R3
N
LL
O
Q ^ ` Q> I
I1
V
H
.,V S%S,. ILIA..
w`9' ", F-
L
�
FIG. A-17
N
C
(0
a
c
0
O
LL
CL
19t
W
v
c
c0
0
to
>
Q
o
W
CC
O
U o0
Z c
O
OLL
cu
c
J -0
c
ccT
O
Lo E
a co
p
CD W
N
N 0
C
N
(6 U
(n
2
W
Q cc
N
E
r N
CD W
O O
OND c
O
o
N CO
0
Z
N
i
r
i
N
O U
O
Z
0
Yco
..
O
CL
o
"1=1 'qjd9Cj
CN
seldWeS
9
..., .. .., ..... ..........
juajuoo
JajeM %
r�
.......-. .
Ja}eM
.....
punojE)
panjasgp auoN
t
o
w i
CL
Z
rovo
�42 E
nO
C7
2
_ a
'i
a
o�
°
>,
=
z�W
U
w
Q, C c
Prov
c:
0.2 1--p
3 CD c
6
.
z
J_
M +_..
3
C7
O
o � o'110
�3
mm 0
J
0 CL
Jfq EE-
>A
(N
FIG. A-19
1=1 q4 ad
saldweS
o
o
�
N
Cl)
JaIeM %
ori
p
paAjesgp auON
pole jE)
CC3
3 C7
-0 o
cq E
4
a
-01
-1
N3O
3-.
F-
c
>.
c
o 5
F-
0
o C/) D
° cn
4)
wN
(
LV
~
o
caai�o
3a o
LL
c'`�°
6C9
0
O
J
0 m o"
�' c
a) m CL
Z.-'
c
� O
xo
co
ai=� a
i°
y
'0a
C7
LU
co -�
O OD_"a 0-
�
o m—_
0
v
�D_C�iLL
ani cco=
i�H
c
m
�
i
FIG. A-20
O
cao
C0
U)
co
� ao
.r
v
O
) LL
H
U
ca
�
M
U
ca L
O
co) Cfl
a
o
W
two
N
_
C
N
0N
CO
V
`O
U)ca
2
Q
CL)
10
c
a)
E
..
A?
a
o
w
C)
0
o
i
ca
w
N
N
r
O
N
O
C)
Z
Y
m
O
O
a
.. - __, . .. .�_ ...... -
�... O
N.... .._ -- N
co O
CD N
1=1 q4 ad
saldweS
o
o
�
cn
Cl)
JaIeM %
ori
p
paAjesgp auON
pole jE)
o
�
�
3 M
N
�
p
y. w
z d
3 C7
-0 o
cq E
4
O
-01
-1
N3O
3-.
F-
>.
c
o 5
F-
o C/) D
° cn
4)
wN
(
LV
~
w
caai�o
3a o
coim�
ca
c'`�°
6C9
0
O
J
0 m o"
�' c
a) m CL
Z.-'
c
� O
O
co
ai=� a
� i
y
'0a
C7
Cf)
co -�
O OD_"a 0-
�
o m—_
0
J�� CCCC7H
�D_C�iLL
ani cco=
i�H
FIG. A-20
seldweg
jualuoo
Ja;eM %
Jolem
.�...�.�.�.
puna
CL
H
�E a
o
w` N
02 H
Z, 0
O
N� O
J
--.-.-.-. ........ o o ...... _.......
T r
peAjesgp auON
m a)
o
a
c m
L
N
SCO
o
C
olztc
wE
a�
T
�acu
rn m
C
a
m
o
c c
w 7 0
;-
O� N
O
� co
p U
O N E
_N
0_
��
Z
O
o m o o
C N 0
a
m
0.4-
O
a� (D
` (D c
a�
v
7
-o C)
vOi i �aai
7.
:3
O
J��
NH
�D,C7E
>coH
T
LL
CL
LO
O
xxO
T
W
C
(d
C
O
(D
W
(
c
O
Z
C
U
`C
N
U)
LL
>>w
>
U
o
(04
p
U
c
T
co
O
v
(p
o
E
p
N
W
c�0
N
p
N
i
(O
U
fA
2
LLJ
Q
m
N
O
T
a)
LL
o
w
0
ONDc
°
v�
o
N
N
>m
>
N
T
N
O
O
U
Z
o
U
O
of
--3
a
o
seldweg
jualuoo
Ja;eM %
Jolem
.�...�.�.�.
puna
CL
H
�E a
o
w` N
02 H
Z, 0
O
N� O
J
--.-.-.-. ........ o o ...... _.......
T r
peAjesgp auON
m a)
o
a
c m
L
3U a
SCO
o
olztc
wE
a�
�N
�acu
rn m
C
a
m
o
c c
w 7 0
;-
O� N
O
� co
p U
O N E
��
Z
O
o m o o
C N 0
a
m
0.4-
O
a� (D
` (D c
a�
v
7
-o C)
vOi i �aai
7.
:3
m
J��
NH
�D,C7E
>coH
T
FIG. A-21
N
C
(a
a
c
0
o
u
w
LO
c
m
m
o
LU
� c
o
ao
Z c
co
L)
`C N
OLL_.
H m
O c
c.
o
A m
Lo E
v
C) W
m
N
C
N 0 N
c6 U
p
fA
_
Q
C
o
++
a
o w
o
�
04
o 2
(0
m
N N
w
N,
r
N
v
o
�
Z
m O
O a
o
O
C%4
._
.. .__ .. ..... O N.
00
saldweg
Chq
ua uoo
0
J91BM %
4
�.......
Ja;eM
panuasgo auoN
punao
ip
aoca
cN
.'+u
N
ca
co E
0
CO E
0=.
H
o
F
�� c
�o
a)
a'EH
U
_..
a c
o�
m76
WW
c v
co
v
3C7
z
w
O
c�—
aim
L
24z cc _
rn�
= m
o
(n
z
c=_
Z'c_
0 N Q
0 Oa 0 0 0
N •► =
M
N ca —
L
Jc/5 E 2 1—
D
i co l—
FIG. A-22
N
C
cc
�
a
c
0
12
o
LL
CL
Iq o
v
c
m
o
cn
>
CDCOn
w
c
o
o
mCj)
LL
Q �
O v�N*"
ca
o
LO E
v, co
p
o W
N
is
�.
N p
C
N
(6 U
fA
2
LL
(D
C,
C c
:a
E.
W
o w
a
C)
alloc
°
o
NCa
0
Z
N
r
N
O U
O
Z W
N
0 d
O
`4�daa
Ocq . _
.... .........,..... �.. .. O ... ..
(V..
saldweS
9
.. ...... .......... ... ....... ,,,......
co
.........
}ua;uoO
N
_.r.
Ja}eM %
L6
�.
Jelem
punojE)
pa/uasgp auoN
r W)
u
w
IL
2
OA
O
U
c
>
a
0 W
ZgW
U
U)
c
C(a
cm (,u
O! H
p
3 C7 c
ZB LL
O
3 (a —
a> >y
Ui
O N O
NMI O
O CL
J� Ei—
7
N
FIG. A-23
C:
N
30 cu
c
0
0 22
�a
z
0
0
a
x
a) co
M!�
"0
LL
C) C)
LO
uj
ca cc
r- (D C,)
c
(a
0
a.
0
ip
Q.
0 cLt"
.0
--,d
ca
>
0
(D
0O
w
00
w
US
cc
U) LL
0
Q.
E
0
cc
Mn CO
LO
C)
C\l
E
W
C*4
cD
--.r
o
0
c
0
L4
0
W
(D
C)
9
I
A
LU
co
04
CO
0
C-4
04
C
0
"
-0
CC
(D
04
04
w
0
Z
0
0
w
-me (D
I
I
CO
CL-
R,� -- . - 11-1 .. .... ........ . ....... .... . . ....... . ...
O 04 'T CO co C) 04
1=1,ql aa
FIG. A-24
30 cu
C -0
0 22
�a
z
0
-0
a) co
M!�
"0
(D
p
ca cc
r- (D C,)
a.
cz
C3)
Q.
0 cLt"
.0
--,d
U)
0 C0 M)
04
E
(D
a)
0)- ,
L-
-a C/)
w
(D o
'0 o
0
r s -
(D 0
6
Q.
E
An
0
cn
- cc
a0 ca
z
0 0 io CL
—oj C/) a cu �0-
a) 2
.0 C/) EM
(D 2 c
>.0 F
FIG. A-24
N
cc
a
c
0
O
w
x
`o
w
a
c
m
O
CD
}
cn
>
o
m
w
o
OD
Z c
a>
Oy
H
cn LL
cc
Um
c
O vi
J c
cu
O
cA E
o CO
p
C) W
N
_
N O
C
N
(O U
(n
2
LLJ
Q u
a) Nt
p aci
E
�- a
C> w
tZ
o cu
Noc
o
n
0
a)
NCCN
r
N
O
O U
�
Z oY
co
o a
o
_.........._
.......
o
_,_,_.....
N
�...
...C.0
OD o — CN
sajdweg
9
...... __
;ua;uo�
.......
...... --
Ja;eM %
r-4�
_.....
Ja;eM
.. ..----
panuasgp
_------- -"",.... ............
auON
...-.
....... _.------- ..
punoaE)
.. ..... w ...........................
..-.......
. ......... _�........
ami
_oCD_
°
N
a
U' �' co
=
c:
ca
CO
co v
H
Z
ca
,�+ U
` O
J E a
d
> co
2(D
c 3
a) a -�
— v
N
c rn
O O
e
c cm 2
v c:c
o MC,)
+.
w
0
z� W
��
Z��
o
o'° H
o
�, "� c
Cc -:
Cl) Q)
� a; o
0)
a)
70 m
75 —
ZE LL
O
J
O
rna.o
Hca _
vro:E
EC�c�u(„
c�
oc`o
mcq
U)
Na vi w
C7
1AA11� 0
o ccoA o n.
J E 2�
ai oa2—
O
Z'� �_
J
c>M
>y3EP
FIG- A-25
N
t0
a
c
0
c`o
o
}
w
w
LO
v
in
>
a�
a�
?
w
Cl) O
a) co
Z c
O
w
cuQ
U
O vi
J
c
�N
Ccu
O
Lo
to Co
O W
N
yp
N p N
C
Co V
p
fA
2
W
Q
N
D c
aD
E.
�
aD
O w
a
N
O O`
Ncu
w
N
r
N
O U
O
�
U
Z
m O
O a
.-1-----o
-- — - N
..............m.m m ................... r r
co 00 O N
saldweS
9
aM o
... ......._
N
_............ -- - ..................
�ue/u....
Li
J819M
pan.iasgp
auoN
punaE)
t3 0
CL
014,
HZ
a
i.
.0
Uc.
0 I�
w
U"a
U.
zi
J
—0
o
5
o
4-7 0
7C)
O O
3 �0-
Com'
a �=
J
(7)
FIG. A-26
N
fC
a
c
O
li
in
�x
v
v
c
m
in
ca
aa)
W
c
Cl)O
U op
Z c
a�
O CO
�
c
O w
c
O
An co
Ln E
p
o W
N
N O
C
N
V
fA
2
W
Q
N
p c
N
�
c- N
O W
�.
d
N cc
C
co
N M
O
Z
N
N
O U
O
L
U
Z
O a
o
oN
Co....................................... ......
r �
saldweg
1
0
jualuoo
LO
JejeM %
ui
Ja�eM
............................................. ............... -------------- ----------------------- - -
peAjesgp auoN
punas
CD
� c
LZ
O�
o
An
CO
~O
Z
=
° �
E CL
a
ma m
� c
08N W
c m E
OMS
w
oroo
�C7
U)
N O�^+N' Q
�'
" p
0 o�
C —
>c,"
LFIGLA-27
N
C
(C
�
a
c
0
T
CL
LL
co,
�
w
v
o
a�
co
o
w
a) 00
Z
O
Cl) LL
cu
U
CQ
N
O vi
c"
cca
o
cn E
w C0
o
o w
N
O
C
CO U
O
cn
_
W
QN
0 c
N
N
O W
d
04 c
O
C
O
N
O
Z
N
r
N 1
U
O
Z
C)
Y
O a
...__ o
•�� `4�dad
�...... -
o N
__
_......... _..._. o o ...........
r 04
soldweg
o
u ;uoo
-------
C9
...—
------------
o
poAjesgp OuoN
una� unojE
a�
a
c
c
ca
Z is
O
a
Z
3 ca
o�
.0
(; E
.
-�
O
N o
c
JE F_
a
�c�
-0
Cc—
�Cc—
U
C;) v) 4--;
c1°n
E2
� W
z� W
w
.•• -Q o �
c o E o
3a o °
a� a �
��v)
o
�,
�•o
m0
o F-
Z LL
o
o T.
—
(D ma
E
N=_
3
cA
m
�= v Q Ca
CL
r- 0H
UH
Q
JAI) CC
2�C7LL
icn
J
,..
.,
FIG. A-28
N
C
N
T
a
c
0
o
ti
X
N
LOW
v
c
m
o
cc
a�
o
fA cW
o
co
LD
w
U LL
ca
Q �
c
U
O
�
c
cc
o
co E
a co
p
NW
N O
C
N
CO V
C/)
2
W
Q
O �
�
T
CD LLI
O cc
c
°No
o 2
NCc
W N
T
N
U
Z w
3N
0
) a-
o
.
.o ... _ N _ ..... .. o -
to 00 N
T T
saidweg
...............
9
JuaJuoo
... ... -- .....
0
ial1M %
6
.
,a jem
— ...
punojo
panuasgo auoN
z;
r
Z
'.
01 H
E a
2
a
of
ad
U
� c
Oz= W
w
o
Lo0
Z 8 LL
alM20
o
0
y�
U)CJ
C!� {rg
o
"IG, A-29
N
C
(d
�
Ll
c
0
o
LLm
CD
v
c
Nca
O
fA
c
o
W
v OD
Z c
O N
LL
cc
O vi
J O
C
d,N
C
cc
µ.
O
LO
_N Cfl
O W
N
N p N
C
(O U
p
fA
2
W
Q
(D
� c
N
�
U)
.r
O
O W
d
ODc
O 2
NCU>
>N
N
N F
O U
O
�
Z
Y
O a
O
............�.�- ... ........ �_.
•1=1 `uldea
0...
..—_..
-
.� -_
r
saldweS
o
U)
;ua}uoa
. .... ...............
........_,
xajeM %
cd
-- .........
�a�eM
panjasgp auoN
punoj!D
�
a
2
3�
�� o
E
Z
IL
Z's
0-
z
O
° �
�3�
� �� 0
X30
c
3
H
F-
�
o�
�Co
CD
Z's Lu
"W
~
cA
W
cmEo
3v0
cap
rn�
cm
DC7
z
LL
J
o
DC7 Z'�C
[2
EO`"
c
N
0
N
o
N= Q
O
MMMMIN` C)
p O H C O
(0 H
O O�=
(2 C7 lL
O
J
FIG. A-30
N
(u
a
c
0
m
o
w
Cl
x
't
LOLU
a
c
N
ai
(n
>
=o
00
v
Z ccfl
O )
U) LL
U1 3:O
c
-0
c
;g
o
un E
T co
p
C) w
N
cc
-
N O
C
N
CO V
`0
fA
2
W
o =
a)
CD w
a
C)
00
o
N CU
0
Z
N
r
N
V
o
Z
ao
�� `4�daa
........
C) _ __.. N
...........
co 0 N
saldweg
9
cn
}ua}.
..... — ------------ _ .
It
Ja}eM %
L6
........ ........
�a�eM
............
.....m... ..... . ... .__�........ ........._...... ..........................� ...........
punoj0
p an.as
QO uoN
ch
'oo
�v
—.
o
2
0
0
O
�2
3-:
Z
-i E a
a
O (� �
-0
U
CL
CTO cc
m'm
ZW
OO
w
3C�c
do
Z ~
..
d�0
of
X3`00
cam_
p
�3
�Ml�
rama
0
o�o
0 i° E �
aim=
05
�
CV
c0
a
c
0
m
o
LL
CL
00w
c
ca:Ll
o
:r
ca
CD
CD
CD
cn o
W
o ao
Z
`C
O w
H cc
Q
c
M
O
cca
o
co E
cn co
o
a
O W
N
coo
N p N
C
CO V
`p
(n
2
Qcc
a)c
(,
o w
a
occ
N c
o 2
t
N 0
O
Z
N
r
r
N
O V
p
U
Z
m O
(q
O a
o
O
_ ..�.....N_
--.....
. -- ..... - _� .. ......
�p O N
r
seldweg
o
Jua}uo0
CR
JeleM
co
�....,.. ......_. .- --- ....— ......r�..
Ja}eM
panjasgp auoN
punas
— ....-........... ...._
MA.....
m o
'
�+ao�
m CO
iq c2
0-
p
o ff°
CL
� 3�
a
3
2
r
n.
c
2 co
a�
-D c
� La
` o
o� U
m E
W
w
z- LL
Q
cm m —
E
a) $
tl7
cn
O= N 0-
N p�=
N c�0
FIG. A-32
L
N
IC
a
c
0
o
w
CL
19t
`n
w
v
c
ca
o
cn
>
o
m
CO c
O
W
U co
Z C
N
p
fn LL
W
�:
C
U
JO
N
C
r9
N
f0
O
EQ
N (O
_LO
C) W
N
N
N p
C
N
CC U
LO
cq
2
W
Q c
N qt
O
r N
C:) w
a
o cuONDc
o
N O
0
Z
N
r
i
N
V
O
U
Z
Y
O 0
a
o
�� y...
}daa
O
N .. .�. � ...._._.. � ......... ..... � O � . ,..., N
r r
saldweS
9
....... .......... „
ua uo0
L
.. _.....
JoleM
.....--- ,...
JajeM
_. ..................
.. ............. _ .... ..... ....... .. .. ......
punojE)
panjasgp auoN
IL
avow
a Z, 0
.o
.-
0-
ZO
��o°
�E
O c
� E a
�>
a
o Ql) cc
� c.�
�a�Q
>
�o
Z
O" H
�
223 Cc
3C!c
ZZ,B U.
J
�`_M
t0 —
Com.
N
O
w 0
X3+-;0
o c .0 a
o
.'■, O
Jct EH
_
>coh
LFIGL-A-33
N
C
N
�
a
c
0
cm
`o
LLCL 00C
v
c
N
°
UA
>
N
N
a c
o
W
ao
cOi
O m
U) LL
Q :�:
O vi
O
Lo
to CO
o W
N
N
_
N p
C
N
Cfl V
`O
U)
2
LLI
ca
N
C, N
O
C:) W
o
d
�
c
O
o
N
N
°
Z N
o
U
U
Z
o a
o
CD -co o....
soldweg
�_.....,
jua}uoo
------ --CV
...... w.
JaleM %
ui
---- —..
_..... ...............
panuasgp auoN
Puri as
m
c Z'
3v
m
_tea
—
>3
c (D c
ca
-�
:3
CL
o
c
� 'D6C
a
��
�Cl)
rn co :-:
°a w N
Z2 W
uvi
W
°
c 6 E °°
Co
c 3
rn � v�
aS Ur`'0
~
Z LL
o o
2 12
(D
CO)
cOn
co ° CO)=co
O
E=
('
O
°o °oa c
�aC cc 0
mZ
gv� °�
ani m o=
>� °H
FIG. A-34
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SHANNON 6WILSSON, INC.
21-1-22082-004
S WHOM
EIII SHANNON 6WIL SON, INC.
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
BORING B-3
'a
N
N
O
O
N
m
O
N
N
N
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse Medium
Fine
m
Silt
.. _.... _
Clay S¢e
_........ .-.
Mesh Opening in Inches
.............. ._ �.
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
Grain Size in Millimeters
a
^
O
O 00
o
Oa 00
O ro
Ory O^ 00 00
0• o• o•
M ry
O� 00 00 00
o• o 0 00
o ^o do
�o �o �o
0
0 0
0
100
tlr
90
65
N,20
76...
..
�..
.26
70
l
,,, , ,
..
,,, ,
+
e
0,.
, .
30
35
W 60
CD
CD
5
f
45 n
N 'sG1
C
...
-
iI
-
O
50 0)
LL
45
55
40.
4,,,.
64 d
..
�._..65
W
5
_..
.....
._.
^ ,.
,.
30,
70
25
75
'.
zo
�_
.•
�.�.
�e... .
N
��
6 a
15
..
. �
I� ....
_
...
�ti,.
...
..
".
86
1 0
.:
90
5
_.
i
9 --
95
0
R
100
+"
0'0
O
b
Grain Size (MM)
Sample
Depth
USCSp
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
<20pm,<2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
%
By
By
Std.
�! B-3, S-3'
7.5
SM
Silty Sand
11
55
34
8.7
AKV
JFL
C136
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
'a
N
N
O
O
N
m
O
N
N
N
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
U
0
c�
J_
�1
IL
IL
q
N
W
O
N
N
N
N
N
NS NON �IION, INC
7N
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
BORING B-4
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 6955.6777
V
rn
N
m
O
N
N
N
O
00
N
M ORION
mill SHANNION WILSON, INC.
FN
eliminary Hydrogeologic Report
ew Madrona K-8 Project
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
BORING B-5
Gravel Sand Fines
_w . ..�. m ......._ .. -- la -S-e
Coarse .... Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt C_...
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
Sample
Depth
I USCp
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
<20pm
<2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
%
By
By
Std.
* B-5, S-3'
7.5
SM
Silty Sand
14
54
32
22
8
15.0
AKV
JFL
D422
* B-5, S-6'
15.0
SM
Silty Sand with Gravel
15
52
33
10.0
AKV
JFL
C136
' Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
N
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
I
a
C7
N
m
O
N
N
N
N
VIM
ow
SHANNON WILSON, INC.
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
BORING B-11
Gravel Sand CFines
�.__._�,w.................
Coarse Fine Coarse 1 Medium Fine Silt Cla S¢e
Mesh Openinq in per Millimeters
Inches Mesh Openings Inch, U.S. Standard Grain Size in
p Millimeters
Sample
Depth
USCS
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
<20pm
<2Nm
WC
Tested
Review
ASGroTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
o�
o�
o�
o�
%
%
By
By
Std.
OB -11, S-11'
5.0
SM
I Silty Sand
13
53
34
8.1
AKV
JFL
C136
1 Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
1 New5.5111 SHANNON WILSON,
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
I
rn
N
m
O
N
N
N
a
K
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
TEST PIT PITT -1
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse .. ....._. _.. ._-.....� 6...- . ..........
Fine Coarse Medium_ Fine _ Silt Clay-S¢e
Mesh Opening in Inches .._... Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard Grain Size in Millimetersmmmm
• � g p
It, o 0 a op e a ,a a oo& ooa o0o tory
db .� o o _0 0 0 _.
,6
10
15
20
25
55
35
CD
40 N
K
45o
O
50
55 Q
0o
N
65 M
70
75
80
85
so
95
100
Grain Size (mm)
Sample Depth Group USCS Cobbles Gravel Sand Fines < 20pm < 2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
Identification (ft) Symbol Group Name %2 % % % % % % By By Std.
PIT -1, S-1 3.0 SM Silty Sand with Gravel 15 56 29 5.7 AKV JFL C136
PIT -1, S-6' 7.0 SM Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles 13 28 51 21 13.9 AKV JFL C136
' Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations. 1 Cobble percentages are calculated using the pre -removal, oven -dried mass of the
total specimen. USCS Group Symbol, Soil Classirication Group Name, Gravel %, Sand %, Fines %; <0.02mm %, <2um%, Cu, and Cc values are
calculated from particles smaller than 76.2mm (3 inches) only, per ASTM D2487.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. - 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
IIIA SHANNON WILSON, INC.
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
TEST PIT TP -1 F I
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine �. Silt ClaSize
.wm
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
p
0\
�y
^4110P ^O
0
00
OP o0 Ory O 000 000 ooa o00 411 00
100
ry0
�O 00 ^O
O'
O' o' O' O' O' O' o' o' W
o'
0
V
r
_.
95
_
5
90
10
'95
die
„„
VVV
r
,,.
�.,,� �
ppi
C
B.,
{{
.15
20
76
� (
26-
703e
V
ti "r
,...
-
-
...
..
�....
._.
..
35
CO)
N Ei0
..
CD
CD
45 n
50 �
(L
._
c45
-
55v
U
d 4e
50 N
35
65 co
30
9
_
._.
r
..Ye
25
...��
..
Rkk
�,
t ....
I
r
",."
•75
20
.. .....
(
,...
.�
..
60
1090
J
95
100
0
Grain Size (mm)
Sample
Depth
USCSGro
USCS
Gravel
Sandn3l
20pm
< 2Nm WC Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%%
% % By
By
Std.
m
0 TP -1 F, S-1'
7.0
SM
Silty Sand
13
55
7.5 AKV
JFL
C136
rn ' Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
N
N
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. - 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
T
.L
a.
a
0
N
m
O
N
N
N
M
O
O
N
W
O
N
N
N
`111 IF Iran
MONO
SHANNON WILSON, INC.
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
TEST PIT TP -2F
Gravel _ Sand Fines
Coarse Fine I Coarse
mm Mediummmmmm.. I Fine m Silt mmm mm Clay -Size
. �m--M e
Mesh Opening in Inches I Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. StandardGrain Size in Millimeters
�a \Y 0
M p �.
0 0 0� 4 orO op oh o`�
W p• O' O'
oorO ooa oo`� oon
1^ OW O' W O' W
o0
O'0
100
Gravel
Sand
Fines
< 20Nm
o/
< 2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
4
By
r
TP -2F, S-1
6.0
SM
Silty Sand with Gravel
29
5
L13
7.3
AKV
JFL
C136
10
15
20
7'S
_.
li
-
`�
i
_ S I.
2� Cr
35
M
.
..
I
.... .. °,,.
..
.
�..
..
..
CD
CD
�411
ry
I�
.
{
f
�
45 o
n
'O
_
_
s
,.
...
, .
,,,,
O
rr0 0)
LL
i�.
c 45pNNV
,pQ
56 a-
4) 40450
((
ppj
0)
N
65
,5.
„
�.
—
30
..
_
.........
.,
_..
V
„..
a
........
I
_.�
N
70
. 75
..i
1,
80
15
r
f
V
85
i
C
..
10
_
-
�.
4
90I
o �y p
lrN' 'l5' 1p JS'
,00
���
t7" 6,
Grain Size (mm)
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
Sample
Depth
USCSS
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
< 20Nm
o/
< 2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
By
By
Std.
TP -2F, S-1
6.0
SM
Silty Sand with Gravel
29
58
L13
7.3
AKV
JFL
C136
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
SHANMON&WIl,,,,SON, INC.
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
21-1-22082-004
VIA
t»sluau��v�arr��a
SPECTRA
Laboratories - -.) ,..Where experience matters
26276 Twelve Trees Lane, Suite C e Poulsbo, WA 98370 a (360) 779-5141 a Fax(360)779-5150 a www.spectra-lab.com
August 15, 2016
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
400 N. 34h Street, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98125
Project: Madrona K-8
Sample Date: 7/29/16
pH 1:2 soil to vwl
Phosphorus &ay ppm
Potassium NH4QAc ppm
Calcium NH4QAc mW100 g
Magnesium NH4QAc meq/100 g
Sodium NH4QAc meq/100 g
SMP Buffer Index`
Organic Matter LOI % by Wt
Nitrate -Nitrogen KCI ppm
Sol Salts 1:2 961:weter dS/m
&O ,qu,"
PAP -Accredited
2014
Lab Work Order #: 161057
Sample Received: 8/1/16
Sample ID: SF -1
Lab No.: 161057-01
. e YI4 ilii ' Illa�j�
r r
Q
Low Medium High
NA- Not analyzed
All analyses performed on air-dried soil passed through a 2 mm sieve.
Soil Fertility Levels
The soil sample submitted from your site was found to have the following general nutrient levels:
pH
Phosphorus (P)
Potassium (K)
Calcium
Magnesium
Nitrate -Nitrogen
EC (Sol Salts)
Neutral
High
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Salinity Negligible
6.6-7.3
40-100 ppm
<150 ppm
<5 meq/1008
0.5-2.5 meq/100g
<10 ppm
<0.4 dS/m
1
SPEcr
rRA Laboratories'- Kits4p re experience matters
.... ,.�,.m.-.. _........ n� a...98370 ,®, .,360 779-51.41..... Fax ... p
26276 Twelve Trees Lane Suite C Poulsbo, WA F �- (6) (360) 779-5150 •
........e
www.spectra-lab.com
Project: Madrona K-8
Sample Date: 7/29/16
pH 1:2 soil to vial
Phosphorus Bray ppm
Potassium NH40A,c ppm
Calcium NH40Ac meq/100 g
Magnesium NH40Ac nxgl00 g
Sodium NH40Ac meq/100 g
SMP Buffer Index*
Organic Matter L01 % by wt
Nitrate -Nitrogen KCI ppm
sib+ sails 1:2 soiimmer d5Wm
Lab Work Order #: 161057
Sample Received: 8/1/16
Sample ID: SF -2
Lab No.: 161057-02
NA- Not analyzed
All analyses performed on air-dried soil passed through a 2 mm sieve.
Soil Fertility Levels
The soil sample submitted from your site was found to have the following general nutrient levels:
PH
Moderately Acid
5.2-6.0
Phosphorus (P)
Medium
20-40 ppm
Potassium (K)
Low
<150 ppm
Calcium
Low
<5 meq/100g
Magnesium
Low
<0.5 meq/100g
Nitrate -Nitrogen
Low
<10 ppm
EC (Sol Salts)
Salinity Negligible
<0.4 dS/m
2
. A A oda
SPECTRA Laboratories -
, f ...Where experience matters
26276 Twelve Trees Lane, Suite C - Poulsbo, WA 98370 - (360) 779-5141 - Fax(360)779-5150 - www.spectra-lab.com
Project: Madrona K-8 Lab Work Order #: 161057
Sample Date: 7/29/16 Sample Received: 8/1/16
Recommendation:
SF 1: The pH of this area is best suited for turf, vegetable gardens and bedding plants (>6.0). The use
of sulfate -containing fertilizers will tend to make the soil more acid with continuous use, and will make
the soil pH better suited to our native plants, or the pH can be adjusted downward by broadcasting 2 lbs
of finely ground elemental sulfur or 6 lbs of iron sulfate per 1000 sq ft, soil for every 1/2 to 1 pH unit
decrease desired. Repeat this application every 3 months until the desired amount of sulfur has been
added. (Iron sulfate works faster.) A pH requirement sheet has been included to help you decide if the
pH needs to be adjusted to meet your needs.
The calcium and magnesium levels are low, but in an acceptable ratio to one another. Increase both
by incorporating 50 lbs of gypsum and 20 lbs of Epsom salts per 1000 sq ft of soil. The macronutrient
levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are all low. Incorporate a complete fertilizer such as 10
lbs of 10-20-20 plus 12 lbs of 0-0-60 per 1000 sq ft. The goal should be approximately 1 lbs of actual
nitrogen, 2 lbs of P205 and 9 lbs of K20 per 1000 sq ft.
SF 2: The pH of this soil is closer to that needed for native plants, but still acceptable for turf. The pH
can be lowered further as stated above for natives. The buffer pH indicates that liming is not needed,
but the calcium and magnesium levels are low. Increase as stated above. The macronutrient levels are
low. Incorporate a complete fertilizer such as 10 lbs of 10-20-20 plus 71bs of 0-0-60 per 1000 sq ft.
The goal should be approximately 1 lbs of actual nitrogen, 21bs of P205 and 61bs of K20 per 1000 sq
ft.
Both areas: The soluble salts and sodium content are low indicating that excess salts have not built up
to a level that will harm plants. The organic matter is low in SF -1 and borderline in SF -2. Adding 2-4
inches of compost or other top -dressing will be of benefit.
More nitrogen may need to be added periodically during the growing season (April, July and late
October -November) at the rate of one lb actual nitrogen per 1000 sq ft of soil (for example, 5 lbs of
21-0-0) if a rapid growth is desired. The reuse of grass clippings produced from a mulching mower can
take the place of one of the nitrogen applications for turf during the growing season or a good grade of
compost or manure can be substituted for one of the fertilizer applications. Spread 1/4 inch deep over
the soil, compost will supply nutrients and increase the organic matter content of any soil, which in turn
will boost nutrient and water -holding capacity.
For turf maintenance, Washington State University studies have shown that grass uses N:P:K in the
ratio of 3:1:2 and it is helpful to use a fertilizer with that ratio of N:P:K in future applications.
For ongoing maintenance of woody ornamentals, once a year in the spring they can be fertilized
lightly (5 lbs per 1000 sq ft) with a complete fertilizer such as 10-20-20.
Thank you for the opportunity to help you prepare healthy landscape.
Nancy Parrott
Laboratory Supervisor
WDOE Accreditation #C594
This report is issued solely for the person or company to whom it is addressed. This laboratory accepts
responsibility only for the due performance of analysis according to industry accepted practice. Spectra
Laboratories - Kitsap or its employees are not responsible for consequential damages in any ldnd or in any
amount.
A= 03 pue Hd :IIoS 6V�
,.:
=IVY 1001 JO NdVY :w10 I aJ I
1
a
bW c
�.y
a
snoaoydsoyd lelol NXI
d-ajeydsoydoyrJO N-eluowwy N-SM)IN
HdlIAI4�A d _,
seat SS/LL S/11 SSI SOl sP!IoS � �
(Hdlla�
O V 110) IOS V43H W
.�.
000 0090 001'
tIosd) spslo
,V m
�. C
uZ OS!N Ovy no BH
�p �s21 88s6a cog
q3
Zli6VOSIN6ff Qd_
u b
I
d
N W
8y aS BH Qd A0 PO e9 sb'�s elaW V210L1 ,r �� �
W m
c t +
i. sJaule;u00 jo jagwnN °�'w, d
CL
ws;u
con ton
&^ rIN,
73
„ o
T
E
CL o
V oar
ro m
m
q �*
_J7 0 f
;; to
. q
o Sz
CL
v
❑ -
a CL c
ca V Rn1) m9' a�� n
°f I ; o g 12q
N a 1 71,
of
0 m� . o
h O O
c E FITV v
> of c
.1: R
s
N .y
(D r_4 ,P" ' d S,
U 1134+ E
m m
ID,CO
co E
C E
CL
me� a
N Gl �^ dy p a aEi
LE' o o F
�— to0 El
SHANINOWSWLSOKINC,
APPENDIX D
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
21-1-22082-004
SHANNON $ WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-004
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Date: October 31, 2016
To: Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be
adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report
expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended
purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally
contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project -specific
factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and
configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of -service limitations imposed by the
client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report
may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of
the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated
warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation,
or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when
there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that
may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report
is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for
example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also
affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual
interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work
together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly
beneficial in this respect.
Page 1 oft 1/2016
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions
revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can
be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide
conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine
whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by
applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of
the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a
geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design
professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of
their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test
results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in
geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete
geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared
for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for
whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was
prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss
the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically
appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available
information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design
disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem,
consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. These responsibility clauses
are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that
identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual
responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are
encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the
ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland
Page 2 of 2 1/2016
Wetland Buffer Averaging and Enhancement Plan
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value.
Since 1954.
September 20, 2016
Submitted To:
Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
20420 68th Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
By:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
400 N 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98103
21-1-22082-006
01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 PURPOSE..... .......................................... ........................... ......... ..............................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ........... ............ ........... .......,.,...... ,..............
.. . ,.,,,.....,,,................ ,.....,1
3.0 WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGING ..................................... ......................... ...........2
3.1 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Requirements .........................,..2
3.2 Existing Wetland B Buffer Condition and Functions................................................2
3.3 Wetland B Buffer Averaging Strategy.......................................................................3
4.0 WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT ................................. ---- ................................ ,.,4
4.1 Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan ............................... , ..,..,............... .,..,..,..4
4.2 Wetland Buffer Enhancement Sequence ....................... ........ -- ....,.............,..5
4.3 Maintenance .......................... ........................... ............................. — - .., ............6
4.4 Monitoring Plan........................,......,...,,............,.....--- ... ..................... ......,......6
4.5 Performance Standards ...................... ..—,,..... -.................... ...................... .,..,..,...8
5.0 CLOSURE .................... ............................................. .................. ...............................8
6.0 REFERENCES-- .................. .....,.. ..............,.., ......., ......,..,................,. ,,....,,...........10
TABLE
1 Vegetation Performance Standards ................... ..---.............. .............. . ,,,.,......8
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan
3 Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan
APPENDICES
A Wetland Buffer Enhancement Area Photos
B Important Information About Your Wetland Delineation/Mitigation and/or Stream
Classification Report
...... ....... _.. ._..........
21-1-22082-006-xI f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-006
1
S1 ANNON 6WILS01% INN
WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGING AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
1.0 PURPOSE
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson) was contracted by the City of Edmonds School
District (District) No. 15 to assist with the wetland buffer averaging and enhancement strategy
associated with a site wetland, Wetland B, identified by Shannon & Wilson on the New Madrona
K-8 project site in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). This plan was prepared for the exclusive
use of the Edmonds School District and their representatives for the purpose of complying with
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), which regulates activities within wetland
buffers.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The District plans to construct a new Madrona K-8 school on the south side of the approximately
40 -acre property, located at 9300 236th Street SW (Snohomish County tax parcel
27033600404600). The project is located within Section 36 of Township 27 N, Range 4 E,
Willamette Meridian.
The property is dissected by two steeply sloped wooded areas running in north -south alignments;
one is a ravine located along the eastern property boundary and the other is a forested incline
located near the middle of the property. The existing Madrona Elementary School is located
in the northeast corner of the property and the former Woodway Elementary School is located in
the opposite southwest corner of the property. Recreational areas including a track and baseball
field, and soccer fields are located in the southeast and northwest corners of the property. The
areas surrounding the property consist primarily of residential development.
A wetland and stream delineation completed in July 2015 identified three wetlands (Wetlands A,
B, and C) on the project site. Wetland delineation findings are described in the Revised Wetland
and Stream Delineation Report for the New Madrona K-8 Project (Shannon & Wilson, 2016).
The current design for the new school is constrained by the property's steep slopes and would
unavoidably extend into a portion of the standard buffer for Wetland B. This plan describes the
Wetland B buffer averaging strategy and also describes proposed Wetland B buffer
enhancements that would complement the wetland buffer averaging strategy.
21-1-22082-006-R] Vwp/flm 21-1-22082-006
OCHANNON 8WH..,1330N, ENG
3.0 WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGING
3.1 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Requirements
The City regulates wetland buffers under Chapter 23.50 of the ECDC (City, 2016).
Wetland B is a Category III depressional wetland (Shannon & Wilson, 2016). The City requires
a 60 -foot standard buffer width around Category III wetlands (ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1). Under
ECDC 23.50(G)(3), the City allows for wetland buffer averaging with wetland buffer
enhancement if the following requirements are met:
The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions
and values will be:
— Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where
existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or
— Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing
buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the
wetland.
The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics
or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland
would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by
a narrower buffer in other places;
01 The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a
subject parcel for wetlands extending off-site, after averaging is no less than that
which would be contained within a standard buffer; and
■ The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than 25 percent to less
than 50 percent of the standard buffer width.1
The following sections of the plan demonstrate how the Wetland B buffer averaging and
enhancement strategy meets these criteria.
3.2 Existing Wetland B Buffer Condition and Functions
The standard buffer associated with Wetland B is primarily located in the forested ravine located
along the eastern property boundary, and a portion of the wetland buffer extends beyond the
steep slopes of the ravine and into playfield south of the existing school. A chain link fence is
located at the top of the slope at the edge of the play field. Most of the Wetland B buffer is
densely vegetated, with the exception of several areas in the ravine adjacent to the wetland's
` As shown on the City's ECDC website. Communication with the City has clarified the sentence to mean, "The
buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than 25 percent of the standard buffer width."
21-1-22082-006-Rlflwp/lkn 21-1-22082-006
2
3HANNON Illllm
eastern boundary and the playfield area. The wetland buffer's vegetation within the ravine is
generally dominated by a forested strata of western red cedar (Thuja plicata), big leaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), a shrub strata of salal
(Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus),
and Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis); and a ground cover of sword fern (Polystichum
munitum). The vegetation, in combination with the topographic variation in the ravine, visually
screen and reduce noise in the wetland from the surrounding residential developments and
school. The vegetation also has the potential to provide wildlife habitat to passerine birds and
small mammals and slow surface water flow through the area.
The portion of Wetland B buffer that extends beyond the steep slopes and into the playfield is
comprised of lawn and due to its vegetation and proximity to school activities, provides minimal
wildlife habitat, water quality function, or screening.
Several unimproved footpaths are located in and around the Wetland B buffer. The paths are
part of a large trail system located throughout the project area. The paths provide educational
opportunities to students and the community and are part of an orienteering course. Chapter
23.50.040.G.5.c.i of the ECDC allows walkways and trails within wetland buffer and the project
does not plan on removing the paths.
Based on the site survey, there are two existing stormwater outfalls located in the Wetland B
buffer. One outfall, an 8 -inch metal pipe, is located in the field and will continue to be used to
discharge stormwater following project construction. However, as part of the project, the site's
stormwater treatment prior to reaching the outfall will be updated to meet current standards.
Additionally, the area around the 8 -inch outfall has been scoured by the discharge. To prevent
further erosion and sedimentation, the project will install quarry spalls underlain by geotextile
fabric, which will not require vegetation removal. The second outfall, a 10 -inch polyvinyl
chloride pipe, has not been identified in the field and may be buried or dysfunctional.
3.3 Wetland B Buffer Averaging Strategy
The project proposes to average the Wetland B buffer width where improvements associated
with the new school design would unavoidably impact the wetland buffer, mainly at the top of
the steep slope and in the play field area. This strategy would involve reducing the standard
wetland buffer width to no less than 45 feet (25 percent of the standard 60 -foot buffer width) in
the locations closest to the new school design, which would be a reduction of 3,835 square feet,
and extending the wetland buffer by 3,835 square feet at its northern boundary (Figure 2).
21-1-22082-006-R1 flwp/Um 21-1-22082-006
3
SI-IANNON 8WILE33014,INC
Given the variation in wetland buffer condition between the ravine and play field area, the
wetland would benefit from a greater wetland buffer width where dense vegetation is present to
the north and would not be adversely affected by a reduction in buffer width to the west, at the
top of the steep slope, and in the existing play field area.
Section 23.50.40.1-1.3 of the ECDC includes a requirement for the installation of permanent
fencing at the wetland buffer boundary when buffer averaging is implemented as part of a
development proposal, and also states that the director may waive this requirement (City, 2016).
The majority of the Wetland B buffer boundary is located on densely vegetated steep slopes,
largely negating the need for a fence. Additionally, the few available access points to the
wetland buffer are used to support the education opportunities described above in Section 3.2.
For these reasons, fencing is not part of the wetland buffer averaging plan and we recommend
that this requirement be waived.
4.0 WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
4.1 Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan
A wetland buffer enhancement plan has been developed to meet the City's criteria for wetland
buffer averaging, as described above in Section 3.1. The proposed enhancements are meant to
compliment the averaging strategy as well as offset the removal of two 10 -inch red alder (Alnus
rubra) trees at the top of the slope within the western wetland buffer boundary. The project
arborist identified the two hazard trees as diseased and has recommended them for removal. The
trees will be cut off at or near the ground surface, leaving the root ball intact and avoiding earth
disturbance.
The proposed enhancement plan consists of dense plantings of native shrub and fern species in
the currently bare areas adjacent to the eastern wetland boundary. These areas were selected
because although they are shaded by a forest of Western red cedar they have limited shrub and
ground cover and are in a part of the buffer that would most benefit from the enhancements
(Photos 1 and 2). Our wetland buffer enhancement will provide greater vegetation structure and
wildlife habitat and will improve screening for the wetland. To provide continuity and to
increase the planting success, the plant species selected for the enhancement area include native
species already thriving in the wetland buffer and surrounding area (Figure 3). These species
have also been used successfully in similar wetland buffer planting projects. The wetland buffer
enhancement plan includes removal of existing patches of English holly (Ilex aquifolium) from
the planting areas (See Section 4.2 below and planting note 2 on Figure 3).
21-1-22082-006-R1flwp/Hm 21-1-22082-006
4
SHANNOIN 6WLSON,ING
The wetland buffer enhancement plan also includes placing large woody debris (LWD) around
the outer borders of the planting areas to discourage disturbance and to provide insect, passerine
bird, and small mammal habitat (Figure 3). In total, the wetland buffer enhancement area is
approximately 1,380 square feet.
The proposed wetland buffer enhancement plan will increase wetland and wetland buffer
function and value in an area where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate by providing the
following ecological benefits:
Increased woody species at the wetland boundary will help contribute woody debris
and other organic material to the wetland;
Invasive species will be replaced by native species in the planting areas;
Native woody vegetation will provide wildlife habitat, forage, and cover for birds and
small mammals; and
0:
Increased vegetation in the planting areas will filter pollutants in surface water runoff
through capturing of mobilized sediment, phytoextraction, transpiration, and soil
microbial interactions.
4.2 Wetland Buffer Enhancement Sequence
The sequence below summarizes the steps that should be taken to implement the wetland buffer
enhancement plan. Additional detail can be found in the Planting Notes section of Figure 3.
A. A wetland biologist will re -flag or stake the eastern wetland B boundary in the
vicinity of the enhancement areas prior to the start of enhancement work.
B. Install erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) and protect existing native
woody vegetation in and adjacent to the planting areas. Earth disturbance should be
minimized to the extent possible to avoid damaging existing tree roots in the area.
C. Remove existing non-native invasive species such as English holly (Ilex aquifolium)
from the planting areas using a combination of hand pulling, cutting, and application
of triclopyr or similar, depending on size of individuals. Relocate existing downed
woody debris within the site to locations outside of the enhancement areas, to be
replaced and reoriented following plant installation.
D. Place LWD along the boundaries of the enhancement areas. LWD must be at least
12 inches in diameter. Existing downed woody debris that was removed from the site
prior to planting may be used in this delineation, if size criteria is met.
E. Procure plants and store properly. Biologist shall review plant material and plant
layout prior to planting. Install plants by hand in the planting areas in natural,
random clusters. Planting should occur between September 15 and January 15 to take
advantage of cool temperatures and precipitation.
21-1-22082-006-R1flwpAkn 21-1-22082-006
5
0SHAMON &WILSON, I
F. Mix 3 inches of compost into soil at plant pits and hand -dig circular plant pits. Take
care to avoid cutting through existing native tree roots. Backfill with native
soil/compost mix.
G. Water plants thoroughly after planting to avoid capillary stress.
H. Mulch the wetland buffer enhancement areas with 4 to 6 inches of wood chips to
discourage weed establishment.
I. Remove construction debris. Remove BMPs after site is stabilized.
4.3 Maintenance
The contractor will be responsible for maintenance of the enhancement areas for the first year
following installation. The District will be responsible for maintenance of the enhancement area
for the remaining four years of the monitoring period (see Section 4.4). Maintenance will
include watering during the first dry season following planting, weeding around base of installed
plants, pruning, replacing plants to meet survival requirements (see Section 4.5), removing all
classes of noxious weeds (see Washington State Noxious Weeds List, Washington
Administrative Code 16-750-005), and implementing any other measures needed to ensure plant
survival. All proposed maintenance shall be reviewed by the biologist.
Water shall be provided to installed plants during the dry season (June 1 through October 15) for
the first year after plant installation to enhance plant survival and establishment. Water should
be applied at a rate of one inch of water, once per week.
4.4 Monitoring Plan
Monitoring shall be conducted in years 1, 3, and 5 following installation of the enhancement
areas (ECDC 23.40). Below we have outlined proposed monitoring methods, success criteria,
and reporting schedule. Monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist and will consist of
documenting plant mortality in the first year after installation and estimating plant cover
thereafter. Monitoring will also include identifying maintenance needs as they relate to plant
survival and weed control. Monitoring will be conducted soon after installation to document
baseline conditions and in years 1, 3, and 5 to assess whether the site is meeting the success
criteria in Section 4.5.
A. Baseline Documentation. Within 30 days of completion of the vegetation
enhancement installation, the site will be visited to document the as -built condition.
The final plant count by species will be verified, and any approved departures from
the plan will be mapped and recorded. Recommendations for correcting any
unauthorized plan deviations will be included in a Baseline Monitoring Report.
Permanent photo points will be established during the as -built site visit to provide a
21-1-22082-006-R1 flwp/Um 21-1-22082-006
6
record of the entire monitoring area. These points will be noted on the map and
baseline photos included in the report.
B. Vegetation Monitoring.
Year 1: Each installed plant will be assessed and counted, and its condition
recorded. Invasive species cover will be visually estimated.
Years 3 and 5: Total percent cover of native shrub and fern/ground cover
species and percent cover of invasive species will be visually estimated.
Native volunteer species may be counted in the cover assessment.
— All vegetation monitoring shall occur between May 15 and September 30
(prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified.
— Photos of the vegetation enhancement shall be taken from consistent locations
established during baseline monitoring.
The monitoring reports will include:
A. Reports. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City December 31 of each
reporting year (baseline and years 1, 3, and 5). Monitoring reports will include the
following description/data:
1. Site plan and location map.
2. History of project, including date of plant installation, current year of monitoring,
and restatement of performance standards.
3. Plant survival and/or cover and vigor of the installed vegetation, in the context of
assessing achievement of performance standards.
4. Observed wildlife, including amphibians and birds.
5. Assessment of nuisance/exotic biota and recommendations for management.
6. Color photographs taken from permanent photo points established during the as -
built visit.
7. Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for the next season
and completed for the past season.
B. Deficiencies. Any deficiency discovered during any monitoring or inspection visit
must be corrected within 60 days.
C. Contingency Plan. If any monitoring report reveals that the enhancement plan has
failed in whole or in part, and if that failure is beyond the scope of routine
maintenance, a Contingency Plan shall be prepared and submitted. The Contingency
Plan may range in complexity from a list of plants substituted to cross-sections of
proposed engineered structures. Once approved, contingency measures may be
installed and will replace the approved wetland buffer enhancement plan.
21 -1 -22082 -006 -RI Vwp/Um 21-1-22082-006
7
IIID "SII Ml SON, III14C,
4.5 Performance Standards
Plant survival and cover standards are established to measure enhancement plan success. The
proposed performance standards are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1
VEGETATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Notes:
* Includes native plants in that category that are naturally recruiting.
** Applies to all exotic invasive species. If weed cover exceeds 10 % during vegetation monitoring, this
performance standard can be met by removing weeds within 60 days of vegetation monitoring.
100 percent (%) survival criteria shall be met by replacing all mortalities the first year after planting.
> = greater than or equal to
5.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for specific application to the New Madrona K-8 project. This
report has been developed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill normally
exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in the area. The wetland buffer averaging and enhancement approach presented in
this report incorporates professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently
available to us, and was completed within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints
of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the District and its representatives. We have
prepared Appendix B, "Important Information About Your Wetland Delineation/Mitigation
21-1-22082-006-R1 ftp/Um 21-1-22082-006
8
SHANNON WILSON, INC.
Report and/or Stream Classification Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use
and limitations of our reports.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Samh C, Corbin, PPS
Senior Biologist -Scientist
SCC:KLW/scc
21-1-22082-006-Rlflwpflkn 21-1-22082-006
9
6.0 REFERENCES
Edmonds, Wash., 2016, Wetlands: Edmonds, Wash., City Code and Development Code Title
23.50, available: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., (Shannon & Wilson), 2016, Revised wetland and stream delineation
report for new Madrona K-8 project, City of Edmonds, Washington: Report prepared by
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., 21-1-22082-002, for City of Edmonds School
District, Edmonds, Wash., August, 94 p.
21-1-22082-006-Rl f/wp/Ua 21-1-22082-006
10
♦ • •
Proj
I`
---�LocatlIn
Seattle
Or
41
�i
pir
VAI
r
k✓
if
m � )"
e
g r % 19 1
le��i d
r
r
A
�/ W'j��LJVIII JI JVV /: �r, 1 ta ' '
11,1,r / 6238th St SW r
�1 �— ,
" „ r
240th
Lakc
Balling
• a r , '� 11 205th St
'p,
o
m
qtr
LO
N 0 2,000 4,000
Go I
CD —-.--.. New Madrona K-8 Project
N......�.... .......�,.,
N Grlmnnria %A/mchinntnn
c ««
« «
L
C
}
V O
m
O
m
O O
ei
w
as
O_ _
t
r0 w .r N .1>__
rCZw rV) f mQ Fw 7 =U ~Wz OW
re� J 3 W a y N x 'S J W O a r y 3 F LL W
J W
z-5
NQ Myz¢OLL 906 w< a'1 y0 Om in Z rU
JO m3�0 �Q
O.LL O ow -9 aJS Qz rN yt W 2 I- a W
w a0Fw 90<<2m �6j VO w Ua WWrOa a�aZ
02r U Z O N 2 N Y O W O W F- OIW- aO m W Oy W'f _O
W Z�r JWrz UN Z, CZ J O Qmr
FFWa mi-m000x OREM ¢z Fw m3 a�xF �g
POWO mWOOOwp-ozazowN Oj..OGJ. WORI Z 7f Ny NWOj ww'g
WO=W O]Ow7'LL'O ONam a�oW fm JN 40=°' JOW.2
yK WW2 0�ccaro 2NLLW W ri N aW W2Tm �(O-
>Jm� W W a J2>O MR.'i. ' W E O� NCO„ W <wwt w w zw
mN2U WO S2 ZN~J mom jzo Ill. W4�� WW¢
W 3
'A, OS r f- V z 0 J Q� O t x 2 r a 0 W a O z'i ¢ Q F S
< !=wz 30r�OZz 1-a y�gx F- 023W >O� NFO IL1-NCL 1d -Y
Wwo
W W QY M'Lr�2�N� H1F W JrO W OS.. NOm Zz0 W xQN zow
xrcxxz xo3�¢�( a ¢aa� w Q g 0 p oz
I- 1- No 2200 596 Z 30�� f�3 zwti gaa F2_NW Seo
W O z w�Od w o w w WWZ wx Q O>r 20 = z mm Y
¢ o g F06cc Wr=O J 4 am� oz3g 2rz�[r r m g oS' a
NFC W f -A04 *ZJSNO oWmOOa ZWNr ya w Q' LL�2JZ¢W ~ OCL LLOzm
mrcWY aQWQmZ ym�JOOmmpVwZd _3 aUZyaF WOUmOQWN00 JrOLLZr Mfg
2�0 N
rr X w z__rz_ru a.O�Jrc Q
59%8 ! 3 U m o N 9 Z a S 9 O J W g W W a Q O 3:x -mw O g O O N S LL Z z 2 r O a N m Q H Wx d a S
Wzr'; WN�pFaO W�WN3WSN¢W~=Zt01. `;W NOWN¢ O.F2a2WZNWW xOmJFOWO
Z.�Oma�Wj EOW mNwrOqO w gYZc3ay zUCrO�o3aJwtJOW ogo=N vwawOao�~O zmQ WWLL�Fm9oYgpaLLor
J0a mW
_MOWZFUaFWrmYOZC NmwaWZZWZVf4y
oZaj ZjWwOZma�,ml SQWOURNz
=Z OWrOWxoodgJOOE .0,R ow,OSw ZQZ,mJWLLJ.LwWQFZUCOzwxN2<ztwJao.,M OF2FZu.N .10501
00U ZwOrF. Z0N0LL 22RzW=OQ0 s22JOp.W azWX z0i2
Z z¢4N0Wwil=pQzFmza,
FLLawwzOompWwWmW1 gNa°x
Na9gG "WHz=O=,Wr�3 j�
ZmN�=Q rW �NOS m2W 2NNJOCaW �HOp2=oaQ4J= g_QOq6 CW ZO aaoW30Jdr ZIt CL NmNoOa0 amw WE 3a8
0maoJa
wz Uzz oz
Hog
I IL CL r M R V N 16
C
C21 `^A
w C
C
N
WyOo FC
W wLL (33
H ivj O�w
a jSN�sWy QQUx W
J�J� W SFi �iN
O
O
N LL
Sr,' 'Z' <O C
Jy -�ryTy y,, YAC
ry r
'NN�I�M
-a OI.n7MLM:W0n MW'U9IAU8Wa3UBUUgl9�MMMgl919-N
}
f�
w C7
as
O_ _
F
C
C21 `^A
w C
C
N
WyOo FC
W wLL (33
H ivj O�w
a jSN�sWy QQUx W
J�J� W SFi �iN
O
O
N LL
Sr,' 'Z' <O C
Jy -�ryTy y,, YAC
ry r
'NN�I�M
-a OI.n7MLM:W0n MW'U9IAU8Wa3UBUUgl9�MMMgl919-N
,,,,LANNON MILSON, INC.
APPENDIX A
WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA PHOTOS
21-1-22082-006
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
Photo 1: A portion of buffer enhancement area 1, viewing northeast, taken on
September 12, 2016.
Photo 2: A portion of buffer enhancement area 2, with Wetland B shown on the left, viewing north,
taken on September 12, 2016.
21-1-22082-006-R1 f-AA/wpAkn 21-1-22082-006
APPENDIX B
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WETLAND
DELINEATION/MITIGATION AND/OR STREAM CLASSIFICATION REPORT
21-1-22082-006
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-006
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Date: September 20, 2016
To: Ms. Taine Wilton ._....._.........._..........�
Edmonds School District #15
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WETLAND DELINEATIONNITIGATION
AND/OR STREAM CLASSIFICATION REPORT
A WETLAND/STREAM REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS.
Wetland delineation/mitigation and stream classification reports are based on a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically
include the general nature of the project and property involved, its size, and its configuration; historical use and practice; the location
of the project on the site and its orientation; and the level of additional risk the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon
the exploratory program. The jurisdiction of any particular wetland/stream is determined by the regulatory authority(s) issuing the
permit(s). As a result, one or more agencies will have jurisdiction over a particular wetland or stream with sometimes confusing
regulations. It is necessary to involve a consultant who understands which agency(s) has jurisdiction over a particular wetland/stream
and what the agency(s) permitting requirements are for that wetland/stream. To help reduce or avoid potential costly problems, have
the consultant determine how any factors or regulations (which can change subsequent to the report) may affect the recommendations.
Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used:
► If the size or configuration of the proposed project is altered.
► If the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified.
► If there is a change of ownership.
► For application to an adjacent site.
► For construction at an adjacent site or on site.
► Following floods, earthquakes, or other acts of nature.
Wetland/stream consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may develop if they are not consulted after factors
considered in their reports have changed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to notify your consultant of any factors that may have
changed prior to submission of our final report.
Wetland boundaries identified and stream classifications made by Shannon & Wilson are considered preliminary until validated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and/or the local jurisdictional agency. Validation by the regulating agency(s) provides a
certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agency(s) until a
specified date, or until the regulations are modified, and that the stream has been properly classified. Only the regulating agency(s)
can provide this certification.
MOST WETLAND/STREAM "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES.
Site exploration identifies wetland/stream conditions at only those points where samples are taken and when they are taken, but the
physical means of obtaining data preclude the determination of precise conditions. Consequently, the information obtained is intended
to be sufficiently accurate for design, but is subject to interpretation. Additionally, data derived through sampling and subsequent
laboratory testing are extrapolated by the consultant who then renders an opinion about overall conditions, the likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and/or appropriate design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those
thought to exist because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can
reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help reduce
their impacts. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their consultants through the construction or wetland mitigation/stream
classification stage to identify variances, to conduct additional evaluations that may be needed, and to recommend solutions to
problems encountered on site.
Page 1 of 2 1/2016
WETLAND/STREAM CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Since natural systems are dynamic systems affected by both natural processes and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries
and stream conditions may be expected. Therefore, delineated wetland boundaries and stream classifications cannot remain valid for
an indefinite period of time. The Corps typically recognizes the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after
completion. Some city and county agencies recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of two years. If a period of
years have passed since the wetland/stream report was completed, the owner is advised to have the consultant reexamine the
wetland/stream to determine if the classification is still accurate.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or water fluctuations may also affect
conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of the wetland/stream report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events
and should be consulted to determine if additional evaluation is necessary.
THE WETLAND/STREAM REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when plans are developed based on misinterpretation of a wetland/stream report. To help avoid these
problems; the consultant should be retained to work with other appropriate professionals to explain relevant wetland, stream,
geological, and other findings, and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to these issues.
DATA FORMS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final data forms are developed by the consultant based on interpretation of field sheets (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory
evaluation of field samples. Only final data forms customarily are included in a report. These data forms should not, under any
circumstances, be drawn for inclusion in other drawings because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to reduce the possibility of misinterpreting the forms.
When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are frequently the result.
To reduce the likelihood of data form misinterpretation, contractors, engineers, and planners should be given ready access to the
complete report. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information
to contractors, engineers, and planners helps prevent costly problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because a wetland delineation/stream classification is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design
disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem,
consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the
consultant's liabilities onto someone else; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin
and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these
definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to
give full and frank answers to your questions.
THERE MAY BE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK.
Your consultant will be pleased to discuss other techniques or designs that can be employed to mitigate the risk of delays and to
provide a variety of alternatives that may be beneficial to your project.
Contact your consultant for further information.
Page 2 of 2 1/2016
Revised Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
City of Edmonds, Washington
GEOTECHNICAL AND E
Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value,
Since 1954.
CITY COPY
RECEIVED
BUILIANG
Revised August 4, 2016
Submitted To:
Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
20420 68th Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
By:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
400 N 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98103
21-1-22082-002
°°LANNON MUSON, VIII,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ... ....................................... ...,......... ......,...,...., .. .,......,.... ....„,...............1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....... —...., ............ ......... ..,................ ................. ,......,...............1
3.0 METHODS......,.w...,.......,.,„.„ ............................... ................... ........................................2
4.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW .......... , ..............— ..— ....................... ....... ......— .........,..,.........3
5.0 WETLAND DELINEATION........ ......... — .............................,,......-......., ..............,..........3
5.1
Wetland A ........................ ..........
..................... ......... ... ......... .................., ..,,....,,..,3
5.2
Wetland B .................. ...........................,
................,........., ..........,....,.., .,......,....4
5.3
Wetland C .................. ............
.............................. ....--- ..... ....... 5
5.4
Uplands., ...........--- ................
......,..., ,............... ........ ........,,................ ............ 6
6.0 REGULATIONS...�.................................,
......,.............................. .....,............ ,......,,....6
6.1
Federal Regulations ............ .........
................... .................. . .............................6
6.2
State Regulations ................. ........................,....... ,.......... ,.........,.....,......,..7
6.3
City of Edmonds (City) ....................................................... .................. .............8
6.3.1 Wetlands Regulations
................ .................. .......... ...,..... , ... .........8
6.3.2 Other Critical Areas.........
............................... ................ .., ....................10
7.0 CLOSURE... .............. ........ ,.......... ,........,...........,.....,.................. ....— ...... . ........,.........11
8.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... ...................1.2
TABLES
1 Wetland Impact Compensatory Mitigation Ratios..................................................7
2 Required Measures to Minimize Impacts (ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2) .........................8
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Wetland Delineation Map
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/lk 21-1-22082-002
SHANNON L O,ilii i3O`,
The property is well used by local residents for recreation. During our site visits, we observed
many people walking dogs in trail systems located throughout the sloped wooded areas as well,
as many joggers on the track.
A series of catch basin grates were observed along the inside of the track. The survey performed
for the property shows that these storm drains, along with storm drain from the existing Madrona
Elementary School, discharge to the top of the steep wooded slope in the middle of the property.
The survey also identifies storm drain discharges to the top of the wooded ravine located on the
eastern property boundary.
3.0 METHODS
Shannon & Wilson conducted the wetland delineation fieldwork on July 6 and 7, 2015. Potential
wetlands were identified using methods described in the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010).
Potential wetland areas were determined using the triple -parameter approach, which considers
vegetation types, soil conditions, and hydrologic conditions. For an area to be considered
wetland, it must display each of the following: (a) dominant plant species that are considered
hydrophytic by the accepted classification indicators, (b) soils that are considered hydric under
federal definition, and (c) indications of wetland hydrology, in accordance with the federal
definition. Appendix A provides a detailed description of methodology used.
Typically, the OHWM of streams are delineated following the guidance within Ecology's
technical report Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State
(Ecology, 2010). However, no onsite streams were observed; therefore, no OHWM delineations
occurred.
Identified wetlands were delineated by using pink "wetland boundary" flagging and pink pin
flags. Data point locations were marked with orange flagging and orange pin flags.
21-1-22082-002-R1f-rev/wp/1k 21-1-22082-002
2
dliANNON OWL' S011% INC
4.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW
Prior to conducting fieldwork, we reviewed the following background information:
■ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) Web Soil Survey interactive mapping system
■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Wetlands Mapper interactive mapping system
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape mapping
system
WDFW PHS on the Web interactive mapping system
The NRCS web soil survey identifies the site soils as Alderwood gravelly, sandy loam; 15 to
30 percent slopes; Alderwood-Urban land complex; 2 to 8 percent slopes; and 8 to 15 percent
slopes (USDA, 2015). These soil series are identified as non -hydric, however they may contain
areas of hydric inclusions.
Neither the NWI map, the WDFW SalmonScape application, nor the WDFW PHS on the Web
application identify streams, wetlands, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on the
property (USFWS, 2015 and WDFW, 2015 and 2016).
5.0 WETLAND DELINEATION
Three wetlands (identified as Wetland A, B, and C) were delineated in the project area
(Figure 2). Descriptions of the wetland and adjoining uplands follow. Vegetation is described
below by common name, with the scientific name and indicator status in parentheses for the first
use. Soils are described with the associated Munsell® Color Charts color. Wetlands were
characterized according to the updated 2014 version of the "Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington" (Ecology, 2014) as required by the City, Corps, and Ecology
(see Appendix B for Wetland Determination Data Forms and Appendix C for Wetland Rating
Forms).
5.1 Wetland A
Wetland A (approximately 0.02 acre) was delineated on the steep, wooded slope located in the
middle of the property, approximately 100 feet downgradient from a storm drain outfall
identified on the survey. A trail system on the slope allows human and pet access to the wetland.
Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub -shrub wetland according to the Cowardin
classification and is a slope wetland according to hydrogeomorphic classification.
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/1k 21-1-22082-002
3
6HANNOY 6WLSON,IIT
Dominant vegetation in Wetland A includes a shrub strata of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis,
FAC), English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus, NI), mountain ash (Sorbus sitchensis, FAC), as well
as an emergent strata of lady fern (Athyrium cyclosorum, FAC) (see Appendix B, Data Sheet
DP -7).
Soil in Wetland A is generally characterized by a surface horizon of black (IOYR 2/1) loam
extending to 5 inches below ground surface (bgs), underlain by a grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) sand
with dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) redoximorphic concentrations in the matrix. Soil
observed in Wetland A meets the depleted below dark surface (A11) and depleted matrix (F3)
hydric soil indicators.
During the site visit, groundwater seeps were observed in Wetland A. Hydrology in Wetland A
is likely predominantly supported by natural groundwater seeps. Although surface water flow
may contribute to the wetland's hydrology during and after rainfall, surface flow is not expected
to be a significant contribution to the wetland's hydrology. No evidence of surface water inputs,
such as channelized flow, were observed during the fieldwork. Water in the data pit was
observed at 11.5 inches bgs and the soil was saturated to the surface.
Wetland A was rated according to Ecology's 2014 wetland rating manual (Ecology, 2014).
Wetland A is rated as a Category IV wetland (Appendix Q.
5.2 Wetland B
Wetland B (approximately 0.4 acre) was delineated within the wooded ravine located on the
eastern property boundary. A network of walking paths run adjacent to and through parts of the
wetland. Wetland B is classified as a palustrine forested wetland according to the Cowardin
classification and as a depressional wetland according to the hydrogeomorphic classification.
Dominant vegetation in Wetland B includes a forested strata of western red cedar (Thuja plicata,
FAC) and red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), as well as an emergent strata of slough sedge (Carex
obnupta, OBL), yellow -flag iris (Iris pseudocorus, OBL), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea, FACW) (see Appendix B, Data Sheet DP -3).
Soil in Wetland B is generally characterized by a black (IOYR 2/1) silt loam extending to
4 inches bgs underlain by a very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) silt loam with gray (IOYR 6/1) depletions
and dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) and grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) redoximorphic
concentrations extending to 17 inches bgs, underlain by a very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) silt loam
extending to 18 inches bgs, underlain by a very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) silt loam with gray (IOYR
6/1) depletions and dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) and grayish brown (IOYR 5/2)
21-1-22082-002-Rl&rev/wp/]k 21-1-22082-002
4
SWUY140114 WIL,; IN, IIVIING
redoximorphic concentrations extending to at least 20 inches bgs. The redoximorphic and
depletions observed in the soil below 4 inches bgs appeared blocky and mixed up within the
matrix suggesting that the soil may have been disturbed in the past. Soils observed in Wetland B
meet the redox dark surface (F6) hydric soil indicator.
Wetland B is located downgradient of the storm drain outlets associated with the existing
Madrona Elementary School and the play fields. Drainage patterns were observed upgradient of
Wetland B in the ravine. While these areas showed indication of past surface water flow, they
were not dominated by hydric vegetation and did not meet wetland hydric soil indicators.
Hydrology in Wetland B is likely predominantly supported by surface flow from the surrounding
ravine, the storm drain inputs from the school, and a seasonally high groundwater table.
Wetland B was rated according to Ecology's 2014 wetland rating manual (Ecology, 2014),
Wetland B is rated as a Category III wetland (Appendix Q.
5.3 Wetland C
Wetland C (approximately 0.1 acre) was delineated south of Wetland A along the steep wooded
slope located in the middle of the property. A trail system on the slope allows human and pet
access to the wetland. Wetland C is classified as a palustrine emergent wetland according to the
Cowardin classification and as a slope wetland according to hydrogeomorphic classification.
Dominant vegetation in Wetland C includes a shrub strata of western red cedar, an emergent
strata of lady fern, and creeping nightshade (Solanum dulcamara, FAC) (see Appendix B, Data
Sheet DP -6).
Soil in Wetland C is generally characterized by a black (IOYR 2/1) loam, underlain by a grayish
brown (IOYR 5/2), gravelly, loamy sand with dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) redoximorphic
concentrations in the matrix extending to at least 14 inches bgs. Soils observed in Wetland C
meet the depleted below dark surface (Al 1) and the depleted matrix (173) hydric soil indicators.
During the site visit, groundwater seeps were observed throughout Wetland C. Wetland C is
likely predominantly supported by natural groundwater seeps. Although surface water flow may
contribute to the wetland's hydrology during rainfall, surface flow is not expected to be a
significant contribution to the wetland's hydrology. . No evidence of surface water inputs to the
wetland were observed during the fieldwork. Soil in the data pit was saturated to the surface.
Wetland C was rated according to Ecology's 2014 wetland rating manual (Ecology, 2014),
Wetland C is rated as a Category 1-V wetland (Appendix Q.
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/lk 21-1-22082-002
5
SHANNON WLSON,VIII G
5.4 Uplands
Uplands observed on the project site consist predominantly of developed school structures and
recreational facilities as well as portions of the wooded slope and. The play fields are dominated
by a variety of grasses, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, facultative upland [FACU]), hairy cat's
ear (Hypochaeris radicata, FACU), and clover (Trifolium repens, facultative [FAC]). The
wooded areas are dominated by western red cedar, Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU),
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FACU), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FACU), holly (Ilex
aquifolium, FACU), English laurel, sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and English ivy
(Hedera helix, FACU) (see Appendix B, Data Sheets DP -1, DP -2, DP -4, and DP -5).
Upland soils on the property generally consisted of a surface horizon comprised of dark
yellowish brown (IOYR 3/4) to black (5YR 2.5/1) loam in the upper 2 to 5 inches bgs, underlain
by dark yellowish brown (IOYR 3/4 and 4/4) to light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) loamy sand to silt
loam extending to at least 16 inches bgs. In areas closer to the wetland boundaries,
redoximorphic concentrations were observed below 5 inches. However, the soil profiles in these
areas do not meet wetland hydric soil indicators. No saturation was observed in the upland soils
although surface drainage patterns were observed in the ravine and below storm drain outfalls on
the western slope.
6.0 REGULATIONS
Several local, state, and federal regulations apply to development proposals in and/or near
wetlands and streams. A summary of applicable regulatory implications is given below.
6.1 Federal Regulations
The Corps' review process under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is required for
projects involving discharges of dredges or fill materials into waters of the United States,
including non -isolated wetlands and streams. We did not observe a hydrologic surface
connection between the onsite wetlands and a Water of the U.S. Therefore, the Corps may
consider the onsite wetlands to be isolated and not subject to the CWA. However, this
determination would need to be made by the Corps through a "Jurisdictional Determination."
If the Corps takes jurisdiction over the site wetlands, impacts to the wetlands would require
compensatory wetland mitigation. The Corps, in cooperation with Ecology, has developed
guidance for conducting wetland mitigation in western Washington (Ecology and others, 2006).
For unavoidable impacts to Category III and Category IV wetlands, the Corps and Ecology
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/1k 21-1-22082-002
6
%S31-1ANNONW11,,,,. SON, INC.
recommend the on-site and in-kind permittee -responsible mitigation ratios shown in Table 1
based on area (area of mitigation: area of wetland impact.)
TABLE 1
WETLAND IMPACT COMPENSATORY MITIGATION RATIOS
6.2 State Regulations
Ecology has been authorized to implement Section 401 of the CWA for Water Quality
Certification in Washington for most projects that require Corps permits under CWA
Section 404. Typically, projects requiring a CWA Section 404 permit also require a CWA
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If the onsite wetlands are determined to be isolated, the
project would not require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
The purpose of the 401 certification process is to ensure that federally permitted or federally
funded activities comply with the federal CWA, state water quality laws, and any other
applicable state laws. Some general requirements for Section 401, if it is required, include
pollution spill prevention and response measures, disposal of excavated or dredged material in
upland areas, use of fill material that does not compromise water quality, clear identification of
construction boundaries, and provision for site access to the permitting agency for inspection.
If the Corps does not take jurisdiction over the onsite wetlands under the CWA, Ecology still has
regulatory authority to protect isolated wetlands under the State Water Pollution Control Act
(Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington). Ecology would perform an administrative review
of the project and would issue an Administrative Order for unavoidable impacts to isolated
wetlands.
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/1k 21-1-22082-002
7
6.3 City of Edmonds (City)
6.3.1 Wetlands Regulations
The City regulates wetlands and wetland buffers under Chapter 23.50 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) (City, 2016).2
Based on our field observations and using the 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington, Wetlands A and C are Category IV wetlands and Wetland B is a Category III
wetland (Appendix Q. The City requires a 60 -foot standard buffer around Category III wetlands
and a 40 -foot standard buffer around Category IV wetlands, with implementation of the
following minimization measures when applicable (Table 2 and Figure 2) (ECDC
23.50.040(F)(1-2)).
TABLE 2
REQUIRED
MEASURES TO MINMINIZE IMPACTS (ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2))
IA I w^I o e77777777771
ilr d:easur s i'` itis i 'log
Lights
Direct lights away from wetland.
Noise
0 Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland.
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to
noise source immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer.
Toxic runoff
w Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not
dewatered.
Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands.
• Apply integrated pest management.
....
Stormwater runoff
................. ......._ __WWWW
• Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent
development.
Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer.
Use Low Impact Development (LID) techniques (per Puget Sound Action Team
�.-.....WW
publication on LID techniques).
Change in water
........ ...... __ ................
Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces
regime
and new lawns.
Pets and human
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
disturbance
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion.
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation
easement.
Dust
Use best management practices to control dust.
Disruption of corridors
I * Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed.
or connections
• Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting.
2 The Edmonds City Council adopted revisions to these regulations in May 2016, so all code references below are
taken from the track changes version of the code provided in the Council's agenda packet. Accordingly, there
remain some typographical errors in that version with respect to section numbering.
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/& 21-1-22082_002
8
� l'„°IIID YNO VL,,,SON, MING
In accordance with ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2), the City may require increased buffer widths
on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values.
The City bases this determination on the following criteria:
A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas;
■ The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to
erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the
wetland;
■ The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width
where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and
values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan may
substitute.
The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered
species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local
importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is
necessary to protect the species.
ECDC 23.50.040(G) allows for buffer reduction only when existing buffer vegetation is
inadequate; the buffers of the existing wetlands are primarily densely vegetated with a mix of
native tree and shrub species so this provision may not be applicable. Based on our
understanding of the current development proposal, there may be some small areas of existing
buffer that are lawn and ballfields that would be impacted.
Under ECDC 23.50(G)(3), the City allows for buffer averaging with buffer enhancement
if the following requirements are met:
■ The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions
and values will be:
— Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where
existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or
— Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer
vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland.
• The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics
or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland
would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by
a narrower buffer in other places;
• The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a
subject parcel for wetlands extending off-site, after averaging is no less than that
which would be contained within a standard buffer; and
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/]k 21-1-22082-002
9
■ The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the standard o buffer width.
However, wetland buffer averaging that also modifies the erosion hazard area and/or its
buffer would not be allowed by the ECDC without a geotechnical analysis and demonstration
that the wetland buffer averaging and erosion or landslide hazard area buffer modification would
not adversely impact the wetlands.
Wetland buffer reduction through buffer enhancement may also be allowed if buffer
averaging is not feasible on site (ECDC 23.50.040(G)(4)).
ECDC 23.50.040(G)(8) describes potential permitted uses within wetland buffers,
including conservation and restoration activities, passive recreation (such as trails), and
stormwater management facilities. The proposed development of a new school and fire access
road are not allowed uses within wetland buffers. If buffer averaging or reduction with
enhancement is not sufficient to address the need for placement of structures, then a variance and
additional buffer mitigation would be required.
6.3.2 Other Critical Areas
The City regulates critical areas including wetlands (addressed in Section 6.3.1), fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas,
frequently flooded areas, and shorelines under ECDC Title 23 Natural Resources. Fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas include streams, state priority habitats and areas associated
with state priority species, and federally designated threatened or endangered species, among
others. The site investigation and document reviews did not identify any streams or other fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas on site or within 225 feet.
This scope of services did not include professional assessment of other regulated critical
areas. However, some observations about potential geologically hazardous areas is warranted
given the affect this critical area can have on site development, particularly when it overlaps with
wetlands and wetland buffers. Based on soils mapping, available topographic information, and
the 0iiLy 's Uefi111t1Vll0 of gcVivgicaiiy liazarUVus areas (El^..Dl^_. 2J.OV
.V2V), rile pi'eseilce of erosion
and/or landslide hazard areas on the eastern and western sides of the property at or near
Wetlands A, B, and C and their buffers seems likely.
A geotechnical report would be required to establish the appropriate building setback and
buffer from the top and toe of any erosion or landslide hazards. An additional analysis would be
required to alter the hazard area, the minimum building setback and any required buffer (ECDC
23.80.070(A)(1-2)). A hazards analysis must demonstrate the following:
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/1k 21-1-22082-002
10
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
• The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions,
• The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties, and
• Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas (ECDC 23.80.070(A)(3)).
Shannon & Wilson will be providing the necessary geotechnical analyses under a
separate scope of work.
7.0 CLOSURE
The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific
application to this project, and have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently
practicing under similar conditions in the area, and in accordance with the terms and conditions
set forth in our agreement. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are
professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us, and are
made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No
warranty, express or implied, is made.
Shannon & Wilson has prepared Appendix D, "Important Information About Your Wetland
Delineation/Mitigation and/or Stream Classification Report," to assist you and others in
understanding the use and limitations of our reports.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
44� '"`
Sarah orbin, PWS
Senior Biologist
SCC:PCJ:AJS:MWP:KLW/scc
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-revhvp/1k 21-1-22082-002
11
8.0 REFERENCES
City of Edmonds (Edmonds), 2016, City of Edmonds City Code Chapter 23.50 Wetlands:
Edmonds, Wash., May 2016.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015, Web
soil survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Accessed: August 2015.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Waterways Experiment Station, 1987, Corps of Engineers
wetlands delineation manual: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, 143 p.,
available: http://www.wli.nres.usda.gov/delineation/.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010,
Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western
mountains, valleys, and coast region (version 2.0): Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Final report ERDC/EL TR -10-3,
152 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2015, Web map service: FWS—Wetlands_WMS: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Open geographical information systems consortium version:
1.3. Available: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/WebMapServices. Accessed: August
2015.
Washington State Department of (Ecology), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 2006, Wetland Mitigation in Washington
State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1): Olympia, Wash, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Publication no. 06-06-11a.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2010, Determining the ordinary high water
mark on streams in Washington State, second review draft: Lacey, Wash., Washington State
Department of Ecology, Publication no. 08-06-001.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2014, Washington State wetland rating
system for western Washington: Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of
Ecology, Publication no. 14-06-029, 126 p.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2015, SalmonScape mapping
application, accessed July 2015, available:
ht� a ms.wdfw.wa. g,ovlsali�nonsca e/ana .html
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2016, PHS on the Web mapping
application, accessed March 2016, available: ht�l/ p s,wdfw.wa.gov/phsolitheweb/
21-1-22082-002-R1 f-rev/wp/lk 21-1-22082-002
12
0 200 4nn
Scale in Feet
LEGEND
Data Point and Designation
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
NOTE
Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by
Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission
granted by Google Earth Tm Mapping Service.
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY
N 6WLSON,I
21-1-22082-002
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A.1 WETLAND VEGETATION.......................................................................................... A-1
A.2 HYDRIC SOILS ............................................. ...................,.................................... A-3
A.3 WETLAND HYDROLOGY .......................... ........ .................. ........ ................ A-3
A.4 DISCLAIMER....................................................................... __............... ................. A-4
A.5 REFERENCES ........................... ........................... ....... ...---..............,... A-4
A-1 Definitions of Plant Indicator Status....... ..__.. ....,.... ............ ........ A-2
AppoudixA'Methodology (Westem Mens) Dec 2012/
A -i
21-1-22082-002
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY
The triple -parameter approach, as required in the Washington State Department of Ecology's
(Ecology's) 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps') 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual, and the Corps' 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) was used to
identify and delineate the wetlands on the site described in this report: The triple -parameter
approach requires that vegetation, soils, and hydrology are each evaluated to determine the
presence or absence of wetlands. An area is considered to be a wetland if each of the following
is met: (a) dominant hydrophytic vegetation is present in the area, (b) the soils in the area are
hydric, and (c) the necessary hydrologic conditions within the area are met.
A determination of wetland presence was made by conducting a Routine Delineation.
Corresponding upland and wetland plots were recorded to characterize surface and subsurface
conditions and more accurately determine the boundaries of on-site wetlands.
A.1 WETLAND VEGETATION
Hydrophytic plants are plant species specially adapted for saturated and/or anaerobic conditions.
These species can be found in areas where there is a significant duration and frequency of
inundation, which produces permanently or periodically saturated soils. Hydrophytic species,
due to morphological, physiological, and reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow,
effectively compete, reproduce, and thrive in anaerobic soil. Indicators of hydrophytic
vegetation are based on the wetland indicator status of plant species on the national wetland plant
list (Lichvar, 2012). Plants are categorized as Obligate (OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW),
Facultative (FAC), Facultative Upland (FACU), or Upland (UPL). Species in the facultative
categories (FACW, FAC, and FACU) are recognized as occurring in both wetlands and non -
wetlands to varying degrees. Most wetlands are dominated mainly by species rated as OBL,
FACW, or FAC (Table A-1).
AppendixA_Methodology (Western Mtns)Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002
A-1
TABLE A-1
PLANT INDICATOR STATUS GROUPS
Plant Indicator Status Categories
Obligate Wetland (OBL) — Plants that almost always occur in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland FACW Plants that usually occur
( ) — y �in wetlands, but may occur in non -wetlands.
..... ........ .
(......
e FAC)...._� —
FacultativPlants that occur in wetlands or non -wetlands.
Facultative Upland (FACU) — Plants that usually occur in non -wetlands, but may occur in wetlands.
_. ._....... ._.......
Obligate Upland (UPL) — Plants that almost never occur in wetlands.
(Lichvar, 2012)
The approximate percentage of absolute cover for each of the different plant species occurring
within the tree, sapling/shrub, woody vine, and herbaceous strata was determined. Trees within a
30 -foot radius; sapling/shrubs and woody vines within a 15 -foot radius; and herbaceous species
within a 5 -foot radius of each data point were identified and noted. However, where site
conditions merited it, the dimensions of the tree, sapling/shrub, woody vine, and herbaceous
strata were modified.
The dominance test is the primary hydrophytic vegetation indicator and it is used in all wetland
delineations. Dominant plant species are considered to be those that, when cumulatively totaled
in descending order of absolute percent cover, exceed 50 percent of the total absolute cover for
each vegetative stratum. Any additional species individually representing 20 percent or greater
of the total absolute cover for each vegetative strata are also considered dominant. Hydrophytic
vegetation is considered to be present when greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species
within the area had an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC.
If a plant community does not meet the dominance test in areas where hydric soils and wetland
hydrology are present, vegetation is reevaluated using the prevalence index, plant morphological
adaptations for living in wetlands, and/or abundance of bryophytes (e.g., mosses) adapted to
living in wetlands. The prevalence index is a weighted average that takes into account the
abundance of all plant species within the sampling area to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is
more or less prevalent. Using the prevalence index, all plants within the sampling area are
grouped by wetland indicator status and absolute percent cover is summed for each group. Total
cover for each indicator status group is weighted by the following multipliers: OBL=1,
FACW=2, FAC=3, FACU=4, UPL=5. The prevalence index is calculated by dividing the sum
of the weighted totals by the sum of total cover in the sampling area. A prevalence index of 3.0
or less indicates that hydrophytic vegetation is present.
AppendixA_Methodology(WestemMWs)Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002
A-2
A.2 HYDRIC SOILS
Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA
SCS, 1994). Repeated periods of saturation and inundation for more than a few days, in
combination with soil microbial activity, causes depletion in oxygen (anaerobic conditions) and
results in delayed decomposition of organic matter and reduction of iron, manganese, and sulfur
elements. As a result of these processes, most hydric soils develop distinctive characteristics
observable in the field during both wet and dry periods. (USDA MRCS, 2010). These
characteristics may be exhibited as an accumulation of organic matter; bluish -gray, green -gray,
or low chroma and high value soil colors; mottling or other concentrations of iron and
manganese; and/or hydrogen sulfide odor similar to a rotten egg smell.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has developed official hydric soil
indicators as summarized in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA NRCS,
2010). These indicators were developed to assist in delineation of hydric soils and are based
predominantly on hydric soils near the margins of wetlands. Some hydric soils, including soils
within the wettest parts of wetlands, may lack any of the approved hydric soil indicators. If a
hydric soil indicator is present, the soil is determined to be hydric. If no hydric soil indicator is
present, additional site information is used to assess whether the soil meets the definition of
hydric soil.
Identification of hydric soils was aided through observation of surface hydrologic characteristics
and indicators of wetland hydrology (e.g., drainage patterns). Soil characteristics were
observation at several data points, placed both inside and outside the wetland. Holes were dug
with a shovel to the depth needed to document an indicator or to confirm the absence of hydric
soil indicators. Soil organic content was estimated visually and texturally. Soil colors were
examined in the field immediately after sampling. Dry soils were moistened. Soil colors were
determined through analysis of the hue, value, and chroma best represented in the Munsell® Soil
Color Chart.
A.3 WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Wetland hydrology is determined by observable evidence that inundation or soil saturation have
occurred during a significant portion of the growing season repeatedly over a period of years so
that wet condition have been sufficient to produce wetland vegetation and hydric soils. Wetland
hydrology indicators give evidence of a continuing wetland hydrologic regime. Wetland
hydrology criteria were considered to be satisfied if it appeared that wetland hydrology was
AppendixA_Methodology (Westem Mtns) Dec 2012/
A-3
21-1-2.2082-002
present for at least 5 to 12.5 percent (12 to 31 days) of the growing season. The growing season
in western Washington is typically considered to be from March 1 to October 31 (244 days).
However, the growing season is considered to have begun when: (a) evidence of plant growth
has begun on two non -evergreen vascular plants, and (b) the soil reaches a temperature of
41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches. The Seattle District Corps of Engineers requires
14 consecutive days of inundation or saturation for a wetland hydrology to be considered
present.
Wetland hydrology was evaluated by direct visual observation of surface inundation or soil
saturation in data plots. The area near each data point was examined for indicators of wetland
hydrology. Wetland hydrology indicators are categorized as primary or secondary based on their
estimated reliability. Wetland hydrology was considered present if there was evidence of one
primary indicator or at least two secondary indicators.
Some primary indicators include surface water, a shallow water table or saturated soils observed
within 12 inches of the surface, dried watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, water -stained
leaves, and algal mat/crust. Some secondary indicators include a water table within 12 to
24 inches of the surface during the dry season; drainage patterns; a landscape position in a
depression, drainage, or fringe of a water body; and a shallow restrictive layer capable of
perching water within 12 inches of the surface.
A.4 DISCLAIMER
This methodology was prepared for reference use only and is not intended to replace Ecology's
1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, or the Corps' 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
(Version 2.0).
A.5 REFERENCES
Munsell Color, 1992, Munsell soil color charts: Newburgh, N.Y., Macbeth Division of
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, 1 v.
Lichvar, R. W., 2012, The national wetland plant list: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer
Research and Development Center, Report ERDCC/CRREL TR -12-11, 224 p., available:
http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.anny.mil/NWPL/doc/proc 2012/ERDC-CRREL TR -12-11
NWPL 2012.pdf.
AppendixA_Methodology(WestemMtw)Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002
A-4
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010, Regional
supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: western mountains,
valleys and coast region, Version 2.0: Vicksburg, Miss., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Engineer Research and Development Center, Report ERDC/EL TR -10-3, 153 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1987, Corps of Engineers
wetlands delineation manual: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1,
143 p., available: http://www.wli.nres.usda.gov/delineation/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1994, Changes in
hydric soils of the United States: Washington, D.C., Office of the Federal Register, FR
59 (133): 35680-35681, July 13.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS),
2010, Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States, Version 7. 0, L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.), USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National
Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997, Washington state wetlands identification and
delineation manual: Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of Ecology,
Report 96-94.
AppendixA_Methodology (Western Mtns) Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002
A-5
HN, I
APPENDIX B
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS -
WESTERN MOUNTAINS, VALLEYS, AND COAST REGION
21-1-22082-002
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
v
Pro ecUSlte: i Cltyl'ounN"° �r dSamPling
Date:
AI
Stale sanP I0 Point:
fi
..
Investlgator(a): t � �� 1 t S rcN:goat ToRang®
wnship,
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.
Local (concave convex, none): ��4„ Slope (%)"..L;."
Subregion (LRR): Let Long: Datong"_
Soil Map Unit Name: .. ... NWI classl(Jcalion ........ �
Are climatic f hydrologic condlitons on The site typical for this time of year? Yes� °� No � (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present r Yes Nc
Are V etaiion .Soil . of Hydrology naturally problematic? (If resdad. explain any answers inRemarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map Showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yrs -�. Nor
Hydric Soil Freaenl? Yes filo Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yen No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dom, inant Indicator
(Plol Site _ J ° l-
4 o
r i Total Cover
(Plot ixe:„,
3,
4.—
Tot—at Cover
H � � (I t
2.rt,wi
4 — - www_...,
7. o Al
9.
ta.
11.
00 = Total Cone:
!v Vine *° (Plot )
t �
2_
,= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
d��r��"i y. � �'�� m;,� �.•4� ��..�,l�N�'�p'a„e �t,�Ndi r�r,�p�i�
Dominain o Test Worl(sheal
Number of Dominant Spode$
That Aron OBL, FAC01, or p'AC: ( }
Total Number of Dominant�rl
Species Across All Strata!w. (ft)
Percent of Dominant Species a(
That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC.
Total % Cover of:hw
-
L species xi.
FACW species x 2 +
FAC species x 3
FACU species X4.
UPL species
Column Totals: (A) ) .. (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytle Vagatallon lodloaiorsw
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominanoe Test is >60%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.0'
_ 4 - Mor°pbotogical Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in RenI or on a separate shoot)
_ 5-'iVetlsnd Non -Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytle Vegetation' (Explain)
' indicators of hydric soll and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Hydroystlytic
Vootation
Present? Yea -��,.. ,,_. No ...
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys. and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
W
— Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except
— Water-Shilned Leaves (BB) (MLRA 1, 2,
Sampling Paint-,
P(0fJlQD0%CFI IV (OpSerbo to the depth needed to documoilt the Indicator or conifirrij if fn�Tl . . .......
Depth
Saturation (A3)
— Sall Crust (1311)
— Drainage Patterns (810)
Water Marks (1311)
— Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2:
— Hydrogen Sultda Odor (Cl)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Delft Deposits (1213)
Oxidized Rhizospheras along Living Roots (C3)
, SAW Grains,
.')(qaj08 ed or Cooled ........ . .
Hydric Soil lndlcatorw. (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Salle:
HIsInsal (Al)
Sandy Redox (S6)
— 2 orin Muck (Al D)
Hisbc Enipeclon (A2)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
..,•••.. Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— I-lydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ail)
Depleted Matrix (173)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
— Redox Dark Surface (176)
31ndlcators of hydrophyfic vegetation and
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
welland hydrology must be present,
— Sandy Glayed Matrix (S4)
_K661101" �mayor
Redox Depressions (178)
unless disturbed or problarnatic.
(lf Present).
Type,
Depth (irtzher.):
Hydric Soil Present? Yee No
f, Ilk L I
�j
HYDROLOGY
PrflmSurFaca
Water (Ai)
— Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except
— Water-Shilned Leaves (BB) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4131
4A and 40)
Saturation (A3)
— Sall Crust (1311)
— Drainage Patterns (810)
Water Marks (1311)
— Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2:
— Hydrogen Sultda Odor (Cl)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Delft Deposits (1213)
Oxidized Rhizospheras along Living Roots (C3)
_ Geornorphlc Position (132)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Presence of Reduced Iran (C4)
— Shallow Aquilard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sails (C6)
— FAC -Neutral Test (135)
Surface Soil Cracks (198)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A,
— Raised Ant Mounds (DG) (LRK A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Frost -Heave Hummocks (07)
SP21601y Vege(aled Concave Surface (138)
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Presard?
Yes No Vie„ Depth (Inches):
Y03
— No Depth (inches): --
Yes — No, Depth (Inches): � Welland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No
gauge, al
aortal ptiolos, previous inspection
J 4.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
1NETI.AND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
,w
_ v h+ �'p,m ;
I
1 ,11 ��JaLV" f—I' e I " ssi Clll Icoun ' i td'"bit ow � t + S YmpRNntt Da
ProecUSlte: '
Appllcantowner i��1 � ,�� r wl � r t .tip^ t tit late t � �� ad wpllatg� Pglnt .m �" ' "°
lnvesti alio's . .. �•.�tc'.):
olion, Township, Range:Landform (hillslope, t®rrate, ��, l ��n,�,,�_.,� Local relief (concave, convex, no e}: Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR)-. ,,tl" � Lai. �
"ng:,„ alum
Sall Map Unit Name:
co
NWI classification: � 4`^.� 't
Are cllmallo I hydrologic conditions an Melte typical for this We of year? Yes No (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Norrnal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , $oail or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Sail Present?
Welland Hydrology Present?
'yes, No
"Iris .� No
'yes No
VEGETATION -Ilse scientific naMes of plaints.
Is the Sampled Area
rrlthin a Wetland?
(�W
.r'rl {Plot size; ", ) nosoiu)ra Laor�nan¢ mowamr
l"ireera a ll?
lie
1.
._�.a2. I (� t" iPM^t0i Ns _ _n
C
i 10
3.
FA
4
Total Cover
�
i {,Ptrtt Sita �
1• �.I t �""��,� rlc � �r �rw a 'Na�'k� '� r" m.. � "�ri ,-..�.
f '..
u
4. tau rR f"
5• .. _.. ., .,,., __ .., _.
— = Total Cover
—fturf (Plot size: )
1. ,000 °I i0l i (A u; )wj,,rc
2.w�
3. 't t' t..
4.
5_ tdl�� d"° I •x FAr
B.
7_
t3-
10.
.
1 ")° m-
1 Total Cover
lriv Vlrte Str {Plot size
2e lP l
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum
Yes
,,"
x2a
No
x3=
x4
x5
Dominance Testworksrteet;
Number of Dominent Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC,
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata;
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC
DBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1, =
,,"
x2a
x3=
x4
x5
Index -B/A= �1P
.- Provalanoe 0 hit—lo Vetatiott indlcatarsh
1 - Rapid Test for HydrophyUc Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index Is s3,0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic , /
Vagatatlon �J
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point"
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to dci.6 rant the Indicator or confirm the a %ionco of Indicalom.)
Dep – C Chea]
xatu
Redox Feresa� �
Surface Water (Al)
_ Water-Stalned Leaves (69) (except
_ Water-Slalned Leaves (B9) (MLIZA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2.4A, and 46)
A � IIS. T
�Mdld rr t
C onrcowtralio. MO"�tl ? )r t xi f r tt (l Nwc, CC rr rr w r�r oadeti S�ar� w 6 kacaflonPL- oLninwNhA
il,'x,
Ykar.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.
--
H drlc SoIW
_ Histosol (Al)
-
_ Sandy Redox (SS)
_ 2 cm Mucic (A10)
— Hislic Eplpedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S8)
Red Parent Material (72)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
,.._, Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
— Other (Explain in Raaxarks)
_ Depleted Below park Surface (A11)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRRA)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegelstlon and
_ Sarxly Mucky Mineral (Si)
� Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic_
..Restrietiva Layer(ff prrisenlj: _.._._...__..
_......
.�..,_...��.,�,„.„,�,�,�-..__.----_._
_ _....
Depth (Inches).
Hydric 8011 Present? Yes Wo
Remarks:.
FA
HYDROLOGY _...
Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indirarnm Iminirmim of nna rani�lrnrt
qll that anorvl
Surface Water (Al)
_ Water-Stalned Leaves (69) (except
_ Water-Slalned Leaves (B9) (MLIZA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2.4A, and 46)
4A, and 4B)
Saturation (43)
_ Salt Crust (B1 I)
_ Drainage Patlerns (610)
_ Water Marks (a1)
_ Aquatic Inyerts0rates (813)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (02)
_.._ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
_ Oxidized Rhlzospheros along Living Roots (C3)
_ Geomorphlc Position (02)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Presence of Reduced Iran (C4)
Shallow Aquilard (133)
_ Iron Deposit; (136)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (65)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B61
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRRA)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D®) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137;
Snarsely Veaetated Cencave Surface i8a)
Surface Water Present? Yes No ;Vj� Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
gauge,
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
LS Army Corps of Engineers Wastem Mountains. Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Sarnnii— Date:
------------ CitylGounty.
state: \0 Sam ling Point:
j Section, Townaw'p.
Landform (Irill1slope, ierr ce, etc.): convex. nona). 69 V1 ' J Slope
Subregion (LRR):Let: Long: Datum:
Sall map Unit Name"
Are climatic I hydrologic cordlOons on .he site typical lor.this Urne of year? Yes t,0 (if no, explain In Remarks.) Na
Are Vegetation —, Sall _, or Hydrology _ significantly disivrbed?AYes lo Are *Notmel Circumstances" present? ZA_
Are Vegetation Soil. or Hydrology —naturally problemaficlAji) (if needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARv�elF�iNDIrN GS - Attacsitonap showl ng sampling point locations, transSCU, Important features, etc.
Hysent? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes o'c"No Is the Sampled Area
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetiand? Yes No
VEGETATION - Use sclentifle names of plants.
Number of Dominant Species
(Plot size: _ -.I
That Are 08L, FACVY' 'or FAC,
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
-%LWM
Species Across At I Strata:
X3=
Percent of Dominant Species
C
2, -.21
. .......
Column Totals:
(A)
4.
3(n,
m Total Cover
2.
............ .
3.
4.
S.
k--)
Total Cover
(Plot size
ftfkly"
2
2,
3.
10 � �fO
�A �'
4.
4— ILCO
7. . . . .....
10.
Total Cover
(plot size:
. ........ . ......
2,
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum
Total Cove,
. ..... —
Number of Dominant Species
MUNIDly bw
That Are 08L, FACVY' 'or FAC,
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
X2=
Species Across At I Strata:
X3=
Percent of Dominant Species
C
That Are OBIL, FACK or FAQ
11� (AIB)
1Q1aL%-Q0yQLQL—
MUNIDly bw
OBL species
x 1 0
FACW SpecleS
X2=
FAC species
X3=
FACU species
X4=
UPIL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A)
Prevalence Index - BiA -
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
�K2 - Dominance Test Is >5,0%
3 - Revalonce Index Is OV'
4 - Morpbotagical Adaptations' (Provide suppodlng
data In, Remarks or on a separate shoat)
8 - Welland Non -Vascular PIsnts'
Problematic Hydrophytlu Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric Boll and watiand hydrology Must
be present, unless disturbed or problernativ.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yea —zlillo—
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL
,u d � f � ul' 0 � �, , I�o Q';.M ,�,.•Wnr'a � l4� l"" ! i V { ,�,'+
�V ,.4i "� � � � � ° I�.8 �'^�'��i ""
Ntt I
1
Sampling Pointy „_ ..
_
a� scrl tions Liaascrttao to the de th nyy��eaelerpJ t
I rotate the a
�..p�.�.. °docr'r�rrttthalrttlioattsr� dnllrnn
e f Indicato.rs.,,)
fi�_�.._ � �� w...�
e abse�nc�o
Depth
flnobe6I—a.�.
.p�l_
{ ppyyo�y p
r�'�.,irv'rfi
II
u
._....--
� ,'
LQLQU
� ,
surface water{A1)
� VJ ater-Stained Leaves (89) (except
_ Weter-Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
® High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2,4A. and 48)
/ 4A, and 413)
..
_ Salt Crust (Bi 1)
k Draklove Patterns (B10)
(61)
i
, �Ap-�M �...
j�u 0 • '�'"���
..........e....—.,...
'urs
—
I F
nn
Hydric Soil indicators: (Appllcabie to all LR12s, unless peherwlse noted.
_ Hislosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (SS)
Hislic Ppipedcn (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (SB)
Black Hisllc (µ3) —Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Glayad Matrix (172)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84') � Redox Depressions {,F$)
w� ... _ ..
Restrictive Layer (tf prosent),
Type: ...... �..� �... .. ��ww ��..._�
Depth (Inches):
for
2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Cdher (Plain In Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric sou Present? You _ Na
A n m
_➢ ea
,u d � f � ul' 0 � �, , I�o Q';.M ,�,.•Wnr'a � l4� l"" ! i V { ,�,'+
�V ,.4i "� � � � � ° I�.8 �'^�'��i ""
Ntt I
✓" n b
.
HYDROLOGY
1th!"o d Hydrology Indleators:
._....--
� ,'
LQLQU
� ,
surface water{A1)
� VJ ater-Stained Leaves (89) (except
_ Weter-Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
® High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2,4A. and 48)
/ 4A, and 413)
Saturation (A3)
"gator Masks
_ Salt Crust (Bi 1)
k Draklove Patterns (B10)
(61)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ci)_
Saluratlon Visible on Aeflal Imagery (C9)
Drift ® sits (83)
_ Oxidized Rhlzospheres along LWnq Roots (C3)
✓Gaornorphlc Position (1)2)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Shallow Aqultard (03)
Iron Deposits g 5)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Salle (Ca)
i FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (BB)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRRA)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D8) (LRRA)
)nundarllDn Mel s on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (07)
®°Spnrsepy Vawgetaat r�nroaBo St'aca
(__)
..._,.
Field Clbaenrattons:
_�_ .............e.......,�.�.,.,.�._.._»..�,...,
.
.... _
Surface Water Present? Yea
No 4 Depth (Inrshns),
Water Yes
Saturation Present?
No` 'Depth (Inch
l?
Yes
(Iraolw,tdes capillary frtra
No Depth (Inoh)Y
res)° Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
Describe Racordoa l3 Ia {strt�arcan gauge, mcnitonng Wall, aortal photos, croutons Insrxaotlons9, If aavaCtbt la:
I (�°�)✓��iiP' ui'i��F 41 ^,r, �� �`"I� � �i � n 0,° I'
US Army Corps of Engineers 1Womern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
CyfCounty.� Sampling
Da.te
Applicant/Owner, r r� State: Samp�Point:
Sechon, Tow nshto, Range
' �...�..µ....
..
Inuestl oto s : Local relief (concave, convex, none). » ��, or'+� " - Shops om,
Landform (hlllslape, ien-ace, etc.)'. W.„„„". ..__,.,�„„�.,„„�
Subregion LRR �.q.. Lang' �,...NVVI classifi Datum:
Soil Ma Unit Name
8g ( a �„�~�I �.,.. � cation:
Are climatic! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for,this time of year? Yes „t. p _ Nc,„-„ ,.- (If no, expialn In Remarks,)
Are Vegetation , Sail , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are °"Notmal ClrcumatanceV present? Yes No
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If headed, explain any answers in Remarks,)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site MAP showin .eampling point locatlons, transects, important features, etc.
Hydr+ophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No m
t
Hydrtc Sop Present? Yes No "�,� ` Is the Sampled Area t
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a wetland? Yes - No
Rernarlls:
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. _
.m AAbsoiga...o Da, ,� �-� NurtiberofDoostwoSih
rg trrtturn (Plot Saxe: � 1� ln1tRMtoK- f�umbern�o orni at SP960t3
e
t� I1. That Are 13L, f A o or FAC: (A)
2 ”~� �0 (',i .M Total Number of Dornlnant r
3. _.. i Species Across All Strata: (3)
4. _.... _....�__�.�.-.
I_ e Total Cover
h t (Plo° size:
2. . ..... .-,
3.-_
4.
fi.-.e..... ..... ...
9" Total Cover
1 lttt (Plot size' ..... _ _...1
_ ...�—------.._
2,
........
r, _.� ......r.."w�. _ .... .......
8.
ine Stratum
Total Co
VPlot slze l ver
Worly
2.
0 Total Cover
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum
Percent of Dominant Species 0
That Aro 08L, F'ACW, or FAIN. (A/B)
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
— 3 - Prevalence Index Is 53.0'
_ c - morphological Adaptations' (Provide supportin6
data in Renrarkf4 or on a soperats sheat)
_ 8 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic; Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain)
rlrxllcators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Amey Corps of Engineers Western Mountains" Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
h-
081. specles
FACWspecies�
x2�
FAC species�.W,
x. S _._.
" '
_r
FACU species r
x 4
LIPL species
x 3,. ( .
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
3 a
Prevalence Index ' SIA
e
Ftirrlircrotnvtic Vaaetaiton Indlsaioy^a»
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
— 3 - Prevalence Index Is 53.0'
_ c - morphological Adaptations' (Provide supportin6
data in Renrarkf4 or on a soperats sheat)
_ 8 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic; Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain)
rlrxllcators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Amey Corps of Engineers Western Mountains" Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
to the depth neodoO to document the Indicator or con'flrm the, absence
L�Sampling Pdinl-1�rd��^
Depth _taairrs ti
- -moa K49Q"
.. � I� � � n , r � r I l ' . I I i" IT..
d
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all MRs, unless otherwise noted.)
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Histio Eplpedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Black Histic(A3)
— Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
Hydrogen Sulfide 04)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Beloo Dark Sur'ace (All)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Suiace (Al2)
— Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Sandy Gieyed Matrix (84)
Redox Depressions (F'tt)
Restrictive Layer (iipresent):
Surface Soil G-acks (B6)
Type:.�................��_W....�,,,, �....�......_�.. ...�.
Depth (Inches):,
HYDROLOGY
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sr
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Indicators of hydraphytic vagelation and
vtalland hydrology musl be present,
unless disturbed or umbiemalic.
Hydric Soil Prosent? Yes No °
Primary Indlrminrc of one rewired: check all rhai annlvl
_ Surface Water (All
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except
— High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Sarlt Crust (8 11)
_ Water Marks (B1)
` Aquatic Invertebrates (613)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drill Deposits (63)
_ Oxidized Rhlzoapheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Algal Motor Crust (134)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tlllec Solis (CQ)
Surface Soil G-acks (B6)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D') (LRR Al
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (W)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Spartse4y Vanararrvl Concave Curfa— MRS
Surface Water Present? Yes No –;zp Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Gpth (Inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (Inches):
ueascrioa a,cocuv asc Mata (sttoam gauge, monitoring wall,, aerial photos, previr
Ir
Rfitmtlt3" ;
r'tttef.("JA'
"'l IdJS Army Co" of Engimot,
tib,
_ Water-Stalned Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 48)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
Geomorphic Position (02)
_ Shallow Aqultard (D3)
FAC-Nautral Test (D6)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Wetland Hydrology present? Yes No
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Versior 2.4
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
PraiecUSlte:0. r M" C ityPCou
� " �, my
�late, �, mpung pow:---
Applicantl9tar>er �
t -�-- -.
r�r t
Investigator(s): (C�' Section Township, Ranga
dam (hilFtpe, etc,}:
Local etlef (concim, convex, none).
DSlope
Sube9 % R}. 7 Vit. Lon ,
(Y 1
NVVI classifioetlon:
Soil Map UnUngName.
Are dimatic I hydrologic condillons on the site typical for this time of year? Yes - No (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are %omisl Circumstances" present? Yes, :.°, two ..w....._.....
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? Of needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map sho irtg sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic.Vegetabon Present? Yes No __;rL
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Presenl7 Yee No ...._may
within a Wetland? Yes o
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot slze
2.� J 77 7
r
4. ".._ ���....
u D m Total Cover
���"...
2.
(d I,
�m �
12
+� Total Cowr
itt�irints,Iaa_ G ..
1 11 I
2..
4.
7._.�. _r....v.—----................_�-
a
i i. -"""-i Total Cover
tl-.
,� er
(Plot daze ��
cr
2.
Total Cover
% Bare Ground In Herb Sbaturn
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominent + "
Spades Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
Total% Cover of —
hw
Oat. seci
�) x2.=
V-�W speolos
FAC eche$ x 3 B
FACMU species - x
UFL species
Column Totais: �(A) tt
Prevalence Index = EVA • 9
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicatom:
_ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Teet Is ?50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.4'
_ d - Morphological Adaptations' (provide supporting
data In Remorks or on p sopar°rata short)
5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants'
_ Problemallc Hydrophydc Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sof and vualland Hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Hydrophytit
Vegieteden
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers ftelem Mountains. Valleys, and Coast - Veralon 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point ) ....... i
Profile sci$i � Deisaribe to The depth yr da t ... ,o ._. _ ... .........__ .....,
P ( P o document the Indicator or conflrnn the absence of Indicators.)
Depth
tInches) 0;
ler rpt
Itl�al)i&07
�... u.r...... ... ......
CoCHydric Soil odicatoria (Applicable toalll.RRs unless lxlx, SVCoverod or .,oa ed Sand "-(ulna 2Locatlon: PL�Pt�rs Limtirn M -Matrix.
_ DLwO q, RM. duces . ... �W _ , w.w.�. M�.. .._ ._
s otherwise noted,) Indicators far Problomatic Hydric Solis
Hlstosol (Al" _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (All 0)
_ Histic Eplpedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except IALRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_ Hydrogen Sulflde ;A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Depleted BeiuN Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) — Redox Dark Surface (176) 'Indicator, of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral,SI) _Deplaced Dark Surface {F7) Wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Gkryed Matrix ($4) _ Redox Depfossions (F8) unless disturbed or problenialtcd
Restrictive Layer (11 present):
Type:
Depth
(inches), _ Hy
.. .......�
dric Soil Present? Yea No
HYDROLOGY
PrImam Indlratnr of ane remtlrew rhprk all that annlu5
-
_ Surface Water (At)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (99) (except
_ Water-Stalned Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
Wgh Water Table 1,A2)
MLRA 1, 2.4A. and 48)
4A, and 4131
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Cruet (B11)
— Drainage Patterns (B1 D)
Water Marks (Bl)
— Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
_ Dry -So as on Water Tabla (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Saturation Vlslble on Aerial Imagery (CS)
Drift Depoalts (B3)
_ Oxidized Rhizosphares along _Mng Roots (03)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Iron Deposits tES)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Salts (CB)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (Db)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (1391
„ Slurried or Stressed Plants (DI) (LRR A)
_liaised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (07)
v cooly Vogelalad- VVII�AVO Surfal.H Soo)
Surface Water Present? Yes No – Ioplh (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes Na ._ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
includes err Ilia ilia a
Describe Rec�onded Date (stroarn gauge, monitoring well, 40601 pholos
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProiecvSheA�4 ° �lCity/County ioil g�>am P°
IlngData
mpliny PoinAppllcantJOwner t
invesstar(s). Section, Township,Range: {R 14
°R r
.—:
IIS" Slope O.
Landform (hillslope lerrac , etc.),—l') t LoCaf r®Ilei (can convex. none) _
Subregion (LRR)• Let: Long Datum:_,_,_,
• gym....,......--. i�IX l..�.rw�w.iw..
Soil Map Unit Name: ra d ear? Y — �,��
e la'. r r � " r 1114'l ? r w� NWI Classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic Corloldons on the site typical for this time of y es lilWrpn in f eritarPcs.}
,.. No,.—„„a. Ifti'io,ex
Are Vegetation Soil , of Hydrology significantly disturbed? Aro 'Nornial CtrournlatsivoW present? Yes � Na
Are Vegetation Sail . of Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site fn p showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sar Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Weetlalls nd? Yes_zN0
Remarks:
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
1.
2. m...
3.
4.. _
Sonlinall. h (Plot size,
3.
4. .-- -_
5
Absokite Dotnlnant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet
— Number of Dominant Species
Thal Are CBL, FACW, or FAC: _._ (A)
Total Number of Dominent
Species Across All Strata: (B),
Total Cover
A c,
Total
�— Cover
(Plot size° ) r
1. r A,t i, (t� 2t,71
u 4 IA.�ki"�alsv
� 1 l" ( ire ICA
4.
5. _ mm . ..
6.
7. —� .�..na........
8,
9.
1,
Total Cover
(Plot
2_
a Total Coiner
% Bare Ground In Herb Stratum
Peroent of Dominant Species ()
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AM)
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophyllo Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test Is :50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53,0'
_ 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plante'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetetlon' (Explaln)
'Indicators of hydric sell and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
a
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes iil4
US Army Corps of Engineefs Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
CBL species
X1
FACW species
x+
FAC species
x 3
FACU species
x 4 _.
UPL species
x to
Column Totals:
(A) --,.—„ (B)
Prevalence Index = 61A
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophyllo Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test Is :50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53,0'
_ 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plante'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetetlon' (Explaln)
'Indicators of hydric sell and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
a
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes iil4
US Army Corps of Engineefs Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
Welland Hydrology Indicators,
SOIL
— Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except
o Water-StalnedIefiyes (99) (MLRA 1, 2,
Sampling Point:
Profile . ......... . .
Description* (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of lndicators,)
Depth
--Rodox Features
(inches) Color (malst) ........... 5.ji! ..........
Drainage Patterns (B10)
.190
I,
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (W)
. . . . ................ . .....
t, RM-Reduqd Matt ix MAIAjgfjx,
Soil indicators: (Applicabla to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hyddc`-SoIP-1--
Histosol (Al)
Sandy Redox (SS) — 2 cm Muck (A10)
— Histic Eolpedon (A2)
Stripped Matrix (SO) — Red Parent Material (TF2)
— Black Histle (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
[)epleied Below Dark Surface (All)
Loomy Gloyed Matrix (F2) 011ier (Explain In Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (0)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (64) ............
Redox Depressions (FO) unless disturbed or promommic,
i6l'
. ..... ....
Type: . . ... . ............ _
Depth Conches):
I/
Hydric Soil Iresent? yes No
Welland Hydrology Indicators,
Surface Water Pros erO Yes --No V -Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No -��Depth (Inches);_
Saturation PreGent?'r
A, J, �, k 0,
(includes capillary Noce), Yes No Depth (Inches): �' Vktland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Gla-filrearn —gauge, monliorinjI —setiatphotos, previous ingpettlDrIS), jjsVjafaoje�
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
- Sufface Wolter (Al)
— Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except
o Water-StalnedIefiyes (99) (MLRA 1, 2,
— High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2,4A. and 48)
404, and 4B)
Saturation (AS)
— Sell Crust (13111)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (BI)
— Aquatic Invertebrates (813)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (W)
— Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation VislblI on Aerial Imagery (CO)
Drift Deposits (133)
— Oxidized Rhizosphefes. along Living Roots (C3)
— Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Shallow Aquillard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
— Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Solls, (CIO)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
— Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) (ILRR A)
Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
Inundation %Islole an Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Froal-Heave Hummocks (D7)
VeVggl -A
Surface Water Pros erO Yes --No V -Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No -��Depth (Inches);_
Saturation PreGent?'r
A, J, �, k 0,
(includes capillary Noce), Yes No Depth (Inches): �' Vktland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Gla-filrearn —gauge, monliorinjI —setiatphotos, previous ingpettlDrIS), jjsVjafaoje�
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: ",/ 1w 1 emQA f r City/County(" `s i Sampling Date:
� Sampt ng Point:
Applicant/Owner: ( C' 0IN� w Section, Township, Range: ata. (D
Investigator(s):p
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): I Local relief (concave, convex, none): i,� Slope (°�): Z
Subregion (LRR): Let: Long: ��pp t mt^
Soil Map Unit Name' i' t : ✓) 510M-kssification: e�F
Are climatic/ hydrologic cond��.� �
Are Vegetation ,Soil or Hydrology significant? disturbed? Are "Normal
no, explain in Remarks -)_—
ons on the site typical for Ibis -time of ear? Yes No
g y gy y al Circumstances" present? Yes No.
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yeso'
Hydric Soil Present? Yes � No Is the Sampled Area
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes 1 No within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: 1 h 1 1Ja a A J A
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant indicator oommance 1e81woFKsneet:
%Cover Specie Number of Dominant Species 2
1 ree Stratum (Plot size:� That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: J (A)
2.
3.
4.
Total Cover
Saounaishiub Siralum (P ¢ttsize:
2.%a OMG i z � ito N
4. v' rpt
5.
= Total Cover
(Plot size:
1. AN fA(,
2� .._ 1FAW
3.' lie a �+,n V `h
4.
5. _
6.
7
8.
9.
10.
11,
C l i r =Total Cover
(Plot size: J
1. Z2 FACO
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Total Cover
Remarks:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: " (A/B)
Total % 2f'
Muflioly bv:
OBL species
x 1
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x 4 a
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A -
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
12S\2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5 - 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 YNo
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Paint,
Profile Description; il5aaciibe-t-ot"b—o"-d'o-"p th—needed —to documoni ih" "a' Indicator or 'coatflsln tiro aftssnca oifIn di,cal'o". . . . ... ... .............
Depth (M
I'nr.heG) ori 1119itib . ...... __2L_
Redox Foalures
___.QgjgLWMWj1_ ....TML
........ . . ..........
— Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (11111111. 2.
Hlgh Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, Z 4A, and 48)
4A, and 46)
. ............
. . . . ........ . .
.... .......... ......... .... .....
GVIConcent fats n QtD on.,11M=11'educed Matrix. GS=Covared at Cooled Send Grains, �Locndon, PL=PDI"e LlNq:g,M=NIa1dx
Hydric Soil Indicators; (Applkable to al
LRRs, unless otherwise notqd.1
I ndicators for Problematic Hydric So I Is3:
Histesial (All
Sandy Redox (S5)
— 2 em Muck (Ala)
Histic EpIpedon (A2)
Stripped Matrix (30)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except FALRA 1)
— Very Shaltow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sv fide (A.4
Dopleied Uow DorK Surface (All)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) -
7 Deplated Malwix (0)
— Other (Explain In Remarks)
Thick CMM &i On ce (A 12)
— Redox Dirk Surface (1713)
31ndioators of hydrophylic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky III (Sl)
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Glayed Matrix (34)
— Redox Depressions (FO)
unless disturbed or problematic,
Riiir_1cfi_v_eUjer Ill present):
Type:
Depth (inches).,
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLQGY
cher, n1i th.1"
Indcalors Q or mom"Sluimm
Surface Water (Al)
— Water -Stained Leaves (tag) (except
— Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (11111111. 2.
Hlgh Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, Z 4A, and 48)
4A, and 46)
Saturation (A3)
— Sell Cruel (8 11)
— Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (1311)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (112)
— Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (09)
Drlft Deposits (B3)
— Oxidized RhIzospheres along Living Roots (0)
— Geomorphic Position (02)
Algal Mat or Crust (13f)
— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Shallow Aqul(ard (133)
Iron Deposits (1351
— Recent Iron Reduction In Thled Sails (CO)
— FAC -Neutral Test (IDS)
Surface Soil Cracks (BG)
— Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A)
Raised Ant Mounds (D13) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (07)
Spersely Vegetated Surface Btk
r 0a S [,
Surface Water Present? Yes- No Depth Cinches):
Water Table Present? Yes 17—
Na Depth Cnches):i="=
Saturation Pre . sent? Yes No Wplh (inches)! Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
, It ave
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.11
SHANNON WLSON, IIo
APPENDIX C
WETLAND RATING FORMS — WESTERN WASHINGTON
21-1-22082-002
Wetland name or number A
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: 7/6 and 7/7/15
Rated by S. orbija pWSI Trained by Ecology? -2L Yes No Date of training 10/09 and 5/14
HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Goo le Earth
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions X or special characteristics_)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I —Total score = 23 - 27
Category II — Total score = 20 - 22
Category III —Total score = 16 - 19
X Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value
Score Based on
Improving Hydrologic Habitat
Water Quality _]
Circle the appropriate ratings
H M L HM L_ H M
H L H_M OL
H_ M
H M L H L H L TOTAL
5 4 4 13
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
CATEGORY
I II
I
Bog
I
Mature Forest
I
Old Growth Forest
I
Coastal Lagoon
I II
Interdunal
I II III IV
None of the above
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3=L,L,L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
'western Washington
Slone WPtlanric
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
MGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
0 go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
- Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuar ine_�) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
c"
Ify.
our we 5 -"r shwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats
,r pan be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
_The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
_At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
o
k ---go to 4C:>
YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
X The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
X The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
X The water leaves the wetland without being impound`
NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope'
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlan a slt all and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland Raring System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO-goto7
YES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO-goto8
YES - The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
Slope + Riverine
HGM class to
use in rating
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe
Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
Depressional
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe _
Depressional
Riverine +Lake Fringe
Riverin e
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
Treat as
class of freshwater wetland
ESTUARINE
Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number. A_
..
/ / r
r
1
f// ��/ / i .✓ ,,/ / if,i „/ iii i
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3 0
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5%oints = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff la er is true clay or true organic (use NRCS deny"tions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > %: of area 2
Dense, woody, plants > %: of area oi�=2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Site Potential If score is:-12 = H _6-11= M X___0-S = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 1-2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H X 1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number _A
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> 118
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 0
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points =1
All other conditions
Rating of Site Potential If score is:—IL = M g0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff?
Yes = 1a = 0 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_1= M g0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 1
Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down-gradientodnts=D
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points —=, 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control ]an?
Yes = 2 _ 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is: _2-4=H _X1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA.: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
X Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if.•
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 0
_Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 1
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
CD1
0
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
'
All three diagrams
n this row
are HIGH = 3points
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
XInvasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
Total for H 1
Add the points in the boxes above 2
�]
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H _7-14 = M g0-6 = L
Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_A+ [(/ moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 =_0
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon
points = 3 0
20-33% of 1 km Polygon
points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon
points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon
points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat+ [(/ moderate and low intensity land uses)/210 = 0
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
points = 2 0
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon
points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use
points = (- 2) -2
<- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high Intensity
points = 0
Total for H 2
Add the points in the boxes above -2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M _X_< 1= L
Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
— It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
— It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
— It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
— It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
— It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above _ Dints -0
Rating of Value If score is: _2=H _X_1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priol-Ity habitats listed by W , W (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. . Jm fw A ° / tib • 00 Wdfwv0„Q165,p- or access the list from here:
h"akwd AMA con e
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
— Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
— Old-growth/Mature forests: tl - w , ade c .. ` - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. t a Lesti, - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
componentis important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
— Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above).
— Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
— Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report -
see web link on previous page).
— Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
— Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
— Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
,
/
t
ir/
/i
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
— The dominant water regime is tidal,
— Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No-=- Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary �.vseAW1uraJ
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-1.51.?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1..2 Cat. l
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
—The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat.
—At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -
mowed grassland.
—The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat.
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?_
Yes= CategoryI (No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?� ..
lett wwwl.dnr.wa. ov nh refdek datasearcl� nh r,�et9and,odi'
Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes= Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, thaCto-
pc
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are lesxl
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on t P.014 or
pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 o = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AN caw t a 39
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number A
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 confi nous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
— Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
— Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh
Yes= Category I o = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
— The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
—The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needsrNo
7Nota
near the o Cat.
Yes - Go to SC 5.1 etland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
—The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II
—At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -
mowed grassland.
—The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft')
Yes= Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
— Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
— Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I
— Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes - Go to SC 6.1No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
Cat. II
for the three aspects of function)? Yes= CategoryI No - Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form N/A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
C) 2015 Google
v
°
r'
k'
Ur
Nrj(
'C[7 � �t
fir
�
z
r
151f 5�
-32nd
S.t
��
w
Ca
c;
•t� �'
ry
r �,' ';��
'cn=y,
itoil
� c
�I
i it
,
AW
r
ii
U) �; '
23
Olh,S1�
s '
''4,rth� F?I S��r t� v,.,
v
1
242n c
"i.
CO
Z
*
100% of 1 km
ilf
�EwYN
,buffer=
intensiI •
�
w
I
pJi T=
„ r
�
mm�y
c (TI
0
s
m.
N,;
ff, ,
2
v
Y°
e
ie
b �
w.„
Zvi env 419E ,OgKo oye
In
`v G
M,aAV 43ti8 a f�l `waxy, 0,JOJIII W
+LI ...
ILI
CIO
Lo
N �
Sq.
AV 41$6 C2. �� "' � �
�k41
r
'w
060
�,w tyy�"anq�y#�F
� aMim
m
w q>Jvy X14 MN RAV
%%ll
9
f
r
r
uMal
V-11
Y°
e
ie
b �
w.„
Zvi env 419E ,OgKo oye
In
`v G
M,aAV 43ti8 a f�l `waxy, 0,JOJIII W
+LI ...
ILI
CIO
Lo
N �
Sq.
AV 41$6 C2. �� "' � �
�k41
r
'w
060
�,w tyy�"anq�y#�F
� aMim
m
w q>Jvy X14 MN RAV
%%ll
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT
PROTECTS (TMDLS)
overview of the process
Project Catalog
by WRIA
by _County
Funding opportunities
Project Development
Priority Lists
Related information
TMDL Contacts
RELATED ECOLOGY
PROGRAMS
Water Quality
!&Oar nEwI. , )NLAINE "Ir 1�' ` 1-1, 1,11 '''UHH11 MIII 1,
h
WRIA 8- Cedar-Sammamiso;
The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement
JY1
projects (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource
inventory area Please use links (where available) for more information
on a project.
Counties
- I I I III I I I I J I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1
1W TVIUK' IM1110,11ON1 "- j"I ;:;Iwig
oft -M&M
n
Wetland name or number _
RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland B Date of site visit: 7/6 and 7/7/15
Rated by --§ Corbin, (PWS) Trained by Ecology?_X Yes No Date of training 10/09 and 5/ 1
HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined),
Source of base aerial photo/map c;,,,,Oe Earth
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions X or special characteristics_)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I — Total score = 23 - 27
Category II — Total score = 20 - 22
X Category III —Total score = 16 - 19
Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTIONto Water
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
ite Potential H L H L H M L
-. ........ _. .M.........
,andscape Potential M L H M L H M O
Value H �M L H M L H L TOTAL
'core Based on
latings 7 7 4 18
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
CATEGORY
Estuarine
I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value
I
Bog
I
Mature Forest
I
Old Growth Forest
I
Coastal Lagoon
I II
Interdunal
III III IV
None of the above
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H, H, M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = LLL
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Riverine Wetlands
Nuke Fringe Wetlands
Slope Wetlands
Wetland Rating,System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
HGIVIClassification of Wetlands in Western Washington
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
--go to YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats
can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
_The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
.At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
N
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO - go to YES - The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
_The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
0 - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine
erine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland�w
NO - go to 7YES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat areGa with-iiw'tya -d �- ono overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO-goto8
YES - The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
HGM class to
being rated
use in rating
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe
Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
Depressional
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe
Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
Treat as
class of freshwater wetland
ESTUARINE
Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
DEPRESSIQNAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water'Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water ill
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet),
points �3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
3
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1..2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff layeris true cfay or true orgacic fuse tyR definitiorrs),Yes = 40--
I 0
0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > %: of area points = 3
1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points fZj>
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/io of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ppnding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland ints = 4
4
Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
g
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H X 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? es = No = 0
1
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? es = No = 0
1
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 OED)
0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions2.3?
4D
Source residential, do poopfrom do walkers es = No = 0
1
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 3 or 4 = H �1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on
303(d) list? Yes = 1 0
0
........
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?"Ces _ No = 0
._.. . _.. .,
1
D 3.3 been identified in a water ed or local Ian s important for mai
p maintaining water quality(2ns YDS
there is a TMDL or the basin in which -
f h ) o
f —__ ___._ _.�___.a the units ound
0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
1
Rating of Value If score is: _-2-4=H X 1=M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
e_ "s -MNAl: wNNI6 1A` S WETLANDS,
Hydrologic Functions,- Indicatbrs,that:the site functions to reduce flboding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. De th of store a durin wetperiods; Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outleto nts�=
The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storaize in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit Q ,oint _
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H X6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_X3 = H _1 or 2 = M _0 = L Recora the raring on me jirsr page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions Provided by the site valuable to soci
D 6.1. The unit Is in a landsca a that has floodin roblems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hi hest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
• Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2
• Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. oints -
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control Ian?
Y e s = 2 X10=0
Total for D 6
Rating of Value If score is: _-2-4=H X I=M _0 = L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
1
Add the points in the boxes above N 1
Record the rating on the first page
0
Wetland name or number R
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 0
_Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if.•
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
_XSeasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 1
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft'.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points 0
i
All three diagrams
in this row
///i % 0 �%///%/ a!i 6� J'/
• /iii / �/� /� / �i / ��/ �O /�i////� ��a���/lDl
are HIGH= 3pOlnts a/j,/ //,,,, , J, ,�,,,r � �i�% o
%0/�ii//iii/D/;J/ J
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered 3
where wood is exposed)
At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
1 5
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H _7-14 = M __X_0-6 = L Record the rating on
the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]D = 0 %
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
0
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygonpoints = 0
........ .......
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 = 0
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
0
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
�-
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use 2T! = (-]2)
-2
5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _4-6=H —1-3=M X <1=L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
— It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
— It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
— It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
— It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
— It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m (Zoints = 1
Site does not meet anv of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H -X__1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
WDF'W Prionty Habitats
Prigrity habitats listed by WDEW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. moi: /wdf&w,wa,ggyl li a t o- s Rdf- or access the list from here:
http-:// dfw.wa,aov Qut L . (jp..k :
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
— Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
— Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and fortis on shallow soils over bedrock.
— Old-growth/Mature forests: - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. MatUre forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above).
— Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
— Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above).
— Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report -
see web link on previous page).
— Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
— Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
— Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
—The dominant water regime is tidal,
—Vegetated, and
— With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 QI blot an estuarine wellJw
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
—The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. I
—At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -
mowed grassland.
Cat. II
—The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category 11
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes= Category INo = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
I�tt : wwwl.d�nr.w°a. acv nh refdesk datasearch wunh wetNands. df
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes= Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating or
pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bo
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at a
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. 1
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least ccnt�,uoars acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
— Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
— Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceed _2 in 15ASm
Yes= Category 1 - Nat a forested wetland for this sectio
Cat.
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
—The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs t "fired near the bottom
Yes - Go to SC S. o = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
Cat.
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
—The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation; grazing , end lies less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
Cat. II
—At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -
mowed grassland.
—The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
— Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
— Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Cat I
— Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
"Cat.
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on tKe—T& es ;W, or H,H,M
11
for the three aspects of function)? Yes= CategoryI No - Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3
Cat. III
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form
N/A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
"Al
t �'at!rl�J4
OP
ff
g
fy f fi :l
or !ld
it/i f%ro
��gy"', �y r�e�,vw�j�u,�o,,n"ioDUl Nwi «� I�r�tt➢11N�lilrrw8(�i�i".' i �;�
u gyl/////!(Giiiiiaii, (forI wmg
N
ple
fg)'s Ave AVE
OX
Z
41
AA DA,
ra
w
E
r
" ee�
xS
R #i-
MR)"O
Jq
M:QAV 44'08
N"a"N' p"A0111Y,
W9
C4 11V mm
z
a AV 4096
4 A
tV,
M DAV pito
L
A
Im,OAM 1412L
21"
MN, OAV qjCL
'*Ad VV 66
ov 1,14 0 1
MI J014W J, L
QhIflez
N OA V too, 0
'���/���
/,/!!/c%rim ,
...... ....... M
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS (TMDLS)
overview of the process
Project Catalog
by WRIA
by county
Funding Opportunities
Project Development
Priority Lists
Related information
TMDL Contacts
RELATED ECOLOGY
PROGRAMS
Water Quality
Im-Ap�.
WRIA 8:
Cedar- Samnia mish
The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement
projects (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource
NO
inventory area (ARIA). Please use links (where available) for more information
on a project.
Counties 07i
• King
• Snohomish
Waterbody Name
Pollutants
Status" I
TMOL Lead
-- ---------- --- ------ . ..... .
-111-1- - - - — - - ---------------- -
Eallon r q jLkk
gj
. .....
Total Phosphorus
Approved by EPA
Tricia Shoblom
425-649-7288
rear- —Lam 1 �rr A&A ILI P
Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
Joan Nolan
Dissolved Oxygen
.. . .. . ...........
Approved by EPA
425-649-4425
Temperature
. .....................
Cotta _qe.Lake
Total Phosphorus
Approved by EPA
Tricia Shoblom
Has an implementation
425-649-7286
plan
-
Fecal Coliform
- -- --------- ----------
Approved by EPA
)oan No
1425-649-4425
�p44r fir,
----
Fecal coliform
---- .... . ..................... . .
Approved by EPA
.... __ ........ .... . . .........
Ralph svricek
425-649-7036
Tributaries:
Trout Stream
Great Dane
Creek
Cutthroat
Creek
-1111-- -----------------------
North Creek
. . .............. . . . .
Fecal Coliform
. . ...... . ...........
Approved by EPA
.....................
Bpi ���k
Has an implementation
425-649-7036
plan
Pipers Creak
Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
loan Nolan
425-649-"25
ammami5h Rver
Dissolvad C;;;gr
Fe
Ra 1ph Sv r c e
425-649-7036
Temperature
summer 2015
.... . . . . ........................ .
aAqMp Creek
Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
Ralh Svrice
425-649-7036
Has an implementation
Wetland name or number C
TING SUMMARY - Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): wetland C Date of site visit: 7/6 and 7/7/15
Rated by S. Corbin PW Trained by Ecology?_ Yes No Date of trainingl0/09 and 5/14
HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics_)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I — Total score = 23 - 27
Category II — Total score = 20 - 22
Category III — Total score = 16 - 19
X Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat
Water Quality
Circle the appropriate ratings
ite Potential H M L H M L H M L
._ m . ....... _W
.andscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H L H L H M i L TOTAL
.-......... _....... .
core Based on 5 4 4 13
tatings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
CATEGORY
Estuarine
I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value
I
Bog
L
Mature Forest
I
Old Growth Forest
I
Coastal Lagoon
I II
Interdunal
I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M, M, L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
1
Wetland name or number C
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depression l Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
...............
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
D 2.2,D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Ponded depressions
R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure)
R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin
R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
L 2.2
.......... --.
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
1
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
1
Plant....... cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
S 1.3
1
_
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
S4.1
1
(can be added to figure above)
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)
S 2.1, S 5.1
1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
2
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
S 3.1, S 3.2
3
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
S3.3
4
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
2
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
HGM Classification of Wetlands in 'western Washington
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question B.
1. Are hp ter levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
�NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
g
- go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats
Z=h can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
_The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
_At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)..
CNO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Doi 'i the e�Aire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
_
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO - go to 5 Y - The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasi n l in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO-goto7
YES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO-goto8
YES - The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
HGM class to
being rated
use in rating
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe
Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
Depressional
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe
Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
Treat as
class of freshwater wetland
ESTUARINE
Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
/.,/%//!
,,,,i,,, . /�,,,, ;nil i„/i�����i��// �,,,i ,;,,, �;���//��� ii, . ,.,� ✓iii /,�,, �/, ! . , y/ i� ,,. //I�(/�.,,, ,,�.1 �� i ,/�/"/�. ///%%/i //
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points — 3 0
Slope is > 1%-2% points — 2
Slope is > 2%-5% Doints — 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface 12r duff Ia er is true clay or true organic (case NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 0
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > % of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above L 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12 = H _6-11= M XO -5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes=1 No= 0 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources dog poop Yes = 1 No = 0 1
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0
S3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 1
S Has the si e been :.dentiJ•iled :1 . a -watershed _- 1___1 plan
__ '„- ._."._._ c_._ .. n YES)
.+.�..i. 1 �aJ ulC DrtG UCCII IU CIIUIICU 111 d -watershed VI IUl.dl �Jldll d� I11I�u1 ldfll. IUI Ifldirl �a�n�fl�' water quaiity� Hnswer rt.i 0
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No= 0 —
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is: L2 -4=H _X1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> 1/s
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 0
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points =1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is:_1= M _X_0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess 0
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_1= M _X0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 1
Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0
Yes=2 No=0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is: _-2-4=H X 1=M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if.•
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
p
XSaturated only 1 type present: points = 0
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
1
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
i \�
n
v
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
r
All three diagrams 0
in this row
are HIGH = 3points ;;,,
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
Total for H 1
Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H _7-14 = M g0-6 = L
Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitatQ+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]Q = 0 %
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon
points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon
points = 2 0
10-19% of 1 km Polygon
points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon
points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]Q = 0
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
points = 2 0
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km 'Polygon
points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use
points = (- 2) -2
<- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity
points = 0
Total for H 2
Add the points in the boxes above -2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M __X_< 1= L
Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria:
points = 2
— It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
— It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
— It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
— It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
— It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is:__2 = H X 1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C
WDFW Priority Habitats
J
joritv habitataby DFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp.1 io aiblic• t" 0 65 d , or access the list from here:
tt wdfw a. oy o s "o5t )
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
— Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha)..
— Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests:s ii e � - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
wthws�tofCa
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report -
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
— Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
— Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (Q.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number C_
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
,;,.................
� ,r � , / / ,rre / , � ; / i � l ✓i � /////iii/,//% �i i � '� /«,ii/j
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
— The dominant water regime is tidal,
—Vegetated, and
— With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
Yes= Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat.
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
—The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. I
—At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -
mowed grassland.
—The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes= Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat.
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes= Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
ham: wwwl.dnr,wa, ov nh refdeskdatasearch vwnh wetlands, df
Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. if you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is nota bog
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contigy us acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
— Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
— Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes= Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
— The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
—The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Cat. I
Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
—The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
Cat. II
—At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -
mowed grassland.
—The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ)
Yes= CategoryI No =Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
— Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
— Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Cat i
— Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = not an Interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
Cat. II
for the three aspects of function)? Yes= CategoryI No - Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3
Cat. III
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
x
ollut
P llPoutant
r
generating
t surface
ro rr tt
m
r
L+�'��
µ
r�{
r
1M,�.ua
LE7
i
'
,Rm
5 44
�Sf
� -I
W
24 i,tiCyt
w
� ,
Cz7r%
7. �'32rr��i
c r
�t
�i '`
CD
z
n
y
aV
9Y7�14 } (p uu
f'�'
fit^"'
�7
ri"
„
ian lTi
row
x'
x a
tiJ V
(1) /14
ollq
17� Sl
23 7l 11Ut
!✓��wU
�,l
Mw
w ws
M-
A
b'
Lam'}�
�
5
. ..
-
m r a w RPM, M)PIN" "
* r
c3
��
"�
100% i1 kmi
,� e ""
❑
�7 �� 'M
`buffer=
� r�
a
,„
'w
land
use
�
,�✓
(�y
�"+Mx,
/4 Ow")
� Ilvhv g8A'V b
t�h
NSI
'rq
Z
QI
fA
"f
v
c
Alf "196
[V
en
r
� Ilvhv g8A'V b
'rq
Z
f
'IIl
-AAN OW WGA'
��;�MN�an11��N9F
P
If
m ®. 4 Ito L
Im o+�b 4121
r"
act
V
k
WO Vt
MN v Woe,
MPO
wro
�, .
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS (TMDLs)
Overview of the process
Project Catalog
by WWRIA
by County
Funding opportunities
Project Development
Priority Lists
Related information
TMDL Contacts
RELATED ECOLOGY
PROGRAMS
Water Quality
dk
WRIA 8- Cedar-Sammalit
The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement
PollutantsStatus"`TMlDL
Lead
-------- - -
poi
projects (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource
- - -------- - ----- ----
Approved by EPA
Incia-1hoblom
inventory area (ASIA). Please use links (where available) for more information
jX
Fecal Coliform
. ........
Dissolved Oxygen
Approved by EPA
..............
Approved by EPA
- ------ ------
Joan Nolan
gm .............
425-649-4425
Temperature
. ......... . . . . ..............................
. ......... . ..... . ...... . .. . ............ . ............
V
on a project.
Total Phosphorus
Approved by EPA
Tricia Shoblo
425T649-7288
Has an implementation
plan
..... . . . ..... ......................
11"Aah r—r=k-fig=
K' I N G
A
loan Nolan
425-649-4425
Counties
.. ...................... . -
Fecal Coliform
. . . . . ... ... ... .. .................................... ...
Approved by EPA
— -
Ralph Svrice
425-649-7036
• King
Trout Stream
m
U
Great Dane
•anohom-ish
Creek
Cutthroat
Creek
North Creek
— -------------------
Fecal Coliform
Waterbody Name
PollutantsStatus"`TMlDL
Lead
-------- - -
poi
-- ----
Total Phosphorus
- - -------- - ----- ----
Approved by EPA
Incia-1hoblom
425-649-7288
Sear Evans Creek Basin
Fecal Coliform
. ........
Dissolved Oxygen
Approved by EPA
..............
Approved by EPA
- ------ ------
Joan Nolan
gm .............
425-649-4425
Temperature
. ......... . . . . ..............................
. ......... . ..... . ...... . .. . ............ . ............
................
Cottage Lake
Total Phosphorus
Approved by EPA
Tricia Shoblo
425T649-7288
Has an implementation
plan
..... . . . ..... ......................
11"Aah r—r=k-fig=
Fecal Coliform
.........
Approved by EPA
loan Nolan
425-649-4425
........... . . . .......
.. ...................... . -
Fecal Coliform
. . . . . ... ... ... .. .................................... ...
Approved by EPA
— -
Ralph Svrice
425-649-7036
Tributaries:
Trout Stream
m
Great Dane
Creek
Cutthroat
Creek
North Creek
— -------------------
Fecal Coliform
----------------------------------- - ---------- ---- -
Approved by EPA
Svrcek
Has an implementation
425-649-7036
plan
PMiers Crr&k
Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
JoanNolan
425-649-4425
. ............... . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . ---
Sammamish River
...... . ......
Dissolved Oxygen
Field work starts
................ .. ...
Bgisl h Syr cek
---j—
........ ......
Temperature
--- --- — —
summer 2015
- ------
425-649-7036
aAgl �Cr Creek
Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
Svricek
Has an implementation
425-649-7036
qetland C Rating Figure 3. WRIA 8 TMDL Screen Shot
SHANNON WLSON. Wa
APPENDIX D
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WETJ. ANI)
DELINEATION/MITI A, BION ANIWOR STREAMLA SI�� �OATION REPORT
21-1-22082-002
SHANNON $ WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-002
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Date: August 4, 2016
To: Ms. Taine Wilton _
Edmonds School District #15
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WETLAND DELINEATIONNITIGATION
AND/OR STREAM CLASSIFICATION DEPORT
A WETLAND/STREAM REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS.
Wetland delineation/mitigation and stream classification reports are based on a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically
include the general nature of the project and property involved, its size, and its configuration; historical use and practice; the location
of the project on the site and its orientation; and the level of additional risk the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon
the exploratory program. The jurisdiction of any particular wetland/stream is determined by the regulatory authority(s) issuing the
permit(s). As a result, one or more agencies will have jurisdiction over a particular wetland or stream with sometimes confusing
regulations. It is necessary to involve a consultant who understands which agency(s) has jurisdiction over a particular wetland/stream
and what the agency(s) permitting requirements are for that wetland/stream. To help reduce or avoid potential costly problems, have
the consultant determine how any factors or regulations (which can change subsequent to the report) may affect the recommendations.
Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used:
► If the size or configuration of the proposed project is altered.
► If the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified.
► If there is a change of ownership.
► For application to an adjacent site.
► For construction at an adjacent site or on site.
► Following floods, earthquakes, or other acts of nature.
Wetland/stream consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may develop if they are not consulted after factors
considered in their reports have changed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to notify your consultant of any factors that may have
changed prior to submission of our final report.
Wetland boundaries identified and stream classifications made by Shannon & Wilson are considered preliminary until validated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and/or the local jurisdictional agency. Validation by the regulating agency(s) provides a
certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agency(s) until a
specified date, or until the regulations are modified, and that the stream has been properly classified. Only the regulating agency(s)
can provide this certification.
MOST WETLAND/STREAM "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES.
Site exploration identifies wetland/stream conditions at only those points where samples are taken and when they are taken, but the
physical means of obtaining data preclude the determination of precise conditions. Consequently, the information obtained is intended
to be sufficiently accurate for design, but is subject to interpretation. Additionally, data derived through sampling and subsequent
laboratory testing are extrapolated by the consultant who then renders an opinion about overall conditions, the likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and/or appropriate design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those
thought to exist because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can
reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help reduce
their impacts. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their consultants through the construction or wetland mitigation/stream
classification stage to identify variances, to conduct additional evaluations that may be needed, and to recommend solutions to
problems encountered on site.
Page 1 oft 1/2016
WETLAND/STREAM CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Since natural systems are dynamic systems affected by both natural processes and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries
and stream conditions may be expected. Therefore, delineated wetland boundaries and stream classifications cannot remain valid for
an indefmite period of time. The Corps typically recognizes the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after
completion. Some city and county agencies recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of two years. If a period of
years have passed since the wetland/stream report was completed, the owner is advised to have the consultant reexamine the
wetland/stream to determine if the classification is still accurate.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or water fluctuations may also affect
conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of the wetland/stream report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events
and should be consulted to determine if additional evaluation is necessary.
THE WETLAND/STREAM REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when plans are developed based on misinterpretation of a wetland/stream report. To help avoid these
problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other appropriate professionals to explain relevant wetland, stream,
geological, and other findings, and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to these issues.
DATA FORMS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final data forms are developed by the consultant based on interpretation of field sheets (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory
evaluation of field samples. Only final data forms customarily are included in a report. These data forms should not, under any
circumstances, be drawn for inclusion in other drawings because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to reduce the possibility of misinterpreting the forms.
When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are frequently the result.
To reduce the likelihood of data form misinterpretation, contractors, engineers, and planners should be given ready access to the
complete report. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information
to contractors, engineers, and planners helps prevent costly problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY„
Because a wetland delineation/stream classification is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design
disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem,
consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the
consultant's liabilities onto someone else; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin
and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these
definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to
give full and frank answers to your questions.
THERE MAY BE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK.
Your consultant will be pleased to discuss other techniques or designs that can be employed to mitigate the risk of delays and to
provide a variety of alternatives that may be beneficial to your project.
Contact your consultant for further information.
Page 2 of 2 1/2016